Personally, I like it. Not only it was never stated that Custodes were only male (even in old lore, unlike SM), but it further cements the fact that Space Marines are "only" mass produced soldiers (even though they are pretty formidable soldiers), a brutal tool, while the Custodes are considered the pinnacle of humanity (and now all humanity).
This just reads as a piece of fluff. It doesn't mean you there will be female models of Adeptus Custodes, it could be a law enforcer or a Sister of Silence with a new rank name. To take another direction it could just mean a Custodian as a record keeper.
In any case being Reddit doesn't mean it's correct, that place is as bad as Wikipedia. Until GW announcement of models I'm just putting it down to pc wishthinking, but I'd be fine in being proved wrong. Before it's claimed it's printed so must be true, it wouldn't be the first time codex pages were faked.
Eh, in the case of Custodes, their gender seemed to be "Custodes" to me. They look to be genetically-crafted post-humans rebuilt from the ground up. Having said that, they are male-coded so this could easily open up the lore and modelling opportunities for some folk.
I thought Custodes did not have the restriction marines had? they are all custom built right?
Also the cynic in me looks at the god awful female AOS Sigmarines and was fully expecting GW to lazily re purpose the sculpts for Custodes, time might prove me right on that one.
Formosa wrote: I thought Custodes did not have the restriction marines had? they are all custom built right?
Also the cynic in me looks at the god awful female AOS Sigmarines and was fully expecting GW to lazily re purpose the sculpts for Custodes, time might prove me right on that one.
HH has now two times little horus by pose. Chances are very high. Also primaris techmarine and Warpsmith incident
Both the 8th and 9th edition codices stated that the custodes are made from the sons of noble houses, although nobody else seems to have read those bits from all the discussion I've been seeing around the interwebs.
Which makes this a retcon, but that's fine, retcons happen
So yes, it has previously been explicit they've all been male, not sure why so many people I've seen talking about this over the past day have been stating that there was never anything saying they were.
So yes, it has previously been explicit they've all been male, not sure why so many people I've seen talking about this over the past day have been stating that there was never anything saying they were.
Seems so, yeah. It's like how the first imperial knights codex said all the pilots were men and then it was changed in the next edition. Not really a big deal and overall a positive change.
So yes, it has previously been explicit they've all been male, not sure why so many people I've seen talking about this over the past day have been stating that there was never anything saying they were.
Used to be the same as naval officers, commissars etc but they changed it to offspring.
So yes, it has previously been explicit they've all been male, not sure why so many people I've seen talking about this over the past day have been stating that there was never anything saying they were.
Wonder if the change is referenced anywhere else or if they just quietly removed the restriction and didn't hang a lampshade on it.
I think it would be for the best if they just pretended it was always so and not make a big deal about it. Same way they handled the same issue with the imperial knights.
There won't be any new models with this codex, will there? They should at least release a head upgrade sprue so people could model these female custodes.
It's unfortunate that in the rush to prove some nebulous point by retconning in femstodes, the Sisters of Silence are almost certainly going to suffer as a result.
Nope. Taking part in the Blood Games, which is a long established “we’ll test our own defences as hard as we can” tradition going back to The Great Crusade.
Well this is a pleasant surprise, no doubt people will be throwing an angry fit over it, for the usual reasons. If I had any Custodes models, I'd see if Statuesque Miniatures not-Astartes heads are a good fit for those bodies. But yeah, this is a good way of handling it, just drop it in, no more turning back now, this is canon and heh, teleporting a cyclone bomb into the throne room, the blood games never cease to entertain. And yeah, they did the same with Imperial Knight fluff, with the next codex they made the position open to everybody, changed so that not every Knight world was a feudal society made up of Bretonnians in spaaaaaaaaaaaace and so on.
BrookM wrote: And yeah, they did the same with Imperial Knight fluff, with the next codex they made the position open to everybody, changed so that not every Knight world was a feudal society made up of Bretonnians in spaaaaaaaaaaaace and so on.
No they didn't. Every Knight world is a feudal society, in which only the tiniest fraction of the population (ie almost exclusively nobility) will ever have a chance to pilot a Knight. AND Bretonnians are all about that gender equality now anyway...
They just said that women can be said nobility too (I'm not sure if prior to the introduction of Knights into 40K there had been female knight pilots elsewhere?)
I'm guessing teleporting a lethal device directly next to the Throne failed. Though in 10,000 years, I would have thought this would have been one of the most obvious and earliest plans tried. Why bother even trying to sneak through the Palace if one could just teleport a bomb inside? Although for a lethal enough warhead, the Custodian shouldn't have even tried for the Throne directly and instead teleported the device into a less well shielded area, like some janitor's storeroom in the Palace, and then detonate the device there where the effects presumably would still destroy the Throne.
That's how you do it - no fuss, no need for announcing that you're changing it. Though I'm sure there's a fair amount of folks in various places of the internet malding and seething about this - something something "why enhance women" or "this makes custodes irrelevant", no doubt.
I'd love to see what else GW do with this kind of approach. And some new post-human heads could look really cool!
Lord Damocles wrote: Sisters of Silence are almost certainly going to suffer as a result.
Because they were doing so well before?
Gal Custodes are nice (if so few people can become super warriors why cut your recruitment pool in half?) but I really want the Misters of Silence. I mean if pariahs are one in a billion then why only use women? And unlike Marines and Custodes there's no geneseed/whatever issue that requires them to be one gender.
I’ve long suspected some kind of clone or Votannesque Cloneskein behind their numbers. Given how ridiculously rare Blanks are, having some kind of manufacturing process, where they’re essentially cloning one individual does make a certain amount of sense.
Lord Damocles wrote: Sisters of Silence are almost certainly going to suffer as a result.
Because they were doing so well before?
For somebody who supposedly wants to see more female representation, it is curious that you (in common with seemingly everybody else) are seemingly unconcerned with actually supporting female (sub-)factions in terms of background and/or models.
Almost as if the desire isn't really for good female 'representation'...
Sisters of Silence have received a grand total of one kit (plus two Hersey-locked Foregworld models), and never even got models for most of their Heresy era units. Their background for 40K amounts to '...something something they're back, I guess?' But rather than advocate for them to get better support, a mention of a single femstodian is considered a win instead.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Gal Custodes are nice (if so few people can become super warriors why cut your recruitment pool in half?) but I really want the Misters of Silence. I mean if pariahs are one in a billion then why only use women? And unlike Marines and Custodes there's no geneseed/whatever issue that requires them to be one gender.
Lord Damocles wrote: Sisters of Silence are almost certainly going to suffer as a result.
Because they were doing so well before?
For somebody who supposedly wants to see more female representation, it is curious that you (in common with seemingly everybody else) are seemingly unconcerned with actually supporting female (sub-)factions in terms of background and/or models.
Having fem Custodes doesn't change me wanting more of everything else. I'd love some more SoS. Not sure why you'd think that I wouldn't want that.
I'm just pointing out that there's no reason to suspect that having a new fluff option for Custodes means that Sisters of Silence are suddenly going to miss out on new stuff, implying that GW was going to be giving them new stuff in the the first place which they won't get because... of a new fluff extract.
Or, to put it another way - I see some people claiming that "Sister of Battle are just like female Space Marines!!!" If we entertain that notion, then wouldn't that imply that the release of Primaris Marines should've shot dead any chance of plastic Sisters?
Clearly, something doesn't add up with that logic, so perhaps it's best to leave that by the wayside, and rejoice in our new Custodes options.
Almost as if the desire isn't really for good female 'representation'...
Keep making assumptions - I'm happy with my Custodes.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Gal Custodes are nice (if so few people can become super warriors why cut your recruitment pool in half?) but I really want the Misters of Silence. I mean if pariahs are one in a billion then why only use women? And unlike Marines and Custodes there's no geneseed/whatever issue that requires them to be one gender.
Lord Damocles wrote: Sisters of Silence are almost certainly going to suffer as a result.
Because they were doing so well before?
For somebody who supposedly wants to see more female representation, it is curious that you (in common with seemingly everybody else) are seemingly unconcerned with actually supporting female (sub-)factions in terms of background and/or models.
Having fem Custodes doesn't change me wanting more of everything else. I'd love some more SoS. Not sure why you'd think that I wouldn't want that.
I'm just pointing out that there's no reason to suspect that having a new fluff option for Custodes means that Sisters of Silence are suddenly going to miss out on new stuff, implying that GW was going to be giving them new stuff in the the first place which they won't get because... of a new fluff extract.
Or, to put it another way - I see some people claiming that "Sister of Battle are just like female Space Marines!!!" If we entertain that notion, then wouldn't that imply that the release of Primaris Marines should've shot dead any chance of plastic Sisters?
Clearly, something doesn't add up with that logic, so perhaps it's best to leave that by the wayside, and rejoice in our new Custodes options.
Almost as if the desire isn't really for good female 'representation'...
Keep making assumptions - I'm happy with my Custodes.
I appreciate your ability to stay level-headed in fhese conversations
Personally, I like it. Not only it was never stated that Custodes were only male (even in old lore, unlike SM), but it further cements the fact that Space Marines are "only" mass produced soldiers (even though they are pretty formidable soldiers), a brutal tool, while the Custodes are considered the pinnacle of humanity (and now all humanity).
I'm disappointed by Twitter's reaction to the news, but I'm happy with it.
Lord Damocles wrote: Sisters of Silence are almost certainly going to suffer as a result.
Because they were doing so well before?
For somebody who supposedly wants to see more female representation, it is curious that you (in common with seemingly everybody else) are seemingly unconcerned with actually supporting female (sub-)factions in terms of background and/or models.
Almost as if the desire isn't really for good female 'representation'...
Sisters of Silence have received a grand total of one kit (plus two Hersey-locked Foregworld models), and never even got models for most of their Heresy era units. Their background for 40K amounts to '...something something they're back, I guess?' But rather than advocate for them to get better support, a mention of a single femstodian is considered a win instead.
If Talons of the Emperor weren't still an afterthought that just exist because of the plastic models that were made for 30K I'd say these things are not exclusive. GW treats Custodes and SoS as one faction, so a single wave of models would help both. Bring that strange SoS Transport to plastic and into 40K, give us the Custodes jetpack guys (and gals), some SoS chars and at least a 2nd unit, the shooty upgrades for both and you got a proper faction.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: If Talons of the Emperor weren't still an afterthought that just exist because of the plastic models that were made for 30K I'd say these things are not exclusive. GW treats Custodes and SoS as one faction, so a single wave of models would help both. Bring that strange SoS Transport to plastic and into 40K, give us the Custodes jetpack guys (and gals), some SoS chars and at least a 2nd unit, the shooty upgrades for both and you got a proper faction.
I'd love a SoS unit that doesn't feel chaff-y, you know? Like, a unit that doesn't just feel like a way to cheaply make up bodies for a Talons list? Something almost a bit like Grey Knight Interceptors, for Silent Sisters - a unit that has short-range teleporters, and uses their "Blank"-ness as a way to protect themselves from the warp as they pass through it. Keep the Custodes as the anvil/durable tanks, and have the SoS as these debuffing monsters that blink around the battlefield and spread terror where they go.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: If Talons of the Emperor weren't still an afterthought that just exist because of the plastic models that were made for 30K I'd say these things are not exclusive. GW treats Custodes and SoS as one faction, so a single wave of models would help both. Bring that strange SoS Transport to plastic and into 40K, give us the Custodes jetpack guys (and gals), some SoS chars and at least a 2nd unit, the shooty upgrades for both and you got a proper faction.
I'd love a SoS unit that doesn't feel chaff-y, you know? Like, a unit that doesn't just feel like a way to cheaply make up bodies for a Talons list? Something almost a bit like Grey Knight Interceptors, for Silent Sisters - a unit that has short-range teleporters, and uses their "Blank"-ness as a way to protect themselves from the warp as they pass through it. Keep the Custodes as the anvil/durable tanks, and have the SoS as these debuffing monsters that blink around the battlefield and spread terror where they go.
the SoS unit i'd most love to see in plastic is the beastmaster unit. it's just a really weird unit that isn't like anything else in the imperium's roster at the moment, let alone in custodians. even if it's just the same sisters kit but with animal companions, it succeeds in being something with a completely different board presence
I have other lore issues with this story. How are they fitting a cyclonic torpedo into a teleportarium? And how is the teleportarium able to teleport something as large as a cyclonic torpedo?
Wonder if the change is referenced anywhere else or if they just quietly removed the restriction and didn't hang a lampshade on it.
I think it would be for the best if they just pretended it was always so and not make a big deal about it. Same way they handled the same issue with the imperial knights.
My thoughts (that nobody asked for) on this.
1) the news itself (female Custodes are now cannon) : I don't mind. While there is some minor contradiction with existing lore (notably the Emperor referring to his Custodes as "Men", as well as recruiting being done among the sons of Earth's nobility), the process of making Custodes is so custom and scantily described in the lore that it could be made believable (unlike Female Space Marines, for which I think they missed the boat with the Primaris introduction if this is something they wanted to do).
2) The delivery. This is where I have an issue, which is two-fold. First, AFAIK the only mention is done in a single 2-pages story in the new Codex, whereas this is a major topic that should get better exposure and an explanation, especially as GW has been trying to have in-universe explanation for new concepts for some time now (Primaris, Leagues of Votann, new Tyranids, Warmaster Titans...) instead of the handwaving of previous editions. This is really "Somehow Palpatine returned" level of storytelling here. Secondly, GW has been in retcon/gaslighting mode on social medias, and I don't appreciate that at all.
3) The reaction of the community has been absolutely atrocious on both sides of the issue. On the one hand you get displays of pure unaltered misogyny, and on the other hand you see people who do not seem happy with what they are getting, but rather happy with scoring Internet points and with rubbing the other side's nose in the dirt.
My idea for what could have been an in-universe explanation: the first generations of Custodes, the ones in which the Emperor himself took a personal part in the selection & transformation, were all males. Not because the process didn't work on females (it did) but because the Emperor was/is a misogynistic donkey-cave (there is a fun part in the End & the Death Part 3 where Horus is daydreaming while kicking the Emperor around, and thinking that he will be a much better Emperor once the current one is done for, and he will have better sons, and of course daughters).
After the Heresy, the Custodes were nearly spent as a Combat Force (because of the War in the Webway and the Siege of Terra), and also add to adapt to their new task of protecting not just an Emperor who used to be much more than able to protect himself and suddenly was a sitting (eh) duck, but also the whole Golden Throne. They needed reinforcements fast (without lowering their standards, of course), but their usual recruiting stock (Earth nobility) had also been mostly depleted because of the Siege of Terra. That's where they started to recruit/make female Custodes (which were always possible, just not done out of custom). Since they mostly kept to themselves in the 10 000 years before Guilliman's return, that could explain why there was no mention of female Custodes during the Heresy (there were none) or until now.
Getting a weapon the size of an office building down to a package less than twice the height of a man is a pretty neat trick. Makes you wonder why they don't just do this all the time.
The full snippet a page back gives you the idea that its one of those super rare things that needs to be kept safe and the only reason its there is because of the authority of the Custodian in question.
CorwinB wrote: The delivery. This is where I have an issue, which is two-fold. First, AFAIK the only mention is done in a single 2-pages story in the new Codex, whereas this is a major topic that should get better exposure and an explanation, especially as GW has been trying to have in-universe explanation for new concepts for some time now (Primaris, Leagues of Votann, new Tyranids, Warmaster Titans...) instead of the handwaving of previous editions. This is really "Somehow Palpatine returned" level of storytelling here. Secondly, GW has been in retcon/gaslighting mode on social medias, and I don't appreciate that at all.
I don't see it as gaslighting, but perhaps that's just my view on it.
I don't think they need to explicitly state that it's a retcon - it wouldn't hurt if they chose to, but I don't think they *need* to. I'm also personally pretty fond of the understated "yeah, this is a thing, it's normal" - I think if they HAD done a big song and dance about it, it might have seemed more performative, potentially. I don't mind it being a retcon, but honestly, given ADB's initial comments (and the lore writeups in, I think book 7 of HH1), Custodes weren't ever confirmed male-only until the 8th and 9th edition Codexes (if I'm not wrong) - in which case, would ALSO be a retcon. Ultimately, I'm used to GW retconning things. This is no different, and it's clear that they want us to carry on as if fem Custodes were always present - and I'm quite okay with that.
If they had acknowledged "hey, so, we wrote stuff in a way that wasn't inclusive, our bad, we're retconning to be more inclusive", I think we'd be seeing even more of a meltdown from certain folks.
Wonder if the change is referenced anywhere else or if they just quietly removed the restriction and didn't hang a lampshade on it.
I think it would be for the best if they just pretended it was always so and not make a big deal about it. Same way they handled the same issue with the imperial knights.
CorwinB has pretty much covered my thoughts. I am very happy that that have made this canon…but the blunt-force retcon is annoyingl.
I would much prefer them have written in that girls were now being accepted due to both the high casualties and expanded role of the Custodes in the current fluff.
It wasted an opportunity to weave a cool bit of narrative into the story.
Getting a weapon the size of an office building down to a package less than twice the height of a man is a pretty neat trick. Makes you wonder why they don't just do this all the time.
Depends entirely on the scale of the required detonation.
Those for torpedoes are intended for Exterminatus, the most deliberately widespread and indiscriminate applications, which presumably requires a hefty payload/worky bit for whatever it is a Cyclonic Warhead actually does.
Think of it like Nukes. We tend to think of stuff like ICBMs and the bombs dropped on Japan. Yet, the Fatman of Fallout is based (quite loosely if memory serves) on real world attempts to make short ranged, infantry support Nuclear artillery. All are pretty devastating, and all different sizes. Indeed I’m fairly sure it’s possible to make a Nuclear hand grenade using the same technology - just with the inherent problem of throwing it far enough away its blast doesn’t also get the squad deploying it.
The keywords at play here are compact, and warhead. The torpedo shown in the drawing is, well, a torpedo. Warhead, casing, propulsion system, fuel and no doubt some level of armour, and perhaps the two-stage example, where we’d need to add in a Melta charge intended it allow the Cylconic Warhead to detonate within the crust or core of a planet for maximum deff. The cyclonic warhead itself therefore remains of completely uncertain size - and but one application of the underlying principles. One I think we can fairly safely assume to be very large scale on a ship to planet torpedo.
I don't think it's gas lighting, so much as GW having a very different view of how their books work to that of many fans.
People seem to see each codex as an extension of the previous one, a continuing story.
GW don't, as far as I can see. This Custodes codex isn't a continuation of the previous one. It replaces it. This book, as of time of printing, is what Custodes are and, so far as the 40k universe is concerned always have been, and anything written in a previous book is largely irrelevant. As of now, there have always been female Custodians.
Edit - this same logic is how Marines periodically get new units that they've 'always' had.
Worth keeping in mind Marines weren’t originally genhanced, and Primarch was just an honorific/rank. And that the entirety of the Horus Heresy sprang forth from a side panel which was Just Filler.
In 40K, canon is fluid. Always has been, always will be.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Worth keeping in mind Marines weren’t originally genhanced, and Primarch was just an honorific/rank. And that the entirety of the Horus Heresy sprang forth from a side panel which was Just Filler.
In 40K, canon is fluid. Always has been, always will be.
Ineed. In the N&R thread, someone mentioned the Custodes existing in a bunch of novels with no mention of women in the ranks. Thing is, over the course of the three thousand or so Horus Heresy novels, all of the Marine Legions also wound up with a bunch of signature units, equipment and organisational structures that were 'always' the way that Legion had been, but that weren't mentioned at all until they suddenly appeared in book #346... around the time the studio had added that option to the model range.
The 40K universe is constantly evolving... but when the primary faction in that setting is written to be largely stagnant, there's only so much that the setting can actually evolve. The rest has to be accomplished by re-writing it.
Is there another kind of cyclonic weapon that isn't meant for planetary destruction mentioned in lore?
I’m fairly sure it’s possible to make a Nuclear hand grenade using the same technology
I am certain that it's not. The conventional explosives required for an implosion device alone would preclude a hand grenade, to say nothing of the weight of the minimum amount of fissile material to achieve a successful chain reaction.
The cyclonic warhead itself therefore remains of completely uncertain size
I'm fairly certain that what is depicted is an enormous device. If there is a depiction of a cyclonic weapon that isn't bigger than a house, then by all means illuminate me.
In a game known for changing its background more often than some teenagers change their undies?
What does it matter? What does it matter really? What possible tangible impact can “oh hey, Custards are dudes and ladies now” have on your life, or your army?
Other changes? Squigs being Tyranid organisms made from Orks, rescued and adopted by Orky boarding parties (itself a retcon then retconned). Genestealer Cults used to be quite willing to be consumed, now not so much at all, with their Purestrains eventually turning on the rest of the brood and Cult once the Hive Fleet has its napkin on for dindins. C’Tan were once just an extinct, highly advanced Xenos species. Old One were Old Slaan. The Chimera was an adaptation of the Basilisk chassis, not the other way around.
Heck, when flyers (Lightning and Thunderbolt) were first introduced to Epic Space Marine, around 1994 or so? It was said The Imperium had only recently rediscovered powered flight.
It’s 40k. Its fluid. And from a background perspective? That’s where the fun lies. Because there are many, many nooks and crannies of conflicting background for sad acts like me to obsess over and try to rationalise through conversation.
Like the two versions of the Necron background not being mutually exclusive, just the same story from differing perspectives and “truths”. We may well be down to just four whole C’Tan, with The Deceiver having given the Necrons the means to shatter and enclave the others, barring the Void Dragon, Deceiver, Nightbringer and that other one I think is just called The Other but I honestly can’t remember. Because when you’ve provided shiny new bodies, and given one of them complete control over the rest? It’s absolutely no bother to just….Write Yourself Out Of That History Because If Nobody Remembers You Exist Nobody Is Going To Bother Coming After You.
Is there another kind of cyclonic weapon that isn't meant for planetary destruction mentioned in lore?
I’m fairly sure it’s possible to make a Nuclear hand grenade using the same technology
I am certain that it's not. The conventional explosives required for an implosion device alone would preclude a hand grenade, to say nothing of the weight of the minimum amount of fissile material to achieve a successful chain reaction.
The cyclonic warhead itself therefore remains of completely uncertain size
I'm fairly certain that what is depicted is an enormous device. If there is a depiction of a cyclonic weapon that isn't bigger than a house, then by all means illuminate me.
Right there. In that quote. Look, here it is again!
The Inferno Pistol was once singular. The signature weapon of Commander Dante. Until it wasn’t.
Super Heavy Grade Plasma weapons could only be mounted on large fortification or bunkers due to the requirement of a plasma reactor to power it. Until they weren’t with the advent of the Plasma Blastgun toting Stormblade.
Sentinels used to carry Assault Cannons, until they didn’t anymore.
So I think people are stretching the definition of a retcon in this context.
Marines were 'canonically' only male because of actual supposed incompatibilities. If you started saying they were always compatible with women, then that's a retcon.
If you said 'belisarius cawl invented a new geneseed that makes it work for women', that's 'lore development'.
A retcon is an explicit retroactive continuity change (that's what it's short for).
Custodians were never described as being restricted to men, that the process only worked on men like marines. What we have is text that says 'the sons of nobility were given'. There is nothing in that that creates an actual in-universe barrier.
That's the equivalent of the 'men under arms' sisters exception.
