The setting evolves, and things change. So, please, stop with the 'gaslighting' nonsense.
Comes down to how you interpret the post, imo.
If you interpret it as "we are changing the lore to : there have always been female Custodes in-universe, not just changing it for present M41", that's one thing.
If you interpret it as "Custodes as a faction have never been all-male in lore" despite passages mentioning "men" and "sons", that's a different thing.
I don't think it's something to harp on, and I dislike the term gaslighting to begin with. But the second one is a potential interpretation of what was posted.
The setting evolves, and things change. So, please, stop with the 'gaslighting' nonsense.
Comes down to how you interpret the post, imo.
If you interpret it as "we are changing the lore to : there have always been female Custodes in-universe, not just changing it for present M41", that's one thing.
If you interpret it as "Custodes as a faction have never been all-male in lore" despite passages mentioning "men" and "sons", that's a different thing.
I don't think it's something to harp on, and I dislike the term gaslighting to begin with. But the second one is a potential interpretation of what was posted.
The latter is not a reasonable interpretation in any way. It is totally obvious that it is talking about in-universe lore, explicitly referring the creation of the first ten thousand Custodes, not the conception of the idea of the Custodes in the Rogue Trader.
insaniak 813539 11660925 wrote:And now things have been rewritten, and there have always (so far as the setting is concerned) been female custodes, in just the same way as there were no Rogal Dorn tanks... until there were always Rogal Dorn tanks. Space Marines didn't use fighter craft... until they always did. Centurions didn't exist... Until they did. Tau didn't exist... until they did.
I wasn't around for the tau, but the other ones were very much mocked for how hamfisted they were inserted into the lore (especially the Centurions, due to the concept of being armour-armour). Same with knights in 6th, and votann to a certain extent. Same with cawl.
"Actually has always been there/like that" is always the laziest narrative way to do things in GWs arsenal of story telling methods; them doing it a lot shouldnt be a further excuse for bad sorry telling.
The setting evolves, and things change. So, please, stop with the 'gaslighting' nonsense.
Comes down to how you interpret the post, imo.
If you interpret it as "we are changing the lore to : there have always been female Custodes in-universe, not just changing it for present M41", that's one thing.
If you interpret it as "Custodes as a faction have never been all-male in lore" despite passages mentioning "men" and "sons", that's a different thing.
I don't think it's something to harp on, and I dislike the term gaslighting to begin with. But the second one is a potential interpretation of what was posted.
The latter is not a reasonable interpretation in any way. It is totally obvious that it is talking about in-universe lore, explicitly referring the creation of the first ten thousand Custodes, not the conception of the idea of the Custodes in the Rogue Trader.
Sometimes what is totally obvious to one person is very much not to another.
I don't agree with the 2nd interpretation. But it is a possible interpretation.
I wasn't around for the tau, but the other ones were very much mocked for how hamfisted they were inserted into the lore (especially the Centurions, due to the concept of being armour-armour). Same with knights in 6th, and votann to a certain extent. Same with cawl.
Sure. None of them, however, were labelled as 'gaslighting'.
I don't agree with the 2nd interpretation. But it is a possible interpretation.
It's a possible interpretation if you're actively looking for something to be angry about. It's blatantly obvious that it's an in-universe explanation.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Given the extreme physical enhancements that turn an ordinary smelly hooman into a Custard? I suspect any sexual dimorphism would be well obscured.
Since it is ultimately a fantasy setting, it could go either way.
Even being "realistic" about it since the Custodes armor design is 90% fashion and 10% function. I mean, sure- very functional armor can look the same on a man or woman, but Custodes are walking cathedral decorations.
----
One of the things I find very interesting about this is that the lore creator came out and said that he intended to include female custodes when he wrote their first book (seven years ago?) but got a mandate from corporate to not mention women because they had male minis to sell.
It is just kind of funny- because it seems that the pandering happened when they first released the book. I mean, isn't that what that story was?
Anyway, I don't think that Custodes gender inclusive recruitment policies ruin even a tiny portion of the lore (and don't be calling me a noob- I've been here since the late RT era and can probably cite more ret-cons than you)
I wasn't around for the tau, but the other ones were very much mocked for how hamfisted they were inserted into the lore (especially the Centurions, due to the concept of being armour-armour). Same with knights in 6th, and votann to a certain extent. Same with cawl.
Sure. None of them, however, were labelled as 'gaslighting'.
That's because all those examples didn't have contemporary established lore. Different context.
I don't agree with the 2nd interpretation. But it is a possible interpretation.
It's a possible interpretation if you're actively looking for something to be angry about. It's blatantly obvious that it's an in-universe explanation.
I agree with you in that it seems obvious. But I disagree that it is readily obvious to everybody, given the context. It's really hard to tell where people are coming from.
oh crikey she is gonna get a lot of hate for that video.
quick reply more about the Tau introduction, people were much much more annoyed at the time as they though sisters of battle were next in the codex treatment line, then suddenly the anime boyz turned up out of nowhere and were all noble bright in the grim dark (not anymore, story progressed), kinda similar to what happened with Ogre Kingdoms back in the day suddenly taking up a spot people ASSUMED was for another army waiting in line.
I wasn't around for the tau, but the other ones were very much mocked for how hamfisted they were inserted into the lore (especially the Centurions, due to the concept of being armour-armour). Same with knights in 6th, and votann to a certain extent. Same with cawl.
Sure. None of them, however, were labelled as 'gaslighting'.
That's because all those examples didn't have contemporary established lore. Different context.
Not really. When the Riptide was introduced it was retroactively inserted into battles which previously talked about Hammerheads decimating Imperial armour columns and the Hammerhead was removed from those stories.
Also, to put it into proper perspective, I present to you..
Mad Doc Grotsnik’s Marvellous And Incomplete List Of Stuff What Got Retconned And Nobody Threw Teddy From The Pram About It
1. Dreadnoughts used to be a suited of cybernetic armour you could get in and out of, but slowly drove you insane
2. Primarch was a Rank
3. Marines weren’t genhanced super soldiers
4. The Imperium had lost the secret of atmospheric aircraft, which is why Epic never had fliers outside of the Thunderhawk until suddenly it did
5. Imperial Battleships looked like this.
Until they suddenly didn’t
6. The Basilisk was the originator of that chassis, the Chimera an adaptation. Until it wasn’t.
7. Titan grade Plasma Weapons required a Plasma Reactor, until GW released the Stormblade
And so on, and so forth. Nobody much seemed to care. Yet they’ve all been retconned. Sometime more than once.
So one has to ask. Why has simply saying “yeah women can undergo the conversion process to become Custodes, and we’ve decided that’s now always been the case because you see, it’s our sandpit, and we get to decide these things unilaterally” attracted so much (carefully nurtured) heat, when at the end of the day it’s just another in long, long tradition of GW changing the fluff on a whim?
Insectum7 wrote: That's because all those examples didn't have contemporary established lore. Different context.
you might want to go back and read those things again
best to read the 7th Edition books and than again the 9th/10th Edition books and compare those to 3rd Edition books
even the Rogal Dorn Tank removed contemporary established lore with "has always been there" and the newest Space Marine weapons have been used since the Horus Heresy
why are you ignoring every single retcon happening with 10th that removed established lore?
The problem is Not the retconn or the change. The problem is the as pointed out blatant "just because and you are going to like it" answer including Bans for people pointing it out in their own codices.
