Right, so we have female Custodes confirmed. I for one am fully on board with big oiled up muscle mommys (just also please retcon the old rogue trader artwork to also include some female custodes without armor in ridiculously stupid poses....this needs a proper update). But Sisters of Silence are also a really cool, albeit neglected faction that form the other talon of the emperor.
So, why not create more diversity there as well? Expand the model range and add male Sisters of Silence models and lore while you are at it? I am pretty sure men can also be blanks in the lore...I mean I'm pretty sure that there are also male Culexus assassins. I'm dead serious here, I really like the sisters models and their lore, but why not add some more models in general and make at least some of them guys while also expanding their lore.
Don't think the name is even a problem since GW is pushing Anathema Psykana as a description for them anyway, which basically just means psychic anathema or psychic abomination if you want to be mean, which is a completely unisex description as far as I can see.
Men can be blanks. Not just Culexus, but Gunner Ferrik Jurgen (though he’s in-universe one of the best kept secrets).
Sisters of Silence?
Not only is a fighting force comprised entirely of Blanks frankly remarkable given their rarity? But being all female, in terms of their origins and recruitment is downright suspicious.
We know they existed pre-Unification of Terra, and swore fealty to The Emperor. And since then, nobody has questioned “hey what’s with all the chicks?”
Given what we know of the peak of mankind’s abilities, it seems pretty certain their number don’t arise naturally. No chance mutation going on. I suspect, but can’t prove, that they’re manufactured in some way. Possibly Clones, possibly Cloneskeins as the Votann design each generation of Kin.
Then add in the general loss of knowledge? And it could be whatever that process is, through design or ignorance can’t be used to create male blanks.
Tiberias wrote: Right, so we have female Custodes confirmed. I for one am fully on board with big oiled up muscle mommys (just also please retcon the old rogue trader artwork to also include some female custodes without armor in ridiculously stupid poses....this needs a proper update). But Sisters of Silence are also a really cool, albeit neglected faction that form the other talon of the emperor.
So, why not create more diversity there as well? Expand the model range and add male Sisters of Silence models and lore while you are at it? I am pretty sure men can also be blanks in the lore...I mean I'm pretty sure that there are also male Culexus assassins. I'm dead serious here, I really like the sisters models and their lore, but why not add some more models in general and make at least some of them guys while also expanding their lore.
Don't think the name is even a problem since GW is pushing Anathema Psykana as a description for them anyway, which basically just means psychic anathema or psychic abomination if you want to be mean, which is a completely unisex description as far as I can see.
I mean you could, but why? SoS are already so niche do they really need it? Psychic powers aren’t as widespread as they were previously.
Their concept has no reason to be limited. They're just blank assassins and honestly just a unit at this point. Whatever sense of a larger organization has just never been supported and could be retooled into anything trivially. Give it a new name or keep the name and make a new unit under the Null banner. Pull them into the Inquisition more or expand the Custodies to incorporate more "Forces of Terra". At this point they're far more of a talking point than anything GW has put real effort into beyond likely serving as prototypes for the plastic Sororitas resculpts.
Tiberias wrote: Right, so we have female Custodes confirmed. I for one am fully on board with big oiled up muscle mommys (just also please retcon the old rogue trader artwork to also include some female custodes without armor in ridiculously stupid poses....this needs a proper update). But Sisters of Silence are also a really cool, albeit neglected faction that form the other talon of the emperor.
So, why not create more diversity there as well? Expand the model range and add male Sisters of Silence models and lore while you are at it? I am pretty sure men can also be blanks in the lore...I mean I'm pretty sure that there are also male Culexus assassins. I'm dead serious here, I really like the sisters models and their lore, but why not add some more models in general and make at least some of them guys while also expanding their lore.
Don't think the name is even a problem since GW is pushing Anathema Psykana as a description for them anyway, which basically just means psychic anathema or psychic abomination if you want to be mean, which is a completely unisex description as far as I can see.
I mean you could, but why? SoS are already so niche do they really need it? Psychic powers aren’t as widespread as they were previously.
Tiberias wrote: Right, so we have female Custodes confirmed. I for one am fully on board with big oiled up muscle mommys (just also please retcon the old rogue trader artwork to also include some female custodes without armor in ridiculously stupid poses....this needs a proper update). But Sisters of Silence are also a really cool, albeit neglected faction that form the other talon of the emperor.
So, why not create more diversity there as well? Expand the model range and add male Sisters of Silence models and lore while you are at it? I am pretty sure men can also be blanks in the lore...I mean I'm pretty sure that there are also male Culexus assassins. I'm dead serious here, I really like the sisters models and their lore, but why not add some more models in general and make at least some of them guys while also expanding their lore.
Don't think the name is even a problem since GW is pushing Anathema Psykana as a description for them anyway, which basically just means psychic anathema or psychic abomination if you want to be mean, which is a completely unisex description as far as I can see.
I mean you could, but why? SoS are already so niche do they really need it? Psychic powers aren’t as widespread as they were previously.
Representation.
No I get that, I didn’t mean that they shouldn’t make make models, but that the sub faction seems good only in rare circumstances so why make new data sheets and models for it
That would not be a bad idea since the Sister of Silence are so niche, but interesting nevertheless to many players. Yes, you could expand the faction and yes there are male blanks, but from my understanding, the Sisters of Silence were a religious order of some sort and thus all female much like the Sisters of Battle. Note though that it would not be impossible for them to have a distaff counterpart much like the Sisters of Battle have the Crusaders which are literally them, but masculine. They could also be integrated within a wider Schola Psykana Codex, but I feel it more likely the Sister of Silence will be dropped from the Custodes codex in the future and shoved into the "imperial agent" section.
conscriptboris wrote:If you remove everything distinct and exclusive. It will diminish the stories.
Exclusivity creates uniqueness.
If Custodes get big muscle mommys, the Sisters can have some dudes aswell I reckon.
epronovost wrote:That would not be a bad idea since the Sister of Silence are so niche, but interesting nevertheless to many players. Yes, you could expand the faction and yes there are male blanks, but from my understanding, the Sisters of Silence were a religious order of some sort and thus all female much like the Sisters of Battle. Note though that it would not be impossible for them to have a distaff counterpart much like the Sisters of Battle have the Crusaders which are literally them, but masculine. They could also be integrated within a wider Schola Psykana Codex, but I feel it more likely the Sister of Silence will be dropped from the Custodes codex in the future and shoved into the "imperial agent" section.