It is a flimsy argument to say that women being custodes is retconning this - in the same way that 'mankind' describes all of humanity. Our language is inherently patriarchal, so using that to claim it was a truth that custodes must all be male is a bit rich.
The whataboutisms concerning male sisters of battle are also irrelevant. And unlike marines, this was designed in-universe to be an exception - the army was originally full of men until the decree passive. The decree passive can also be legislated away just as easily.
There is a fundamentally bigger exclusionary principle at play with 'anti girl geneseed' than enacting laws, or cultural norms. It's saying that on a fundamental level men and women are so different that girls can't be this thing BECAUSE they are a girl, not because some old rich people decreed it as such.
I'd have far less issue with the only male marines if it was due to the 'decree testicles' (pronounce like heracles.... :p) because like the sisters, it's cultural thing that can be changed easily. By making it a genetic thing it's far more prenicious.
Hellebore wrote: A retcon is an explicit retroactive continuity change (that's what it's short for).
Custodians were never described as being restricted to men, that the process only worked on men like marines. What we have is text that says 'the sons of nobility were given'. There is nothing in that that creates an actual in-universe barrier.
Not really seeing any wiggle room in the statement "All Custodes begin their lives as the infant sons of the noble houses of Terra".
All. Custodes.
Not "some" Custodes
Not "many" Custodes
Not "a lot of" Custodes
All Custodes
"All Custodes begin their lives as the infant sons of the noble houses of Terra" and "There have always been female custodes" are mutually exclusive statements, which does indeed make this retroactive - if they had said "There are now female custodes, then perhaps not, but you can't get a statement much more explicitly retroactive that stating something "has always been" a way.
And no it's not the same as new units getting introduced, no previous lore said "Space marines definitely only have access to the currently available units and nothing else", so introducing things like centurions doesn't directly contradict what came before, this does.
Hellebore wrote: A retcon is an explicit retroactive continuity change (that's what it's short for).
Custodians were never described as being restricted to men, that the process only worked on men like marines. What we have is text that says 'the sons of nobility were given'. There is nothing in that that creates an actual in-universe barrier.
Not really seeing any wiggle room in the statement "All Custodes begin their lives as the infant sons of the noble houses of Terra".
All. Custodes.
Not "some" Custodes
Not "many" Custodes
Not "a lot of" Custodes
All Custodes
"All Custodes begin their lives as the infant sons of the noble houses of Terra" and "There have always been female custodes" are mutually exclusive statements, which does indeed make this retroactive - if they had said "There are now female custodes, then perhaps not, but you can't get a statement much more explicitly retroactive that stating something "has always been" a way.
And no it's not the same as new units getting introduced, no previous lore said "Space marines definitely only have access to the currently available units and nothing else", so introducing things like centurions doesn't directly contradict what came before, this does.
My point on language is where that comes in. The sons of x is a common literary turn of phrase, and GW love using it. I mean, it's definitely the case that Rogue and Storm are X-Men, and are thus Men? The patriarchal nature of english has made some terms and phrases 'sound' more pleasing and they've stayed around.
My other point was that unlike marines, it never provides a REASON that they are sons. GW have a precedent for giving specific reasoning for sex specific forces - genetic incompatibility or law. This example uses none. It just says they start out as the sons of nobles, not because it's the law, and not because there are genetic restrictions.
So, at best you can infer that it's a cultural practice, reflective of the patriarchal nature of the imperial nobility. And so it's not a retcon that women can be custodes.
The distinction between 'women can be custodes' and 'all custodes have been men' is not the vast chasm that antigirl geneseed is.
Charax wrote: And no it's not the same as new units getting introduced, no previous lore said "Space marines definitely only have access to the currently available units and nothing else", so introducing things like centurions doesn't directly contradict what came before, this does.
I mean, we've had the entirety of the Ultramarines Chapter published in at least one codex before, and that didn't include Centurions, Storm Ravens or Venerable Dreadnoughts.
Ultimately, though, it's not really relevant whether you choose to call something a retcon or not. If it's what's in the current book, it's the way things are, and as of now the way they always have been. That's just how 40K works.
I don’t mind female representation in GW games since the entire setting is a universe with fluid stories and outcomes.
If the historical war game settings started doing it I might actually complain. The French conflicts, WW1, WW2, Iran/Iraq War, Russian/Afghan conflict, etc were all fought by men.
insaniak wrote: Ultimately, though, it's not really relevant whether you choose to call something a retcon or not. If it's what's in the current book, it's the way things are, and as of now the way they always have been. That's just how 40K works.
I guess a lot of people don't know how 40k work because they joined rather recently so that everything is subject of change and not just the rules (which the new people learned the hard way with 10th) is something new for them
specially of they were sold on the product by "30 year old established setting that" and "stability" of the product and now realising that the established setting is just 3 years old and because it does not have an ongoing timeline is going to retcon to advance
Greyknight7777 wrote: Citing a questionable passage as evidence for why the passage isn't questionable is what's called a circular argument.
It’s really not. Not in 40K.
You’ll note I also included examples of other weapon types which received changes, yes?
Your stance is essentially “cyclonic torpedoes are colossal, therefore all cyclonic weapon systems must be colossal”.
This passage, which is canonical, demonstrates that family of weapons includes compact warheads. Therefore, not all cyclonic weapon system must be colossal.
kodos wrote: I guess a lot of people don't know how 40k work because they joined rather recently so that everything is subject of change and not just the rules (which the new people learned the hard way with 10th) is something new for them
specially of they were sold on the product by "30 year old established setting that" and "stability" of the product and now realising that the established setting is just 3 years old and because it does not have an ongoing timeline is going to retcon to advance
If someone is new to the game and 'This faction can have women in it now' is a legitimate problem, I suspect they weren't actually that invested in the game to start with.
I mean, women existing in the faction doesn't mean you have to buy them if you don't want to touch the icky girl models.
Greyknight7777 wrote: Citing a questionable passage as evidence for why the passage isn't questionable is what's called a circular argument.
It’s really not. Not in 40K.
You’ll note I also included examples of other weapon types which received changes, yes?
Your stance is essentially “cyclonic torpedoes are colossal, therefore all cyclonic weapon systems must be colossal”.
This passage, which is canonical, demonstrates that family of weapons includes compact warheads. Therefore, not all cyclonic weapon system must be colossal.
It was also stolen from some forbidden armoury of rare, esoteric weapons.
It isn't a normal device, it is some kind of archeotech that may even be singular within the Imperium of Man.
Hellebore wrote: A retcon is an explicit retroactive continuity change (that's what it's short for).
Custodians were never described as being restricted to men, that the process only worked on men like marines. What we have is text that says 'the sons of nobility were given'. There is nothing in that that creates an actual in-universe barrier.
Not really seeing any wiggle room in the statement "All Custodes begin their lives as the infant sons of the noble houses of Terra".
All. Custodes.
Not "some" Custodes
Not "many" Custodes
Not "a lot of" Custodes
All Custodes
"All Custodes begin their lives as the infant sons of the noble houses of Terra" and "There have always been female custodes" are mutually exclusive statements, which does indeed make this retroactive - if they had said "There are now female custodes, then perhaps not, but you can't get a statement much more explicitly retroactive that stating something "has always been" a way.
And no it's not the same as new units getting introduced, no previous lore said "Space marines definitely only have access to the currently available units and nothing else", so introducing things like centurions doesn't directly contradict what came before, this does.
My point on language is where that comes in. The sons of x is a common literary turn of phrase, and GW love using it. I mean, it's definitely the case that Rogue and Storm are X-Men, and are thus Men? The patriarchal nature of english has made some terms and phrases 'sound' more pleasing and they've stayed around.
My other point was that unlike marines, it never provides a REASON that they are sons. GW have a precedent for giving specific reasoning for sex specific forces - genetic incompatibility or law. This example uses none. It just says they start out as the sons of nobles, not because it's the law, and not because there are genetic restrictions.
So, at best you can infer that it's a cultural practice, reflective of the patriarchal nature of the imperial nobility. And so it's not a retcon that women can be custodes.
The distinction between 'women can be custodes' and 'all custodes have been men' is not the vast chasm that antigirl geneseed is.
I agree with your general point, although in a sense "man" when used in the general isn't patriarchal. The reverse is true- it has been co-opted to refer to males specifically. The Old English word for males was "wer", which survives in werewolf. "Man" meant people. "Wif" was woman, which survives in wife. Somewhat amusingly (and confusingly) woman and human come from two other etymological sources and share no root with man or each other.
kodos wrote: I guess a lot of people don't know how 40k work because they joined rather recently so that everything is subject of change and not just the rules (which the new people learned the hard way with 10th) is something new for them
specially of they were sold on the product by "30 year old established setting that" and "stability" of the product and now realising that the established setting is just 3 years old and because it does not have an ongoing timeline is going to retcon to advance
If someone is new to the game and 'This faction can have women in it now' is a legitimate problem, I suspect they weren't actually that invested in the game to start with.
I mean, women existing in the faction doesn't mean you have to buy them if you don't want to touch the icky girl models.
2 different things
One is being upset because people told you that this game is worth the money because of 30 years of well established lore when in reality it is just 3 years and not just the expensive rules are outdated, the lore is as well (so even the argument to buy the expensive books for the lore because that will last is not there and someone being angry as they were told differently is understandable)
One is not getting the "joke" about 40k, in both ways as some thought the fascist scifi setting is their safe space and others that think fascist regime is only against race and not sexism
And than there is also those who simply have a problem with corporation making money on a serious topic with hypocritical marketing
What’s hypocritical about it? I genuinely don’t follow you on that one.
As for “only three years of lore” I singularly disagree - and I do note that argument isn’t from yourself, but quoting/paraphrasing another poster. Since 40K first began in..1987? The background has been based on Unreliable Narrators.
Marines didn’t become what we know them as today straight off the bat. The Imperium has grown and fleshed out massively over its lifespan. And only a very little has been outright retconned. This happens to be one of those things.
But what difference does it actually make? A force of super spangly ultra mega humans is now clarified to be comprised of what were once regular human boys and girls.
GW is a company that will do whatever makes them money
They are not showing Marines in pride colours in WD or add female Custodes because they care or think the fascist regime in the game needs to be more inclusive, but because they think they can make more money and nothing else
And if they think genderless Custodes makes more money, it get changed with the next book
And the 3 year lore is from me, for a little hyperbole as in reality it is more like 20 years and 6 years rather than 30 and 3, but if someone else came up with that too, well.
Point is, the valid canon lore in 40k is whatever the books of the current Edition have.
Whatever is written before that does not matter and is considered outdated and not canon.
Whatever a 3rd edition codex or novel wrote is irrelevant if the 10th edition codex writes something different
"Unreliable Narrator" is a good excuse for a company so they don't need invest time for checking consistency of their writing
The same way GW uses "casual game" as excuse for not investing time for checking the rules
That the army I chose because of the description in the codex, that was never the true background at all because the narrator was an idiot but the current backstory is the true one until the next codex is released is not good writing and is a good reason to stop being invested into it.
The only difference to other changes is simply that this time it causes more unrest because it hurts certain other people and therefore gets more attention
In addition to people who started during the last years not knowing that 40k had always been that way expected that the background is "stable" and not everything the know being wrong
That’s…quite the assertion. That GW are literally just “virtue signalling”. Do you have any actual evidence to support that claim? The only reason GW are showing any kind of diversity is For Money?
Unreliable Narrators has been 40k’s thing since the very, very early days. I’m privileged enough to have a complete set of the published Rogue Trader books, and so much shifted and changed over a very few years, rules and background both.
This is nothing new. At all. If you don’t like it, you don’t like it and that of course is entirely your prerogative. But the cynicism you’ve shown here is entirely unwarranted.
And who are these other people this has allegedly hurt? And how has it hurt them?
I don't like the "oh its unreliable narrators all the way down" argument. Taken to the logical conclusion, you would infer that you can know *nothing* of 40k's lore. There are certain franchises/universes that do that (looking at you World of Warcraft) - and I think they are the worse for it.
Ultimately this is a retcon. I don't think it matters that much - and I agree there have been far bigger retcons throughout 40k's history, and will likely be more still in the years to come. But I can see why people would be annoyed. Look for example at how much salt was poured out over say Primaris coming into existence (and now they seem to be quietly being de-existed as a thing in themselves).
There’s no one reliable history, not really. Everything we’re privy to is subject to hubris, ego and ignorance.
Compare the two Xenology themed background books. One is by a Magos Biologist. The other by a Rogue Trader. Both are experienced in the Galaxy. And whilst the Rogue Trader’s volume is laughably inaccurate? It doesn’t mean the Magos Biologis’ work is accurate.
For instance, the dissection of an Eldar corpse. If memory serves it notes partially hollow bones. And we’re lead to believe it was a Craftworld Eldar. But that doesn’t necessarily mean “therefore all Eldar have partially hollow bones”. Not when we know Dark Eldar Scourges have that as an adaptation performed by Haemonculi, and that whilst not especially common, Eldar can and will go from Craftworlds to Commorite and vice versa. So it remains possible what was on the slab is a former Scourge, and that’s why the bones were partially hollow.
Nobody in 40K is playing with a full deck. Not one of them. The history is uncertain, allegorical, mythicised and now legend. That is why it’s so fascinating.
Well no. I think there is a reliable history - its when GW are writing from a gods-eye perspective.
So for example - and I'll admit its been a few years - I think Xenology is written from a given POV. Its entirely plausible that the Magos Biologis is mistaken, as they don't really know what they are doing.
This is different when you have the Xth Edition Rulebook or Codex: X and it sets out the lore of faction X. Its not written as "the musings of Inquisitor/Farseer/Warboss X". Its written as an objective description of the facts.
I.E. the Space Wolf Homeworld is Fenris and this is a deathworld.
If however GW were to go "haha, we tricked you. Sure all media released in however many decades has claimed these facts, but actually the Space Wolf homeworld is, and has always been, Wolfywolfburg, and its a pleasure planet" then this would be a retcon - and a rather disappointing one. Not merely because its obviously lame - but because I'm being told that stuff that was "objectively true" is not.
If we start arguing there is no objective truth, it rather quickly unravels the universe.
I've always maintained I prefer to preserve the history/context of the lore to maintain the setting - in so I would vote no to include female Marines or Custodes, however wouldn't be at all bent out of shape if they did retcon to include them, and with this happening my prediction has come to light, I'm just accepting of it, it is what it is, it doesn't upset me but I am also not super enthusiastic about it, it is a change and that is what it is.
There’s no one reliable history, not really. Everything we’re privy to is subject to hubris, ego and ignorance.
Compare the two Xenology themed background books. One is by a Magos Biologist. The other by a Rogue Trader. Both are experienced in the Galaxy. And whilst the Rogue Trader’s volume is laughably inaccurate? It doesn’t mean the Magos Biologis’ work is accurate.
For instance, the dissection of an Eldar corpse. If memory serves it notes partially hollow bones. And we’re lead to believe it was a Craftworld Eldar. But that doesn’t necessarily mean “therefore all Eldar have partially hollow bones”. Not when we know Dark Eldar Scourges have that as an adaptation performed by Haemonculi, and that whilst not especially common, Eldar can and will go from Craftworlds to Commorite and vice versa. So it remains possible what was on the slab is a former Scourge, and that’s why the bones were partially hollow.
Nobody in 40K is playing with a full deck. Not one of them. The history is uncertain, allegorical, mythicised and now legend. That is why it’s so fascinating.
Whilst there is no completely reliable sources in some context for the setting, I think the setting requires certain anchors in the lore that cannot be ever adapted, changed or evolved. I'm not sure all Custodes being male is one of those anchors, but there must be some, and in a similar vein to all the issues with other licenses/games/shows that it is of prime importance that people involved in writing for the setting are true custodians of such anchors if/when they are decided and they are respected (pun intended).
There’s no one reliable history, not really. Everything we’re privy to is subject to hubris, ego and ignorance.
Compare the two Xenology themed background books. One is by a Magos Biologist. The other by a Rogue Trader. Both are experienced in the Galaxy. And whilst the Rogue Trader’s volume is laughably inaccurate? It doesn’t mean the Magos Biologis’ work is accurate.
For instance, the dissection of an Eldar corpse. If memory serves it notes partially hollow bones. And we’re lead to believe it was a Craftworld Eldar. But that doesn’t necessarily mean “therefore all Eldar have partially hollow bones”. Not when we know Dark Eldar Scourges have that as an adaptation performed by Haemonculi, and that whilst not especially common, Eldar can and will go from Craftworlds to Commorite and vice versa. So it remains possible what was on the slab is a former Scourge, and that’s why the bones were partially hollow.
Nobody in 40K is playing with a full deck. Not one of them. The history is uncertain, allegorical, mythicised and now legend. That is why it’s so fascinating.
No. Background books are very different from codexes.
GW does change things all the time - usually just to give Marines yet another unit....
Personally I want:
Astartes: Marines are male only - (note chaos Marines are different as their bodies can be changed into anything - eps those who serve Slaanesh or Tzeentch) however mortal staff of both genders
Sororitas: Sisters are female only. The greater Church however has both genders
Sisters of Silence: Female only.
Custodes - happy with both genders. My one issue with now suddenly having them is once again they ignore Sisters of Silence.
Tyel wrote: Well no. I think there is a reliable history - its when GW are writing from a gods-eye perspective.
So for example - and I'll admit its been a few years - I think Xenology is written from a given POV. Its entirely plausible that the Magos Biologis is mistaken, as they don't really know what they are doing.
This is different when you have the Xth Edition Rulebook or Codex: X and it sets out the lore of faction X. Its not written as "the musings of Inquisitor/Farseer/Warboss X". Its written as an objective description of the facts.
I.E. the Space Wolf Homeworld is Fenris and this is a deathworld.
If however GW were to go "haha, we tricked you. Sure all media released in however many decades has claimed these facts, but actually the Space Wolf homeworld is, and has always been, Wolfywolfburg, and its a pleasure planet" then this would be a retcon - and a rather disappointing one. Not merely because its obviously lame - but because I'm being told that stuff that was "objectively true" is not.
If we start arguing there is no objective truth, it rather quickly unravels the universe.
GW has intentionally put contradictory fluff in Codexes to reinforce that nothing/everything is Canon and there is no objective truth.
Iracundus wrote: I'm surprised no one has asked the obvious question:
What happens when a male and female Custodes love each other very much?
I suspect very little, as even relatively healthy humans can have trouble conceiving. And Custards are heavily, heavily genhanced.
Even if they do hop on the good foot and do the bad thing, and a baby could result? I guess that entirely depends on how the gene editing is done. If nothing is changed in the gonads? You’re not gonna get a child Custodes. Spesh as women are born with all the gametes they’ll ever have - which is before, so far as we know, any kind of tinkering goes into it. So at least half the equation isn’t gene edited. As the male gamete is constantly produced? I guess it depends what the DNA that created your taddies has done to it during the process.
Tyel wrote: Well no. I think there is a reliable history - its when GW are writing from a gods-eye perspective.
So for example - and I'll admit its been a few years - I think Xenology is written from a given POV. Its entirely plausible that the Magos Biologis is mistaken, as they don't really know what they are doing.
This is different when you have the Xth Edition Rulebook or Codex: X and it sets out the lore of faction X. Its not written as "the musings of Inquisitor/Farseer/Warboss X". Its written as an objective description of the facts.
I.E. the Space Wolf Homeworld is Fenris and this is a deathworld.
If however GW were to go "haha, we tricked you. Sure all media released in however many decades has claimed these facts, but actually the Space Wolf homeworld is, and has always been, Wolfywolfburg, and its a pleasure planet" then this would be a retcon - and a rather disappointing one. Not merely because its obviously lame - but because I'm being told that stuff that was "objectively true" is not.
If we start arguing there is no objective truth, it rather quickly unravels the universe.
several codexes have been written explicitly from in-universe perspectives. for example, the second (?) edition craftworlds eldar codex being written from an imperial perspective, which at several points goes to mention that the guy writing it is getting small things wrong, which calls into attention all the information being presented. codexes are not meant to be seen as objective texts
Tyel wrote: Well no. I think there is a reliable history - its when GW are writing from a gods-eye perspective.
So for example - and I'll admit its been a few years - I think Xenology is written from a given POV. Its entirely plausible that the Magos Biologis is mistaken, as they don't really know what they are doing.
This is different when you have the Xth Edition Rulebook or Codex: X and it sets out the lore of faction X. Its not written as "the musings of Inquisitor/Farseer/Warboss X". Its written as an objective description of the facts.
I.E. the Space Wolf Homeworld is Fenris and this is a deathworld.
If however GW were to go "haha, we tricked you. Sure all media released in however many decades has claimed these facts, but actually the Space Wolf homeworld is, and has always been, Wolfywolfburg, and its a pleasure planet" then this would be a retcon - and a rather disappointing one. Not merely because its obviously lame - but because I'm being told that stuff that was "objectively true" is not.
If we start arguing there is no objective truth, it rather quickly unravels the universe.
several codexes have been written explicitly from in-universe perspectives. for example, the second (?) edition craftworlds eldar codex being written from an imperial perspective, which at several points goes to mention that the guy writing it is getting small things wrong, which calls into attention all the information being presented. codexes are not meant to be seen as objective texts
3rd edition Basically all the 3rd edition codices are written from an Imperial in-universe perspective (the Tau codex stands out as being different in this regard- perhaps this was an account provided by the Water Caste instead). The 2nd Imperial Guard codex of 3rd even has some speculation about an old formation (which is a Rogue Trader reference) in the section of the book that would be written like objective fact in later codices. I think it is a real shame 40k moved away from this more-ambiguous approach to codex lore.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: several codexes have been written explicitly from in-universe perspectives. for example, the second (?) edition craftworlds eldar codex being written from an imperial perspective, which at several points goes to mention that the guy writing it is getting small things wrong, which calls into attention all the information being presented. codexes are not meant to be seen as objective texts
I don't think this is right. The 2nd Ed Eldar codex is very much written from a Gods-Eye perspective.
The 3rd Ed can be more arguable - as its lore is usually expressed as a story, rather than a stated history. But there's still a reasonable about of Gods-Eye declarations. The little unit descriptions for instance are objective, not subjective like the stories.
For example: "Warp Spiders are named after the tiny crystalline creatures that roam a craftworld's infinity matrix, purging it of non-eldar psychic presences."
This isn't a character telling me this. Its GW telling me this. If I'm meant to think "actually they could be named after something else", then all I can have is "everything GW may be writing here could be wrong". Which you might think is fine - but to my mind, effectively deletes the universe.
StudentOfEtherium wrote: several codexes have been written explicitly from in-universe perspectives. for example, the second (?) edition craftworlds eldar codex being written from an imperial perspective, which at several points goes to mention that the guy writing it is getting small things wrong, which calls into attention all the information being presented. codexes are not meant to be seen as objective texts
I don't think this is right. The 2nd Ed Eldar codex is very much written from a Gods-Eye perspective.
ah, it was third edition i was thinking of (and specifically the craftworlds book; they got two that edition)
StudentOfEtherium wrote: ah, it was third edition i was thinking of (and specifically the craftworlds book; they got two that edition)
I think you've still got the difference between say subjective in-character reports by Inquisitor Czevak, and say the little info-blurbs by the units. I.E. Black Guardians are a standing army rather than a militia, hence they have extra training. [And this is why they are WS or BS 4 rather than 3 like regular Guardians.]