The correct question is why doesn't it matter. A lot of your exemples f.e. are things that made the universe more logical but not developped in the mature cycle of lore were consistency was becomming a point of contention. And even there GW fethed up things that got complained about vividly. And as a friendly reminder, GW quality compared to other plastic companies has declined, an exemple can be pointed out in the Wargames atlantic discussion about sprues and quality. The only real draw GW has is it's universe, not even the shops are a draw anymore due to how they are run and where they are.
Insectum7 wrote: That's because all those examples didn't have contemporary established lore. Different context.
you might want to go back and read those things again
best to read the 7th Edition books and than again the 9th/10th Edition books and compare those to 3rd Edition books
even the Rogal Dorn Tank removed contemporary established lore with "has always been there" and the newest Space Marine weapons have been used since the Horus Heresy
why are you ignoring every single retcon happening with 10th that removed established lore?
Because you’re ignoring that this has always happened in 40K. And nobody much cared before. It being part and parcel.
Seriously. I’ve a complete set of Rogue Trader era books. Read them in order and see what I mean. Stuff changed and tweaked and dare I say refined on the fly.
This is therefore….nothing new, not remarkable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: GW quality compared to other plastic companies has declined, an exemple can be pointed out in the Wargames atlantic discussion about sprues and quality.
The only real draw GW has is its universe, not even the shops are a draw anymore due to how they are run and where they are.
Hi, I’m Mad Doc Grotsnik, and I’d like an evidence based citation for this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and in case of ”but their share price” falls flat when you look at the full picture, and not just the one those with an axe to grind claim is the be all and end all.
making money is not necessarily linked to having the best product
and there are plenty of companies making more money with a mediocre product based on brand recognition while competitors with a superior product that is cheaper are half the size
(this is like claiming that McD makes the best quality food because their annual reports show that their products sells)
for GW plastic, they make good scale models
not the best quality out there, specially not for the price (comparing a perfect scale gundam kit with what you get for the same price from GW), yet hardly anyone makes as many SciFi and fantasy scale models
for gaming miniatures, they are mostly bad,
to complicated to assembly, fragile and hard to paint (like not being able to paint the rider and the mount independently is a big no here)
so yeah, easy to claim to be the most detailed and best looking if you are selling display models for gaming
Not Online!!! wrote: GW quality compared to other plastic companies has declined, an exemple can be pointed out in the Wargames atlantic discussion about sprues and quality. The only real draw GW has is its universe, not even the shops are a draw anymore due to how they are run and where they are.
Hi, I’m Mad Doc Grotsnik, and I’d like an evidence based citation for this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and in case of ”but their share price” falls flat when you look at the full picture, and not just the one those with an axe to grind claim is the be all and end all.
Oh really mad doc, you mean that the shares going down has nothing to do with it Also atleast be honest because GW was until recently still in the covid boom area so an accurate assesment longterm isn't going to be accurate anyways but that's not the point now isn't it.
But you know what is also indicative of a badly run company? logistics. GW has massive logistical issues. Further the last quarter was also not a particular nice quarter on top of this shitshow either.
Insectum7 wrote: That's because all those examples didn't have contemporary established lore. Different context.
you might want to go back and read those things again
best to read the 7th Edition books and than again the 9th/10th Edition books and compare those to 3rd Edition books
even the Rogal Dorn Tank removed contemporary established lore with "has always been there" and the newest Space Marine weapons have been used since the Horus Heresy
why are you ignoring every single retcon happening with 10th that removed established lore?
Because you’re ignoring that this has always happened in 40K. And nobody much cared before. It being part and parcel.
Seriously. I’ve a complete set of Rogue Trader era books. Read them in order and see what I mean. Stuff changed and tweaked and dare I say refined on the fly.
This is therefore….nothing new, not remarkable.
You are joking about the not caring, right? Because as above when Tau were released people that thought they were too bright threw a fit, when necrons got changed into Khemri in space people threw a fit. Do you remember what happened when Squats were eaten in the `nid codex?
Yes, you are right that GW has retconned the lore up, and down but as far as I can remember a part of the community has always been very vocal about those changes, more now that we have the tools to loudly complain at the reach of our fingertips.
people care but it only matters to people whos factions this is about and everyone else does not care and the others are said to be just haters, angry grognards who don't accept change, people who want GW to fail (as they are a business and need those changes to make money) and so on
it hardly ever happens that there is a larger part of the community unhappy with retcons
The setting evolves, and things change. So, please, stop with the 'gaslighting' nonsense.
Comes down to how you interpret the post, imo.
If you interpret it as "we are changing the lore to : there have always been female Custodes in-universe, not just changing it for present M41", that's one thing.
If you interpret it as "Custodes as a faction have never been all-male in lore" despite passages mentioning "men" and "sons", that's a different thing.
I don't think it's something to harp on, and I dislike the term gaslighting to begin with. But the second one is a potential interpretation of what was posted.
Other than the fact that 'men' and 'sons' can be gender ambiguous in the English language.
I'm sure if Gaunt was asked how many men he had available in the Tanith 1st, he'd include women in the number he gave as well.
Not Online!!! wrote: [But you know what is also indicative of a badly run company? logistics. GW has massive logistical issues. Further the last quarter was also not a particular nice quarter on top of this shitshow either.
The *UK* has massive logistical issues thanks to our native feth sticks pulling the trigger on a collective economic kneecapping.
kodos wrote: people care but it only matters to people whos factions this is about and everyone else does not care and the others are said to be just haters, angry grognards who don't accept change, people who want GW to fail (as they are a business and need those changes to make money) and so on
it hardly ever happens that there is a larger part of the community unhappy with retcons
Which, in a setting of such fantastical nonsense, begs the question….why is “Custards are, as of now, comprised of male and female” candidates so controversial?
Necrons getting a whole new background is one thing. That was a fundamental change to their character and intentions for the Galaxy.
But this is just….nothing, really, is it? Custodes can now recruit from wee boys and wee girls. So what? Where’s the upset? How has that crossed a line where so many other changes didn’t?
40k has grown beyond the niche of gamers and a lot of people just follow the lore, read the books and play the computer games
in addition there is a large lore community around on youtube/social media that only cares about the lore and nothing else
already seen here in the forum posts that talk about years of established lore, which basically ignores that the lore follows the Edition cycle and whatever was there before is replaced by the new canon of the latest Codex
most of those people joined during Covid and don't know what GW is usually doing, specially as they are not engaged with the game and therefore don't know that the lore is there to follow the model releases and is changed whenever change is needed to fit a new release
so people were sold on 30 years of established lore, that make this setting different from all the other SciFi settings out there
combine this with the "we don't care" answer of "always has been" which is like the first time the wider non-gaming community made contact with "GW the company", and the recent rules reset.
so for a lot of people this is the first time ever that those things happen despite being promised something different
and because it is a change about woman that adds nothing to the game as there are no new models, of course the political people found its way adding fuel to the fire
PS:
this goes now strange ways of gatekeeping as people demand pics of your own painted models to add an opinion to the discussion which upsets all those who are just reading and/or pc-gamers (next level of gatekeeping, which does not really help at all)
So…capitalism? Working as intended, where those with the most dosh have the most clout, yeah?
I’m still yet to be given a reason why, as is the subject of this thread, the background now allowing for male and female Custodes, among the dozens if not hundreds of retcons, tweaks and changes made to the background over the past near 40 years, is the one that’s a step too far?
Because that’s what I’m seeking to understand. Why is this so controversial to some?
Which, in a setting of such fantastical nonsense, begs the question….why is “Custards are, as of now, comprised of male and female” candidates so controversial?
Necrons getting a whole new background is one thing. That was a fundamental change to their character and intentions for the Galaxy.