The Sisters of Silence are among the least religious groups in the entire galaxy, they are among the very, very few who were able to see through the emperors psychic appearance during the heresy.
I made a Sisters of Battle army but modeled them male... I love the idea of normal everyday people in power armor equipped with bolters. I had mainly male soldiers but also used normal SOB miniatures because converting became a hassle. I used Van Saar miniatures, guard bits, and some SM bits here and there. I want to put myself in my army, I wanted to familiarize with them. I had 1000 points made up and went to a GW in Maryland to play. I was promptly told I could not play with my army because they were offensive. It was such a beautiful army too. I still have some miniatures if anyone is interested in what they looked like.
The reason I bring this up is because, I am highly in favor of modeling your plastic army soldiers however you want. Be respectful and nice to everyone. The hobby is for EVERYONE. And more people need to practice what they preach. Because I found out quickly, that some people dont think that way. At the end of the day its just a game and a scifi universe. So what, just have fun.
Edit* I attached a picture of my dudes I converted if anyone is interested.
Is there any fluff reason for them to not to include dudes? Briefly skimming lexicanum, I don't see any explanation for being exclusively female. You'd think they'd want to make use of all the nulls they can.
So barring some cool bit of lore I'm not aware of that would contradict with brothers of silence, I say go ahead and include them. The faction doesn't really lose anything by adding dudes to its ranks.
Were SoS maybe GW's way of gauging whether to support sisters as a full faction vs as just an imperial agents option?
My internal head cannon was always that blanks and nulls were divided between the Adeptus Assassinorum and the Sisters of Silence base on some ancient contract written between them. The boys are sent off to become Culexus assassins and the girls are given over to the Sisters.
I personally wouldn't be too miffed over the Sisters of Silence being mixed gender. Only because the main design just really isn't that different from the SoB. They're both sisters of the boob armour, but with slightly different headware.
I guess SoS were to SoB as custodes were to space marines? But even that just feels repetitive.
Mr Nobody wrote: My internal head cannon was always that blanks and nulls were divided between the Adeptus Assassinorum and the Sisters of Silence base on some ancient contract written between them. The boys are sent off to become Culexus assassins and the girls are given over to the Sisters.
Same.
I personally wouldn't be too miffed over the Sisters of Silence being mixed gender. Only because the main design just really isn't that different from the SoB. They're both sisters of the boob armour, but with slightly different headware.
Also same. "Exclusively female power armor wearers who are pretty good at resisting psychic powers" is a similar enough job that I genuinely didn't realize they weren't just a subset of sororitas when they first came out. Like I said, it kind of feels like GW was considering scrapping sisters as a faction and distilling their concept down to one or two SoS units.
Wyldhunt wrote: Is there any fluff reason for them to not to include dudes? Briefly skimming lexicanum, I don't see any explanation for being exclusively female. You'd think they'd want to make use of all the nulls they can.
So barring some cool bit of lore I'm not aware of that would contradict with brothers of silence, I say go ahead and include them. The faction doesn't really lose anything by adding dudes to its ranks.
Were SoS maybe GW's way of gauging whether to support sisters as a full faction vs as just an imperial agents option?
GW doesn't gauge these things, let's be real here. They initially released sisters along with custodes for heresy, then expanded the custodes model range for 40k. Custodes became very popular and GW couldn't give two gaks about sisters again.
Sisters of Silence gaining any tracktion and becoming more popular in general is in my opinion thanks to black library and in particular thanks to Chris Wraight who gave them actual spotlight in the Watchers of the Throne books. And not just as some obscure sidekicks....Aleya is an awesome character and an absolute badass.
Seriously, in my opinion Valerian only really works because his obnoxiously noble character is contrasted by this jaded, battle-worn, too-angry-to-die madwoman....they make one of the, if not the best buddy-cop pair in the current setting.
Mr Nobody wrote: My internal head cannon was always that blanks and nulls were divided between the Adeptus Assassinorum and the Sisters of Silence base on some ancient contract written between them. The boys are sent off to become Culexus assassins and the girls are given over to the Sisters.
That seems like a plausible interpretation of the lore on this specific point.
Frankly, I think that the idea of Sisters of Silence being only women was actually just to make them like Sisters of Battle but better just like the Custodes were made to be just like Space Marines, but better. The Emperor's bodyguards were supposed to be a mirror of playable factions, but better. Of course, now that they are a playable faction with their own lore and characters they are no longer confined to this like X but better trope.
Do any of the novels delve into the lore behind the SoS? I recall their cameos in the purging of Prospero arc and the Black book that dealt with the same but do not recall much on their origin story.
Out of lore justification is surely just to have some female models in the SM dominated HH game.
Wyldhunt wrote: Is there any fluff reason for them to not to include dudes? Briefly skimming lexicanum, I don't see any explanation for being exclusively female. You'd think they'd want to make use of all the nulls they can.
So barring some cool bit of lore I'm not aware of that would contradict with brothers of silence, I say go ahead and include them. The faction doesn't really lose anything by adding dudes to its ranks.
Were SoS maybe GW's way of gauging whether to support sisters as a full faction vs as just an imperial agents option?
I would argue that despite what many claim about female custodes, the sisters were created as all female specifically for inclusion. Because at the time they were created in the mid 2000s, there were very few female models. The sisters appear to me to be a deliberate add girls to the setting opportunity.
It's far less contrived to just put women in squads of soldiers than to create a special group of all women...
The original question of course, has in the past been used in bad faith by people to as a false equivalence in the argument against female inclusion. What aboutisms. They aren't equal. 90% of the game models are male, so claiming we should make one of the few instances of female models include men is in no way equivalent to adding women to the 90% of men that already exist. It actually reduces diversity. Which is obvious if people didn't get stuck on their false equivalence fallacies as if it's some kind of aha gotcha...
Tiberias wrote: Right, so we have female Custodes confirmed. I for one am fully on board with big oiled up muscle mommys (just also please retcon the old rogue trader artwork to also include some female custodes without armor in ridiculously stupid poses....this needs a proper update). But Sisters of Silence are also a really cool, albeit neglected faction that form the other talon of the emperor.