This isn't the inquisitor telling me - its GW telling me.
A good example of potential lore conflict would be whether Eldrad caused the 2nd War of Armageddon. We get told that by a captured Eldar Ranger (IIRC). We get Czevak telling us that some of his colleagues believe it happened. These are however subjective IC takes. The Ranger and Inquisitors could all be wrong.
But then we have say the 4th edition book, where it clear states under Eldrad's Section - "yeah, he did this". This isn't offered as an opinion. Its stated as having happened.
If GW were to then go "ah... no, uh, a C'Tan did it" - we are moving away from "characters can be wrong/misled/confused" to "GW are not telling you the truth".
Of course we then have the wholesale retcon of events at the end of the Eye of Terror campaign as an example of well... retcons not just being a function of unreliable narrator.
I'd argue the same with the 8th/9th edition lore squeeze, which initially dashed forward 112 years (prompting the need to explain what everyone's been up to), before deciding "no, actually, lets make it 12" so they could return to to GW's patented "everything is happening everywhere, but not actually ever concluding" from pre-8th.
To me the fact that every Codex lets the described faction shine and be the most awesome and strongest out there hints at the "unreliable narrator" even in these "god's eye" books. So, Orks are the strongest faction out there and might destroy the galaxy. As long as you don't read the CSM Codex and learn that ackshually Chaos is the strongest faction out there and might destroy the galaxy.
Also we have BL books detailing stories that first appear in Codizes and "putting them right" so to say, like Grey Knights beating Mortarion.
I also highly doubt the notion the fluff is redone with the editions. If anything, there are things from 1st and 2nd edition that are very far from things every edition later on told differently, like the names of the Primarchs, or Rainbow Warriors being a founding legion and so on. Everything since 3rd edition overall describes a setting that follows the same rough guidelines. Yes, some things like the Necrons later on changed quite fundamentally, but then again their 3rd edition Codex and BFG were written from an imperial perspective and they just didn't know better apparently.
Tyel, I think a setting can be described entirely by unreliable narrators and still be tangible. Even if you can never fully trust individual reports, there will be through-lines and consistencies that allow a consensus to be formed, with outliers holding less weight. Arguably this is very similar to real-world history, where the objective truth of a matter is often clouded and inferences with varying degrees of confidence must be corroborated from various sources. I suppose the 40k equivalent of archaeology is the model range
Sgt. Cortez wrote: To me the fact that every Codex lets the described faction shine and be the most awesome and strongest out there hints at the "unreliable narrator" even in these "god's eye" books. So, Orks are the strongest faction out there and might destroy the galaxy. As long as you don't read the CSM Codex and learn that ackshually Chaos is the strongest faction out there and might destroy the galaxy.
The main exception is typically the Imperial Guard codex, which often features as many "glorious sacrifices" as victories
I agree that the authoritative tone and lack of attribution to an in-universe author does not necessarily mean the Codices are in fact written by an omniscient narrator rather than an in-universe one (see the first few pages of Codex: Imperial Guard (3rd edition, 2nd Codex) for a good example of where I am pretty confident it is an in-universe perspective that is unattributed). But I think GW increasingly wants them to be read that way as they've let nuance decline in 40k. I'm inclined to agree with Insaniak's perspective that GW treats new codices and rulebooks as a replacement of their predecessors in all matters, not an addition (at least at a corporate level).
Also we have BL books detailing stories that first appear in Codizes and "putting them right" so to say, like Grey Knights beating Mortarion.
I also highly doubt the notion the fluff is redone with the editions. If anything, there are things from 1st and 2nd edition that are very far from things every edition later on told differently, like the names of the Primarchs, or Rainbow Warriors being a founding legion and so on. Everything since 3rd edition overall describes a setting that follows the same rough guidelines. Yes, some things like the Necrons later on changed quite fundamentally, but then again their 3rd edition Codex and BFG were written from an imperial perspective and they just didn't know better apparently.
I think that most stuff from the end of 2nd is also pretty congruent with the 3rd+ state of the lore, but not so much stuff from early 2nd which was closer to Rogue Trader. IMO 2nd was the edition where 40k found its feet from a lore perspective, with 3rd being the consolidation.
going by that, it could be Horus sitting on the Golden Throne sacrificed himself freely to save the Emperor from Sanguinius and E. himself is still alive but running from Russ who swore to find and kill him
and it was the Lion with Russ who killed of the 2 lost Legions as those were female Marines who were protected by Horus and the other 2 did not accepted woman among the crusade
this is also the real reason why the Lion returned, because Cawl is going to bring the female Marines back and he wants to stop it
every story that say different is just narrators who messed up the details over 10k years or in universe propaganda
kodos wrote: going by that, it could be Horus sitting on the Golden Throne sacrificed himself freely to save the Emperor from Sanguinius and E. himself is still alive but running from Russ who swore to find and kill him
and it was the Lion with Russ who killed of the 2 lost Legions as those were female Marines who were protected by Horus and the other 2 did not accepted woman among the crusade
this is also the real reason why the Lion returned, because Cawl is going to bring the female Marines back and he wants to stop it
every story that say different is just narrators who messed up the details over 10k years or in universe propaganda
I sense a lack of nuance here...
If we do take the approach that no source in 40k is absolute: you could say the above is plausible, but based on all the sources we do have (even if all individual sources are unreliable narrators) it would still make your version of events incredibly unlikely. All the sources we currently have suggest a different course of events. There would be degrees of confidence and the main events of the Horus Heresy would have a very high level of confidence.
A body of information based on unreliable narrators isn't useless (otherwise you'd have to consider much of history as made up!).
Tyel wrote: Ultimately this is a retcon. I don't think it matters that much - and I agree there have been far bigger retcons throughout 40k's history, and will likely be more still in the years to come. But I can see why people would be annoyed.
It's a retcon which is actually detrimental to female Custodes.
With a little thought and care, it could have gone some thing like: The creation of Custodes isn't gender-locked, but requires some sort of specific genetic marker which is most common in the noble houses of Terra; thus that's where they mostly recruit from. They traditionally recruited males because that's what the Emperor did. However after their losses at the battle of the Lion's Gate, and the ongoing pressures of the Indomitus Crusade, their recruitment can no longer keep up with demand, and so they've chosen to widen their pool of potential candidates to include women from the Terran houses.
Instead we get: There have always been female Custodes, but they've never done anything notable enough to be mentioned in any of the Horus Heresy, Siege of Terra, Emperor's Legion, Dawn of Fire (etc.) novels, or any sourcebooks.
It's frustrating that for so many people, the destination is all that matters, regardless of how it is reached.
This is literally the laziest way of introducing female Custodes, or increasing female representation in the faction possible. It's on the same level as Rise of Skywalker featuring the first gay couple in Star Wars History! - two nameless characters without any lines, in the background of a scene, who were cut out for the Chinese release. Stunning and brave.
Imagine a world where instead of a lazy retcon and a horribly proportioned Shield Captain (but now he has a new hat spear!) there was a thoughtful introduction of female Custodes, and either a female model/female upgrade sprue or Sisters of Silence upgrade sprue to give the existing female sub-faction some depth on the tabletop.
Lord Damocles - may I pose a question that I asked in a different thread?
An honest question, to both yourself and anyone else who feels strongly on the "they've always been there" comment: what would you have rather had GW do?
Let's say that they did fully want to retcon Custodes, instead of it being a development within universe, which is pretty clearly what they intend for. How should GW handle retcons?
Public announcement that they *are* retconning something (which I've never known them to explicitly do)?
Retcon and not elaborate (Necrons, Votaan)
Retcon, and explain WHY they're retconning it (again, never really known to happen)
I'm genuinely curious as to what GW "should" have done about this retcon (and before anyone suggests, I'm not going to accept "advance the narrative" - it's very clear that GW weren't going to do this approach).
Again, to emphasise, it's very clear that GW *were not going to advance the narrative here*. They want to have it so that Custodes have been present since the Heresy. Assuming that is their objective, so that Custodes ALWAYS have been able to have women, how would you have wanted them to announce or reveal such a thing?
Yep. Missed opportunity to herald and celebrate this new canon.
GW should have done a Commemorative Series female captain (follow the SCE and Chaos Warrior women armour cues). Then the folks that don’t want her wouldn’t have to buy her.
The ‘drop-and-run’ seems like they were worried about the backlash- but I think it’s actually given some folk more to complain about than had GW bitten the bullet.
retcons or not aside it is indeed something akin to "there have always been centurions" and somehow Cawl pulled a million marines out of his back passage, I do agree it is lazy.
As for the GW community post, do not care, a community post means nothing when they have gotten even simple things like legion numbers wrong in the past, it needs to be in a novel, story or codex to be legit to me, which it now is.
Like I said before if we get good models I am fine, please god not femstodes with THAT hair cut.
Tyel wrote: Ultimately this is a retcon. I don't think it matters that much - and I agree there have been far bigger retcons throughout 40k's history, and will likely be more still in the years to come. But I can see why people would be annoyed.
It's a retcon which is actually detrimental to female Custodes.
With a little thought and care, it could have gone some thing like: The creation of Custodes isn't gender-locked, but requires some sort of specific genetic marker which is most common in the noble houses of Terra; thus that's where they mostly recruit from. They traditionally recruited males because that's what the Emperor did. However after their losses at the battle of the Lion's Gate, and the ongoing pressures of the Indomitus Crusade, their recruitment can no longer keep up with demand, and so they've chosen to widen their pool of potential candidates to include women from the Terran houses.
Instead we get: There have always been female Custodes, but they've never done anything notable enough to be mentioned in any of the Horus Heresy, Siege of Terra, Emperor's Legion, Dawn of Fire (etc.) novels, or any sourcebooks.
It's frustrating that for so many people, the destination is all that matters, regardless of how it is reached.
This is literally the laziest way of introducing female Custodes, or increasing female representation in the faction possible. It's on the same level as Rise of Skywalker featuring the first gay couple in Star Wars History! - two nameless characters without any lines, in the background of a scene, who were cut out for the Chinese release. Stunning and brave.
Imagine a world where instead of a lazy retcon and a horribly proportioned Shield Captain (but now he has a new hat spear!) there was a thoughtful introduction of female Custodes, and either a female model/female upgrade sprue or Sisters of Silence upgrade sprue to give the existing female sub-faction some depth on the tabletop.
Don't disagree that it couldn't have been done better.
Personally I think any lore justification based in a gakky decision by the Emperor being a fethwit and later being reversed is a good one- we now have dozens of books highlighting how much of a douchebag the Emperor is.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Lord Damocles - may I pose a question that I asked in a different thread?
I answered in the other thread.
GW shouldn't have carelessly retconned in femstodes. There is no good way to retcon in femstodes, regardless of whether they wanted to.
'How should GW do the thing that GW shouldn't do?'
And as I said in my response to that (and in my post already), retcons are upon us, whether you like it or not. They aren't interested in advancing the narrative. They want Custodes to have always been present.
I'm not interested in hearing "they shouldn't have been retconned", because you're dodging the question. GW retconned. How do you think they should've handled it? A response that doesn't acknowledge GW's intention is not a productive response here, or an answer to my question.
But GW did give us a reason for Custodes breaking their oath and leaving Terra. That’s not a retcon, it was a short, straightforward little advance to their story.
The storyteller in me would have loved to see something similar here, because I like to see new bits woven into what I thought I knew about a story.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Lord Damocles - may I pose a question that I asked in a different thread?
I answered in the other thread.
GW shouldn't have carelessly retconned in femstodes. There is no good way to retcon in femstodes, regardless of whether they wanted to.
'How should GW do the thing that GW shouldn't do?'
And as I said in my response to that (and in my post already), retcons are upon us, whether you like it or not. They aren't interested in advancing the narrative. They want Custodes to have always been present.
I'm not interested in hearing "they shouldn't have been retconned", because you're dodging the question. GW retconned. How do you think they should've handled it? A response that doesn't acknowledge GW's intention is not a productive response here, or an answer to my question.
To be frank, I don't care what you're interested in hearing.
Your question is malformed. Just because GW have taken a certain approach doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be criticised.
Lord Damocles wrote: Your question is malformed. Just because GW have taken a certain approach doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be criticised.
There's a place for honest criticism, but right now, I'm interested in hearing answers to the question I asked. I want to hear what they *should* have done, taking GW's intent into account. Evidently though, you don't care about any intent that isn't yours - thankfully, I'm sure there are plenty other people who are actually able to answer the honest question I put out.
If you actually have an answer, I'm interested to hear it.
insaniak wrote: Ultimately, though, it's not really relevant whether you choose to call something a retcon or not. If it's what's in the current book, it's the way things are, and as of now the way they always have been. That's just how 40K works.
I guess a lot of people don't know how 40k work because they joined rather recently so that everything is subject of change and not just the rules (which the new people learned the hard way with 10th) is something new for them
specially of they were sold on the product by "30 year old established setting that" and "stability" of the product and now realising that the established setting is just 3 years old and because it does not have an ongoing timeline is going to retcon to advance
I feel like anyone who rode through the 4th-5th transition, with the Newcrons, wacky Grey Knights and Dumber Tyranids has become numb to such small changes as female Custodes.
But darn if I’m not still nettled they decanonized Primarch Rubinek of the Iron Hearts.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Lord Damocles - may I pose a question that I asked in a different thread?
I answered in the other thread.
GW shouldn't have carelessly retconned in femstodes. There is no good way to retcon in femstodes, regardless of whether they wanted to.
'How should GW do the thing that GW shouldn't do?'
And as I said in my response to that (and in my post already), retcons are upon us, whether you like it or not. They aren't interested in advancing the narrative. They want Custodes to have always been present.
I'm not interested in hearing "they shouldn't have been retconned", because you're dodging the question. GW retconned. How do you think they should've handled it? A response that doesn't acknowledge GW's intention is not a productive response here, or an answer to my question.
Since you, emphasis on YOU, want to change the status quo, the onus is on you. Representation is allready covered in factions in general. There was no need for any of this.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Lord Damocles - may I pose a question that I asked in a different thread?
I answered in the other thread.
GW shouldn't have carelessly retconned in femstodes. There is no good way to retcon in femstodes, regardless of whether they wanted to.
'How should GW do the thing that GW shouldn't do?'
And as I said in my response to that (and in my post already), retcons are upon us, whether you like it or not. They aren't interested in advancing the narrative. They want Custodes to have always been present.
I'm not interested in hearing "they shouldn't have been retconned", because you're dodging the question. GW retconned. How do you think they should've handled it? A response that doesn't acknowledge GW's intention is not a productive response here, or an answer to my question.
Since you, emphasis on YOU, want to change the status quo, the onus is on you.
Representation is allready covered in factions in general. There was no need for any of this.
End of story.
Do you honestly believe that representation in non-Marine factions is equal to representation within Marines themselves?
Especially since there's no 'Dex that's entirely female. Sisters of Silence are (the smaller) half of Talons. Sisters of Battle can take 885 points and 54 bodies without having to touch any models that are female.
Meanwhile, the only model in the Marine's 'Dex that can arguably be female, Servitors, are (1) Legends and (2) a four-person squad, with a max of three taken since it's not battleline. 12 models, 165 points.
JNAProductions wrote: Do you honestly believe that representation in non-Marine factions is equal to representation within Marines themselves?(A)
Especially since there's no 'Dex that's entirely female (B). Sisters of Silence are (the smaller) half of Talons. Sisters of Battle can take 885 points and 54 bodies without having to touch any models that are female. Meanwhile, the only model in the Marine's 'Dex that can arguably be female, Servitors, are (1) Legends and (2) a four-person squad, with a max of three taken since it's not battleline. 12 models, 165 points.(C)
A: Strawman. I never ever thought the balance of the releases was correctly done. It's clear to anyone with their heads on their shoulder Marine overrepresentation and saturation since primaris and even before will longterm and has longterm crippled the universe.
B: Irrelevant the core of those are Either male only or female only. basically semantics.
C: Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe with a lack of fleshing out actual other gendered subparts, like SoB, SoS, etc..
Not Online!!! wrote: Since you, emphasis on YOU, want to change the status quo, the onus is on you. Representation is allready covered in factions in general. There was no need for any of this.
End of story.
Dude, GW did this. They explicitly wanted to retcon the Custodes - and seeing as some of y'all are complaining that they went about this the wrong way, I want to ask "what was the right way GW should've retconned this".
Bottom line, GW disagrees with you. There *was* a need for this. End of story. I'm asking how they could've done it better - and the response I seem to be getting from at least two people is "they shouldn't have at all". If that's the most constructive response you can muster, then I have no sympathy for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe
holy exaggeration, Batman!!
Tell me - if Custodes had ALWAYS been mixed gender (as ADB and HH book 7 implied), would 40k have been crippled then?
Not Online!!! wrote: Since you, emphasis on YOU, want to change the status quo, the onus is on you. Representation is allready covered in factions in general. There was no need for any of this.
End of story.
Dude, GW did this. They explicitly wanted to retcon the Custodes - and seeing as some of y'all are complaining that they went about this the wrong way, I want to ask "what was the right way GW should've retconned this".
Bottom line, GW disagreed with you. There *was* a need for this. End of story. I'm asking how they could've done it better - and the response I seem to be getting from at least two people is "they shouldn't have at all". If that's the most constructive response you can muster, then I have no sympathy for you.
Lol. What GW thinks at this stage of corporate level in regards to their universe is even more irrelevant. GW also thinks that you should pay 35 CHF for a Single HQ. At the end of the day, you push a minority position for minority representation and so does GW for obvious reasons seeing as blackrock and vanguard are now rather large shareholders with a clear agenda that isn't btw liked at all. And even funnier if that was such an issue to you, counter question Why are you playing in the first place then?
kodos wrote: going by that, it could be Horus sitting on the Golden Throne sacrificed himself freely to save the Emperor from Sanguinius and E. himself is still alive but running from Russ who swore to find and kill him
and it was the Lion with Russ who killed of the 2 lost Legions as those were female Marines who were protected by Horus and the other 2 did not accepted woman among the crusade
this is also the real reason why the Lion returned, because Cawl is going to bring the female Marines back and he wants to stop it
every story that say different is just narrators who messed up the details over 10k years or in universe propaganda
I sense a lack of nuance here...
If we do take the approach that no source in 40k is absolute: you could say the above is plausible, but based on all the sources we do have (even if all individual sources are unreliable narrators) it would still make your version of events incredibly unlikely. All the sources we currently have suggest a different course of events. There would be degrees of confidence and the main events of the Horus Heresy would have a very high level of confidence.
A body of information based on unreliable narrators isn't useless (otherwise you'd have to consider much of history as made up!).
problem is, your sources are all imperial and based on the tellings of people who messed up things in the first place and just because there are many copies based on the bad source does not make it ture
if everything is unreliable and everything an in-universe story without a outsiders absolut point of view, you have nothing to proof the above wrong and it is as true as the stuff written in the rulebook
insaniak wrote: Ultimately, though, it's not really relevant whether you choose to call something a retcon or not. If it's what's in the current book, it's the way things are, and as of now the way they always have been. That's just how 40K works.
I guess a lot of people don't know how 40k work because they joined rather recently so that everything is subject of change and not just the rules (which the new people learned the hard way with 10th) is something new for them
specially of they were sold on the product by "30 year old established setting that" and "stability" of the product and now realising that the established setting is just 3 years old and because it does not have an ongoing timeline is going to retcon to advance
I feel like anyone who rode through the 4th-5th transition, with the Newcrons, wacky Grey Knights and Dumber Tyranids has become numb to such small changes as female Custodes.
But darn if I’m not still nettled they decanonized Primarch Rubinek of the Iron Hearts.
yeah we have seen bigger changes and were told to stop hating and just accept the change for the sake of change
but maybe GW will pick up on the story line of GK using Sisters to clean their armour and Blood Angles being best friends with Necrons
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Dude, GW did this. They explicitly wanted to retcon the Custodes - and seeing as some of y'all are complaining that they went about this the wrong way, I want to ask "what was the right way GW should've retconned this".
Bottom line, GW disagreed with you. There *was* a need for this. End of story. I'm asking how they could've done it better - and the response I seem to be getting from at least two people is "they shouldn't have at all". If that's the most constructive response you can muster, then I have no sympathy for you.
Lol. What GW thinks at this stage of corporate level in regards to their universe is even more irrelevant. GW also thinks that you should play 35 CHF for a Single HQ. At the end of the day, you push a minority position for minority representation and so does GW for obvious reasons seeing as blackrock and vanguard are now rather large shareholders with a clear agenda that isn't btw liked at all.
Actually, I think you'll find most people are pretty happy. I think you've overestimated the majority of your position.
Ultimately, we're gonna be here and happy with the way GW is going. Where will you be?
And even funnier if that was such an issue to you, counter question Why are you playing in the first place then?
Been here for long enough. I've been hoping and asking for GW to recognise the changing playerbase and attitudes of society - and they have. The hobby's developing in a way that I'm quite happy with.
If women being featured more in 40k threatens you, I'm sorry for your sense of priorities.
Not Online!!! wrote: Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe
holy exaggeration, Batman!!
Tell me - if Custodes had ALWAYS been mixed gender (as ADB and HH book 7 implied), would 40k have been crippled then?
Atleast quote the full thing. Basic curtesy for debate.
Why? You talk about how mixed gender Custodes will cripple 40k in some capacity - irrespective of the context it's with, it's a laughable comment to make. Cripple, my ass.
Women being in the Custodes won't cripple 40k's "female representation" any more so than having women Guardsmen crippled the representation of Sisters of Battle, or vice versa.
And you talk about "basic courtesy for debate"?? You can't even answer the question I asked without throwing a fit and moving the goalposts.
I repeat: "if GW *is* to retcon, how should they go about doing it"? The questions presupposes that a retcon is happening. If you can't answer it without addressing that point, don't bother replying.
Female Custodes does nothing to threaten the universe. Tyranids are still mindless eating machines, Orks still waaagh, humans still push a Xenophobic view with a security state agenda (that would make Stalin blush) while perpetrating massacres of entire planets for lack of loyalty and chaos still seeks to upend the entire universe at the whims of gods who could care less what mortals actually do
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Dude, GW did this. They explicitly wanted to retcon the Custodes - and seeing as some of y'all are complaining that they went about this the wrong way, I want to ask "what was the right way GW should've retconned this".
Bottom line, GW disagreed with you. There *was* a need for this. End of story. I'm asking how they could've done it better - and the response I seem to be getting from at least two people is "they shouldn't have at all". If that's the most constructive response you can muster, then I have no sympathy for you.
Lol. What GW thinks at this stage of corporate level in regards to their universe is even more irrelevant. GW also thinks that you should play 35 CHF for a Single HQ. At the end of the day, you push a minority position for minority representation and so does GW for obvious reasons seeing as blackrock and vanguard are now rather large shareholders with a clear agenda that isn't btw liked at all.
Actually, I think you'll find most people are pretty happy. I think you've overestimated the majority of your position.
Ultimately, we're gonna be here and happy with the way GW is going. Where will you be?
And even funnier if that was such an issue to you, counter question Why are you playing in the first place then?
Been here for long enough. I've been hoping and asking for GW to recognise the changing playerbase and attitudes of society - and they have. The hobby's developing in a way that I'm quite happy with.
If women being featured more in 40k threatens you, I'm sorry for your sense of priorities.
Not Online!!! wrote: Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe
holy exaggeration, Batman!!