But this is just….nothing, really, is it? Custodes can now recruit from wee boys and wee girls. So what? Where’s the upset? How has that crossed a line where so many other changes didn’t?
Oh, that's easy, misogyny. The lore is and always was an excuse. It's like if you post a pic of a loyalist primaris World Eater everyone thinks it is cool, but if you post a pic of a female marine frothing ensues, even though both violate the lore.
I wasn't around for the tau, but the other ones were very much mocked for how hamfisted they were inserted into the lore (especially the Centurions, due to the concept of being armour-armour). Same with knights in 6th, and votann to a certain extent. Same with cawl.
Sure. None of them, however, were labelled as 'gaslighting'.
I mean, that term wasn't really around for any of those except cawl and votann. And neither of those had had fairly modern lore stating the direct opposite. If they had and the term was in common use, then ya, the lore changes would probably be called gaslighting
I don’t want to put words in the mouths of others.
Hence I’ve been asking since quite early on “so what?”
I get some would prefer an in-universe thing to explain. That makes sense. And I could understand someone feeling that reason could be poorly written. No problem there.
But here, GW have gone the “it’s just always been that way now” approach. Which is….y’know, a clarification and pretty much fine.
Yet why it’s such an alleged controversy? I need the detractors to provide clarity on it. Because so far, I’m afraid it’s kind of feeling like they don’t actually know why they don’t like it.
I wasn't around for the tau, but the other ones were very much mocked for how hamfisted they were inserted into the lore (especially the Centurions, due to the concept of being armour-armour). Same with knights in 6th, and votann to a certain extent. Same with cawl.
Sure. None of them, however, were labelled as 'gaslighting'.
I mean, that term wasn't really around for any of those except cawl and votann. And neither of those had had fairly modern lore stating the direct opposite. If they had and the term was in common use, then ya, the lore changes would probably be called gaslighting
And it still would’ve been used incorrectly.
Gaslighting is try to change someone’s memory by constantly challenging it. It’s often used by malignant narcissists to start blaming others for the outcomes of the narcissists’ own behaviour and actions. For instance. Narcissist was drink driving, and shouldn’t have been behind the wheel. The car crashes. Gaslighting would be trying to pin the blame for the crash on their passenger distracting them etc.
This? This is just a retcon. A change made to a made up thing in a made up universe. Why that’s such a controversial change, when it’s done nothing to the character and application of said thing? I’m still awaiting some kind of explanation.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: they all wear the same massive and bulky armor either way, so unless they take the helmet off, the difference wouldn't really matter
while thats true in plastic, it can be cringe on tv. do i really want to hear a deep female voice through the helmet and imagine her in the armor?
What is wrong with hearing a deep female voice? What's wrong with muscular women?
This comment is a bit odd, IMHO
are you ok with female custode all of a sudden? what about males in sisters of silence or adepta soriata? how far would you go until 40k just isnt 40k anymore? maybe burn everything that happened before and start from scratch, like star wars?
There are men in the Sororitas, they’re called priests and crusaders. And stop over exaggerating, 40K is still the same 40K and that’s not changing now or anytime soon
They aren’t Sororitsas, don’t be disingenuous.
It’s rather like saying there are women in the Space Marines, they are called serfs and servitors.
The difference is, you can play a 1,000 point game of 40k and take almost entirely men in an army taken solely from the Sisters' Index.
For Marines, you can take up to 12 Legends models totaling 165 points that could've been women at one point. And those models represent lobotomized flesh machines, not fully motive people.
This is not about what you can arbitrarily field in a 40k game.
This is about said organisations as defined in the 40k universe. There are no male Sororitas.
Reading all of this, I'm surprised it has enflated that much.
In the end, the worst part of it is not that it's either dumb or great progress or fine. It's that somehow, it looks like we can't roll dice with plastic toy soldiers without having to cope with politics and fiery opinion debates crawling their way in.
Hopefully, one can just outright ignore (the lore change, I mean) it -as i do-, or skip the controversy and debate part by not partaking, but still, I wanted to express my feel about how overinflated this debate has become for... Well, plastic toy soldiers lore.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Yet why it’s such an alleged controversy? I need the detractors to provide clarity on it. Because so far, I’m afraid it’s kind of feeling like they don’t actually know why they don’t like it.
They won't be able to answer without admitting they're afraid big, strong women.
"But... Sisterz!"
But they're still just average humans, aren't they? Guardswomen, Eldar of all stripes, T'au... none of them really fit the 'big and strong' archetype, do they? Getting shot by a girl is one, but getting punched into the dirt by one is whole other issue.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Yet why it’s such an alleged controversy? I need the detractors to provide clarity on it. Because so far, I’m afraid it’s kind of feeling like they don’t actually know why they don’t like it.
They won't be able to answer without admitting they're afraid big, strong women.
"But... Sisterz!"
But they're still just average humans, aren't they? Guardswomen, Eldar of all stripes, T'au... none of them really fit the 'big and strong' archetype, do they? Getting shot by a girl is one, but getting punched into the dirt by one is whole other issue.
Again, I don’t want to put words in the mouth of others, or make such assumptions.
That nobody who claims to be upset by this retcon has answered is however perhaps telling.
This is the background thread, it is for discussing the background change that now includes female custodes. It is not a thread to discuss bizarrely understood shareholder relationships. If you want to do that set up a thread in discussions.
kodos wrote: this goes now strange ways of gatekeeping as people demand pics of your own painted models to add an opinion to the discussion which upsets all those who are just reading and/or pc-gamers (next level of gatekeeping, which does not really help at all)
I should add for clarity that these calls for people to show their models nearly always comes after the person in question makes comments along the lines of "the woke left have infiltrated this hobby" or "they're destroying our hobby" or "hold the gate" or "this is why we need gatekeeping" - in nearly EVERY instance where people are challenged on their models, it's in response to people gatekeeping themselves.
It's not to say that if a person only engages with 40k via non-miniatures media that they're "not a true fan", but when those people call folks who've been collecting, painting, and playing with minis for longer than the other person has likely even known about 40k "tourists", then there's a certain sense of bad faith being thrown around.
Earlier, you mention that people were sold on the idea that 40k was 30+ of continuous lore. Those people were lied to. If this is their first retcon to 40k (unlikely, but possible), then, frankly, they'll have to get over it like all the other retcons we've had, or leave. Their choice.
The big issue that MDG is raising, that I'm all ears for answers on, is that people who've been in 40k for some time, or people who have put up with other retcons, or people who *have never been part of 40k until conspicuously now* are all up in arms about this particular retcon. Why? I want to hear it from them. And, I want to know if it's a unified issue, and if not, what the people of one group have to say to another about their differing objections.
Mad Doc Grotsnik’s Marvellous And Incomplete List Of Stuff What Got Retconned And Nobody Threw Teddy From The Pram About It
Spoiler:
1. Dreadnoughts used to be a suited of cybernetic armour you could get in and out of, but slowly drove you insane
2. Primarch was a Rank
3. Marines weren’t genhanced super soldiers
4. The Imperium had lost the secret of atmospheric aircraft, which is why Epic never had fliers outside of the Thunderhawk until suddenly it did
5. Imperial Battleships looked like this.
Until they suddenly didn’t
6. The Basilisk was the originator of that chassis, the Chimera an adaptation. Until it wasn’t.
7. Titan grade Plasma Weapons required a Plasma Reactor, until GW released the Stormblade
And so on, and so forth. Nobody much seemed to care. Yet they’ve all been retconned. Sometime more than once.