So, why not create more diversity there as well? Expand the model range and add male Sisters of Silence models and lore while you are at it? I am pretty sure men can also be blanks in the lore...I mean I'm pretty sure that there are also male Culexus assassins. I'm dead serious here, I really like the sisters models and their lore, but why not add some more models in general and make at least some of them guys while also expanding their lore.
Don't think the name is even a problem since GW is pushing Anathema Psykana as a description for them anyway, which basically just means psychic anathema or psychic abomination if you want to be mean, which is a completely unisex description as far as I can see.
I mean you could, but why? SoS are already so niche do they really need it? Psychic powers aren’t as widespread as they were previously.
Representation.
I find that pretty disappointing really Damocles (unless you're being sarcastic). For someone well versed in 40k and capable of making reasoned arguments to fall into that false equivalence trap.
EDIT
As to the original question - when 40k reaches a 50/50 split of representation, then brothers of silence are more than welcome. There's nothing that says they can't be men.
But the disingenuous attempt at 'reversing' the female custodes argument is not a reason to have them. It IS an example of the privilege people have in not being in a minority group and failing to understand that it's not a 1:1 give and take when one side holds all the cards. If it was, then there would be no move towards equality because you're just swapping chairs, rather than providing more for the side with less. By making this argument you are effectively resetting the representation to 0.
Wyldhunt wrote: Is there any fluff reason for them to not to include dudes? Briefly skimming lexicanum, I don't see any explanation for being exclusively female. You'd think they'd want to make use of all the nulls they can.
So barring some cool bit of lore I'm not aware of that would contradict with brothers of silence, I say go ahead and include them. The faction doesn't really lose anything by adding dudes to its ranks.
Were SoS maybe GW's way of gauging whether to support sisters as a full faction vs as just an imperial agents option?
I would argue that despite what many claim about female custodes, the sisters were created as all female specifically for inclusion. Because at the time they were created in the mid 2000s, there were very few female models. The sisters appear to me to be a deliberate add girls to the setting opportunity.
It's far less contrived to just put women in squads of soldiers than to create a special group of all women...
The original question of course, has in the past been used in bad faith by people to as a false equivalence in the argument against female inclusion. What aboutisms. They aren't equal. 90% of the game models are male, so claiming we should make one of the few instances of female models include men is in no way equivalent to adding women to the 90% of men that already exist. It actually reduces diversity. Which is obvious if people didn't get stuck on their false equivalence fallacies as if it's some kind of aha gotcha...
Tiberias wrote: Right, so we have female Custodes confirmed. I for one am fully on board with big oiled up muscle mommys (just also please retcon the old rogue trader artwork to also include some female custodes without armor in ridiculously stupid poses....this needs a proper update). But Sisters of Silence are also a really cool, albeit neglected faction that form the other talon of the emperor.
So, why not create more diversity there as well? Expand the model range and add male Sisters of Silence models and lore while you are at it? I am pretty sure men can also be blanks in the lore...I mean I'm pretty sure that there are also male Culexus assassins. I'm dead serious here, I really like the sisters models and their lore, but why not add some more models in general and make at least some of them guys while also expanding their lore.
Don't think the name is even a problem since GW is pushing Anathema Psykana as a description for them anyway, which basically just means psychic anathema or psychic abomination if you want to be mean, which is a completely unisex description as far as I can see.
I mean you could, but why? SoS are already so niche do they really need it? Psychic powers aren’t as widespread as they were previously.
Representation.
I find that pretty disappointing really Damocles (unless you're being sarcastic). For someone well versed in 40k and capable of making reasoned arguments to fall into that false equivalence trap.
EDIT
As to the original question - when 40k reaches a 50/50 split of representation, then brothers of silence are more than welcome. There's nothing that says they can't be men.
But the disingenuous attempt at 'reversing' the female custodes argument is not a reason to have them. It IS an example of the privilege people have in not being in a minority group and failing to understand that it's not a 1:1 give and take when one side holds all the cards. If it was, then there would be no move towards equality because you're just swapping chairs, rather than providing more for the side with less. By making this argument you are effectively resetting the representation to 0.
Let's cut to the chase then: does every fiction necessarily have to have 50/50 representation, always? Is that always the absolute end goal to move towards? I don't have a definitive, objectively correct answer to that because I don't think there is one, but it feels instictively wrong.
Edit: to elaborate, I say it feels instictively wrong because I don't think you can or should force such a thing in fiction. Then again, I'd genuinely like some male Anathema Psykana.
The original question of course, has in the past been used in bad faith by people to as a false equivalence in the argument against female inclusion. What aboutisms. They aren't equal. 90% of the game models are male, so claiming we should make one of the few instances of female models include men is in no way equivalent to adding women to the 90% of men that already exist. It actually reduces diversity. Which is obvious if people didn't get stuck on their false equivalence fallacies as if it's some kind of aha gotcha...
Fair point. That said, SoS are something that I see so rarely and are so... whatever the opposite of iconic is... that I'm not sure there would really be much harm in adding brothers of silence. I've never seen someone excited to collect a SoS army or mention SoS as the first sign of fem rep in the setting.
I think your point would be stronger if we were talking about Sororitas who *are* something I see fielded fairly often, who *are* pretty iconic.
Semi-separate thought: Just as I feel that custodes are kind of a low-risk-low-impact place to add fem rep, SoS are similarly sort of low-risk-low-impact. I don't think a lot of people would feel alienated/bothered by brothers of silence, but SoS are such a low-visibility faction that I'm not sure we'd be moving any needles by adding brothers of silence.
Let's cut to the chase then: does every fiction necessarily have to have 50/50 representation, always? Is that always the absolute end goal to move towards? I don't have a definitive, objectively correct answer to that because I don't think there is one, but it feels instictively wrong.
50/50 rep among factions that don't have any particular reason to not be 50/50 seems pretty reasonable. If half of all tau heads had the feminine nasal slits, half of guard torsos had chesticles, half of eldar guardian torsos had boob plate, etc., that seems reasonable to me.
Personally, I'm fine with gender-locked factions existing, but marines have a big, cringey asterisk next to them because they're the most visible and most supported faction in the franchise. If guard were getting marine levels of support/visiblity and marines were getting guard levels of support/visibility, marines being all dudes would probably be fine.