Tell me - if Custodes had ALWAYS been mixed gender (as ADB and HH book 7 implied), would 40k have been crippled then?
Atleast quote the full thing. Basic curtesy for debate.
Why? You talk about how mixed gender Custodes will cripple 40k - irrespective of the context it's with, it's a laughable comment to make.
Women being in the Custodes won't cripple 40k's "female representation" any more so than having women Guardsmen crippled the representation of Sisters of Battle, or vice versa.
Really, That is your argument? Wait what happened to Marvel, Disney in general, star wars?
The new audience doesn't seem to show up. Could it be that is BS pushed by companies i pointed out even publically? Nooo that ain't it./S
And you talk about "basic courtesy for debate"?? You can't even answer the question I asked without throwing a fit and moving the goalposts.
I repeat: "if GW *is* to retcon, how should they go about doing it"? The questions presupposes that a retcon is happening. If you can't answer it without addressing that point, don't bother replying.
There was no goalpost moving, the only one having moved the goalpost was you with your stipulation that it HAS to happen, because consistency is anathema to your position and the one GW is now shoving and you and GW knows it hence why GW is gaslighting right now.
Also what is really laughable that you can't even quote propperly and rather disingeniously just pick and chose. The issue is obviously not the strawman but rather the contradictory maner it was done destabilising, just as primaris did before, the consistency of the universe. ALAS you prove again and again that you are not after an honest discussion and i will leave it at that. Have a nice evening
Lord Damocles wrote: Your question is malformed. Just because GW have taken a certain approach doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be criticised.
There's a place for honest criticism, but right now, I'm interested in hearing answers to the question I asked. I want to hear what they *should* have done, taking GW's intent into account. Evidently though, you don't care about any intent that isn't yours - thankfully, I'm sure there are plenty other people who are actually able to answer the honest question I put out.
If you actually have an answer, I'm interested to hear it.
Now, I'm broadly fine with this (lorewise) minor retcon to a faction with mostly recent lore. However, I do think Lord Damocles has a point over the execution, and I think you are being a bit unfair when they stated their position on the same page in this very thread:
Lord Damocles wrote:
Tyel wrote: Ultimately this is a retcon. I don't think it matters that much - and I agree there have been far bigger retcons throughout 40k's history, and will likely be more still in the years to come. But I can see why people would be annoyed.
It's a retcon which is actually detrimental to female Custodes.
With a little thought and care, it could have gone some thing like: The creation of Custodes isn't gender-locked, but requires some sort of specific genetic marker which is most common in the noble houses of Terra; thus that's where they mostly recruit from. They traditionally recruited males because that's what the Emperor did. However after their losses at the battle of the Lion's Gate, and the ongoing pressures of the Indomitus Crusade, their recruitment can no longer keep up with demand, and so they've chosen to widen their pool of potential candidates to include women from the Terran houses.
Instead we get: There have always been female Custodes, but they've never done anything notable enough to be mentioned in any of the Horus Heresy, Siege of Terra, Emperor's Legion, Dawn of Fire (etc.) novels, or any sourcebooks.
It's frustrating that for so many people, the destination is all that matters, regardless of how it is reached.
This is literally the laziest way of introducing female Custodes, or increasing female representation in the faction possible. It's on the same level as Rise of Skywalker featuring the first gay couple in Star Wars History! - two nameless characters without any lines, in the background of a scene, who were cut out for the Chinese release. Stunning and brave.
Imagine a world where instead of a lazy retcon and a horribly proportioned Shield Captain (but now he has a new hat spear!) there was a thoughtful introduction of female Custodes, and either a female model/female upgrade sprue or Sisters of Silence upgrade sprue to give the existing female sub-faction some depth on the tabletop.
Emphasis mine. This seems like a reasonable lore narrative to introduce female Custodes. You could go a little further and state Custodes recruitment was broadened at the beginning of the Heresy in anticipation of heavy fighting (as the models do cover both settings).
DeathKorp_Rider wrote:Female Custodes does nothing to threaten the universe. Tyranids are still mindless eating machines, Orks still waaagh, humans still push a Xenophobic view with a security state agenda (that would make Stalin blush) while perpetrating massacres of entire planets for lack of loyalty and chaos still seeks to upend the entire universe at the whims of gods who could care less what mortals actually do
Exactly. Anyone who says this "cripples" 40k is ignoring the whole swathes of factions that have nothing to do with Custodes. If Custodes having women is such an earth-shaking revelation, kindly, what on earth are your priorities?
Not Online!!! wrote:Really, That is your argument? Wait what happened to Marvel, Disney in general, star wars?
Marvel, which was doing really well prior to Phase 4? Star Wars, of which Clone Wars and Mandalorian were massively critically successful?
Oh, sorry, you're talking about the badly written ones - which have nothing to do with "representation". Those are bad because they're written terribly. The SW sequels aren't bad because Rey's a woman. They're bad because they have terrible writers.
Grow up, and open your eyes.
The new audience doesn't seem to show up.
Huh?? Marvel went from basically economically dying to a powerhouse. Star Wars is massively popular, especially with young audiences. And 40k is only growing.
I think your sources are mistaken.
The issue is obviously not the strawman but rather the contradictory maner it was done destabilising, just as primaris did before, the consistency of the universe.
And so I ask again - assuming that a retcon is happening, how do you plan on making it less destabilising? What is your solution? What is your compromise? What is your fix, beyond "nuh uh"?
ALAS you prove again and again that you are not after an honest discussion and i will leave it at that.
Right back atcha. I've asked a very simple question three times now to you, and you haven't even attempted to answer it once. You clearly aren't interested in discussing this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: There was no goalpost moving, the only one having moved the goalpost was you with your stipulation that it HAS to happen, because consistency is anathema to your position and the one GW is now shoving and you and GW knows it hence why GW is gaslighting right now.
Mate, I *asked the question*. How can I be the one "moving the goalposts" when I'm the one setting the goal in the first place??
Jeez, you're really missing the mark here, huh. I posed the question like that *from the start*. If you couldn't answer it, why comment?
Lord Damocles wrote: Your question is malformed. Just because GW have taken a certain approach doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be criticised.
There's a place for honest criticism, but right now, I'm interested in hearing answers to the question I asked. I want to hear what they *should* have done, taking GW's intent into account. Evidently though, you don't care about any intent that isn't yours - thankfully, I'm sure there are plenty other people who are actually able to answer the honest question I put out.
If you actually have an answer, I'm interested to hear it.
Now, I'm broadly fine with this (lorewise) minor retcon to a faction with mostly recent lore. However, I do think Lord Damocles has a point over the execution, and I think you are being a bit unfair when they stated their position on the same page in this very thread:
Emphasis mine. This seems like a reasonable lore narrative to introduce female Custodes. You could go a little further and state Custodes recruitment was broadened at the beginning of the Heresy in anticipation of heavy fighting (as the models do cover both settings).
As I said to Lord Damocles, their position does not acknowledge GW's intent, or that GW wants to be able to have Custodes present in 30k from the start. Any position that doesn't address these factors is, evidently, at odds with GW's intent, which is to retcon.
Now, I really like your comment that, perhaps during the Unification Wars, it was all male, and before the Unification Wars was done, there were women members too. But ultimately I believe it misses the question I'm asking.
If GW is to retcon, how should they do it? And to answer that question, one MUST address that retconning is going to be happening, whether they like it or not. If they don't like that question, they needn't bother answering.
Or the fact that they are seriously padding the numbers. Yeah, Star wars has worked out great for disney
And my fix would've been to not do that OR primaris and rather just have upscaled the normal marine side of things, let the armies profit of the synergy of the HH system. Would've pushed SoB and SoS as actual armies and or subparts of armies a lot earlier. Preferably in the timeframe that primaris got introduced as an actual consistent alternative and NOT fethed with the consistency because without the IP in a good condition, let's be blunt, gw has nothing else other plastic model companies didn't have 5 years ago.
Or the fact that they are seriously padding the numbers. Yeah, Star wars has worked out great for disney
Yes, I know - and that's not because of "representation" - that's because *they had terrible writers*. Representation isn't a problem - bad writing is. Again, I'm not commenting on *all of Star Wars* - I'm commenting on Mandalorian and Clone Wars. Equally as "representative", but massively popular. Why? Because they *were written well*.
And my fix would've been to not do that
That's not an answer to the question. Until you can address the actual question, don't bother replying.
JNAProductions wrote: Do you honestly believe that representation in non-Marine factions is equal to representation within Marines themselves?(A)
Especially since there's no 'Dex that's entirely female (B). Sisters of Silence are (the smaller) half of Talons. Sisters of Battle can take 885 points and 54 bodies without having to touch any models that are female.
Meanwhile, the only model in the Marine's 'Dex that can arguably be female, Servitors, are (1) Legends and (2) a four-person squad, with a max of three taken since it's not battleline. 12 models, 165 points.(C)
A: Strawman. I never ever thought the balance of the releases was correctly done. It's clear to anyone with their heads on their shoulder Marine overrepresentation and saturation since primaris and even before will longterm and has longterm crippled the universe.
B: Irrelevant the core of those are Either male only or female only. basically semantics.
C: Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe with a lack of fleshing out actual other gendered subparts, like SoB, SoS, etc..
i don't understand why GW mentioning female custodes exist in a codex short story/on social media means they can't expand the SoB or SoS model ranges? we're talking about two unrelated departments with this. it's like complaining that the waiter refilling people's water isn't in the kitchen helping the chef make your dinner faster
JNAProductions wrote: Do you honestly believe that representation in non-Marine factions is equal to representation within Marines themselves?(A)
Especially since there's no 'Dex that's entirely female (B). Sisters of Silence are (the smaller) half of Talons. Sisters of Battle can take 885 points and 54 bodies without having to touch any models that are female.
Meanwhile, the only model in the Marine's 'Dex that can arguably be female, Servitors, are (1) Legends and (2) a four-person squad, with a max of three taken since it's not battleline. 12 models, 165 points.(C)
A: Strawman. I never ever thought the balance of the releases was correctly done. It's clear to anyone with their heads on their shoulder Marine overrepresentation and saturation since primaris and even before will longterm and has longterm crippled the universe.
B: Irrelevant the core of those are Either male only or female only. basically semantics.
C: Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe with a lack of fleshing out actual other gendered subparts, like SoB, SoS, etc..
i don't understand why GW mentioning female custodes exist in a codex short story/on social media means they can't expand the SoB or SoS model ranges? we're talking about two unrelated departments with this. it's like complaining that the waiter refilling people's water isn't in the kitchen helping the chef make your dinner faster
Because GW is GW and a terrible company in regards to expanding the lore and models. They will go with the least effort hence you will see now some token female custodes but nothing relevant for SoB and SoS.
Though arguably consideirng the general quality of the recent books for custodes or the Battle for Garmon for HHgw hasn't produced anything of relevancy for some time now.
JNAProductions wrote: Do you honestly believe that representation in non-Marine factions is equal to representation within Marines themselves?(A)
Especially since there's no 'Dex that's entirely female (B). Sisters of Silence are (the smaller) half of Talons. Sisters of Battle can take 885 points and 54 bodies without having to touch any models that are female.
Meanwhile, the only model in the Marine's 'Dex that can arguably be female, Servitors, are (1) Legends and (2) a four-person squad, with a max of three taken since it's not battleline. 12 models, 165 points.(C)
A: Strawman. I never ever thought the balance of the releases was correctly done. It's clear to anyone with their heads on their shoulder Marine overrepresentation and saturation since primaris and even before will longterm and has longterm crippled the universe.
B: Irrelevant the core of those are Either male only or female only. basically semantics.
C: Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe with a lack of fleshing out actual other gendered subparts, like SoB, SoS, etc..
i don't understand why GW mentioning female custodes exist in a codex short story/on social media means they can't expand the SoB or SoS model ranges? we're talking about two unrelated departments with this. it's like complaining that the waiter refilling people's water isn't in the kitchen helping the chef make your dinner faster
I agree on Sisters of Battle but Sisters of Silence were ignored previously after being crammed in as a afterthought into the Custodes Codex, Non Marines tend to get very limited model releases and so if they do start making female Custodes, the vanishingly small likelhood of getting any more Sisters of Silence becomes even less IMO.
Or the fact that they are seriously padding the numbers. Yeah, Star wars has worked out great for disney
Yes, I know - and that's not because of "representation" - that's because *they had terrible writers*. Representation isn't a problem - bad writing is.
And where do you think that bad writing comes from? Not from stipulations of consultants and ESG that push that form or "representation" in institutionalised forms? Have you seen the recent qualifiers for the oscars?
Again, I'm not commenting on *all of Star Wars* - I'm commenting on Mandalorian and Clone Wars. Equally as "representative", but massively popular. Why? Because they *were written well*.
the mandalorian went downhill so hard after it turned into Bo katan the series it isn't even funny so saying that it's still massivly popular is a bit of misnomer aswell no?
And my fix would've been to not do that
That's not an answer to the question. Until you can address the actual question, don't bother replying.
I gave you a reply which you, specifically you, can't accept because you artificially moved the posts in your interest. It's still a perfectly valid reply. GW could've also a long time ago fired it's rules writers and replaced them with people that actually know what they are supposed to do, or atleast can write rules propperly, alas couldn't even have that considering the recent addition in HH now could we.
C: Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe with a lack of fleshing out actual other gendered subparts, like SoB, SoS, etc..
JNAProductions wrote: Do you honestly believe that representation in non-Marine factions is equal to representation within Marines themselves?(A)
Especially since there's no 'Dex that's entirely female (B). Sisters of Silence are (the smaller) half of Talons. Sisters of Battle can take 885 points and 54 bodies without having to touch any models that are female.
Meanwhile, the only model in the Marine's 'Dex that can arguably be female, Servitors, are (1) Legends and (2) a four-person squad, with a max of three taken since it's not battleline. 12 models, 165 points.(C)
A: Strawman. I never ever thought the balance of the releases was correctly done. It's clear to anyone with their heads on their shoulder Marine overrepresentation and saturation since primaris and even before will longterm and has longterm crippled the universe.
B: Irrelevant the core of those are Either male only or female only. basically semantics.
C: Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe with a lack of fleshing out actual other gendered subparts, like SoB, SoS, etc..
i don't understand why GW mentioning female custodes exist in a codex short story/on social media means they can't expand the SoB or SoS model ranges? we're talking about two unrelated departments with this. it's like complaining that the waiter refilling people's water isn't in the kitchen helping the chef make your dinner faster
Because GW is GW and a terrible company in regards to expanding the lore and models. They will go with the least effort hence you will see now some token female custodes but nothing relevant for SoB and SoS.
Though arguably consideirng the general quality of the recent books for custodes or the Battle for Garmon for HHgw hasn't produced anything of relevancy for some time now.
Sisters got a whole new range in the past few years so they’re fine for the moment. SoS can’t really expand a lot because their gimmick is “we kill psykers” isn’t that useful since psykers are less prevalent and most armies that use them only put a couple in, except for stuff like Grey Knights or Thousand Sons
At this point, I'm willing to say all the folks doom saying the recent codex as a complete fail, and likely the death of the Custodes as a faction, are simply hating on Custodes having women in the ranks now.
This is not the death of the faction, or 40k, or even the Sisters of Silence. It's simply a retcon. You don't like it. Got it. Anything else to add? Want to tell us what ice cream flavors are ruining ice cream?
Sisters got a whole new range in the past few years so they’re fine for the moment. SoS can’t really expand a lot because their gimmick is “we kill psykers” isn’t that useful since psykers are less prevalent and most armies that use them only put a couple in, except for stuff like Grey Knights or Thousand Sons
as if something like this would prevent GW from making it a full army
Or the fact that they are seriously padding the numbers. Yeah, Star wars has worked out great for disney
Yes, I know - and that's not because of "representation" - that's because *they had terrible writers*. Representation isn't a problem - bad writing is.
And where do you think that bad writing comes from?
Bad writers. Simple.
Again, I'm not commenting on *all of Star Wars* - I'm commenting on Mandalorian and Clone Wars. Equally as "representative", but massively popular. Why? Because they *were written well*.
the mandalorian went downhill so hard after it turned into Bo katan the series it isn't even funny so saying that it's still massivly popular is a bit of misnomer aswell no?
Like I said - bad writing. They *could* have written it well, and didn't/couldn't.
Again, representation/whatever ideology you hate isn't why things are written badly. Plenty of shows and material has representation/whatever ideology in spades, *but are actually written well*.
And my fix would've been to not do that
That's not an answer to the question. Until you can address the actual question, don't bother replying.
I gave you a reply which you, specifically you, can't accept. It's still a perfectly valid reply.
No, it isn't. You didn't and evidentally, cannot, answer the question posed to you.
It's like being asked "if I've bought two apples, and one apple costs one euro, how much do I need to pay", and you turning round and saying "well, I wouldn't buy two apples".If you can't accept the reality of the situation and the conditions of the question being asked, then you're not answering the question.
Stop being obtuse, and either answer the question, or kindly, do something better with both of our time.
JNAProductions wrote: Do you honestly believe that representation in non-Marine factions is equal to representation within Marines themselves?(A)
Especially since there's no 'Dex that's entirely female (B). Sisters of Silence are (the smaller) half of Talons. Sisters of Battle can take 885 points and 54 bodies without having to touch any models that are female.
Meanwhile, the only model in the Marine's 'Dex that can arguably be female, Servitors, are (1) Legends and (2) a four-person squad, with a max of three taken since it's not battleline. 12 models, 165 points.(C)
A: Strawman. I never ever thought the balance of the releases was correctly done. It's clear to anyone with their heads on their shoulder Marine overrepresentation and saturation since primaris and even before will longterm and has longterm crippled the universe.
B: Irrelevant the core of those are Either male only or female only. basically semantics.
C: Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe with a lack of fleshing out actual other gendered subparts, like SoB, SoS, etc..
i don't understand why GW mentioning female custodes exist in a codex short story/on social media means they can't expand the SoB or SoS model ranges? we're talking about two unrelated departments with this. it's like complaining that the waiter refilling people's water isn't in the kitchen helping the chef make your dinner faster
Because GW is GW and a terrible company in regards to expanding the lore and models. They will go with the least effort hence you will see now some token female custodes but nothing relevant for SoB and SoS.
Though arguably consideirng the general quality of the recent books for custodes or the Battle for Garmon for HHgw hasn't produced anything of relevancy for some time now.
Sisters got a whole new range in the past few years so they’re fine for the moment. SoS can’t really expand a lot because their gimmick is “we kill psykers” isn’t that useful since psykers are less prevalent and most armies that use them only put a couple in, except for stuff like Grey Knights or Thousand Sons
Sisters of Silence used to be we are immune to psykers and kill Psykers and Daemons and also a varied number of units in the lore - including cyber beast handlers, jetbikes,
C: Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe with a lack of fleshing out actual other gendered subparts, like SoB, SoS, etc..
Based on?
Well, aside from the DEATH OF EVERY faction that has female in it? Member when SoB were powerful, or no wait, what about Eldar, no wait, what about Dark Eldar, no wait, what about Guard?!? See? They're all dead now....because females got into their factions!! (/s)
C: Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe with a lack of fleshing out actual other gendered subparts, like SoB, SoS, etc..
Based on?
Well, aside from the DEATH OF EVERY faction that has female in it? Member when SoB were powerful, or no wait, what about Eldar, no wait, what about Dark Eldar, no wait, what about Guard?!? See? They're all dead now....because females got into their factions!! (/s)
If you strawman any harder i have to assume your profession is farmer.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: At this point, I'm willing to say all the folks doom saying the recent codex as a complete fail, and likely the death of the Custodes as a faction, are simply hating on Custodes having women in the ranks now.
This is not the death of the faction, or 40k, or even the Sisters of Silence. It's simply a retcon. You don't like it. Got it. Anything else to add? Want to tell us what ice cream flavors are ruining ice cream?
#Wherearethefemaleogryns
female ogryns have been here the whole time! blame the officers of the imperial guard for not being able to see the beauty of a female ogryn
Sisters got a whole new range in the past few years so they’re fine for the moment. SoS can’t really expand a lot because their gimmick is “we kill psykers” isn’t that useful since psykers are less prevalent and most armies that use them only put a couple in, except for stuff like Grey Knights or Thousand Sons
After GW had to realise during the end of the kirby era when they marginaly improved due to a survey that the demand for fleshed out SOB was there. The demand for SoB was always there. Gw just prefers to do it's things and could save a production line hence also the marines marines marines that are primaris. SoS on the other hand have allways been an afterthought shoved into Custodes in a way that made it obvious that they were an afterthought.
Or the fact that they are seriously padding the numbers. Yeah, Star wars has worked out great for disney
Yes, I know - and that's not because of "representation" - that's because *they had terrible writers*. Representation isn't a problem - bad writing is.
And where do you think that bad writing comes from?
Bad writers. Simple.
Again, I'm not commenting on *all of Star Wars* - I'm commenting on Mandalorian and Clone Wars. Equally as "representative", but massively popular. Why? Because they *were written well*.
the mandalorian went downhill so hard after it turned into Bo katan the series it isn't even funny so saying that it's still massivly popular is a bit of misnomer aswell no?
Like I said - bad writing. They *could* have written it well, and didn't/couldn't.
Again, representation/whatever ideology you hate isn't why things are written badly. Plenty of shows and material has representation/whatever ideology in spades, *but are actually written well*.
Agreed. To bring in another Franchise: 3 of the new Star Trek Series are actually good, 2 are rubbish. All of them are inclusive and show diversity. Sometimes you just happen to have terrible writers.
I can't really comment on the success, but Strange New Worlds is at least very positively perceived while Discovery is not, both of them showing the same amount of diversity. People that like to say "go woke go broke" and stuff like that usually overlook more important problems the respective movies have. (Maybe trek is not the best example because it always was inclusive and had representation and doesn't have to reach for new groups necessarily... on the other hand maybe it turned 60 years with 11 series because it was "woke" before that was cool. )
Or the fact that they are seriously padding the numbers. Yeah, Star wars has worked out great for disney
Yes, I know - and that's not because of "representation" - that's because *they had terrible writers*. Representation isn't a problem - bad writing is.
And where do you think that bad writing comes from?
Bad writers. Simple.
Again, I'm not commenting on *all of Star Wars* - I'm commenting on Mandalorian and Clone Wars. Equally as "representative", but massively popular. Why? Because they *were written well*.
the mandalorian went downhill so hard after it turned into Bo katan the series it isn't even funny so saying that it's still massivly popular is a bit of misnomer aswell no?
Like I said - bad writing. They *could* have written it well, and didn't/couldn't.
Again, representation/whatever ideology you hate isn't why things are written badly. Plenty of shows and material has representation/whatever ideology in spades, *but are actually written well*.
Agreed. To bring in another Franchise: 3 of the new Star Trek Series are actually good, 2 are rubbish. All of them are inclusive and show diversity. Sometimes you just happen to have terrible writers.
I can't really comment on the success, but Strange New Worlds is at least very positively perceived while Discovery is not, both of them showing the same amount of diversity. People that like to say "go woke go broke" and stuff like that usually overlook more important problems the respective movies have. (Maybe trek is not the best example because it always was inclusive and had representation and doesn't have to reach for new groups necessarily... on the other hand maybe it turned 60 years with 11 series because it was "woke" before that was cool. )
Lower Decks also does this. Plenty of representation but it doesn’t make it the center of the series so it just naturally flows into the often insane stories.