So one has to ask. Why has simply saying “yeah women can undergo the conversion process to become Custodes, and we’ve decided that’s now always been the case because you see, it’s our sandpit, and we get to decide these things unilaterally” attracted so much (carefully nurtured) heat, when at the end of the day it’s just another in long, long tradition of GW changing the fluff on a whim?
In her initial introduction in the 4th edition Tau codex, Shadowsun is not mentioned to be a student of Puretide, nor is there any mention of her personally knowing Farisght. In the 6th edition codex, suddenly Shadowsun and Farsight both trained under Puretide at the same time and were bitter rivals.
GW had to invent stasis technology for the Tau to then explain how their retcon could possibly work when Farsight had lived an unusually long time.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: they all wear the same massive and bulky armor either way, so unless they take the helmet off, the difference wouldn't really matter
while thats true in plastic, it can be cringe on tv. do i really want to hear a deep female voice through the helmet and imagine her in the armor?
What is wrong with hearing a deep female voice? What's wrong with muscular women?
This comment is a bit odd, IMHO
are you ok with female custode all of a sudden? what about males in sisters of silence or adepta soriata? how far would you go until 40k just isnt 40k anymore? maybe burn everything that happened before and start from scratch, like star wars?
There are men in the Sororitas, they’re called priests and crusaders. And stop over exaggerating, 40K is still the same 40K and that’s not changing now or anytime soon
They aren’t Sororitsas, don’t be disingenuous.
It’s rather like saying there are women in the Space Marines, they are called serfs and servitors.
The difference is, you can play a 1,000 point game of 40k and take almost entirely men in an army taken solely from the Sisters' Index.
For Marines, you can take up to 12 Legends models totaling 165 points that could've been women at one point. And those models represent lobotomized flesh machines, not fully motive people.
This is not about what you can arbitrarily field in a 40k game.
This is about said organisations as defined in the 40k universe. There are no male Sororitas.
This is also about real-world impacts.
And when THE female army can take dozens of male models, a decent chunk of whom are fully motive people and not just Servitors or similar; while THE male army (which is also the biggest army in the game) can only take a dozen legends-only Servitors who may have been female but don’t look it…
I’m guessing you’re just adding to the general list of ‘stuff that got changed and nobody cared’ though
Yep, just adding to the list
In 6th edition we learned that ackshully all Black Crusades were at least partially successful. I guess if Fabulous Bill had also created female CSM that would have brought more debate than the far more impactful change of "Failbaddon" not actually failing .
I’m guessing you’re just adding to the general list of ‘stuff that got changed and nobody cared’ though
Yep, just adding to the list
In 6th edition we learned that ackshully all Black Crusades were at least partially successful. I guess if Fabulous Bill had also created female CSM that would have brought more debate than the far more impactful change of "Failbaddon" not actually failing .
Ah yes, retconning Abaddon to be a master of the Xanatos Gambit
I’m guessing you’re just adding to the general list of ‘stuff that got changed and nobody cared’ though
Yep, just adding to the list
In 6th edition we learned that ackshully all Black Crusades were at least partially successful. I guess if Fabulous Bill had also created female CSM that would have brought more debate than the far more impactful change of "Failbaddon" not actually failing .
That one I actually liked. In one stroke, it added to Abaddon’s ability to see the wider picture, and The Imperium’s inability to do so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It’s akin to the Eldar and Necron outlook.
Eldar have foresight to see a given action *right now* bear fruit at some point.
Necrons? Are functionally immortal and, for Lords and above? Pretty much invincible. And so they can draw up plans that are intended to play out across millennia. A span of time so colossal even the Eldar would struggle to see what every apparent failure was building toward.
Yet why it’s such an alleged controversy? I need the detractors to provide clarity on it. Because so far, I’m afraid it’s kind of feeling like they don’t actually know why they don’t like it.
Why is it a big issue? It's a big issue because it can be made into a culture war issue, which is great at driving clicks and engagement from an audience that may not normally engage in 40k. A retcon about obscure 40k item 2,456 isn't going to drive traffic, even if some of us superdorks are annoyed by it.
As a culture war issue, it can appear that the change is being made from cultural pressures from outside the hobby. This can be irritating for those who are enjoying the escapism of the fictional universe. "Keep real world politics out of my hobby" isn't an unreasonable position to have.
What really annoys me (and I like the change), is that the broader culture war is so quick to label those who don't like the change as a bigot.
There's a tone of "This is the change, and if you don't accept the change you are a 'deplorable'." Which grates immensely.
Insectum7 wrote: Why is it a big issue? It's a big issue because it can be made into a culture war issue, ...
So, maybe, I dunno... Don't do that...?
Women existing in the Custodes doesn't actually have to change anything about your personal army. If you want your own Custodes army to be all manly men doing manly man things and calling each other Brother, then just carry on doing that.
All the outrage accomplishes nothing other than to get in the way of actually enjoying the hobby.
Insectum7 wrote: This can be irritating for those who are enjoying the escapism of the fictional universe. "Keep real world politics out of my hobby" isn't an unreasonable position to have.
The problem arises when any inclusion of a non-white male is said to be 'political'.
What really annoys me (and I like the change), is that the broader culture war is so quick to label those who don't like the change as a bigot.
There's a tone of "This is the change, and if you don't accept the change you are a 'deplorable'." Which grates immensely.
The issue is, as the Mad Doc has been pointing out, that people are upset about this when they're not as upset about other 'retcons'. Especially when it doesn't affect them one bit. Nothing says that they have to have female models in their custodes army. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's likely a duck.
Insectum7 wrote: Why is it a big issue? It's a big issue because it can be made into a culture war issue, ...
So, maybe, I dunno... Don't do that...?
Women existing in the Custodes doesn't actually have to change anything about your personal army. If you want your own Custodes army to be all manly men doing manly man things and calling each other Brother, then just carry on doing that.
All the outrage accomplishes nothing other than to get in the way of actually enjoying the hobby.
Insectum7 wrote: This can be irritating for those who are enjoying the escapism of the fictional universe. "Keep real world politics out of my hobby" isn't an unreasonable position to have.
The problem arises when any inclusion of a non-white male is said to be 'political'.
DEI is right smack dab in the ven diagram of the culture wars.
What really annoys me (and I like the change), is that the broader culture war is so quick to label those who don't like the change as a bigot.
There's a tone of "This is the change, and if you don't accept the change you are a 'deplorable'." Which grates immensely.
The issue is, as the Mad Doc has been pointing out, that people are upset about this when they're not as upset about other 'retcons'. Especially when it doesn't affect them one bit. Nothing says that they have to have female models in their custodes army. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's likely a duck.
I don't think you understood the post. People get upset about other things too. This one is just amplified because of broader disagreements.
Was anyone upset by Blade Champions being retconned in? They weren't established, were never part of the lore, and then they had a model and suddenly the Custodes had always had Blade Champions.
I do remember some griping about "Another choppy melee character" but that's a purely mechanical issue, not an issue with retconning.
I don't understand how this is such a mystery to some.
The outrage is not because of this specific change in this specific context, but because of the wider effort to incentivise diversity in various elements of pop culture. Many of those communities have been traditionally male dominated, so this is obviously going to create friction with the more conservative leaning elements within those communities. Any new instance of this outrage boils down to "they are taking this thing I've been invested in and try to change it to fit their personal agenda that doesn't fit mine".
It's inherently a temperamentel and, as such, a political conflict across various media and societal topics that has been discussed to death with little to no room for nuance on either end of the spectrum.
Insectum7 wrote: This can be irritating for those who are enjoying the escapism of the fictional universe. "Keep real world politics out of my hobby" isn't an unreasonable position to have.