The 50/50 wasn't meant as a literal requirement, more to highlight the point of the unequal approach of 1:1 sex representation when adding women in one, doesn't auto make adding men to another.
The main point is - when there is unequal representation, the focus is on evening that out, not trying to make the majority feel better when the minority gets something.
Only when there is an actual level of equal representation will questions like this actually have meaning, because then everyone is working on an even playing field.
Or at least equal-ish. I don't think the recent discussions of gender in 40k would be nearly so heated if marines weren't so visible/didn't make up half the playable factions. Nor do I think anyone would mind marines remaining a boys club if they weren't so visible/supported. No one particularly minds orks (male-coded though not technically male) remaining as they are because orks aren't the protagonists of half the video games and the faction that gets half the releases.
Tiberias wrote: Let's cut to the chase then: does every fiction necessarily have to have 50/50 representation, always?
Just a quick mention here but it would be HIGHLY fallacious and wrongheaded to claim that because there is now a precedent for female Custodian that Custodian are thus an "equal representation faction". Having a handful of women in a overwhelmingly men dominated army doesn't make the army 50/50 equal representation. If you take Stormcast Eternals as a template, the vast majority of character (and model) in the faction are men to a factor of about 5 to 1 I would say. This is not equal representation. It does have representation for both gender, but it's not 50/50 representation at all. There is absolutely nothing in the Custodian codex that claims that half or even close to half of all Custodians are women; in fact, it appears that while there are Custodian women, they are a rarity. It would be safe to assume that female Custodian are just as rare if not even rarer than female Stormcast Eternals. I think speaking in terms of rigorous gender equality and representation when one gender is a strong minority in a group is toxic to the conversation (not that I am accusing of being toxic btw; I simply think you are approaching the conversation from a toxic angle, you sound like a nice dude). It's arguing from a caricature.
No, even now, the Custodian are not an equal representation faction like the T'au can be (or how the two eldars should be and are said to be, but are not physically represented to be in the model line). Should all factions be like that? I don't think so. I think it's fine to have factions who are mostly of one gender or another. In fact that makes the world a little more colorful if you have faction with more or less gender representation. This appears to me as fine and acceptable. I'm even fine with some factions being of exclusively one gender. They can be an interesting flavor. I would caution about such faction being the flagship faction as it does make it loose some wider appeal in my opinion; it's more of a niche thing. I think that Space Marines and 40K in general would be more popular if there was a possibility for some female marines for example just like the Stormcast Eternals do it. You could then have your exclusively male marine Chapter, a funky all female marine Chapter here and there and the lambda Marine factions who are mostly men, but with women here and there to spice things up. I think it would match better with a 21st century audience too (which is ironic since there used to be female marines until they were retconned when 40K started to pivot from satire and comedy to actual grimdark and nobledark).
Wyldhunt wrote: Or at least equal-ish. I don't think the recent discussions of gender in 40k would be nearly so heated if marines weren't so visible/didn't make up half the playable factions. Nor do I think anyone would mind marines remaining a boys club if they weren't so visible/supported. No one particularly minds orks (male-coded though not technically male) remaining as they are because orks aren't the protagonists of half the video games and the faction that gets half the releases.
Totally agree. Part of the challenge is that marines fulfill a power fantasy that no other faction except custodes do.
It's like saying only men can be jedi. It's a particular set of fantasy skills excluded to the reader because of their sex.
If you think about it, magic muscle juice that makes you an ubermensch would be a potentially attractive thing to women in a fantasy, given the realworld challenges they have. Yet we offer it only to the side of the population that already have physical advantages over the other half - so nerds can have a power fantasy to be better than all the other MEN, which is pretty telling (this is all relatively unconscious).
The irony though that GW's milking of the marine cow at the expense of their other lines has bitten them here is pretty great though. If only they were more even handed with their approach maybe this would not happen.
I do think though that excluding one particular skill/power set to the reader/consumer because of their sex is going to be bad regardless. all female marine chapters or sisters getting their own geneseed would have allowed both to exist in the universe while retaining that divide.
Wyldhunt wrote: Or at least equal-ish. I don't think the recent discussions of gender in 40k would be nearly so heated if marines weren't so visible/didn't make up half the playable factions. Nor do I think anyone would mind marines remaining a boys club if they weren't so visible/supported. No one particularly minds orks (male-coded though not technically male) remaining as they are because orks aren't the protagonists of half the video games and the faction that gets half the releases.
Totally agree. Part of the challenge is that marines fulfill a power fantasy that no other faction except custodes do.
It's like saying only men can be jedi. It's a particular set of fantasy skills excluded to the reader because of their sex.
If you think about it, magic muscle juice that makes you an ubermensch would be a potentially attractive thing to women in a fantasy, given the realworld challenges they have. Yet we offer it only to the side of the population that already have physical advantages over the other half - so nerds can have a power fantasy to be better than all the other MEN, which is pretty telling (this is all relatively unconscious).
The irony though that GW's milking of the marine cow at the expense of their other lines has bitten them here is pretty great though. If only they were more even handed with their approach maybe this would not happen.
I do think though that excluding one particular skill/power set to the reader/consumer because of their sex is going to be bad regardless. all female marine chapters or sisters getting their own geneseed would have allowed both to exist in the universe while retaining that divide.
Ok, I'm gonna get flamed for this, but this is what I meant earlier: you used the example that if all jedi could hypothetically only be men as a bad case of representation. Fair enough, and I'm by no means saying that all jedi should only be men, BUT since we are talking about fiction here, I can't for the life of me find anything morally wrong in any sense if george lucas had imagined jedi to only be male always.
It would have been a terribly bad business move, since girls obviously also think jedi are cool and you want them as viewers/customers as well, but would I can't see how it can be called wrong from a moral standpoint since it's a product of his imagination.
Or let's do the even more extreme example that is going to get me flamed even more: let's say hypothetically you create a fantasy/sci-fi setting for the insecure nerds that you think get drawn to 40k: a pure 80s style male power fantasy -> all the heroes are like juiced up 80s action hero dudes with cheesey one liners. That setting becomes more popular and more mainstream. Would it then be morally wrong not to change/add something to that setting to increase representation? I honestly can't see a reason of how it could be morally wrong not to add these things since it is a piece of fiction.
Keep in mind I am absolutely fine with female custodes, I am bringing this up more as a point of principle about a writers freedom of expression in the genre of fiction.