A bit of a tangent but I don’t think we can assume a couple of things.
Firstly, that Custodes models will continue to be cross-system between HH and 40k. While proper scaling was one of the main reasons for Primaris, it also meant we ‘couldn’t’ use them in HH where everyone is firstborn(ish) scale.
Maybe I am paranoid but with GW’s continuous restriction of cross-system armies, it isn’t outside the bounds of reason that we get separate HH and 40K versions of Custodes. One scaled to tower over Firstborn, the other over Primaris.
So given their love or retcon we could end up with the OG Custodes reverting to being male only, while the upscaled 40K Custodes retain both males and females.
Souleater wrote: A bit of a tangent but I don’t think we can assume a couple of things.
Firstly, that Custodes models will continue to be cross-system between HH and 40k. While proper scaling was one of the main reasons for Primaris, it also meant we ‘couldn’t’ use them in HH where everyone is firstborn(ish) scale.
Maybe I am paranoid but with GW’s continuous restriction of cross-system armies, it isn’t outside the bounds of reason that we get separate HH and 40K versions of Custodes. One scaled to tower over Firstborn, the other over Primaris.
So given their love or retcon we could end up with the OG Custodes reverting to being male only, while the upscaled 40K Custodes retain both males and females.
No, there are no different scales, apart some old marine kits that have not been updated. The primaris marines just are bigger. The new HH marines and the newer CSM are the same size, and normal humans in both systems are the same size.
Not gonna engage with most of this thread. Just gonna say that I'm happy with female Custodes and I'm on record in this forum as advocating for it.
As for "40k is fluid, maaan" I'll just say "sorta". There's a limit. Female Custodes isn't an issue. They're a recently introduced and fairly niche faction.
This thread is absolutely more of what I expected from the venerable dakka dakka then the general one. guess the mods for this subforum have a lighter touch
I for one am now shocked, disgusted, and appalled.
What happened to the Custodes? Hmm? I was appalled shocked and disgusted that change happened. So disgusted, appalled and shocked that I put John Blanche through the bill and sent the model my foot.
This is the only Custodes. The original Custodes.
CHANGE AM NOT ALLOWEDS.
And if everyone else doesn’t immediately burn their 40K books published outside of 1987?
I’ll thcweam and thcweam and thcweam until I sick!
I remember genuinely being a tad annoyed when they changed the Custodes to be superhuman giants. Originally they were just shirtless blokes with laser spears. 😂
This has nothing to do with lore, advancement or recon. GW will be driven by the bottom line. If Female custodies (which I love the idea of btw) end up being popular, they will bring it in more (probably into the SM range somehow). If it makes them easier to get the franchise “out there”, think Amazon show or feature film, they will make that move.
BUT if this backfires and proves detrimental to their ability to make money then as its only a very small subset of the 40K model range and figures, they will stop. It’s the smallest change they could make in this direction.
I am sort of bemused at this idea GW's going to roll out some whole "female Custodes range". You might get a character. You might get some head swaps. You might well get nothing beyond this one bit of fluff.
I'm sort of non-kidding +1 for going back to not so much Rogue Trader, but 2nd Ed lore. I feel Custodes, Sisters of Silence and yes, Grey Knights, have all suffered for being "armie-ified". To my mind these things should have been more like Assassins. They exist in the fluff. You can play them in game. But its a handful of models at most, that should be 150-300 points each, with all the upsides and downsides that brings.
But the ship has somewhat sailed.
It might be against the rules - but to chip in on the woke/non woke argument, I agree the issue "is" in the writing - but usually that's the difference of being woke or not. TNG, Deep Space Nine, Voyager etc were certainly "Progressive". But apart from maybe the most preachy of episodes, I don't remember ever thinking it was woke. Episodes covering political dilemmas were usually not expressed as [protagonist] says [contemporary rightwing opinion is bad] because [lol, how could anyone real who wasn't comically evil ever be rightwing?]. Discovery by contrast did this seemingly every other episode. Its just bad writing.
To be arrogant, its the difference between a sort of liberal rationalism and fighting a culture war. "Here's some persuasive arguments for why should agree with me" vs "you are bad and you should feel bad".
Basically its a writing thing - but its the mentality behind the writing thing. Which I think is why certain things at say Disney, Super Hero movies in general have all deteriorated together.
But anyway - I don't think this has much impact on GW having a throw away line that yes, there are female Custodes now. The claim there always were is a lie, which sort of insults the intelligence like any lie, but oh well. What's that Blizzard, you were planning the comedically crap Shadowlands story while writing Warcraft 3 decades previously? No, no you weren't.
One day there will inevitably be female Marines and after much salt that will turnout to not matter that much either.
Also the Custodes rules suck and I feel a bit bad for their players but not that bad as their obnoxious "you can't really hurt me if I get a bit above average on saves but I'm going to delete you if we connect" has always been infuriating. Then again I guess you could argue the same with say Death Guard and I like them. So maybe its just an anti-Imperial policy.
I don't care about female Custodes and I think they can make female Marines too. Why not? The transformation they undergo makes them acid drooling monsters anyway, who cares what else is under the power armour?
I'd be disappointed if they make models for them and they're sexualised, but I also wouldn't care because no one is putting a gun to my head making me buy models I don't like.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I feel like anyone who rode through the 4th-5th transition, with the Newcrons, wacky Grey Knights and Dumber Tyranids has become numb to such small changes as female Custodes.
For me at least, the difference is in the reason for the respective changes.
5th edition brought about a massive change to Necron lore. Not a change I was particularly fond of, but one that seemed to be rooted in expanding the faction (and models obviously) as the old lore was perhaps considered a little too limited in terms of being able to characterise the Necrons.
Meanwhile, female Custodes might be a smaller change in the grand scheme of things, but it's also a change that is driven entirely by people trying to force their political opinions into the game. This is what I take issue with.
If longstanding lore is going to be changed, I want it to be to tell better stories, not because someone on Twitter is screeching about gender representation.
To expand a little more, look at how this change has been handled.
Lord Damocles already suggested some reasonable ideas about how the Custodes could be forced to change their change their normal policies of taking in only the sons of noble houses. The daughters of noble houses joining a unit that has consisted only of men for thousands of years seems like it could make for an interesting story. It still doesn't seem like a necessary change, but at least it would be expanding on the existing lore to potentially tell an interesting story.
Hell, they could have done something truly revolutionary and focussed on main characters who aren't wearing Power Armour!
Instead, what we got was "There have always been female Custodes, they were just never mentioned before. If any previous lore would appear to contradict this, please insert it into your nearest Citadel(TM) Memory Hole."
It doesn't exactly suggest that this is being done to tell better stories, only to boost their ESG score.
I note, too, that many people are already celebrating this as a stunning and brave victory for women, even though we have yet to see what (if anything) it will mean in terms of models and/or stories. Almost as if it was a political and ideological victory, rather than any desire to improve the game. But there I go being cynical again.
vipoid wrote: If longstanding lore is going to be changed, I want it to be to tell better stories, not because someone on Twitter is screeching about gender representation.
Why would women being Custodes mean that they would be worse stories? Did the Custodes being all male lead to better stories?
Also, longstanding? Custodes being all men was only put in write in the 7th(?) ed codex. And there are sources prior to that (HH book 7) which make no mention of gender. It's hardly longstanding.
And that's before getting into "what makes something 'better' anyways?"
I note, too, that many people are already celebrating this as a stunning and brave victory for women, even though we have yet to see what (if anything) it will mean in terms of models and/or stories. Almost as if it was a political and ideological victory, rather than any desire to improve the game.
Sidestepping the tone here, some might argue that this *is* an improvement of the game.
when people argue that female models for factions that were exclusive male are important because it will get girls into the hobby and not just boys and not having it is sending the wrong message
I have to say that the problem in attracting girls is not that the bodyguard of the dead Emperor of the fascist regime is male only and the message that is send out is the right one, the Imperium are not the good guys
In how female Custodes make the game better? I don't know, of course woman can commit genocide too it is nice for equality to bring that aspect to the setting, but this does not improve the game
kodos wrote: I have to say that the problem in attracting girls is not that the bodyguard of the dead Emperor of the fascist regime is male only and the message that is send out is the right one, the Imperium are not the good guys
I don't think anyone's claiming the Imperium is good because they have women serving.
But you know what *is* a turn-off for the women I know? The people who get up in arms about more women toy soldiers.
In how female Custodes make the game better? I don't know, of course woman can commit genocide too it is nice for equality to bring that aspect to the setting, but this does not improve the game
The game rules won’t be improved, no, but the modeling and painting opportunities are. And the opportunity to add more flavor to one’s armies has opened up, in that the option for all male forces has not been taken away from those who want to model them but new options are there for those who don’t need to feel bound by it.
Also, having female Custodes or marines is no more political than saying No Female Custodes or marines. The only difference is who feels excluded now.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I don't think anyone's claiming the Imperium is good because they have women serving.
you should look to the social media how the Imperium is now the peak of humanity
Sgt_Smudge wrote: ... for you.
And, conversely, how does it make it worse?
what does it change about the game? Nothing, it changes nothing about the game at all
so claiming it makes the game better is a little off
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: And the opportunity to add more flavor to one’s armies has opened up
yeah, for those who only support what is officially allowed by GW, it is a massive improvement of course
but the cult of officialdom is also the one raging at the moment because GW never retcons something that is official
for 40k overall?, that this is even a 6 page topic and controversial at all just tells me that it does not make 40k better but just shows the bad state of this whole thing
kodos wrote: for 40k overall?, that this is even a 6 page topic and controversial at all just tells me that it does not make 40k better but just shows the bad state of this whole thing
There's lots of things that are controversial that really shouldn't be.
For instance-trans women are women, and trans men are men. That shouldn't be controversial-respect people and let them be who they are.
But to a lot of people, that's a bridge too far. That doesn't make it reasonable.
kodos wrote: for 40k overall?, that this is even a 6 page topic and controversial at all just tells me that it does not make 40k better but just shows the bad state of this whole thing
The state is bad because people can’t accept more inclusion because they somehow see some kind of agenda where there isn’t one.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I don't think anyone's claiming the Imperium is good because they have women serving.
you should look to the social media how the Imperium is now the peak of humanity
Sgt_Smudge wrote: ... for you.
And, conversely, how does it make it worse?
what does it change about the game? Nothing, it changes nothing about the game at all
so claiming it makes the game better is a little off
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: And the opportunity to add more flavor to one’s armies has opened up
yeah, for those who only support what is officially allowed by GW, it is a massive improvement of course
but the cult of officialdom is also the one raging at the moment because GW never retcons something that is official
Not just for those in the cult of officialdom, but also those who want to be able to share pictures of their work online. People like to show off their conversions and paint jobs, but when dozens of people start screaming at them because their conversions don’t fit the off oak lore, it can kill enthusiasm just as dead. The problem with GW’s official line isn’t that it prevents creatives from making what they want. It’s that it gives all kinds of people from fluff purists to trolls a reason and opportunity to be as toxic as possible. Shutting that down would make the game more welcoming, especially for people who mostly interact with the hobby on forums and Facebook, where this toxicity thrives best.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Grinskull, do you think Custodes were not heavily rule 34’ed when they were all men? Have you not seen the pillar Custodes, or even the early Custodian miniature MDG posted earlier? That battle was already lost.
kodos wrote: for 40k overall?, that this is even a 6 page topic and controversial at all just tells me that it does not make 40k better but just shows the bad state of this whole thing
Nah. It shows there's still a reactionary rump hanging on to their fading relevance.
Not just for those in the cult of officialdom, but also those who want to be able to share pictures of their work online. People like to show off their conversions and paint jobs, but when dozens of people start screaming at them because their conversions don’t fit the off oak lore, it can kill enthusiasm just as dead. The problem with GW’s official line isn’t that it prevents creatives from making what they want. It’s that it gives all kinds of people from fluff purists to trolls a reason and opportunity to be as toxic as possible. Shutting that down would make the game more welcoming, especially for people who mostly interact with the hobby on forums and Facebook, where this toxicity thrives best.
never really seen that happening, but I am also not part of the GW exclusive hobby channels that even don't allow 3rd party models to be posted
like people posting female Space Marines for a while now be it 3D printed or 3rd party models or conversions, without a social media meltdown
what did you expect to happen, of course this is now a good reason to 3D print models in bikini armour and put them on the table because if anybody finds it not appropriate you can counter it with this being official and the original Custodes were all topless
Can someone please explain how this is an actual retcon and not just a clarification?
I've read the codex pages and apart from one stylistic word choice it's all been pretty neutral when discussing Custodes. Which makes sense if you accept there was supposed to be stories with female Custodes in them from launch.
Lammia wrote: Can someone please explain how this is an actual retcon and not just a clarification?
I've read the codex pages and apart from one stylistic word choice it's all been pretty neutral when discussing Custodes. Which makes sense if you accept there was supposed to be stories with female Custodes in them from launch.
So yes, it has previously been explicit they've all been male, not sure why so many people I've seen talking about this over the past day have been stating that there was never anything saying they were.
Considering they are from the "matured" cycle of the universe which has an established canon that is still a retcon.
Lammia wrote: Can someone please explain how this is an actual retcon and not just a clarification?
I've read the codex pages and apart from one stylistic word choice it's all been pretty neutral when discussing Custodes. Which makes sense if you accept there was supposed to be stories with female Custodes in them from launch.
So yes, it has previously been explicit they've all been male, not sure why so many people I've seen talking about this over the past day have been stating that there was never anything saying they were.
Considering they are from the "matured" cycle of the universe which has an established canon that is still a retcon.
And that's a stylish quote, but it's pretty devoid of the context of the rest of the page. It's also a contradiction to earlier Codexes that used clunky, but explicitly gender neutral terms.
Why didn't people have a meltdown when the exact same thing happened with Imperial Knights? Or did it happen and I just do not remember it?
But like I said on the other forum, I think it is related to how massive, muscular, super-powered hulk that marines and custodes are is a male power fantasy, and some men feel very threatened if women are allowed to be that.
kodos wrote: when people argue that female models for factions that were exclusive male are important because it will get girls into the hobby and not just boys and not having it is sending the wrong message
I have to say that the problem in attracting girls is not that the bodyguard of the dead Emperor of the fascist regime is male only and the message that is send out is the right one, the Imperium are not the good guys
In how female Custodes make the game better? I don't know, of course woman can commit genocide too it is nice for equality to bring that aspect to the setting, but this does not improve the game
It'll make at least a handful of the people toxic to women quit the hobby, and nothing opens the hobby for women more then driving out the gaks who harass them
I love it. Love the idea of it, love the execution. Love it. I hope they don't do any over-sexualised models too and they're just battle-hardened and enligtened super-warriors like the men.
When it comes to things like this, I am dubious about diversity for diversity's sake (ie we need to have ??% of ?? minority to ensure we are diverse, it's better posed as "why don't we have more of ?? minority and how can we create something new or change a practice to be inclusive and attractive so that no one is unreasonabky excluded) but at the same time I have to ask myself... what the harm is, or is there any benefit?
For example, if being a certain gender or even ethnicity is intrinsic to a character or identity, then I would have to question the merit to a change in those things and also ask why not create something unique to represent your vision? For example, James Bond. I'd argue James Bond being a man is intrinsic to his character. Rather than make Jamie Bond, create a female secret agent that has her own proclivities, identity etc etc. On the other hand, Moriarty from Sherlock Holmes, i'd argue that gender and even ethnicity are not relevant to the character and what they serve to the story (although the time period and values associated with that period in which that particular rendition of SH is being told may affect such a portrayal). Hell, even Sherlock Holmes. I think Elementary did a great job in this area.
In terms of Custodes, there's nothing at all in their organisation or character that makes them being male intrinsic to their existence, character or portrayal. They're bodyguards that train in different ways, work solo (but can work in groups), are philosophers etc etc... none of that is in any way exclusively connected to any gender or ethnicity.
Space Marines, on the other hand, have a whole 'brotherhood' and 'brother lodge' aspect, not to mention a very very deep history and lore of Space Marine = Man and ONLY Man AND we have sister's of battle as an alternative counterpart and they get to do their own thing and play in different ways, which is great. Also though, why can't the developments with Primaris allow a change to include ladies? Could Slaanesh also allow for gender changes? Absolutely yes to both.
So yes, bring on the change and anything reasonable to open up the hobby to as many people as possible.
kodos wrote: when people argue that female models for factions that were exclusive male are important because it will get girls into the hobby and not just boys and not having it is sending the wrong message
I have to say that the problem in attracting girls is not that the bodyguard of the dead Emperor of the fascist regime is male only and the message that is send out is the right one, the Imperium are not the good guys
In how female Custodes make the game better? I don't know, of course woman can commit genocide too it is nice for equality to bring that aspect to the setting, but this does not improve the game
It'll make at least a handful of the people toxic to women quit the hobby, and nothing opens the hobby for women more then driving out the gaks who harass them
and already seen the first ones now using this to get rule 34 on the table, doubt that this is makes people feel better
if GW would finally do something to get the nazis out.....
Crimson wrote: Why didn't people have a meltdown when the exact same thing happened with Imperial Knights? Or did it happen and I just do not remember it?
But like I said on the other forum, I think it is related to how massive, muscular, super-powered hulk that marines and custodes are is a male power fantasy, and some men feel very threatened if women are allowed to be that.
Grifters are much much worse than they were when the Knight change happened. I'm not sure if I mentioned it in this thread or the other basically identical one but the biggest market for Warhammer "content" (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense) is drama and rage baiting.
Some people will watch a video about the Burning of Prospero but they're likely going to be that channel's subscribers or if the creator is lucky it might break out into the wider 40k fandom if its good enough.
The number of people who will watch an "X has RUINED Warhammer, GW COLLAPSING" is much higher and if that breaks out of the Warhammer bubble it will only pick up steam and roll into a massive gakball until people find something new to rage about.
This whole thing will be over in a few weeks when the ragetubers aren't generating clicks anymore.
Crimson wrote: Why didn't people have a meltdown when the exact same thing happened with Imperial Knights? Or did it happen and I just do not remember it?
I can vaguely recall something about it. IIrc there was a "women can't handle the physical stress of it." aspect to it that was gross, but there was a shared link to a study done by the Marine Corps or other U.S. military branch about compared bone injury frequency, or something, that was kinda shocking.
Crimson wrote: Why didn't people have a meltdown when the exact same thing happened with Imperial Knights? Or did it happen and I just do not remember it?
one point here is that AC was the cheap viable army to get into 40k for a long time even compared to other wargames and not just GW cheap combined with easy to paint (gold primer and a wash) and low model count unlike knights which were still expensive, not easy to paint despite being less models and not really easy to play or a viable army in their own, specially not for beginners
so you have a lot of people new to 40k, not knowing that constant change is part of "the hobby", reading lore that is not well written and missing the better stuff from the past, first seeing their army nerfed in get into the need to buy more to keep playing, than seeing their first full reset of the rules and a re-released codex with worse rules and a retcon in the lore combine this with people being young and unstable in a time were they search stability with a hobby and found one that was marketed as stable but isn't at all and if you add in that teens and young adults look for certain idols and feel related to their army were any change in the level of "always has been" hurts much more than it should
the misogynic part has always been there in the hobby and always was vocal about such things while being a minority but Warhammer has more people following the lore than ever and social medias do their part to grow this into pop culture and the less stable society looks like the worse is the reaction in the pop culture if change is happening
if 40k would have been popular back than the way it is now and social medias being a thing, the lore change in 3rd/4th or 5th/6th would have caused similar issues
My Initial reaction was no. however, after some level headed responses from the other side of the debate, I concluded that actually, I can see a place for female custodes, even female space marines, were it handled well. Warcoms response disheartened me on that, and area's of the community who only seemed to like it for the political point scoring also put me off.
I'm put in mind of the bene gesserit in Dune, and them being all female. I would not like it if somebody decided to change that. The same is true for the sisters, both of battle and silence. In stories, an all female group would very likely behave differently then a group of mixed genders. This being the case, I think the same can be said for all male groups, as with the space marines. I can't remember which horus heresy book it was, but there were a group of scouts who after experiencing some form of loss, came across as lost boys, and it changed how I viewed the Space Marines.
I instinctively would like to say the same of the Custodes, but objectively can't. In lore, it seem's only tradition kept them male. I'd prefer that it be handled that yes, they were always male, but now, things have changed. Instead of just telling us that it's always been that way and we missed it.
As for the reasons behind it, I don't know what caused the change. I would like somebody to explain why representation is a good thing. Personally I think it's morally neutral, and it's implentation can be positive or negative. I worry that throwing this lore into the custodes may come across as tokenism.
I also worry from the political points scoring crowd, that there reason for praising this is that they have a system of thinking that is all about breaking people down by their immutable characteristics, and seeking to engineer society, and in turn, societies entertainment, by those same immutable characteristics.I don't like where this goes.Outside of 40k. I love 40k, but it's not that important to worry about it here alone.
As for bringing more people into the hobby. (Ignoring excluding those who you would describe as mysogistic bigots). My admittedly anecdotal experience is that women who have sisters armies tend to be the beleaguered Wives and Girlfriends of well meaning, but naive hobbiests who though that "This is a girl faction, you'll like them". It's slightly sexist. When Women are left to their own devices in the hobby, I tend to see them migrate to Eldar, becuase they're aesthetically beautiful, Tyranids, Because they're cute, and Orks, because they're funny. None of these are because they're women, and I don't think adding female custodes will change that.
I hope that wasn't too rambling, I just wanted to get my thoughts out.
My Initial reaction was no. however, after some level headed responses from the other side of the debate, I concluded that actually, I can see a place for female custodes, even female space marines, were it handled well. Warcoms response disheartened me on that, and area's of the community who only seemed to like it for the political point scoring also put me off.
I'm put in mind of the bene gesserit in Dune, and them being all female. I would not like it if somebody decided to change that. The same is true for the sisters, both of battle and silence. In stories, an all female group would very likely behave differently then a group of mixed genders. This being the case, I think the same can be said for all male groups, as with the space marines. I can't remember which horus heresy book it was, but there were a group of scouts who after experiencing some form of loss, came across as lost boys, and it changed how I viewed the Space Marines.
I instinctively would like to say the same of the Custodes, but objectively can't. In lore, it seem's only tradition kept them male. I'd prefer that it be handled that yes, they were always male, but now, things have changed. Instead of just telling us that it's always been that way and we missed it.
As for the reasons behind it, I don't know what caused the change. I would like somebody to explain why representation is a good thing. Personally I think it's morally neutral, and it's implentation can be positive or negative. I worry that throwing this lore into the custodes may come across as tokenism.
I also worry from the political points scoring crowd, that there reason for praising this is that they have a system of thinking that is all about breaking people down by their immutable characteristics, and seeking to engineer society, and in turn, societies entertainment, by those same immutable characteristics.I don't like where this goes.Outside of 40k. I love 40k, but it's not that important to worry about it here alone.
As for bringing more people into the hobby. (Ignoring excluding those who you would describe as mysogistic bigots). My admittedly anecdotal experience is that women who have sisters armies tend to be the beleaguered Wives and Girlfriends of well meaning, but naive hobbiests who though that "This is a girl faction, you'll like them". It's slightly sexist. When Women are left to their own devices in the hobby, I tend to see them migrate to Eldar, becuase they're aesthetically beautiful, Tyranids, Because they're cute, and Orks, because they're funny. None of these are because they're women, and I don't think adding female custodes will change that.