The problem arises when any inclusion of a non-white male is said to be 'political'.
DEI is right smack dab in the ven diagram of the culture wars.
So just proving my point - ANY inclusion of a non-white male is said to be 'DEI' and thus 'political'. After all, there are only two genders - male and political. </s>
What really annoys me (and I like the change), is that the broader culture war is so quick to label those who don't like the change as a bigot.
There's a tone of "This is the change, and if you don't accept the change you are a 'deplorable'." Which grates immensely.
The issue is, as the Mad Doc has been pointing out, that people are upset about this when they're not as upset about other 'retcons'. Especially when it doesn't affect them one bit. Nothing says that they have to have female models in their custodes army. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's likely a duck.
I don't think you understood the post. People get upset about other things too. This one is just amplified because of broader disagreements.
But there isn't the level of outrage over other 'retcons'. Especially considering some of the people that are complaining about it's other posting history. Add in that it doesn't actually take away anything from the people that are complaining about it...I go back to the duck example.
And this is especially when the previous lore doesn't say that there weren't female Custodes before and all the quotes provided to prove that this is a retcon are ambiguous and don't actually prove it. Can just go with the old Marvel No-prize and find a way to make it all work together instead of getting up in arms.
When it comes down to it, I think the one reason people- even those who are not overtly "narrow minded" shall we say- have knee- jerk reaction to this is this: The 40k community is it's own circle so to speak and we all feel flabbergasted when GW doesn't listen to us. There are the issues with scalping, prices, and so on- but the corporate entity is deaf to those. Still- everyone finds some solace in the game, be it lore, painting, 3d printing, designing and kitbashing, w/e and when anything changes, you'll have people up in arms. Same thing but to a different degree was with Primaris marines- but that was an obvious cash grab/ redesign of a major faction. This is just lore- so it's more akin to the outrage Star Wars fans felt about the Phantom Menace and Jar jar binks. Add in the sexism and the fact certain 40k gamers who are "Aware" this month have a very concrete mindset. To them, Y is Y and can't be X (in this case, literal chromosomes) and it'll take time to adapt that XY and or YX is the new Y.
I guess a better analogy that I have for myself is this (story mode time): I grew up loving the Flash comic- Specifically, Wally West, former kid Flash. He was funny and had snarky comebacks and generally put a positive spin on everything bad that happened to him. fast forward to the S-show that was new 52, and Wally is out- Wallace is in.. and he's black/ african American. Again, knee-jerk reaction for me was "They changed something I was invested in for inclusion! This sucks!" Plus, fact that if I voice my opinion I come off as racist (despite my best friend in High School being Jamaican). After a bit, I decided to give Wallace a chance- but then due to the writing and influenced by my dislike of new character, I couldn't get behind him. He came off as "You're not my real Dad Barry! You lied to me once and I'll hold a grudge forever!!". Needless to say when Wally came back in Rebirth, I was overjoyed I could read my hero again, and Wallace moved over to Teen Titans so things sorted out for me.
(End story mode)
Another thing is that it's only more recently GW is actually making a continuing story. 40k was for a long time a setting- you could replay battles from "history" and if it didn't match up? Oh well, Imperial records put a spin on it! This gave players a more creative narrative aspect of naming thier champions, kitbashing them, etc. Now GW is saying "This is the story of 40k" and people mourn that loss.
The sexism thing is just more pronounced as the world's gotten more divisive thanks to all the social media outlets. To use a Dr. Suess reference, in the old days I may have a star on my belly and I'd go and find forums and a group of people who also had stars on thars. Now, I can connect to a group of hundreds of people and they all stir the pot until they believe they are right and the non-starred people can go to heck! (Twitter/ facebook are the entrepreneur with the star-belly switching machine taking people's money in this analogy.)
kodos wrote: this goes now strange ways of gatekeeping as people demand pics of your own painted models to add an opinion to the discussion which upsets all those who are just reading and/or pc-gamers (next level of gatekeeping, which does not really help at all)
I should add for clarity that these calls for people to show their models nearly always comes after the person in question makes comments along the lines of "the woke left have infiltrated this hobby" or "they're destroying our hobby" or "hold the gate" or "this is why we need gatekeeping" - in nearly EVERY instance where people are challenged on their models, it's in response to people gatekeeping themselves.
It's not to say that if a person only engages with 40k via non-miniatures media that they're "not a true fan", but when those people call folks who've been collecting, painting, and playing with minis for longer than the other person has likely even known about 40k "tourists", then there's a certain sense of bad faith being thrown around.
Earlier, you mention that people were sold on the idea that 40k was 30+ of continuous lore. Those people were lied to. If this is their first retcon to 40k (unlikely, but possible), then, frankly, they'll have to get over it like all the other retcons we've had, or leave. Their choice.
The big issue that MDG is raising, that I'm all ears for answers on, is that people who've been in 40k for some time, or people who have put up with other retcons, or people who *have never been part of 40k until conspicuously now* are all up in arms about this particular retcon. Why? I want to hear it from them. And, I want to know if it's a unified issue, and if not, what the people of one group have to say to another about their differing objections.
I don't follow the 40k exclusive channels, therefore only what those who are there are on about on other platforms
I know about the "tourist" thing because LGBTQ people raged about it on other channels because they have been called that for not collecting the minis but saying to reading the books since HH started and I started to notice is on other channels without context (like a climate change YT channel having a community post with pics of models and the text that only people with a pic of their collections are allowed to give opinions on 40k)
A true fan reads all the novels < a true fan collects the models < a true fan plays the game
And yet you can collect and play without reading the lore and given how many now came across of having missed the genocidal and mysogenic part of the lore, I guess most of the collectors never did but just liked the models (given I have seen people on Reddit saying they like the change and if GW finally removes all thd genocidal stuff they would start playing the game)
For that people now need to get over it, well GW marketing turned people into zealots and the cult off officialdom is strong, now realising that GW does not care is different to those playing the game during the Necron retcon.
We were no white knights, nor was there such an extensive "lore only" possibility before (you needed to buy the Codex for the lore)
And I don't know why this was too much
A stupid GW tweet stating what GW is always doing but people denied it, combined with the already hidden rage for 10th, or everyone just hating woman (as if a sentence in a book would magically add more women playing 40k)
But in times of crisis and change people search for stability and if someone finds this in a hobby because they were told this is a stable for decades now and become fanatics, a small official change is enough to break it (and fanatics react like fanatics, in both ways pro and contra)
PS: and as seen by posts here and in the other topic it looks like not everyone sees a new Codex as replacing the old one or retcon the previous book but only if official GW confirms it being a retcon it is one
Like the Necron change was not a retcon because it was never officially confirmed to be one but just unreliable imperial narrator in the previous books
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BertBert wrote: I don't understand how this is such a mystery to some.
The outrage is not because of this specific change in this specific context, but because of the wider effort to incentivise diversity in various elements of pop culture. Many of those communities have been traditionally male dominated, so this is obviously going to create friction with the more conservative leaning elements within those communities. Any new instance of this outrage boils down to "they are taking this thing I've been invested in and try to change it to fit their personal agenda that doesn't fit mine".
It's inherently a temperamentel and, as such, a political conflict across various media and societal topics that has been discussed to death with little to no room for nuance on either end of the spectrum.
This is why other media, news and the wider social media community have picked it up
Because now people are discussing the topic who have no clue at all what 40k is
But the initial unrest was not done by bigots but fans following the official channels
The Imperium….isnt misogynistic. Nor is it inwardly racist. Yes most if not all planets have a pretty feudal class system. But that’s not presented as being say, based on how light or dark you are, or what you’re packing in your pantaloons, or who you prefer to cop off with.