If you explicitly tell your audience that this is not for women and that it will deliberately cater to stereotypical male tastes then sure.
But GW is not doing that with 40k.
It is pretty offensive to try and encourage women to join a fandom that explicitly condones for 'thematic' reasons the othering women.
It would be like encouraging black africans to join in on your apartheid RPG with all the white players and acting suprised when they reject it. It's super accurate and true to the lore is not an argument for supporting bigotry.
Hellebore wrote: If you explicitly tell your audience that this is not for women and that it will deliberately cater to stereotypical male tastes then sure.
But GW is not doing that with 40k.
It is pretty offensive to try and encourage women to join a fandom that explicitly condones for 'thematic' reasons the othering women.
It would be like encouraging black africans to join in on your apartheid RPG with all the white players and acting suprised when they reject it. It's super accurate and true to the lore is not an argument for supporting bigotry.
Ok wait, this is important: you lost me there. If we take my hypothetical from my previous post about a fictional setting that's peak male power fantasy: how would that be explicitly telling women that this is not for them? I am genuinely asking here because nothing about this hypothetical says "women not allowed" it won't appeal to a lot of women probably, it also probably won't appeal at least to some dudes, but you can't keep somebody from partaking in a piece of fiction.
The fact that this hypothetical would in all likelihood not appeal to a great many women is something different than than telling them "this is not for you!".
Also, just a small point on the side: Apartheid is not fiction.
Hellebore wrote: If you explicitly tell your audience that this is not for women and that it will deliberately cater to stereotypical male tastes then sure.
But GW is not doing that with 40k.
It is pretty offensive to try and encourage women to join a fandom that explicitly condones for 'thematic' reasons the othering women.
It would be like encouraging black africans to join in on your apartheid RPG with all the white players and acting suprised when they reject it. It's super accurate and true to the lore is not an argument for supporting bigotry.
Ok wait, this is important: you lost me there. If we take my hypothetical from my previous post about a fictional setting that's peak male power fantasy: how would that be explicitly telling women that this is not for them? I am genuinely asking here because nothing about this hypothetical says "women not allowed" it won't appeal to a lot of women probably, it also probably won't appeal at least to some dudes, but you can't keep somebody from partaking in a piece of fiction.
The fact that this hypothetical would in all likelihood not appeal to a great many women is something different than than telling them "this is not for you!".
Also, just a small point on the side: Apartheid is not fiction.
GW specifically advertises on their platforms that 40k is for everyone. It is pretty problematic to advertise a product for everyone if it also includes actual exclusion of a portion of the users as part of that entertainment.
That apartheid is real was the point. Sexism is the only ism that doesn't get a fantasy equivalent. It's ported 1:1 into fiction.
You can explore apartheid in fiction between the xlrips and glortis and you won't be telling the reader they are excluded.
40k still only has 2 sexes, and so exclusion of one literally speaks to the reader. If there were male, female, qunale, and florp and they said florps were excluded from being techpriests because of their sex, it wouldn't literally speak to the reader as they aren't florps.
But if you said women can't X, then there ARE women reading, enjoying and experiencing. And you're telling them that they must enjoy their fictional escapism through the lens of realworld bigotry they actually feel.
Because again, GW explicitly market warhammer for ALL. They've used that phrase many times on their platforms.
Ok, I'm gonna get flamed for this, but this is what I meant earlier: you used the example that if all jedi could hypothetically only be men as a bad case of representation. Fair enough, and I'm by no means saying that all jedi should only be men, BUT since we are talking about fiction here, I can't for the life of me find anything morally wrong in any sense if george lucas had imagined jedi to only be male always.
It would have been a terribly bad business move, since girls obviously also think jedi are cool and you want them as viewers/customers as well, but would I can't see how it can be called wrong from a moral standpoint since it's a product of his imagination.
Or let's do the even more extreme example that is going to get me flamed even more: let's say hypothetically you create a fantasy/sci-fi setting for the insecure nerds that you think get drawn to 40k: a pure 80s style male power fantasy -> all the heroes are like juiced up 80s action hero dudes with cheesey one liners. That setting becomes more popular and more mainstream. Would it then be morally wrong not to change/add something to that setting to increase representation? I honestly can't see a reason of how it could be morally wrong not to add these things since it is a piece of fiction.
Keep in mind I am absolutely fine with female custodes, I am bringing this up more as a point of principle about a writers freedom of expression in the genre of fiction.
Personally, I think trying to determine whether or not such a choice is morally "wrong" is getting into the weeds as it depends on tackling the concept of right/wrong/morality in general. Regardless of whether it's right/wrong, and regardless of whether it's profitable, it would functionally be putting up a barrier that will prevent some number of women from having a good time and making fond memories with the hobby. And that's a shame. And an avoidable shame at that. I'd argue that making jedi (or marines) exclusively male wouldn't (doesn't) really add much of value to the game/lore. It's a very... particular individual who can think that werewolf vikings and pyromaniacal mutants are cool but has their fun ruined by the notion that some of those werewolves/pyromaniacs have lady bits.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bobthehero wrote:Given that statement is explicitely exclusive, I would not use it seriously in any sort of argument in favor of the GW marketing itself to anyone.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:Sorry, which phrase is explicitly exclusive? “Warhammer is meant for all”?
Sorry.
"Warhammer is meant for everyone except bigots."
Thought that last part was implied. Funny how many people get offended by the idea of bigots not being welcome.
Hellebore wrote: If you explicitly tell your audience that this is not for women and that it will deliberately cater to stereotypical male tastes then sure.
But GW is not doing that with 40k.
It is pretty offensive to try and encourage women to join a fandom that explicitly condones for 'thematic' reasons the othering women.
It would be like encouraging black africans to join in on your apartheid RPG with all the white players and acting suprised when they reject it. It's super accurate and true to the lore is not an argument for supporting bigotry.
Ok wait, this is important: you lost me there. If we take my hypothetical from my previous post about a fictional setting that's peak male power fantasy: how would that be explicitly telling women that this is not for them? I am genuinely asking here because nothing about this hypothetical says "women not allowed" it won't appeal to a lot of women probably, it also probably won't appeal at least to some dudes, but you can't keep somebody from partaking in a piece of fiction.