I hope that wasn't too rambling, I just wanted to get my thoughts out.
Edited for clarity.
It dilutes sisters of silence. It just seems like empty tokenism, sisters of silence painted gold basically already fit the bill, so it really feels like forced pandering/tokenism. I'm not sure what the progressive obsession is with trying to sanitize a grimdark dystopian setting, but the lack of irony present is palpable. Like the only two possible reactions are total love for the change or blind hatred for it, like cynical indifference for something one thought long dead anyway wasn't a perfectly cromulent third option.
I'm not sure you can dilute Sisters of Silence when their presence in the lore and tabletop was already as thin as hydrogen gas.
They aren't even a faction, they are what 2-3 kits no one ever plays because they have always been awful and the lore already forgets they exist 99 times out of 100.
Just by this lore change I expect femcustodes conversions to be 100 times more common than the SoS on tables if only because horny players that want big powerful women to step on them.
Tyran wrote: I'm not sure you can dilute Sisters of Silence when their presence in the lore and tabletop was already as thin as hydrogen gas.
They aren't even a faction, they are what 2-3 kits no one ever plays because they have always been awful and the lore already forgets they exist 99 times out of 100.
Just by this lore change I expect femcustodes conversions to be 100 times more common on tables if only because horny players that want big powerful women to step on them.
one kit that builds three units, plus a character built out of the same kit, plus a named character that comes packaged with a named custodian. oh, and a space marine rhino (not even a fancy upgrade sprue rhino like SoB get)
sisters do actually have a solid role in the army as "the models that aren't 50 ppm" and that won't be changing, so i expect SoS to be played as much as they ever have. the gameplay need is still there; as you say, people didn't care about the lore before and this won't change that
My Initial reaction was no. however, after some level headed responses from the other side of the debate, I concluded that actually, I can see a place for female custodes, even female space marines, were it handled well. Warcoms response disheartened me on that, and area's of the community who only seemed to like it for the political point scoring also put me off.
I'm put in mind of the bene gesserit in Dune, and them being all female. I would not like it if somebody decided to change that. The same is true for the sisters, both of battle and silence. In stories, an all female group would very likely behave differently then a group of mixed genders. This being the case, I think the same can be said for all male groups, as with the space marines. I can't remember which horus heresy book it was, but there were a group of scouts who after experiencing some form of loss, came across as lost boys, and it changed how I viewed the Space Marines.
I instinctively would like to say the same of the Custodes, but objectively can't. In lore, it seem's only tradition kept them male. I'd prefer that it be handled that yes, they were always male, but now, things have changed. Instead of just telling us that it's always been that way and we missed it.
As for the reasons behind it, I don't know what caused the change. I would like somebody to explain why representation is a good thing. Personally I think it's morally neutral, and it's implentation can be positive or negative. I worry that throwing this lore into the custodes may come across as tokenism.
I also worry from the political points scoring crowd, that there reason for praising this is that they have a system of thinking that is all about breaking people down by their immutable characteristics, and seeking to engineer society, and in turn, societies entertainment, by those same immutable characteristics.I don't like where this goes.Outside of 40k. I love 40k, but it's not that important to worry about it here alone.
As for bringing more people into the hobby. (Ignoring excluding those who you would describe as mysogistic bigots). My admittedly anecdotal experience is that women who have sisters armies tend to be the beleaguered Wives and Girlfriends of well meaning, but naive hobbiests who though that "This is a girl faction, you'll like them". It's slightly sexist. When Women are left to their own devices in the hobby, I tend to see them migrate to Eldar, becuase they're aesthetically beautiful, Tyranids, Because they're cute, and Orks, because they're funny. None of these are because they're women, and I don't think adding female custodes will change that.
I hope that wasn't too rambling, I just wanted to get my thoughts out.
Edited for clarity.
Representation is simply the act of re presenting a persons views on behalf of them if they are absent, this is why our politicians are called representatives (whether they actually do this is another topic), the effort to "bring before" a persons or groups views for them to another group or person.
possibly not allowed, delete if so.
Spoiler:
this however has an alternative meaning on the political left, within this context representation is the suppression of the selected out group in favour of the selected in group, so one could supress the views and ideals of a majority or minority in favour of those within you "tribe", this obviously manifests very differently depending on many factors such as nation, chosen groups etc.
in this case it has been decided that representation is the suppression of those who want all male custodes in favour of those that want multiple sexes in the custodes, it is an exclusion of one group in favour of another and a quick perusal of the cess pit that is twitter will show you that everyone is very much aware of this fact and all are behaving very poorly in response to something that is quite frankly in my opinion not that much of a big deal and I am not making a moral judgement on this change.
Then we have GW and their very poor statement "they have always been there", well we know this is a lie, people do not like being gaslighted and lied to so this has kicked up a stink too from what I have seen, in this case rightly so as it shows a fundamental disrespect to their loyal customers and fans, saying nothing would have been better or at least an admission its a change.
Tyran wrote: I'm not sure you can dilute Sisters of Silence when their presence in the lore and tabletop was already as thin as hydrogen gas.
They aren't even a faction, they are what 2-3 kits no one ever plays because they have always been awful and the lore already forgets they exist 99 times out of 100.
Just by this lore change I expect femcustodes conversions to be 100 times more common on tables if only because horny players that want big powerful women to step on them.
one kit that builds three units, plus a character built out of the same kit, plus a named character that comes packaged with a named custodian. oh, and a space marine rhino (not even a fancy upgrade sprue rhino like SoB get)
sisters do actually have a solid role in the army as "the models that aren't 50 ppm" and that won't be changing, so i expect SoS to be played as much as they ever have. the gameplay need is still there; as you say, people didn't care about the lore before and this won't change that
They don't fill that role though. There is so little that they bring that you take more good stuff instead of wasting points on SoS.
They actually have interesting fluff, but it's stuck in a 'Talons' bog and can't really get any momentum.
My Initial reaction was no. however, after some level headed responses from the other side of the debate, I concluded that actually, I can see a place for female custodes, even female space marines, were it handled well. Warcoms response disheartened me on that, and area's of the community who only seemed to like it for the political point scoring also put me off.
I'm put in mind of the bene gesserit in Dune, and them being all female. I would not like it if somebody decided to change that. The same is true for the sisters, both of battle and silence. In stories, an all female group would very likely behave differently then a group of mixed genders. This being the case, I think the same can be said for all male groups, as with the space marines. I can't remember which horus heresy book it was, but there were a group of scouts who after experiencing some form of loss, came across as lost boys, and it changed how I viewed the Space Marines.
I instinctively would like to say the same of the Custodes, but objectively can't. In lore, it seem's only tradition kept them male. I'd prefer that it be handled that yes, they were always male, but now, things have changed. Instead of just telling us that it's always been that way and we missed it.
As for the reasons behind it, I don't know what caused the change. I would like somebody to explain why representation is a good thing. Personally I think it's morally neutral, and it's implentation can be positive or negative. I worry that throwing this lore into the custodes may come across as tokenism.
I also worry from the political points scoring crowd, that there reason for praising this is that they have a system of thinking that is all about breaking people down by their immutable characteristics, and seeking to engineer society, and in turn, societies entertainment, by those same immutable characteristics.I don't like where this goes.Outside of 40k. I love 40k, but it's not that important to worry about it here alone.
As for bringing more people into the hobby. (Ignoring excluding those who you would describe as mysogistic bigots). My admittedly anecdotal experience is that women who have sisters armies tend to be the beleaguered Wives and Girlfriends of well meaning, but naive hobbiests who though that "This is a girl faction, you'll like them". It's slightly sexist. When Women are left to their own devices in the hobby, I tend to see them migrate to Eldar, becuase they're aesthetically beautiful, Tyranids, Because they're cute, and Orks, because they're funny. None of these are because they're women, and I don't think adding female custodes will change that.
I hope that wasn't too rambling, I just wanted to get my thoughts out.
Edited for clarity.
Representation is simply the act of re presenting a persons views on behalf of them if they are absent, this is why our politicians are called representatives (whether they actually do this is another topic), the effort to "bring before" a persons or groups views for them to another group or person.
possibly not allowed, delete if so.
Spoiler:
this however has an alternative meaning on the political left, within this context representation is the suppression of the selected out group in favour of the selected in group, so one could supress the views and ideals of a majority or minority in favour of those within you "tribe", this obviously manifests very differently depending on many factors such as nation, chosen groups etc.
in this case it has been decided that representation is the suppression of those who want all male custodes in favour of those that want multiple sexes in the custodes, it is an exclusion of one group in favour of another and a quick perusal of the cess pit that is twitter will show you that everyone is very much aware of this fact and all are behaving very poorly in response to something that is quite frankly in my opinion not that much of a big deal and I am not making a moral judgement on this change.
Then we have GW and their very poor statement "they have always been there", well we know this is a lie, people do not like being gaslighted and lied to so this has kicked up a stink too from what I have seen, in this case rightly so as it shows a fundamental disrespect to their loyal customers and fans, saying nothing would have been better or at least an admission its a change.
I think that's a pretty fair assessment of it, I'm more upset by people celebrating that they think it will make their political opponents leave the hobby than the change, but the gaslighting just comes off as one side doing a victory lap. The gaslighting especially isn't helpful, an almost universal reaction was people having 1984 flashbacks.
My Initial reaction was no. however, after some level headed responses from the other side of the debate, I concluded that actually, I can see a place for female custodes, even female space marines, were it handled well. Warcoms response disheartened me on that, and area's of the community who only seemed to like it for the political point scoring also put me off.
I'm put in mind of the bene gesserit in Dune, and them being all female. I would not like it if somebody decided to change that. The same is true for the sisters, both of battle and silence. In stories, an all female group would very likely behave differently then a group of mixed genders. This being the case, I think the same can be said for all male groups, as with the space marines. I can't remember which horus heresy book it was, but there were a group of scouts who after experiencing some form of loss, came across as lost boys, and it changed how I viewed the Space Marines.
I instinctively would like to say the same of the Custodes, but objectively can't. In lore, it seem's only tradition kept them male. I'd prefer that it be handled that yes, they were always male, but now, things have changed. Instead of just telling us that it's always been that way and we missed it.
As for the reasons behind it, I don't know what caused the change. I would like somebody to explain why representation is a good thing. Personally I think it's morally neutral, and it's implentation can be positive or negative. I worry that throwing this lore into the custodes may come across as tokenism.
I also worry from the political points scoring crowd, that there reason for praising this is that they have a system of thinking that is all about breaking people down by their immutable characteristics, and seeking to engineer society, and in turn, societies entertainment, by those same immutable characteristics.I don't like where this goes.Outside of 40k. I love 40k, but it's not that important to worry about it here alone.
As for bringing more people into the hobby. (Ignoring excluding those who you would describe as mysogistic bigots). My admittedly anecdotal experience is that women who have sisters armies tend to be the beleaguered Wives and Girlfriends of well meaning, but naive hobbiests who though that "This is a girl faction, you'll like them". It's slightly sexist. When Women are left to their own devices in the hobby, I tend to see them migrate to Eldar, becuase they're aesthetically beautiful, Tyranids, Because they're cute, and Orks, because they're funny. None of these are because they're women, and I don't think adding female custodes will change that.
I hope that wasn't too rambling, I just wanted to get my thoughts out.
Edited for clarity.
Representation is simply the act of re presenting a persons views on behalf of them if they are absent, this is why our politicians are called representatives (whether they actually do this is another topic), the effort to "bring before" a persons or groups views for them to another group or person.
possibly not allowed, delete if so.
Spoiler:
this however has an alternative meaning on the political left, within this context representation is the suppression of the selected out group in favour of the selected in group, so one could supress the views and ideals of a majority or minority in favour of those within you "tribe", this obviously manifests very differently depending on many factors such as nation, chosen groups etc.
in this case it has been decided that representation is the suppression of those who want all male custodes in favour of those that want multiple sexes in the custodes, it is an exclusion of one group in favour of another and a quick perusal of the cess pit that is twitter will show you that everyone is very much aware of this fact and all are behaving very poorly in response to something that is quite frankly in my opinion not that much of a big deal and I am not making a moral judgement on this change.
Then we have GW and their very poor statement "they have always been there", well we know this is a lie, people do not like being gaslighted and lied to so this has kicked up a stink too from what I have seen, in this case rightly so as it shows a fundamental disrespect to their loyal customers and fans, saying nothing would have been better or at least an admission its a change.
What if I told you there are Horus Heresy books with male and female Custodes in them?
I'm put in mind of the bene gesserit in Dune, and them being all female. I would not like it if somebody decided to change that.
Someone did change that - the original author. The entire reason for the Bene Gesserit to be all female was so that it would be noteworthy that a male had their powers.
And that's the thing about gender-locking a group in a setting - it's only interesting if it serves some sort of narrative purpose. The Sisters of Battle arguably serve a narrative purpose, even if it's a badly dated and not very good one. But there is no narrative purpose that is served by Custodes being all men. They're elite warriors... but we know from the rest of the setting that women are just as capable of being elite warriors. They don't even have the bad-science crutch that Marines have of the geneseed only working on men because reasons. So they're just men for the sake of them all being men. It does nothing other than apply a completely arbitrary restriction. So why have it there?
I was wondering about the claims that Custodes have always been a male organisation, so I went and read their blurb in all the rulebooks I own. I could only find neutral references for them in the 2,3,6,7,8th rulebooks. I'm interested to know when the first references to them being all male were, as the idea that it is long established lore being changed does not seem accurate from my limited search.
I'm thinking that it is probably their first codex, but I'm not sure and am wondering if anyone else knows.
What if I told you there are Horus Heresy books with male and female Custodes in them?
yeah I am aware of the small transcript going around I have seen it, its referring to sisters of silence and Custodes, with this new retcon one could now interpret it as a possible example of female custodes but that is a retroactive justification.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trickstick wrote: I was wondering about the claims that Custodes have always been a male organisation, so I went and read their blurb in all the rulebooks I own. I could only find neutral references for them in the 2,3,6,7,8th rulebooks. I'm interested to know when the first references to them being all male were, as the idea that it is long established lore being changed does not seem accurate from my limited search.
I'm thinking that it is probably their first codex, but I'm not sure and am wondering if anyone else knows.
Rogue trader.
"These men never leave Earth and only rarely leave the Imperial palace"
I'm put in mind of the bene gesserit in Dune, and them being all female. I would not like it if somebody decided to change that.
Someone did change that - the original author. The entire reason for the Bene Gesserit to be all female was so that it would be noteworthy that a male had their powers.
And that's the thing about gender-locking a group in a setting - it's only interesting if it serves some sort of narrative purpose. The Sisters of Battle arguably serve a narrative purpose, even if it's a badly dated and not very good one. But there is no narrative purpose that is served by Custodes being all men. They're elite warriors... but we know from the rest of the setting that women are just as capable of being elite warriors. They don't even have the bad-science crutch that Marines have of the geneseed only working on men because reasons. So they're just men for the sake of them all being men. It does nothing other than apply a completely arbitrary restriction. So why have it there?
An argument could be made whether Paul was bene Gesserit, or was not, but had their powers. He certainly wasn't controlled by them. I think I might be making a distinction without a difference (or just being a pedant), so won't press it further (also, 40k thread, not Dune)
As for why have it there? I'm not sure if that's directed at me or more a general statement? If at me, then i beleive it was already in my post, but for expediency, I basically said I couldn't think of an objective reason, any reason I had would be subjective.
Lammia wrote: What if I told you there are Horus Heresy books with male and female Custodes in them?
For reals? That's interesting to know.
Edit: How recently were those published?
Echoes of Eternity has some very Legio Custodes coded reference to 'men and women' that protect the Emperor. Though as someone has pointed out, there are those assuming it's just SoS.
There's also the story of earlier books supposedly ment to have a Custode woman in it but that getting vetoed by management because they thought it would mess with the planned Custode release.
"These men never leave Earth and only rarely leave the Imperial palace"
whoooooole lot has changed since then haha
Yeah I usually consider rogue trader as an entirely different setting, it is so different. Interesting information though.
It's also not proof of them being all male, as in the English language, mixed-gender groups are often referred to using male nomenclature. Like if you talk about the guys at work, you could be referring to all of your male and female colleagues, not just the men.
Just reiterating my post from the other thread: Female Custodes. Cool. I hope that everyone enjoys the increased modeling options and representation, sincerely.
Lammia wrote: What if I told you there are Horus Heresy books with male and female Custodes in them?
For reals? That's interesting to know.
Edit: How recently were those published?
Echoes of Eternity has some very Legio Custodes coded reference to 'men and women' that protect the Emperor. Though as someone has pointed out, there are those assuming it's just SoS.
That very much comes across as ' ah yes, we'll increase female representation by wholey denying existing female representation'.
The fact that female Custodes were supposedly vetoed elsewhere would indicate that the female protectors of the Emperor were supposed to be understood as the existing and well known female protectors of the Emperor (ie the Sisters of Silence) and not unknown non existent female protectors of the Emperor (ie femstodes).
BobtheInquisitor wrote: You think Sisters of Silence are well known? In terms of models available to buy or books available to read, they’re the consolation prize.
Ehhhh.....they have solid lore, and solid rules (at least in 30k). You're correct in that they need more models, but I'm seeing that as more of a problem to be solved with MORE MODELS than just "sidineing" them. To each thier own, and I again wish the best to those that celebrate this change, but don't the fans of the SoS deserve a bit more?
In terms of positive representation, I'm not sure that 'Women forced into a vow of silence and kept hidden away on the moon because 'normal' people find their presence disgusting' are tipping the scales in the right direction, honestly.
In terms of gameplay, Sisters of Silence are by their very nature too limited to exist as a viable faction in their own right. They should always have been an auxiliary unit added to Custodes or Inquisition forces, or a 'colour' unit added to specific scenarios for campaign gaming, rather than a separate force.
That very much comes across as ' ah yes, we'll increase female representation by wholey denying existing female representation'.
The fact that female Custodes were supposedly vetoed elsewhere would indicate that the female protectors of the Emperor were supposed to be understood as the existing and well known female protectors of the Emperor (ie the Sisters of Silence) and not unknown non existent female protectors of the Emperor (ie femstodes).
The idea that female Custodes are what will hold Sisters of Silence back from getting more representation in any capacity is delusional my friend.
They can do both: expand the one-trick-pony SoS faction and also allow women in the Custodes.
I’d also like to see Misters of Silence or some other type of blank role with make options, even if it’s just expanding the culexis. More options are always good.
Lammia wrote: What if I told you there are Horus Heresy books with male and female Custodes in them?
For reals? That's interesting to know.
Edit: How recently were those published?
Echoes of Eternity has some very Legio Custodes coded reference to 'men and women' that protect the Emperor. Though as someone has pointed out, there are those assuming it's just SoS.
That very much comes across as ' ah yes, we'll increase female representation by wholey denying existing female representation'.
The fact that female Custodes were supposedly vetoed elsewhere would indicate that the female protectors of the Emperor were supposed to be understood as the existing and well known female protectors of the Emperor (ie the Sisters of Silence) and not unknown non existent female protectors of the Emperor (ie femstodes).
The veto was from upper management because any discussion about female Custodes would of messed up model release deep into their first development run and that person wasn't going to let the product release get jeopardised by any such discussion.
insaniak wrote: In terms of positive representation, I'm not sure that 'Women forced into a vow of silence and kept hidden away on the moon because 'normal' people find their presence disgusting' are tipping the scales in the right direction, honestly.
Lol, yeah. That was always my feeling about it, especially since they were introduced before SOBs got their revamp, so for a little while the only Imperial female support seemed to be women who weren't allowed to speak. Not the greatest.
In terms of gameplay, Sisters of Silence are by their very nature too limited to exist as a viable faction in their own right. They should always have been an auxiliary unit added to Custodes or Inquisition forces, or a 'colour' unit added to specific scenarios for campaign gaming, rather than a separate force.
To be fair . . . one could make the same argument for the Custodes themselves.
Insectum7 wrote: To be fair . . . one could make the same argument for the Custodes themselves.
I think there's a lot more room for development with Custodes, since they can ultimately be anything at all at the whims of the designers. Whereas SoS exist specifically to be a counter for Psykers. Which, from a game design perspective, is a terrible idea unless they're only ever intended to be used in games against psyker-heavy armies. Otherwise it's impossible to make them a balanced force without bulking out the majority of the army with units that aren't actually Sisters. Keeping them as an auxiliary unit for other Imperial armies makes much more sense.
insaniak wrote: In terms of positive representation, I'm not sure that 'Women forced into a vow of silence and kept hidden away on the moon because 'normal' people find their presence disgusting' are tipping the scales in the right direction, honestly.
In terms of gameplay, Sisters of Silence are by their very nature too limited to exist as a viable faction in their own right. They should always have been an auxiliary unit added to Custodes or Inquisition forces, or a 'colour' unit added to specific scenarios for campaign gaming, rather than a separate force.
I disagree with the first statement, as we're dealing with a dystopiain future where child soldiers are the greatest hope for humanity (and generally aren't even good at that). It's an ugly setting, by design.
I can agree with your second point (and subsequent comment on the subject), however.
Insectum7 wrote: To be fair . . . one could make the same argument for the Custodes themselves.
I think there's a lot more room for development with Custodes, since they can ultimately be anything at all at the whims of the designers. Whereas SoS exist specifically to be a counter for Psykers. Which, from a game design perspective, is a terrible idea unless they're only ever intended to be used in games against psyker-heavy armies. Otherwise it's impossible to make them a balanced force without bulking out the majority of the army with units that aren't actually Sisters. Keeping them as an auxiliary unit for other Imperial armies makes much more sense.
To that, Grey Knights were specifically intended to be a counter to daemons. . . and look what we wound up with.
I disagree with the first statement, as we're dealing with a dystopiain future where child soldiers are the greatest hope for humanity (and generally aren't even good at that). It's an ugly setting, by design.
Being appropriate to the setting doesn't make it positive representation.
Why are they even 'Sisters' of Silence? What narrative purpose does it serve for them to all be women? It's established in the setting that both men and women can be psychic blanks. So why is it only the women chosen for this role?
Insectum7 wrote: To that, Grey Knights were specifically intended to be a counter to daemons. . . and look what we wound up with.
Indeed... and I was never a fan of Grey Knights as a stand-alone army for the exact same reason. And it was an issue to begin with, where you had an army with specific rules that applied solely against daemons that were useless against other armies, which throws out any semblance of balance. No idea if that's still the case with GK, as I stopped buying codexes in 6th edition.
Insectum7 wrote: To be fair . . . one could make the same argument for the Custodes themselves.