The Imperial Guard, arguably the largest professional military in the Galaxy happily recruits men and women.
Space Marines recruit men solely because the conversion process demands it.
Sororitas recruit women exclusively because some doofus can’t write effective legislation, and so only banned the Ecclesiarchy of having men under arms.
Wider Imperial society? Ladies, Gentlemen, and Everyone In Between? All meat for the grinder, be that the life long menial labour of most Hive Citizens, or being sent off to the Guard.
Will some planets have peculiar social problems? Sure. And provided the tithe is met, the Administratum is surprisingly hands off for such a horrific beast, and so nothing is enforced there. But the Administratum and Ecclesiarchy don’t promote of preach sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc.
Mutants and witches and Xenos and Heretics? Yes. 100%. But those are actual threats. You’re not a witch because you’ve got Geet BIg Wobbly Norks. You’re not a Heretic because you’re from a different Hive and so on.
Horrific as The Imperium is? It’s not inwardly bigoted. Mostly because mankind by that stage has found plenty of Actual Honest To Goodness Others to blame and persecute. And sometimes (Orks) they even kind of have a point!
Will some planets have peculiar social problems? Sure. And provided the tithe is met, the Administratum is surprisingly hands off for such a horrific beast, and so nothing is enforced there. But the Administratum and Ecclesiarchy don’t promote of preach sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc.
Mutants and witches and Xenos and Heretics? Yes. 100%. But those are actual threats. You’re not a witch because you’ve got Geet BIg Wobbly Norks. You’re not a Heretic because you’re from a different Hive and so on.
Horrific as The Imperium is? It’s not inwardly bigoted. Mostly because mankind by that stage has found plenty of Actual Honest To Goodness Others to blame and persecute. And sometimes (Orks) they even kind of have a point!
And it makes perfect sense to write it so. It is far easier for people to accept "fantasy bigotry" just as fiction, than bigotry that is same than the real world bigotry, that they or their friends may have experienced. So this is why the Thermian arguments for "but Imperium is bad" completely misses the point.
kodos wrote: This is why other media, news and the wider social media community have picked it up
Because now people are discussing the topic who have no clue at all what 40k is
But the initial unrest was not done by bigots but fans following the official channels
What a load of absolute tripe. Official Channels? Are you actually joking? There are no "official channels", any channel that produces "news" content is in it for the money and to get the money they need clicks. Rage generates clicks.
You type in Warhammer on YT and go to the most viewed videos for the last week and it takes seven videos to reach something that isn't a continuation of this nonsense.
It took a week for this to go from a stupid rant by people who think they are "owed" explanations to those same people spouting actual conspiracy theories and claiming infiltration.
It would be sad if it wasn't so bloody pathetic.
skyth wrote: But there isn't the level of outrage over other 'retcons'
'Level of outrage' is a difficult thing to measure these days.
I would imagine somewhere upwards of 99.9% of players and fans made no comment as to the original statement. But its good grist for the hate mill and some people do love being told who to hate.
Not to diminish that yes, having something you are invested in changed at the whim of others can be unpleasant no matter the nature or intention of the change. But this isn't another case of replacing of 'aggressively reimagining' existing material, just expanding on it.
I think GW could have gone with a better response than 'we have always been at war with eastasia' though.
I’m still awaiting explanations as to why, of all retcons great and small over the past 37 years of the game and background’s existence, this (which is relatively minor) is the step to far.
It hasn’t fundamentally changed what the Custodes are, or what they do.
Gert wrote: What a load of absolute tripe. Official Channels? Are you actually joking? There are no "official channels"
just because Games Workshop calls their marketing channels "Warhammer-Community" does not mean those are community channels, these are the official GW channels and whatever those write/post/say is official content
Doc, as a french citizen, and some of my friends being upset and standing on one side or another, I think it boils down to this:
We are constantly bombarded in our everyday life with subject about LGBT, women represention, racism, etc... In our context, wherever you look, in whatever circumstances, someone is going to spit you this subjects in the face. Most of us who are not into journalism or the administration are actually at such a point of fed up that the mere mentions of these topics spark almost epidermic reaction of "I've had enough".
While it may be totally unrelated, I feel that given the current context, this particular retcon may be too easily linked with what daily life debates you are hammered at. That the crons come from soulless to somewhat sentient, shadow sun from nobody to puretide.protege, even that the galaxy should be torn in half and Abaddon gone from ridiculous to genius all of a sudden - all of those things are only concerning the lore and hobby in and of itself.
Now, that one comes at a very bad time and has drifted from a lore question to a political one, about a let's.say "societal topic" and the question of how much these topics should or could encroach into the hobby that, probably, was a place of evasion and relief from everyday life not so easy things. With supporters on both sides.
I can't say if the situation is the same out there for you Anglo Saxon folks, but from what I see in my own context, this one retcon carries too much undertone to not create unnerved arguments.
The rage economy of social media doesn't help either deflate it, and so we end up with what should be a nerdy discussion about toy soldiers becoming an all out political question...
The Imperium….isnt misogynistic. Nor is it inwardly racist. Yes most if not all planets have a pretty feudal class system. But that’s not presented as being say, based on how light or dark you are, or what you’re packing in your pantaloons, or who you prefer to cop off with
the Imperium is large, like planets forget the Imperium exists because they are not visited by anyone for several 1000 years (and there can happen a lot on a planet in 2000 years)
so whatever the Imperium is, are the central structures implemented and hardly changed over time
of course there is no "internal" racism, because people one don't like the appearance, skin colour or whatever, you are influenced by chaos and must be removed
that Marine recruits are all male and SoS all female is "tradition" while that the Army takes everyone being more about that regular humans are not worth anything rather than a sign of equality
being traditionalists with gender separation is part of the wider fascist theme
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m still awaiting explanations as to why, of all retcons great and small over the past 37 years of the game and background’s existence, this (which is relatively minor) is the step to far.
Because if some ragebaiter on youtube shouts 'woke pandering' it has wide market appeal.
I’m guessing you’re just adding to the general list of ‘stuff that got changed and nobody cared’ though
Yep, just adding to the list
In 6th edition we learned that ackshully all Black Crusades were at least partially successful. I guess if Fabulous Bill had also created female CSM that would have brought more debate than the far more impactful change of "Failbaddon" not actually failing .
That one I actually liked. In one stroke, it added to Abaddon’s ability to see the wider picture, and The Imperium’s inability to do so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It’s akin to the Eldar and Necron outlook.
Eldar have foresight to see a given action *right now* bear fruit at some point.
Necrons? Are functionally immortal and, for Lords and above? Pretty much invincible. And so they can draw up plans that are intended to play out across millennia. A span of time so colossal even the Eldar would struggle to see what every apparent failure was building toward.
Yeah, as a Chaos player I liked that, too. Made the whole faction more relevant and not just a punching bag. Overall retcons aren't inherently bad. If GW said one day: Oh, btw., there aren't just 1000Marines per chapter, it's actually 1 million. And you have to add 3 zeroes to every account of Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines from HH to M42 I'd be like: Well, finally that most stupid part of 40K lore is done away with.
kodos wrote: just because Games Workshop calls their marketing channels "Warhammer-Community" does not mean those are community channels, these are the official GW channels and whatever those write/post/say is official content
This started because people posted the passage from the Codex on various social media outlets, so no it wasn't from "official channels" at all. GW put a tweet up about pre-orders and by that point, the right-wing reactionaries had already been drawn in thanks to the clickbait "news" channels and they dog piled onto a tweet about pre-orders to demand GWs explanation.