The fact that this hypothetical would in all likelihood not appeal to a great many women is something different than than telling them "this is not for you!".
Also, just a small point on the side: Apartheid is not fiction.
GW specifically advertises on their platforms that 40k is for everyone. It is pretty problematic to advertise a product for everyone if it also includes actual exclusion of a portion of the users as part of that entertainment.
That apartheid is real was the point. Sexism is the only ism that doesn't get a fantasy equivalent. It's ported 1:1 into fiction.
You can explore apartheid in fiction between the xlrips and glortis and you won't be telling the reader they are excluded.
40k still only has 2 sexes, and so exclusion of one literally speaks to the reader. If there were male, female, qunale, and florp and they said florps were excluded from being techpriests because of their sex, it wouldn't literally speak to the reader as they aren't florps.
But if you said women can't X, then there ARE women reading, enjoying and experiencing. And you're telling them that they must enjoy their fictional escapism through the lens of realworld bigotry they actually feel.
Because again, GW explicitly market warhammer for ALL. They've used that phrase many times on their platforms.
I am sorry, but to me it simply does not follow to say that "warhammer is for all" must necessarily mean every faction has to represent everyone. This goes back to my hypothetical: that 80s style hyper male power fantasy will in all likelyhood not appeal to most women, but that writer is under no moral obligation to add/change anything. As I've said there exists no inherent barrier for you to interact with a piece of fiction, wether you like it or not is a different story entirely.
Where it becomes a problem in my book is if actual people (the writer, fans, whoever) start actually saying things like "we do not, want women in this fandom. We do not want them on conventions, we do not want them reading this.They do not fit here".
This is screaming obvious wrong: nobody can tell you what you like or should like, but in my understanding writing something that probably won't appeal to women, is in stark contrast to actually telling them not to interact or actually trying to keep them from interacting with that piece of fiction by not letting them into conventions or something along those lines. Which goes back to what I've said earlier: I don't see how there can be a barrier just within the text of that fiction, nobody can stop you from interacting with the text itself and enjoying it (not saying that you or anyone would necessarily actually always enjoy the hypothetical 80s male power fantasy fiction, my point is nobody can keep you from doing so were you to enjoy it).
This may sound harsh, and remember that I don't think that 40k should be an all male power fantasy (just making sure to point that out), but as I said this is a matter of principle about artistic freedom in my opinion: why would that writer be under any obligation to incoorporate your wishes?
Keep in mind I am saying this believing that it is your good right to want, demand and wish for anything in any piece of fiction to be changed to your wishes if this would lead to you more enjoying that piece of fiction. I am just also saying that the hypothetical writer of that piece of fiction is under absolutely no moral obligation to actually do that. And I really believe it would be wrong to call that hypothetical writer a bigot because of that.
Edit: Also, small sidepoint: I think saying sexism is 1:1 ported into fiction can absolutely be true, but 40k is strangely not a good example for this in my opinion. As bad a regime as the imperium is in 40k, it is strangely egalitarian: space marines aside you can become basically any position in the imperium if you are a woman, because the imperium does not care who they throw into the meat grinder. I think at least 3 high lords of terra are women in the lore if memory serves right (inquisition, administrarum, ecclesiarchy).
Any argument for an egalitarian imperium only supports more women in things, not less. Thats like saying I cant be sexist I have daughters.
If marines were a minor faction that had as much popularity as genestealer cults then sure. But marines are the central pillar of 40k. They are the best at everything and have all the best stuff. But you can't be one of you're a girl.
A woman will literally never get to be a super warrior paladin of the imperium because girls.
Hellebore wrote: Any argument for an egalitarian imperium only supports more women in things, not less. Thats like saying I cant be sexist I have daughters.
If marines were a minor faction that had as much popularity as genestealer cults then sure. But marines are the central pillar of 40k. They are the best at everything and have all the best stuff. But you can't be one of you're a girl.
A woman will literally never get to be a super warrior paladin of the imperium because girls.
I think you are ignoring my main argument a bit: If I were to write a fictional setting were there are is an all male paladin order front and center, I cannot for the life of me understand how it follows that I am saying that women can't or shouldn't be paladins in any setting anywhere. They just can't in this hypothetical setting. And that has to be ok under the rubric of freedom of artistic expression, it just has to be or else that term has no meaning.
Similar with GW, which was my original argument: I cannot see how one could argue that it would be morally wrong or bigoted for them to not include female super warrior paladin types (though I would argue that marines are very far removed from what most people would understand a paladin to be in most settings). You may disagree and advocate for them to do it, but they are under absolutely no moral obligation to actually do it.
Edit: again, you might say that including female marines might draw more women to 40k since they feel more represented, that's a valid argument. To me it just doesnt follow however that anyone could claim that GW is morally wrong in not doing so. Again, that just has to be ok under the rubric of freedom of artistic expression....it has to be, for that term to have any meaning at all.
Thought that last part was implied. Funny how many people get offended by the idea of bigots not being welcome.
Then it very much isn't for all, Hellebore seems to believe otherwise but using a line that implies that there's a but very much means it isn't for all.
GW have to do a male Sisters of Silence equivalent now, they would be hypocrites if they didn't. Call them Brothers of Silence, or Oblivion Knights or something like that. Should be easy to work as a lore change as we have many examples of male pariahs.
robbienw wrote: GW have to do a male Sisters of Silence equivalent now, they would be hypocrites if they didn't. Call them Brothers of Silence, or Oblivion Knights or something like that. Should be easy to work as a lore change as we have many examples of male pariahs.
Why?
We have a whole temple for male nulls to train in already.
Sisters of Silence, like Astartes and Sororitas, but unlike Custodes have been explicitly single sex organisations since they were first introduced. And whilst we can debate until the cows come home whether they’re that way for good reasons, we at least have a reason for each of those.
As ever, whilst I don’t see a pressing need for that status quo to change, I wouldn’t be overly fussed if it did. With one caveat of purely personal preference.
It would have to come amidst a general shift in the background. Because for 10,000 years (longer for the Sisters of Silence, much less for the Sororitas), those institutions have existed as single sex, and have kept their numbers and combat effectiveness up just fine with it. And nobody in-universe has seen it as a drawback or limitation either.