I think there's a lot more room for development with Custodes, since they can ultimately be anything at all at the whims of the designers. Whereas SoS exist specifically to be a counter for Psykers. Which, from a game design perspective, is a terrible idea unless they're only ever intended to be used in games against psyker-heavy armies. Otherwise it's impossible to make them a balanced force without bulking out the majority of the army with units that aren't actually Sisters. Keeping them as an auxiliary unit for other Imperial armies makes much more sense.
you mean like Grey Knights were ever only there to fight Daemons and should not be more than a support group for in Inquisitor or not more than a single team of 5-10 on the table in presence of an opposing daemonic army
Every reason there is for SoS not being a full army fighting everyone is meaningless as if GW decide to make them one the background will be changed to fit the new theme
in addition, by countering psykers and disrupting the connection to the warp, they would be perfect to fight Tyranids by removing the connection to the hivemind
No problem there to change SoS in the by big E himself created anti-Tyranid invasion task force as he has foreseen their coming and placed a hidden force of billions thru out the galaxy to be ready when the invasion comes
If GW really wants more representation of woman in 40k, would have been a good chance to get SoS as core box army against Tyranids
Why are they even 'Sisters' of Silence? What narrative purpose does it serve for them to all be women? It's established in the setting that both men and women can be psychic blanks. So why is it only the women chosen for this role?
because the Imperium is a fascist regime with a certain rolemodel and the Emperor himself decided that the man and woman of his Guard fill different roles
Instead of having male and female Custodes and male and female Silencers, he wanted male Custodes and female Silencer
for the same reason he wanted male Marines
though technically, Space Marines would undergo a conversion therapy and the chosen children end up as genderless murder machines
but someone decided that it sales are better if SM are male heroes
I disagree with the first statement, as we're dealing with a dystopiain future where child soldiers are the greatest hope for humanity (and generally aren't even good at that). It's an ugly setting, by design.
Being appropriate to the setting doesn't make it positive representation.
Why are they even 'Sisters' of Silence? What narrative purpose does it serve for them to all be women? It's established in the setting that both men and women can be psychic blanks. So why is it only the women chosen for this role?
kodos wrote: because the Imperium is a fascist regime with a certain rolemodel and the Emperor himself decided that the man and woman of his Guard fill different roles
Instead of having male and female Custodes and male and female Silencers, he wanted male Custodes and female Silencer
for the same reason he wanted male Marines
I mean, the reason he wanted male marines is never actually stated anywhere, as far as I'm aware, so I'm not sure how you can say it's the 'same' reason.
And yes, we can say it's the Emperor's preference, and that's fine... except that this segregation of genders doesn't show up elsewhere in the Imperium, so makes no real sense. Particularly since psychic blanks are supposed to be incredibly rare, excluding half of them arbitrarily seems more than a little peculiar.
kodos wrote: because the Imperium is a fascist regime with a certain rolemodel and the Emperor himself decided that the man and woman of his Guard fill different roles
Instead of having male and female Custodes and male and female Silencers, he wanted male Custodes and female Silencer
for the same reason he wanted male Marines
I mean, the reason he wanted male marines is never actually stated anywhere, as far as I'm aware, so I'm not sure how you can say it's the 'same' reason.
And yes, we can say it's the Emperor's preference, and that's fine... except that this segregation of genders doesn't show up elsewhere in the Imperium, so makes no real sense. Particularly since psychic blanks are supposed to be incredibly rare, excluding half of them arbitrarily seems more than a little peculiar.
The guys were whisked off by rogue Mechanicus elements to be turned into Necron Pariahs. . . or something.
Honestly this whole situation would have been avoided if GW hadn't set the restriction themselves in the first place. Nobody made them say all custodes are the sons of noble houses, nobody made them say that all Space Marines are male because of weird made up fantasy science, nobody forcedGW to make the sisters of battle or sisters of silence all female (although I do like that the SoB came about as a response to what was effectively bureaucratic rules lawyering). These spats only occur because GW chooses to write itself into these strangely proscriptive corners and then decides to change its mind without doing the work to write some decent background for it. For that matter nobody made them expand their mono-purpose marine auxiliaries like Grey Knights and Deathwatch into full blown armies either.
Saying "There are both male and female custodes" is fine
Saying "There are male and female custodes" after saying "All custodes are male" is still fine, retcons happen, this is the form most GW retcons take
Saying "There have always been female custodes" after saying "All custodes" are the sons of nobles with no other explanation is effectively saying "Ha, you didn't actually believe what we wrote before, did you? What a waste of time, loser". It takes 5 minutes to come up with some reasoning. "They used to exclusively recruit from males but needed to broaden the criteria following their expanded role in the galaxy" would have been perfectly reasonable - acknowledge what came before, but provide reasoning why it is no longer the case.
There's no good reason for any organisation for any race in the setting to be gender-locked. There are bad reasons (Space Marines) and there are funny reasons (Sisters of Battle) and there are "Well we all assumed because the models are/were all mono-gender" (Howling Banshees/Wyches are the ones that come to mind) and there are "well they just are because we said so" (Custodes before last week), but given that GW have chosen to make them that way they could at least be bothered to write a reason why one of them isn't anymore.
It's not even a gender thing (OK, for some people it's a gender thing), for me it's just making a change to something that was previously explicitly stated to be the opposite way without any accompanying reasoning, like if they just declared that Baal was, and had always been, the homeworld of the Space Wolves with no further context. Yes, they can do that, it's their IP, yes, 40k canon is fluid, but you can't expect people to not have some kind of reaction.
But hey if the statement "All Custodes are recruited from the sons of nobles" is false because lol fluid canon then it's equally likely that the statement "there have always been female custodes" is false because lol fluid canon. GW have never ever said the more recent iteration of the background is any more or less "correct" than any other version, pick whatever version you like best, it's not like any except the truly deranged are going to have it affect their tabletop experience. have your Misters of battle and Misters of Silence and female Custodes and female Space Marines and whatever, your internalised lore is your business, we'll all be talking about something else in a couple of weeks anyway
Charax wrote: Honestly this whole situation would have been avoided if GW hadn't set the restriction themselves in the first place. Nobody made them say all custodes are the sons of noble houses, nobody made them say that all Space Marines are male because of weird made up fantasy science, nobody forcedGW to make the sisters of battle or sisters of silence all female (although I do like that the SoB came about as a response to what was effectively bureaucratic rules lawyering). These spats only occur because GW chooses to write itself into these strangely proscriptive corners and then decides to change its mind without doing the work to write some decent background for it. For that matter nobody made them expand their mono-purpose marine auxiliaries like Grey Knights and Deathwatch into full blown armies either.
Saying "There are both male and female custodes" is fine
Saying "There are male and female custodes" after saying "All custodes are male" is still fine, retcons happen, this is the form most GW retcons take
Saying "There have always been female custodes" after saying "All custodes" are the sons of nobles with no other explanation is effectively saying "Ha, you didn't actually believe what we wrote before, did you? What a waste of time, loser". It takes 5 minutes to come up with some reasoning. "They used to exclusively recruit from males but needed to broaden the criteria following their expanded role in the galaxy" would have been perfectly reasonable - acknowledge what came before, but provide reasoning why it is no longer the case.
There's no good reason for any organisation for any race in the setting to be gender-locked. There are bad reasons (Space Marines) and there are funny reasons (Sisters of Battle) and there are "Well we all assumed because the models are/were all mono-gender" (Howling Banshees/Wyches are the ones that come to mind) and there are "well they just are because we said so" (Custodes before last week), but given that GW have chosen to make them that way they could at least be bothered to write a reason why one of them isn't anymore.
It's not even a gender thing (OK, for some people it's a gender thing), for me it's just making a change to something that was previously explicitly stated to be the opposite way without any accompanying reasoning, like if they just declared that Baal was, and had always been, the homeworld of the Space Wolves with no further context. Yes, they can do that, it's their IP, yes, 40k canon is fluid, but you can't expect people to not have some kind of reaction.
But hey if the statement "All Custodes are recruited from the sons of nobles" is false because lol fluid canon then it's equally likely that the statement "there have always been female custodes" is false because lol fluid canon. GW have never ever said the more recent iteration of the background is any more or less "correct" than any other version, pick whatever version you like best, it's not like any except the truly deranged are going to have it affect their tabletop experience. have your Misters of battle and Misters of Silence and female Custodes and female Space Marines and whatever, your internalised lore is your business, we'll all be talking about something else in a couple of weeks anyway
No 'reason' makes sense without raising more questions.
Easier to 'Son's' is used in a non-gender specific way. Especially as there's no commitment to it.
and I don't know why people act like GW never retcons anything or the background books being valid for years
if GW changes Custodes in the next Codex to be the original Man of Iron and adds that it has always been that way, it is a retcon again and the only one to blame is GW for bad writing
kodos wrote: this is not gaslighting, it is a retcon
and I don't know why people act like GW never retcons anything or the background books being valid for years
if GW changes Custodes in the next Codex to be the original Man of Iron and adds that it has always been that way, it is a retcon again and the only one to blame is GW for bad writing
Behaupten bzw. leugnen, selbst etwas Bestimmtes getan oder gesagt zu haben Bestreiten, dass ein bestimmtes Ereignis stattgefunden habe Dem Opfer unzutreffende Realitätswahrnehmung oder falsche Realitätsbeurteilung vorwerfen
GW states cannon X.
GW now states Cannon allways was Y.
GW bans people activly that point that out
cool, so GW is gaslighting people for 30 years now but somehow it was never a problem until now
there must have been something else I missed because the change of the usual retcons being now gaslighting is for sure not cause because GW is doing what they have always done
kodos wrote: cool, so GW is gaslighting people for 30 years now but somehow it was never a problem until now
there must have been something else I missed because the change of the usual retcons being now gaslighting is for sure not cause because GW is doing what they have always done
Miss the point more artificially will you.
The problem isn't a retcon, they may or may not work. The problem is the conversational tone of GW and it's behaviour during it that make it clear what it is.
I've been playing since the end of 2nd. Gw has always hamfistedly "gaslighted" stuff into existence, so much so that it became a running joke in my gaming group. New flyers? "Yeah they always had those". New tank? "Yeah those were always there, nobody bothered to write about them.". New primaris and tech in a supposedly stagnant imperium? "Yeah they've actually been in the making for 10k years, only nobody noticed".
kodos wrote: cool, so GW is gaslighting people for 30 years now but somehow it was never a problem until now
there must have been something else I missed because the change of the usual retcons being now gaslighting is for sure not cause because GW is doing what they have always done
Miss the point more artificially will you.
The problem isn't a retcon, they may or may not work. The problem is the conversational tone of GW and it's behaviour during it that make it clear what it is.
GW has always done it that way
the exact conversational tone of how GW acts when telling people that this is not something new but it has always been that way in 40k is happening since 3rd Edition
and now it is a problem?
either it has always a problem or it is none
and if it is a problem, stop buying GW products and don't play their games as this is their normal behaviour
My Initial reaction was no. however, after some level headed responses from the other side of the debate, I concluded that actually, I can see a place for female custodes, even female space marines, were it handled well. Warcoms response disheartened me on that, and area's of the community who only seemed to like it for the political point scoring also put me off.
I'm put in mind of the bene gesserit in Dune, and them being all female. I would not like it if somebody decided to change that. The same is true for the sisters, both of battle and silence. In stories, an all female group would very likely behave differently then a group of mixed genders. This being the case, I think the same can be said for all male groups, as with the space marines. I can't remember which horus heresy book it was, but there were a group of scouts who after experiencing some form of loss, came across as lost boys, and it changed how I viewed the Space Marines.
I instinctively would like to say the same of the Custodes, but objectively can't. In lore, it seem's only tradition kept them male. I'd prefer that it be handled that yes, they were always male, but now, things have changed. Instead of just telling us that it's always been that way and we missed it.
As for the reasons behind it, I don't know what caused the change. I would like somebody to explain why representation is a good thing. Personally I think it's morally neutral, and it's implentation can be positive or negative. I worry that throwing this lore into the custodes may come across as tokenism.
I also worry from the political points scoring crowd, that there reason for praising this is that they have a system of thinking that is all about breaking people down by their immutable characteristics, and seeking to engineer society, and in turn, societies entertainment, by those same immutable characteristics.I don't like where this goes.Outside of 40k. I love 40k, but it's not that important to worry about it here alone.
As for bringing more people into the hobby. (Ignoring excluding those who you would describe as mysogistic bigots). My admittedly anecdotal experience is that women who have sisters armies tend to be the beleaguered Wives and Girlfriends of well meaning, but naive hobbiests who though that "This is a girl faction, you'll like them". It's slightly sexist. When Women are left to their own devices in the hobby, I tend to see them migrate to Eldar, becuase they're aesthetically beautiful, Tyranids, Because they're cute, and Orks, because they're funny. None of these are because they're women, and I don't think adding female custodes will change that.
I hope that wasn't too rambling, I just wanted to get my thoughts out.
Edited for clarity.
Anyone who has read dune know that Herbert had some extremely wierd gender politics. And, like, a real big dommy mommy fetish.
If you read dune today and go "Yes, Herbert's take on gender seems quite good", you aren't even an old school misogynist. Herbert's take on gender is almost unique to himself. It's inculcated directly from a reaction to gender politics of his time. He was distinctly against the prevailing patriarchal opinions of his day, but also unable to cross the gap from "Women are not inferior to men" to "Men and women are equal" and gets to this weird place where he inverts some gender tropes (eg, for example, women being the rational logical gender verse the irrational men of the setting). Also he wanted a women in bondage gear to step on him
He did also develop his beliefs that you can see through the books.
But Dune is a told story, set from its time. And as much as I enjoyed Villeneuve's movies, I distinctly don't want dune to become a franchise. Tell the stories in new mediums. Don't invent a setting around them
Warhammer is not a narrative. It's an aesthetic first, and a setting second and a narrative almost never (Even HH has chopped its narrative's gets out for game reasons). All of which exists to sell models.
Lammia wrote: What if I told you there are Horus Heresy books with male and female Custodes in them?
For reals? That's interesting to know.
Edit: How recently were those published?
Echoes of Eternity has some very Legio Custodes coded reference to 'men and women' that protect the Emperor. Though as someone has pointed out, there are those assuming it's just SoS.
That very much comes across as ' ah yes, we'll increase female representation by wholey denying existing female representation'.
The fact that female Custodes were supposedly vetoed elsewhere would indicate that the female protectors of the Emperor were supposed to be understood as the existing and well known female protectors of the Emperor (ie the Sisters of Silence) and not unknown non existent female protectors of the Emperor (ie femstodes).
Look man, if the only women force the emperor created is the one that isn't allowed to talk, that isn't great representation.
Oh, and just to repeat my question, because more people here are claiming that they oppose HOW GW addressed the retcon:
An honest question, to both yourself and anyone else who feels strongly on the "they've always been there" comment: what would you have rather had GW do?
Let's say that they did fully want to retcon Custodes, instead of it being a development within universe, which is pretty clearly what they intend for. How should GW handle retcons?
Public announcement that they *are* retconning something (which I've never known them to explicitly do)?
Retcon and not elaborate (Necrons, Votaan)
Retcon, and explain WHY they're retconning it (again, never really known to happen)
I'm genuinely curious as to what GW "should" have done about this retcon (and before anyone suggests, I'm not going to accept "advance the narrative" - it's very clear that GW weren't going to do this approach).
As I've had to emphasise - THIS IS NOT TALKING ABOUT SHOULD GW HAVE RETCONNED.
@Not Online, you say that "the problem isn't a retcon, they may or may not work. The problem is the conversational tone of GW and it's behaviour during it that make it clear what it is." - so please, answer the above question. If the problem wasn't that they retconned it, how should they have handled the retcon?
Yeah this image is awesome, and I don't even like custodes. At least, until now I didn't. I'm not even joking.
Re: the rest: I think it's more likely gw thought "inclusion is hip now, let's make a token effort so we don't get negative press for being a boys-only club: that could harm our sales :O".
Gw is a corporate now, they don't care about anything other than their bottom line.
@Not Online, you say that "the problem isn't a retcon, they may or may not work. The problem is the conversational tone of GW and it's behaviour during it that make it clear what it is." - so please, answer the above question. If the problem wasn't that they retconned it, how should they have handled the retcon?
If at all. And it shouldn't because logic still applies to this universe and we are talking about a state that is in permanent total war and got carved a new backside to which ressources it has only minimally access:
"increased strain and attrition forced even the mighty Adeptus custodes to increase recruitment. Conscripting any firstborn child that passes through the trials and modifications of any House of the nobility on Terra. Longterm the ministorium has projected this increased conscription will lead to a bleeding white of the noble houses but at the current state of the indomitus crusade and the increased necessity to fight on ever more fronts the hands of the Custodes are just as much tied as are the noses around the necks of the Ministorium officials that projected simulations of the attrition rate amongst the nobility of terra. Though the simulations themselves on the attrition rate have also become ever more obsolete as with the absence of the god emperor the techniques and knowledge to create Custodes has fallen ever more into disrepair" (until Cawl inevitably shows up and pulls a Cawl because Cawl is a well written charachter /s)
It still would spit in the face of logic because reproductive bottleneck but yeah.
However since we got nothing and since shareholders with more than 3 % of the shares need to be disclosed we know why it is happening and why GW seems incapable of basic discussion or reason.
@Not Online, you say that "the problem isn't a retcon, they may or may not work. The problem is the conversational tone of GW and it's behaviour during it that make it clear what it is." - so please, answer the above question. If the problem wasn't that they retconned it, how should they have handled the retcon?
If at all. And it shouldn't
...
However since we got nothing and since shareholders with more than 3 % of the shares need to be disclosed we know why it is happening and why GW seems incapable of basic discussion or reason.
You said the problem wasn't that it was a retcon. You claimed it was the tone of GW, so I've cut out the stuff which had nothing to do with the question.
How could GW have improved *the retcon*, and more specifically, "the conversational tone of GW"?
I'm genuinely curious as to what GW "should" have done about this retcon
Out of interest (I'm onboard with femstodes): they'd need some plot excuse as to why they were never seen before. Maybe they were guarding Cawl in his cave for 10k years? That still wouldn't explain why only all female custodes were hidden though, it's a weird split to make
in the first place
shortymcnostrill wrote: Yeah this image is awesome, and I don't even like custodes. At least, until now I didn't. I'm not even joking.
Re: the rest: I think it's more likely gw thought "inclusion is hip now, let's make a token effort so we don't get negative press for being a boys-only club: that could harm our sales :O".
Gw is a corporate now, they don't care about anything other than their bottom line.
This is more likely the designers and writers, who are generally a progressive lot (crabel, flee!), pushing for things and the suits finally throwing them a bone
I'm genuinely curious as to what GW "should" have done about this retcon
Out of interest (I'm onboard with femstodes): they'd need some plot excuse as to why they were never seen before. Maybe they were guarding Cawl in his cave for 10k years? That still wouldn't explain why only all female custodes were hidden though, it's a weird split to make
in the first place
If I may ask, why do they *need* a plot excuse? Is it not okay for GW to say "hey, so, we made an oopsie?"
Okay, as before, I have rather aggressively removed posts belonging to a certain poster, as well as quotes or posts replying to said poster. If I in my zeal removed other stuff as well, my apologies, but I would rather not risk having that fething bs remain in this thread any longer and reignite that melon-fething 💩storm again.
One other request for future discussion: report and do not engage. I repeat: report and do NOT fething engage. Don't make things worse by gaking all over the place more, okay?
Now kindly carry on with discussion, kudos to those who have kept a cool head, love you~ 😘
So, GW sells boys big, strong power fantasy marines, Diaz-nettes, Imperial Giard based on your favorite movies or historical periods, hot battle nuns in bustiers, space Vikings, space vampires, space templars, anime robots, etc., etc.. but now that it’s not for you, *now* it’s pandering?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: is it not okay for GW to say "hey, so, we made an oopsie?"
if GW would do so, a lot of problems with Warhammer would not be there in the first place
but be it rules, background or releases, they never say that mistakes were made and now they are going to correct them, the problem is that they don't and come up with that the community is wrong and GW alway right and it was us that made the mistakes
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm genuinely curious as to what GW "should" have done about this retcon (and before anyone suggests, I'm not going to accept "advance the narrative" - it's very clear that GW weren't going to do this approach).
be excited about the new Codex Custodes that is coming soon, as we have made a correction with the background story were our writes thought the initial take was never quite right, we there are now male and female Custodes so look out for the new awesome minis to buy
PS: for all those fans of SoS, not they are not forgotten and female Custodes does not mean they get removed from the game
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote: so where is a good place to get heads for female stodes then? the ones I have seen will all be too small.
depends what you want from the army
I am a fan of the Raging Heroes models in general as I like them more than GW Custodes so would use those
I'm genuinely curious as to what GW "should" have done about this retcon
Out of interest (I'm onboard with femstodes): they'd need some plot excuse as to why they were never seen before. Maybe they were guarding Cawl in his cave for 10k years? That still wouldn't explain why only all female custodes were hidden though, it's a weird split to make
in the first place
If I may ask, why do they *need* a plot excuse? Is it not okay for GW to say "hey, so, we made an oopsie?"
Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were looking for an in-universe way of handling the retcon and considered it a fun puzzle. I'd be fine with them saying "yeah consider them retroactively changed to mixed men/women".
here's my attempt at using a stormcast head for a female custodian, since i realized i had an unassembled blade champion in my box. the only heads i had available were pushfit and required some stuff to be cut off, thus the greenstuff, but i think once it has primer on it, that part will look fine
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm genuinely curious as to what GW "should" have done about this retcon (and before anyone suggests, I'm not going to accept "advance the narrative" - it's very clear that GW weren't going to do this approach).
be excited about the new Codex Custodes that is coming soon, as we have made a correction with the background story were our writes thought the initial take was never quite right, we there are now male and female Custodes so look out for the new awesome minis to buy
PS: for all those fans of SoS, not they are not forgotten and female Custodes does not mean they get removed from the game
shortymcnostrill wrote:Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were looking for an in-universe way of handling the retcon and considered it a fun puzzle. I'd be fine with them saying "yeah consider them retroactively changed to mixed men/women".
Thank you both for your contributions! shortymcnostrill, no worries, I'd assumed that there'd been a miscommunication! I could happily come up with in-universe ways to "fix" the situation, but ultimately, I don't think that's what GW are aiming for. So I basically just wanted to get a grasp on what the "appropriate" communication should have been from GW.
kodos, likewise, I'd love if GW (and more companies in general!) were more transparent too. Your point would be more than fine to me, and I like the bit about affirming the safety of Sisters of Silence!
As an addendum to that, do you think that this would be enough to please or otherwise calm the nerves of some of the people I've seen calling GW gaslighters? Would this have a more positive effect, them outright saying "our initial bakcground take wasn't quite right, so we've corrected it"? Or would such a statement further radicalise the situation? (Obviously, we can't know for sure, but I'm curious what people think!)
I find it strange that people are complaining about how GW went about their retcon of female Custodes. GW almost never announces they are changing the background. They just do it and leave it to consumers to notice. It's not like there are not a legion of people pouring over every publication for new and changed information and then letting the whole internet know about it.
As for their announcement that there have always been female Custodians, that is a statement of the background as it now exist. It is not an attempt to gaslight you into believing they never produced a product that said the Custodes were all male.
Personally, I'm all for it. Nothing in the background of Warhammer 40,000 suffers if some of the Adeptus Custodes are female. The only question is will they ever produce models that are in any way identifiable as female and will that be more than a feminine head?
As for their announcement that there have always been female Custodians, that is a statement of the background as it now exist. It is not an attempt to gaslight you into believing they never produced a product that said the Custodes were all male.
None of the quotes that i saw necessarily indicate that they were all male due to the ambiguities in the English language with regards to mixed-gender groups.
Nothing major to add here- I'm fine with it, GW has retconned many things in past, this is not first time for "progressive" or "woke" attitudes in lore, etc.