It took less than a day from the pre-order tweet for this to turn into a huge conspiracy because right-wing reactionaries spent 24 hours finding every possible reason they could to blame this on "woke globalists" who are trying to kill "true Warhammer fans".
Take a seat and try again.
The starting point was that Warhammer-Community posted the "there have always been female Custodes" answer
Before that there was not much going on about that outside the usual talking
Which is clarifying we’re not to expect a development in the lore (ala Primaris), but that it’s now, in-universe, always been an equal opportunity force.
I still don’t get why “you mean some of my models might now have boobies” is so upsetting.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Which is clarifying we’re not to expect a development in the lore (ala Primaris), but that it’s now, in-universe, always been an equal opportunity force.
I still don’t get why “you mean some of my models might now have boobies” is so upsetting.
It's because you haven't based your entire societal outlook on women being inferior to men. The reactionaries driving this are the kinds of people who would pay money to watch Lady Ballers and try to argue it is actually funny.
kodos wrote: The starting point was that Warhammer-Community posted the "there have always been female Custodes" answer
Before that there was not much going on about that outside the usual talking
Dude that's complete BS. The posts on Reddit and Twitter were up long before GW posted the tweet about pre-orders and the discussion/rage had already started. That tweet added to it but the first reply on the day for the tweet about pre-orders was from someone demanding to know why there were now female Custodes.
You are objectively wrong in saying this was caused by the reply to a reply to a tweet about pre-orders. It was already happening, then what happened is the same as it ever is when people who are outside the normal circle pick it up from their bigot friends in the circle.
Also, the idea that Warhammer fans can't be bigots is absolutely tripe as well because they out themselves every single time something like this happens. Black Space Marine on a novel cover. Outs the bigots. Non-binary Mechanicus character. Outs the bigots. Female guard models. Outs the bigots. "Warhammer is for everyone" statement. Outs more bigots than in any other event.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Yet why it’s such an alleged controversy? I need the detractors to provide clarity on it. Because so far, I’m afraid it’s kind of feeling like they don’t actually know why they don’t like it.
They won't be able to answer without admitting they're afraid big, strong women.
"But... Sisterz!"
But they're still just average humans, aren't they? Guardswomen, Eldar of all stripes, T'au... none of them really fit the 'big and strong' archetype, do they? Getting shot by a girl is one, but getting punched into the dirt by one is whole other issue.
Again, I don’t want to put words in the mouth of others, or make such assumptions.
That nobody who claims to be upset by this retcon has answered is however perhaps telling.
ok, i'll try to tackle this. i'm logicly minded and so will attempt to use logic to present my argument
the issue is, why are castodes now including females when they already have female squads called sisters of silence, which in my opinion, is in the same army, but filling a different role.
for augment sake, why did the emperor only make male astartes, if he could already successfully make female custodes first? i don't see the logic. i have nothing against retcons, but i feel fundamentally changing what makes armies like custodes unique disrespects the lore, the fans, and the emperor, for now they are just Stormcast Eternals in space. (hyperbole)
in my head canon, and i acknowledge that its only in my head, the emperor would want the best for of the best in terms of raw strength to protect himself, and in his misogynist views, thought that women could never compete with men. no matter how powerful he could enhance a woman, a man would still be better when equal enhancements are applied. but maybe he isn't a misogamist, for there is a role for women among his bodyguards. can someone explain to me why the emperor's pariahs are only female if there are also male pariah in the galaxy?
in conclusion, i see warhammer 40000 to be a cautionary tale that we as a society should never emulate, like for example books like 1984 and the handmaid's tale. and the more people try to mainstream this lore, the more it loses that cautionary aspect that is warhammer 40000. to clarify, my view only applies to the lore and the fiction, as for plastic models, i don't care. do with what's yours as you please
i think (and hope) i've successfully got my point across without myself sounding like a misogynist
I for one would have preferred more Sisters of Silence support than for Custodes to suddenly have women in their ranks and get yet another update, even though they are supposed to get their recruits from noble sons.
For such an important order of warriors they don't seem to receive as much love as the oiled banana boys.
Astartes were a bodge job, and by no means the intended outcome of the Primarch Project. With the abduction of the Primarchs, it’s clear the original plan went out the window. We’ll never know if there was originally an intention to adapt the process so it could be performed on either sex. But as I mentioned, they were a bodge job in the end. Cawl’s work is refinining, not reinventing that process.
Sisters of Silence we just don’t know a whole lot about. We know they’re all-female. But nobody seems to have written why. However, given Blanks are stupendously rare, any fighting force comprised entirely of blanks is highly suspicious as it is, without adding in all one sex thing. I suspect, but of course cannot prove, the Sisters of Silence come about through some form of Cloning, or similar tech. And because that organisation holds that tech, there’s nothing and no-one to challenge their recruitment/manufacturing preferences, even if it is just a tradition and not, like with Astartes, an integral requirement.
Primarchs were made from the ground up. Utterly unique, and peerless. Again, thanks to the abduction we don’t know if there were plans to create further Primarchs. All we know is when it happened, The Emperor couldn’t simply start again (if memory serves, some of the necessary tech wizardry was purposefully destroyed?). Had it not happened, it’s entirely possible a hypothetical second batch could’ve been made female. But, as partial clones of The Emperor, starting with males was probably the easier route.
Custodes? Well….we again don’t know a whole lot about the process, other than unlike the mass produced Astartes, it’s a tailored upgrade, and clearly comes to a better overall result. Whether that’s because the tailoring ensures peak efficiency in every convert, or because whatever it is that gets stuffed in is just Better? Who knows. Not us. No bugger has ever written about it in-depth. But seemingly, whatever is done doesn’t depend upon the sex of the candidate. And that may very well be down to the confirmed tailoring,
This leads to an interesting hypothesis that, with sufficient skill and effort, a female candidate could become an Astartes. But when compared to “pick the best, stuff it all in, hope they don’t explode” current technique provides the recruits Astartes Chapters need….why bother with the extra work, especially if the net result of said tailoring is…..just an Astartes, that happens to have female reproductive organs. As in, a poo load of extra effort and risk (get it wrong, and you’ve wasted time, geneseed and a candidate) for absolutely no additional gain.
shadowsfm wrote: the issue is, why are castodes now including females when they already have female squads called sisters of silence, which in my opinion, is in the same army, but filling a different role.
Sisters of Silence ARE NOT Custodes.
for augment sake, why did the emperor only make male astartes, if he could already successfully make female custodes first? i don't see the logic. i have nothing against retcons, but i feel fundamentally changing what makes armies like custodes unique disrespects the lore, the fans, and the emperor, for now they are just Stormcast Eternals in space. (hyperbole)
How does being all-male make Custodes unique, when all-male Marines are a thing?
in my head canon,
You can just stop right there, since you admit it's literally just in your head.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m still awaiting explanations as to why, of all retcons great and small over the past 37 years of the game and background’s existence, this (which is relatively minor) is the step to far.
It hasn’t fundamentally changed what the Custodes are, or what they do.
Why has this caused the sky to fall for some?
AntiWoke has become a "thing on the internet" in the last few years.
Heck head over to steam forums and a good many channels there now have "is this game woke" as actual legitimate threads started by people on all manner of games. Some are caught up in it all whilst others are openly pushing "antiwoke" as an agenda. They'll also typically post "pro woke" comments too under other accounts just to keep stirring the pot.