Without intending to be definitive? For me, that would include the 1,000 per Chapter limit on Marines being increased, perhaps in recognition that with the state of the Galaxy, and Primaris thus far proving resistant to corruption and turning their coats, larger Chapters can deal with larger threats, putting greater pressure on roving Chaos Warbands, perhaps forcing them to ally into larger conglomerates of allies, the better to be ROFLstomped, inflicting more telling and lasting damage to their numbers.
And, following a Cawlian breakthrough, Imperial Genentech can now convert female candidates to Astartes, the better to meet that demand, effectively doubling the pool of potential recruits.
That tech is then shared with the Selenite Cult, enabling their process of creating blanks (my own head canon on that bit) to be applied to male candidates or zygotes or whatever it is that happens.
And that is necessitated, as the larger Space Marine Chapters is agreed, on the caveat each Ship has a contingent of Sisters of Silence to better guard its commanders against Chaos and its various threats and temptations.
Again, this is just an example, and not an advocation. But hopefully it goes some way to show the sort of developments I think would be necessary for such a big change.
Then it very much isn't for all, Hellebore seems to believe otherwise but using a line that implies that there's a but very much means it isn't for all.
Being a bigot is not an inherent quality. The bigots can stop being bigots and then they're welcome.
robbienw wrote: GW have to do a male Sisters of Silence equivalent now, they would be hypocrites if they didn't. Call them Brothers of Silence, or Oblivion Knights or something like that. Should be easy to work as a lore change as we have many examples of male pariahs.
Why?
We have a whole temple for male nulls to train in already.
Why not?
They've never given a reason as to why the organisation is all female. We know there are male pariahs from the background on Inquisitorial retinues, the Ordo Sinister and the Culexus temple. There is no reason why male pariahs should be excluded from the organisation.
The contrast between Custodes and Sisters set in the heresy CCG is now gone, so that's not a reason for not having them either.
The idea that we now suddenly need male representation in things like the SoB or SoS displays an almost childlike immaturity. “Muuuuum, Johnny has a choc ice, Iiiiiiiii want a choc iiiiiice.” “But you already have a choc ice Timmy.”
The Custodes aren’t a particularly fleshed out faction, they’ve been background fluff for the majority of 40K, but it’s only in recent years that we’ve had models, books, codices etc. It doesn’t explicitly state in any of the background that they can’t be women. So this isn’t even a retcon.
I don’t understand why anyone needs to feel like they’ve had something taken away from them, or that anything needs “even-ing up” that would now necessitate a retcon to the two female only factions.
It’s all striking me as somewhat pathetic and needy.
As far as female Culexas, the cover of Nemesis by James Swallow says it all:
I've generally gone with the "Male blanks are Culexas", but in Eisenhorn the Distaff network of Pariahs seemed to be mostly female. This is just a guess, but I'm thinking since females are generally more accepted by both genders female pariahs live longer. In the case of Bequin, she had a harsh life but was attractive, it was just hard getting work as a pleasure girl when people want to run away from you. It's reiterated time and again that Jurgen from the Cain novels is repellent, but most think it's just his stench.
Edit: After 5 seconds of searching, come to find out Boy Scouts now allows girls, but Girl Scouts will not allow boys.. Do with that what you will...
General Kroll wrote: The idea that we now suddenly need male representation in things like the SoB or SoS displays an almost childlike immaturity. “Muuuuum, Johnny has a choc ice, Iiiiiiiii want a choc iiiiiice.” “But you already have a choc ice Timmy.”
The Custodes aren’t a particularly fleshed out faction, they’ve been background fluff for the majority of 40K, but it’s only in recent years that we’ve had models, books, codices etc. It doesn’t explicitly state in any of the background that they can’t be women. So this isn’t even a retcon.
I don’t understand why anyone needs to feel like they’ve had something taken away from them, or that anything needs “even-ing up” that would now necessitate a retcon to the two female only factions.
It’s all striking me as somewhat pathetic and needy.
Kinda have to ask: have you even read the original post? How am I needy and pathetic in wanting male sisters of silence? I wasn't even arguing that everything needs even-ing up like you say or everything needs to be 50:50, just that it would be cool if they included it. Explain that one to me.
On Custodes: first of all I said initially that I was fine with the change, BUT in all fairness it is a retcon: in both custodes codices (8th and 9th) it is stated that the noble families of terra give their sons as tribute. It doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things since they've now officially changed it, but saying it isn't even a retcon is just not correct.
This is actually not the case, the Custodes were explicitly all male from their introduction. Hence the recent retcon furore.
They weren't though, and neither were marines.
In any case, the whole tread is just pointless whataboutism.
Well if you want to be condescending at least adress me personally. If I genuinely think male anathema psykana or sisters of silence would be cool and female custodes gives a precedence for that: how is that whataboutism? I said it would be cool if they extended the model range and made some of the dudes, how's that a bad thing?
robbienw wrote: GW have to do a male Sisters of Silence equivalent now, they would be hypocrites if they didn't. Call them Brothers of Silence, or Oblivion Knights or something like that. Should be easy to work as a lore change as we have many examples of male pariahs.
Why?
We have a whole temple for male nulls to train in already.
Why not?
They've never given a reason as to why the organisation is all female. We know there are male pariahs from the background on Inquisitorial retinues, the Ordo Sinister and the Culexus temple. There is no reason why male pariahs should be excluded from the organisation.
The contrast between Custodes and Sisters set in the heresy CCG is now gone, so that's not a reason for not having them either.
Sisters of Silence, like Astartes and Sororitas, but unlike Custodes have been explicitly single sex organisations since they were first introduced.
This is actually not the case, the Custodes were explicitly all male from their introduction. Hence the recent retcon furore.
Don’t make me go get my Rogue Trader books.
Now look what you’ve made me do.
Rogue Trader, pp133 wrote:The Adeptus Custodes is the Emperor’s inner guard, the members of which are privileged in being permitted to serve upon The Emperor, attending his needs, receiving and recording his directions. These men never leave Earth, and only rarely leave the Imperial Palace - and endless black hive of forbidden technology and subterranean passages delving deep within the bowels of the planet
Not bodyguards. Not post-humans clad in Auric armour.
Butlers. They’re Butlers and errand boys.
Therefore, being the earliest example, this am the truth tm, and all other retcons must be discarded until they’re once again just Butlers and errand boys. And possibly Groom of the stool. The Emperor’s personal Gong Farmers.