Just pointing out how unaffected I am by this vs the screaming extremes of either side.
Orks can run an all walker army, that's my takeaway from codexes this week.
If I was GW I'd tell one of my Black Library writers right now to write a shortstory about Custodes 7 in the third row at the Siege of terra who wasn't seen without a helmet and is female.
Then write another shortstory about her how she's killed by the harlequin attack during the War of the Beast 1000years later.
Then write one about a noble house that picks the children that are about to be send to the Custodes and put in a throwaway line why they're traditionally all called 'sons' despite not actually being sons.
It's not hard really because female Custodes don't change the faction at its core and with that armour actually could have always been there.
That’s the point of GW’s community post. A clear intention that *checks the image* the existence of Calladyce Taurovalia Tesh isn’t a sign of a change to the Custodes recruitment programme. That they’ve decided “nah, they were just always there”.
Merits to both approaches, and drawbacks. But here I quite like the “yeah well that’s the lore now, get on with it” approach.
GW constantly introduces new stuff that was "always there" and most part I think that is better approach. Otherwise the constant flux would create a setting where everything is static for ten millennia and then in the span of a few years a ton of new stuff happens.
Granted, the unfortunate return of the loyalist primarchs has already created the latter situation, so in that sense they can use that mess to justify all kind of changes if they want. 🤷
Crimson wrote: GW constantly introduces new stuff that was "always there" and most part I think that is better approach. Otherwise the constant flux would create a setting where everything is static for ten millennia and then in the span of a few years a ton of new stuff happens.
Granted, the unfortunate return of the loyalist primarchs has already created the latter situation, so in that sense they can use that mess to justify all kind of changes if they want. 🤷
Even before Gathering storm they wrote themselves into a corner. Just compare this https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/M40 to that https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/M41 . Granted it probably comes form the fact that we're playing 40K, hence that's where all the stories are told, but still, in M41 apparently many things happened that were built up for 10K years (or Millions of years in the case of the Necrons).
I feel like anyone tabling a force of all male Pillar Custodes is going to get just as many dirty looks as someone tabling an all female force of Pillar Custodes. Gotta field both to avoid looking skeezy.
It's very reassuring that most of the comments on Dakka about this 'issue' have been pretty sensible. It's fine to question retconning - it is usually rather clumsily handled, and it can be annoying to have supposedly established fluff overturned - but we all know that GW do it as it suits them. Arguably, it would have been better to deal with the whole upsizing of the Marines range by retconning rather than introducing the Primaris fluff. What has horrified me is the level of lunacy that this relatively minor change has generated. I suddenly got multiple 'hits' on Youtube for various Youtubers I'd never heard of, all frothing at the mouth about GW has become Disney and how all its customers are leaving. There are also some really dumb conspiracy theories. I normally manage to stay away from the culture wars, so this was an unpleasant reminder of how people with agendas jump on this kind of thing.
Snord wrote: It's very reassuring that most of the comments on Dakka about this 'issue' have been pretty sensible. It's fine to question retconning - it is usually rather clumsily handled, and it can be annoying to have supposedly established fluff overturned - but we all know that GW do it as it suits them. Arguably, it would have been better to deal with the whole upsizing of the Marines range by retconning rather than introducing the Primaris fluff. What has horrified me is the level of lunacy that this relatively minor change has generated. I suddenly got multiple 'hits' on Youtube for various Youtubers I'd never heard of, all frothing at the mouth about GW has become Disney and how all its customers are leaving. There are also some really dumb conspiracy theories. I normally manage to stay away from the culture wars, so this was an unpleasant reminder of how people with agendas jump on this kind of thing.
Little late for that, this thread has already been closed twice so mods could remove unsensible material, and a member got a permaban for continued transphobic comments
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: Little late for that, this thread has already been closed twice so mods could remove unsensible material, and a member got a permaban for continued transphobic comments
Okay, well perhaps I was fortunate to have seen the 'cleaned up' version of this thread. But there are a couple of others with a similar topic, and they don't seem to have gone off the rails.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: . . .and a member got a permaban for continued transphobic comments
Oh really? That's a shame. Not that what they said was ok (if it's the thing I'm thinking about), but just that I'm not a fan of permabans.
But it's not my site, and it's possible it was something that I missed.
what they were saying was violently transphobic. if those comments had been allowed to stay, it would have made it clear to any trans people on the that this isn't the place for them (so, thanks to the mods for dealing with that!)
So, Sgt_Smudge asked way earlier in the thread, how long should have "justified" the retcon of existing woman custodes. So here's my take on how I would have introduced this:
Since the events of the lions gate and the return of the primarch, the custodes have become more actively involved in imperial affairs and dispatched on several missions during the indomitus crusade as well as torch bearing missions. This increase in visibility has lead to a host of current accounts of interactions between the Adeptus Custodes and other bodies of imperial government. This has revealed that previous depictions of the Emperor's chosen warriors have been found lacking and incomplete. Myth and legend have left out important warriors and warped imperial memories of them, if they were not forgotten. It has been revealed that the Adeptus Custodes is not only made up of humanities best men, but women as well.
Take heart, soldiers of the Astra Militarum, as for what matters to Him is only what you can give, not how you were born.
I'm not the best writer, but you get the idea. I'm quite happy about woman custodes, it makes them different from Marines. Hopefully it's not an empty gesture but is followed up by some nice models
Snord wrote: What has horrified me is the level of lunacy that this relatively minor change has generated. I suddenly got multiple 'hits' on Youtube for various Youtubers I'd never heard of, all frothing at the mouth about GW has become Disney and how all its customers are leaving. There are also some really dumb conspiracy theories. I normally manage to stay away from the culture wars, so this was an unpleasant reminder of how people with agendas jump on this kind of thing.
Social media has unfortunately become monetized controversy. It directly financially incentivizes getting people angry and "engaged" and a lot of creators jump a the opportunity for an easy payday. Honestly, its a good reminder to be weary of all the relatively minor bouts of online angst. I was wildly disappointed today to see Auspex selling a "was power creep better?" as a lesson that no matter what gets fixed, people will find a way to make it a problem. The internet is just no longer a place to go enjoy things.
Snord wrote: What has horrified me is the level of lunacy that this relatively minor change has generated. I suddenly got multiple 'hits' on Youtube for various Youtubers I'd never heard of, all frothing at the mouth about GW has become Disney and how all its customers are leaving. There are also some really dumb conspiracy theories. I normally manage to stay away from the culture wars, so this was an unpleasant reminder of how people with agendas jump on this kind of thing.
Social media has unfortunately become monetized controversy. It directly financially incentivizes getting people angry and "engaged" and a lot of creators jump a the opportunity for an easy payday. Honestly, its a good reminder to be weary of all the relatively minor bouts of online angst. I was wildly disappointed today to see Auspex selling a "was power creep better?" as a lesson that no matter what gets fixed, people will find a way to make it a problem. The internet is just no longer a place to go enjoy things.
I have seen this as well, I blocked at least 20 channels on YouTube. The regular content creators I watched have a more laid back video on the topic witch is far more enjoyable for me.
@StudentOfEterium
I was going for a justification that would achieve exactly that. Imperial records where wrong, therefore any prior information we (the outsiders watching basically) could get. This faulty record has been corrected.
I believe GWs reply on X could have been better/different but maybe they really wanted to stir up the pot?
Snord wrote: What has horrified me is the level of lunacy that this relatively minor change has generated. I suddenly got multiple 'hits' on Youtube for various Youtubers I'd never heard of, all frothing at the mouth about GW has become Disney and how all its customers are leaving. There are also some really dumb conspiracy theories. I normally manage to stay away from the culture wars, so this was an unpleasant reminder of how people with agendas jump on this kind of thing.
Social media has unfortunately become monetized controversy. It directly financially incentivizes getting people angry and "engaged" and a lot of creators jump a the opportunity for an easy payday. Honestly, its a good reminder to be weary of all the relatively minor bouts of online angst. I was wildly disappointed today to see Auspex selling a "was power creep better?" as a lesson that no matter what gets fixed, people will find a way to make it a problem. The internet is just no longer a place to go enjoy things.
It’s also how “culture wars” are invented and fuelled.
You or your algorithm go looking for the most hatstand, pants on head, yip yip bibble, shnorf lunacy you can find, from someone on the other side of the political spectrum. You then present that as a majority view of that side of the political spectrum.
Erase the grey. Remove the many, many layers. Go straight to the bottom of the iceberg, and claim “and that’s just the beginning of their demands!!!!”. Profit.
And yes. All sides are at it. All of them. Despite that most folk won’t necessarily agree on everything, but will happily let each other be about their day.
Hey, remember when a company decided to make Hobbits black, and Gathandrial a girl boss in the One Ring TV show? Man, Arch got god knows how many clicks and ad-revenue off that. Just off the pagesense data alone, he made almost 25,000 USD off his content during that. By saying that Hobbits can't be a certain Color.
So yeah, this stuff sells. It puts butts in seats. It gets President's elected somehow. People tune in to watch the Kardashians. It's all the same thing.
Brickfix wrote:I believe GWs reply on X could have been better/different but maybe they really wanted to stir up the pot?
This was actually the main gist of the question I asked - what *should* GW's reply have been, assuming that the state of women Custodes doesn't change (ie, that they are eligible in 30k and 40k, and that they have always been present in both settings)
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Hey, remember when a company decided to make Hobbits black, and Gathandrial a girl boss in the One Ring TV show? Man, Arch got god knows how many clicks and ad-revenue off that. Just off the pagesense data alone, he made almost 25,000 USD off his content during that. By saying that Hobbits can't be a certain Color.
So yeah, this stuff sells. It puts butts in seats. It gets President's elected somehow. People tune in to watch the Kardashians. It's all the same thing.
Or that time the internet exploded because they had an African American guy as a stormtrooper?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Hey, remember when a company decided to make Hobbits black, and Gathandrial a girl boss in the One Ring TV show? Man, Arch got god knows how many clicks and ad-revenue off that. Just off the pagesense data alone, he made almost 25,000 USD off his content during that. By saying that Hobbits can't be a certain Color.
So yeah, this stuff sells. It puts butts in seats. It gets President's elected somehow. People tune in to watch the Kardashians. It's all the same thing.
Or that time the internet exploded because they had an African American guy as a stormtrooper?
Brickfix wrote:I believe GWs reply on X could have been better/different but maybe they really wanted to stir up the pot?
This was actually the main gist of the question I asked - what *should* GW's reply have been, assuming that the state of women Custodes doesn't change (ie, that they are eligible in 30k and 40k, and that they have always been present in both settings)
Riffing off that and a suggestion I made in the other thread on the subject...
If it had been me, coming up with this? I would have had a two-prong response ready to go. Prong One: The reply of "they've always been there".
Prong Two: A Warhammer Community article, introducing the lore around the idea of women having been in the ranks...utilizing the concept of a "nom de guerre"(war name) to people unfamiliar with it. The Custodes are supposed to be both a 'bodyguard' organization but also to have elements of assassins and saboteurs. Having the latter two being our segway into this, introducing the idea that the Custodes overall have assumed names that were male to perpetuate the idea that they were an all male organization.
End with vague hintings and insinuations of Custodes, male and female, genemodded to appear more like "regular" humans than the ones who we've seen so far.
It adds a slightly more sinister undertone to the Custodes, insinuating that these Praetorian Guard might be influencing the shape of the Imperium in the Emperor's name in ways that we did not think of before.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: . . .and a member got a permaban for continued transphobic comments
Oh really? That's a shame. Not that what they said was ok (if it's the thing I'm thinking about), but just that I'm not a fan of permabans.
But it's not my site, and it's possible it was something that I missed.
what they were saying was violently transphobic. if those comments had been allowed to stay, it would have made it clear to any trans people on the that this isn't the place for them (so, thanks to the mods for dealing with that!)
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm totally for removing the comment (again, if it's the one I'm thinking of). I'm just not for removing the user. I'm not a fan of banning people.
But again, not my site. And my heart goes out to anyone who takes on the responsibility of being a mod.
Snord wrote: What has horrified me is the level of lunacy that this relatively minor change has generated. I suddenly got multiple 'hits' on Youtube for various Youtubers I'd never heard of, all frothing at the mouth about GW has become Disney and how all its customers are leaving. There are also some really dumb conspiracy theories. I normally manage to stay away from the culture wars, so this was an unpleasant reminder of how people with agendas jump on this kind of thing.
Social media has unfortunately become monetized controversy. It directly financially incentivizes getting people angry and "engaged" and a lot of creators jump a the opportunity for an easy payday. Honestly, its a good reminder to be weary of all the relatively minor bouts of online angst. I was wildly disappointed today to see Auspex selling a "was power creep better?" as a lesson that no matter what gets fixed, people will find a way to make it a problem. The internet is just no longer a place to go enjoy things.
^Yeah, this is the real thing. "If it bleeds it leads" has turned into a race to increase blood pressure, which isn't good for anybody, and plays absolute hell on social discourse.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: Or that time the internet exploded because they had an African American guy as a stormtrooper?
Not exploding, but it did seem they didn't understand the brief that the empire were space Nazi's, so white (male) humans in Hugo Boss uniforms. My overly cynical friend who will occasional be off on a march thought it was so people wouldn't feel sorry for them getting shot anymore.
Prong Two:
A Warhammer Community article, introducing the lore around the idea of women having been in the ranks...utilizing the concept of a "nom de guerre"(war name) to people unfamiliar with it. The Custodes are supposed to be both a 'bodyguard' organization but also to have elements of assassins and saboteurs. Having the latter two being our segway into this, introducing the idea that the Custodes overall have assumed names that were male to perpetuate the idea that they were an all male organization.
End with vague hintings and insinuations of Custodes, male and female, genemodded to appear more like "regular" humans than the ones who we've seen so far.
It adds a slightly more sinister undertone to the Custodes, insinuating that these Praetorian Guard might be influencing the shape of the Imperium in the Emperor's name in ways that we did not think of before.
We've gotten more mentions of things in lore with no models than you might be aware of. The majority of the Kurnothi lore, published on Warhammer Community, is completely missing in model format.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: Or that time the internet exploded because they had an African American guy as a stormtrooper?
Not exploding, but it did seem they didn't understand the brief that the empire were space Nazi's, so white (male) humans in Hugo Boss uniforms. My overly cynical friend who will occasional be off on a march thought it was so people wouldn't feel sorry for them getting shot anymore.
which is funny because we have the same now
people cheering the space nazis because they are not sexist anymore (still nazis, but not sexist nazis so the perfect role model)
When that evil is presented as cool, it is no longer satire: it’s just something that looks cool. And in being something that looks cool, it in turn invites people who see the Imperium’s ideas about hating things that are different, controlling people through vile doctrines, and its terrifying religious dogma as ideologies that are actually worth supporting, and to feel like they and their awful beliefs have a place in Warhammer’s community, regardless of what Games Workshop says. These are the same people who blow up at the very existence of a character of a non-masculine gender, or a character of a non-white racial background, regardless of how minor or fleeting their existence ultimately is—the same people that now Games Workshop finds itself being harangued by for purportedly turning Warhammer 40,000 “woke.”
Satire without clarity is not effective satire—and not an effective defense for someone to claim as they try to push back against a hateful co-option of a universe like Warhammer’s. If Games Workshop wants a world where it can mention the existence of a diverse array of characters in its fiction without delving its fanbase into arguments and harassment, it can no longer sit back and claim satire as its guiding principal, and instead must actively push back against these bigoted elements and forcefully prove to them that they have no space in its community. To do so, it has to recognize something many people within and without the company have already noticed: Warhammer has changed since its origins, and it will always continue to do so. Defending it from becoming another front line in the endless culture war requires Games Workshop to adapt or face consequences of its own making.
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?
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
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.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not exploding, but it did seem they didn't understand the brief that the empire were space Nazi's, so white (male) humans in Hugo Boss uniforms.
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.
going by that argument, lets call all female custode "sisters of silence." reading all previous posts on this thread, i see this debate is going to be an up hill battle
shadowsfm wrote: going by that argument, lets call all female custode "sisters of silence." reading all previous posts on this thread, i see this debate is going to be an up hill battle
Sisters of silence don’t equal Custodes, they serve different roles
JNAProductions wrote: 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.
While that's true, they're still definitely not Sororitas.
JNAProductions wrote: 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.
While that's true, they're still definitely not Sororitas.
They're from the Sisters' Index. They're not proper Sororitas, but they're much better male representation within a female faction than servitors are female in Space Marines.
the reason why Sisters of Battle and Sisters of Silence exist as female-only factions is for the idea that those are the main pillars of female representation. they're an equivalent to affirmative action, a form of saying "there are forces biased against you in other ways, so overt corrections must be made to fix this". insisting on adding men to female-only factions does not make things more balanced because those factions are existing to balance out existing injustices. in a world where warhammer was already a perfectly balanced game where people were properly represented, then these factions wouldn't need to exist. insisting on "but what about misters of battle" misses the entire point of the faction existing and does nothing but be reductive regarding sexism in the game and in the hobby. the circumstances where these factions could exist and be gender-balanced do not exist because they're build upon 40+ years of sexism within the culture, and that correction is still needed. even if GW do finally make female space marines, that correction will still be needed. sexism is not as simple as "women have models means that sexism is defeated forever"
frankly, the way that the conversation keeps circling around to these female-exclusive factions feels disingenuous because it's a way of trying to silence the ongoing conversation by going "well, if we're fixing sexist injustice, why don't we do this thing that would have the opposite effect". adding more men to women-only spaces would only serve to drown out those factions' corrective efforts. you might want to talk about a hypothetical reality where it would be okay to do so, but that is not our reality
(oh and to also all the points about how sisters of silence are underserved and need more models or lore: this has been discussed before but the effort of create more models or develop new lore is a lot more than writing a short story for custodes as they exist, but with some different pronouns. it's a reductive take which just serves to bog down the conversation of sexism)
shadowsfm wrote: going by that argument, lets call all female custode "sisters of silence." reading all previous posts on this thread, i see this debate is going to be an up hill battle
Sisters of silence don’t equal Custodes, they serve different roles
Just because they don't serve the same role doesn't mean they have less value.
To my understanding, sisters of silence were created to give women more representation in 40k. So why do you want more? How much change do you want until you are satisfied?
What I'm worried about, my reason for debate, is that games workshop can't make everyone happy. There will always people that are still unsatisfied and want more change. Some people just complain to see how far a franchise will try to be accommodating to the point of becoming unrecognizable, like starwars. And dome people just want to see the world burn
shadowsfm wrote: going by that argument, lets call all female custode "sisters of silence." reading all previous posts on this thread, i see this debate is going to be an up hill battle
Sisters of silence don’t equal Custodes, they serve different roles
Just because they don't serve the same role doesn't mean they have less value.
To my understanding, sisters of silence were created to give women more representation in 40k. So why do you want more? How much change do you want until you are satisfied?
What I'm worried about, my reason for debate, is that games workshop can't make everyone happy. There will always people that are still unsatisfied and want more change. Some people just complain to see how far a franchise will try to be accommodating to the point of becoming unrecognizable, like starwars
Star Wars sequel trilogy isn't bad because it's diverse, it's bad because it's badly written and directed.
And, shocker this might be, a faction that consists of one box and one special character, who's defining trait is being silent at all times, who are the smaller subfaction of an already small faction, doesn't for good representation make.
This topic is the background of 40k, specifically about Custodies now also being female. It is not about Star Wars, Ghostbusters or any other topic someone randomly dredges up. Stay on topic please.
Even as far back as Rogue Trader when Custodes were shirtless they were stated as men so it's kinda been that way since the beginning.
I'm not oppossed to female custodes if there's an in-lore explanation.
With the gene editing process being woefully bad since the Big E was crippled the gene engineers had only been able to make like what? 9k custodes in 10 millenia?
All they had to do was just say something like "welp, we went thru our yearly allocation of infant sons and there's an excess of daughters so maybe we'll try this old technique that we barely understand on daughters" and thru some freak luck they found out it could work on females. It really wouldn't have been a further stretch than the primaris tbh.
But here all we get is a blurb of text and a lazy social media post from GW that just gaslights everyone saying that "no, there have always been", and not even any female models released where we could look at it and just think "oh GW just wants to sell new models whatever"
Snord wrote: What has horrified me is the level of lunacy that this relatively minor change has generated. I suddenly got multiple 'hits' on Youtube for various Youtubers I'd never heard of, all frothing at the mouth about GW has become Disney and how all its customers are leaving. There are also some really dumb conspiracy theories. I normally manage to stay away from the culture wars, so this was an unpleasant reminder of how people with agendas jump on this kind of thing.
Social media has unfortunately become monetized controversy. It directly financially incentivizes getting people angry and "engaged" and a lot of creators jump a the opportunity for an easy payday. Honestly, its a good reminder to be weary of all the relatively minor bouts of online angst. I was wildly disappointed today to see Auspex selling a "was power creep better?" as a lesson that no matter what gets fixed, people will find a way to make it a problem. The internet is just no longer a place to go enjoy things.
It’s also how “culture wars” are invented and fuelled.
You or your algorithm go looking for the most hatstand, pants on head, yip yip bibble, shnorf lunacy you can find, from someone on the other side of the political spectrum. You then present that as a majority view of that side of the political spectrum.
Erase the grey. Remove the many, many layers. Go straight to the bottom of the iceberg, and claim “and that’s just the beginning of their demands!!!!”. Profit.
And yes. All sides are at it. All of them. Despite that most folk won’t necessarily agree on everything, but will happily let each other be about their day.
Nail on the head, Dok. No notes. Enjoy the exalt.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Brickfix wrote:I believe GWs reply on X could have been better/different but maybe they really wanted to stir up the pot?
This was actually the main gist of the question I asked - what *should* GW's reply have been, assuming that the state of women Custodes doesn't change (ie, that they are eligible in 30k and 40k, and that they have always been present in both settings)
I see no question. GW's response was that "Since the creation of the 10,00, female Custodes have always existed". So they are present in both settings.
Duymon wrote: But here all we get is a blurb of text and a lazy social media post from GW that just gaslights everyone saying that "no, there have always been", and not even any female models released where we could look at it and just think "oh GW just wants to sell new models whatever"
Seriously, folks, can we drop the insistence on 'gaslighting'?
A retcon is not gaslighting. It's a change to the setting. The point of GW's social media post wasn't to make people believe something that wasn't true. It was to point out that as of now that's the way things are. Last month, there were no female Custodes, because they had not been included in the setting*. 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.
The setting evolves, and things change. So, please, stop with the 'gaslighting' nonsense.
*aside from a couple of places where they possibly were. Yay for 40K-style consistency!
Duymon wrote: But here all we get is a blurb of text and a lazy social media post from GW that just gaslights everyone saying that "no, there have always been", and not even any female models released where we could look at it and just think "oh GW just wants to sell new models whatever"
Seriously, folks, can we drop the insistence on 'gaslighting'?
A retcon is not gaslighting. It's a change to the setting. The point of GW's social media post wasn't to make people believe something that wasn't true. It was to point out that as of now that's the way things are. Last month, there were no female Custodes, because they had not been included in the setting*. 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.
The setting evolves, and things change. So, please, stop with the 'gaslighting' nonsense.
*aside from a couple of places where they possibly were. Yay for 40K-style consistency!
my favorite was the guy who posted the dictionary definition of gaslighting and insisted that GW retconning custodes to include women was meant to make him go insane
)