Throw in a few who do it purely to troll because they are bored and you've got yourself a whole internet "FAD".
So for some this is just another "woke thing" which they will ride. Youtubers and content creators will made content for it because woke is a hot term and because any drama feeds the algorithm.Though at least that group will mostly quieten down once more AoS preview stuff comes out and the marketing for that gets serious.
So a not insignificant part of this is sadly those from "outside" the hobby looking to make drama. You can oft notice this because smaller hobby groups (that don't get targeted) and fan clubs and such are almost silent on this subject. Groups that might get a flurry of "Oh cook thing is happening" are silent on this topic or not really paying much attention.
What a load of absolute tripe. Official Channels? Are you actually joking? There are no "official channels", any channel that produces "news" content is in it for the money and to get the money they need clicks. Rage generates clicks.
You type in Warhammer on YT and go to the most viewed videos for the last week and it takes seven videos to reach something that isn't a continuation of this nonsense.
This is why I appreciated Bricky's vid- he came off as "Well, gotta do this" and said he piece while addressing the fact other on YT would run with it for drama and clicks. Glad Ad Ric is not making a 'stodes episode and continuing to do 1k Sons.
kodos wrote:But in times of crisis and change people search for stability and if someone finds this in a hobby because they were told this is a stable for decades now and become fanatics, a small official change is enough to break it
And it just so happens that the change happens to be "women can be Custodes"?
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it.
If there's been some sort of mass influx of people who were sold on "40k has 30+ years of established lore", unless they'd literally joined up only a month or so prior, they would almost CERTAINLY have seen previous retcons and other additions. And, more importantly, those who are REALLY getting in a twist about it, the ones who are pulling all these sources out to say "nuh uh, in this book it says XYZ", are clearly dedicated enough about 40k's lore to know that *there's already been plenty of retcons*.
I really don't buy into this idea that there's legions of very new fans who don't know anything about the retconned past of 40k, but *do* know obscure bits of lore from old codexes and books since before they were playing, and it's nothing to do with the fact it's a woman which has got them posting screenshots of the old codex.
Like the Necron change was not a retcon because it was never officially confirmed to be one but just unreliable imperial narrator in the previous books
Necrons literally lost whole units - Pariahs, for example. C'tan lore changed drastically as well.
But, sure, we could call that an unreliable narrator. What's to say that the Custodes situation isn't as well - after all, they are a secretive organisation.
But the initial unrest was not done by bigots but fans following the official channels
I think it's a little naive to assume that they can't be both. Bigoted fans of 40k, unfortunately, exist.
Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:We are constantly bombarded in our everyday life with subject about LGBT, women represention, racism, etc... In our context, wherever you look, in whatever circumstances, someone is going to spit you this subjects in the face. Most of us who are not into journalism or the administration are actually at such a point of fed up that the mere mentions of these topics spark almost epidermic reaction of "I've had enough".
I, as an LGBT person, have also had enough.
I've also had enough of being marginalised, or that simply existing visibly is "spitting the subject" in someone's face. Me existing isn't bombarding. Women, people of colour, gays, lesbians, asexuals, pansexuals, non-binaries, agenders, transgenders, etc - isn't bombarding you. We simply exist. But when we exist in fictional worlds, worlds that in the past *did not fairly reflect that we even existed*, people claim that it's "bombarding" them, or "spitting the subject" in their face.
And unfortunately, we can't even exist in forms of media without being called "political" for doing so.
So yes, I've also had enough. We've had enough.
kodos wrote:The starting point was that Warhammer-Community posted the "there have always been female Custodes" answer
Before that there was not much going on about that outside the usual talking
I'm sorry, but that's also incorrect. Twitter, Reddit, and other boards were already reporting and ablaze with "debate" about this before GW's response.
In short, I don't think that it's fair to blame this on GW's "there have always been women Custodes" - and, as both I and Mad Doc have repeatedly asked: to those people who *were* bothered by that, what should GW have written instead?
shadowsfm wrote:the issue is, why are castodes now including females when they already have female squads called sisters of silence, which in my opinion, is in the same army, but filling a different role.
Your opinion is not supported by fact.
Factually, the two groups are distinct and separate. Custodes are genetically enhanced bodyguards, confidants of the Emperor, massively powerful in combat, and some are almost on the same tier as Primarchs. Sisters of Silence are (IIRC) not genetically enhanced, wear very different armour and carry very different weapons, are all psychic Blanks, which is the main focus of their role as anti-psychic defence - not single combat bodyguards and confidants like the Custodes are.
Hell, just look at their stats in game!
for augment sake, why did the emperor only make male astartes, if he could already successfully make female custodes first?
Huh?? The Custodes were a massive time and resource sink - it was far cheaper and simpler to make Astartes (and even then, they were technically incomplete without the Sangprimus Portum). Being able to make women Custodes wouldn't change that making Custodes in general was massively costly.
in conclusion, i see warhammer 40000 to be a cautionary tale that we as a society should never emulate
Agreed. But the Imperium having women soldiers doesn't suddenly turn them into the good guys. The Imperium being uncaring about sex, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, etc *doesn't make them good*.
Or, to put it another way, I support women's rights, and also women's wrongs.
Overread wrote: Heck head over to steam forums and a good many channels there now have "is this game woke" as actual legitimate threads started by people on all manner of games.
These are not legitimate threads, they are astroturf reactionary bait. Scratch the surface presentation and see; it's social landscaping for the hard of thinking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: ...we can't even exist in forms of media without being called "political" for doing so.
So yes, I've also had enough. We've had enough.
Solidarity. The best thing about the faux-outrage is that we can see it happen, and thus the bigot audience shrinks every time.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In short, I don't think that it's fair to blame this on GW's "there have always been women Custodes" - and, as both I and Mad Doc have repeatedly asked: to those people who *were* bothered by that, what should GW have written instead?
as I said several times, I don't know I just can guess
and I doubt that we will get an answer here
for GW, well htex have not really acted on political problems in the past to avoid of making anyone angry and may lose in sales, so certain groups felt home and see 40k unironically as utopia, while at the same time there is a large "GW never does anything wrong" groups around and niche groups found a welcome home in the mini-painting space online
and when you have nazis, white knights and LGBTQ+ in the same group it does not take much for it to explode
and given that I was correct and the gak did not start boiling with GWs response but already before that, I honestly blame GW for just giving a gakky response that added dynamite to the fire instead of giving a proper response (like: we decided to make a change for the better, this is the new fluff because reasons")
I really don't buy into this idea that there's legions of very new fans who don't know anything about the retconned past of 40k, but *do* know obscure bits of lore from old codexes and books since before they were playing, and it's nothing to do with the fact it's a woman which has got them posting screenshots of the old codex.
they don't need to know, they just need to open a 40k wiki and copy&paste whatever fits their argument
not saying that all of them are, specially as soon as news sites coming up with "first woman in 40k, fans go crazy" this was all about (US) politics and not about 40k any more, from both sites
and as both sites are now political I don't really care or support any of that, because 40k is the wrong universe to debate those things
to be fair most of the retcons are not retcons and are just expanding the lore or focussing in on it, things like Newcrons are a Retcon, Tau are not.
Large scale changes like Newcrons are rare, for the most part it has been remarkably consistent since 3rd editon with rogue trader essentially being its own prototype universe.
This custodes thing is a "slight" retcon in the grand scale of things.
as for the political stuff, nah not buying it, the people that have a core tenet that "everything is political" do not get to claim others are politicising their "struggle" or whatever, you did that yourself and others reacted, its why you call them "reactionaries" after all.
Also atleast be honest because 
.