And whilst I’ve got it open…
Rogue Trader, same page wrote:The Legiones Astartes is known as the Space Marine (sic) it comprises of roughly 1000 independent fighting units called Chapters, each of roughly 1000 troops. Each Chapter has its own Commanders, one of whom holds the title Master of Marines. Each Commander is subject to the orders of top-ranking members of the priesthood - but only in a general, non-military sense. So, whilst a Commander may receive orders to destroy a target, the means to be employed are left to the Commander - his only duty is to succeed! The Space Marines represent The Imperium’s main strike-force of mobile warriors, ready to travel anywhere at anytime. Amongst men and aliens alike they are popularly called the Angels of Death
Hang up your Geneseed bucko, because that’s a retcon!
Do you want to keep playing this game? Becuase I’ve a complete set of Rogue Trader books to show the true origin of everything40K.
We can even get really fun and call…
Rogue Trader page 109 wrote:The Adeptus Custodes forms the Emperor’s inner guard whose duties are to serve and protect the Master of Mankind. A continuous rota ensures that several hundred of these select warriors are active within the palace, as well a small elite of guardians who never leave The Emperor’s side. Their uniforms are traditional but effective, leather breeches and boots with a long black cloak over naked torso. Their helmet are ancient works of art; all enclosing and tall they impart a threatening, impersonal appearance as well as providing a battery of protective equipment and communicators. The weapons carried by these guards look very much like spears or spear-guns, but are in fact lasers build to resemble the traditional and symbolic guardian-spear which has long association with the Adeptus Custodes and which appears on their banners, badges and other regalia. The guards themselves never leave Earth, and only rarely leave the imperial palace where their duties lie - their place is by The Emperor’s side
A retcon, because it’s a later page you see, and is different information as they’re no longer Butlers, errand boys or Grooms of the Stool.
Still not post-human, no big shiny gold armour or owt.
Are you starting to see the problem, and that we can prove anything with facts?
This is actually not the case, the Custodes were explicitly all male from their introduction. Hence the recent retcon furore.
They weren't though, and neither were marines.
In any case, the whole tread is just pointless whataboutism.
It's not whataboutism, that's a completely different thing
GW should modify the SoS in accordance with how they have modified the Custodes, as they are mirrored faction that work together. Its only fair. Really there is only one motivation for not doing it.
Both Custodes and Astartes were explicitly all male from RT onwards.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
General Kroll wrote: It doesn’t explicitly state in any of the background that they can’t be women. So this isn’t even a retcon.
It actually did though. They've been referred to as all male since RT, as we can see from Mad Doc Grotsniks quote. There are other lore statements pre-10th edition codex. Its 100% a retcon.
Sure, be happy with the change if you like it, but lets not pretend its not a retcon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Don’t make me go get my Rogue Trader books.
Now look what you’ve made me do.
Rogue Trader, pp133 wrote:
The Adeptus Custodes is the Emperor’s inner guard, the members of which are privileged in being permitted to serve upon The Emperor, attending his needs, receiving and recording his directions. These men
Its appears i've made you prove my point for me, see the text in bold.
Men at arms. Servicemen. Mankind. The Imperium of Man. Firemen. And so on and so forth.
Still no mention of a “no smelly girls” policy (though having been a GW Till Monkey for a period, and a fan of live music, “no smelly people” is a sensible policy)
Hellebore wrote: Any argument for an egalitarian imperium only supports more women in things, not less. Thats like saying I cant be sexist I have daughters.
If marines were a minor faction that had as much popularity as genestealer cults then sure. But marines are the central pillar of 40k. They are the best at everything and have all the best stuff. But you can't be one of you're a girl.
A woman will literally never get to be a super warrior paladin of the imperium because girls.
I think you are ignoring my main argument a bit: If I were to write a fictional setting were there are is an all male paladin order front and center, I cannot for the life of me understand how it follows that I am saying that women can't or shouldn't be paladins in any setting anywhere. They just can't in this hypothetical setting. And that has to be ok under the rubric of freedom of artistic expression, it just has to be or else that term has no meaning.
Emphasis mine. I don't think anyone is making the case that GW is trying to discourage people from having female space marines when they play like, Halo or some other franchise. But marines being the main face/focus of 40k means that gender-locking them makes the franchise a little less approachable and in-turn means that there are people not making happy gaming memories with you that they otherwise might.
It's like if Knights of the Old Republic only allowed you to make male characters. Or if pikachus, eevees/eeveelutions, and one of the starters were unavailable to female characters in the video games. Or if the Percy Jackson series made everyone male and had an arbitrary rule saying only boys can be demigods.
Similar with GW, which was my original argument: I cannot see how one could argue that it would be morally wrong or bigoted for them to not include female super warrior paladin types (though I would argue that marines are very far removed from what most people would understand a paladin to be in most settings). You may disagree and advocate for them to do it, but they are under absolutely no moral obligation to actually do it.
I wouldn't use the term "morally wrong" to describe it. Not sure who first started using that phrasing in this thread. I *would* call a baffling and lame choice that should probably be retcon'd if at all possible for the sake of spreading enjoyment to more people.
The term bigotry in this thread has, I believe, been aimed more at people who seem to have a problem with the notion of women being able to engage with the franchise more comfortably; not at GW or whoever wrote the boys-only/girl-only lore for various factions.
Edit: again, you might say that including female marines might draw more women to 40k since they feel more represented, that's a valid argument. To me it just doesnt follow however that anyone could claim that GW is morally wrong in not doing so. Again, that just has to be ok under the rubric of freedom of artistic expression....it has to be, for that term to have any meaning at all.
See above. Less "morally wrong," and more, "Baffling and lame."
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Men at arms. Servicemen. Mankind. The Imperium of Man. Firemen. And so on and so forth.
Still no mention of a “no smelly girls” policy (though having been a GW Till Monkey for a period, and a fan of live music, “no smelly people” is a sensible policy)
Doesn't work like that
It explicitly says "These men" in a singular way that can't confuse adult male with mankind as a whole. Not "These Custodymen", or "These Custodymen-at arms" or anything that would mean mankind. In this context, to mean what you claim it means it would have to have said something like "These people", or of course could have just said 'These men and women" if that was the actual intention.
And of course its not the only instance where this is stated.
I'm not sure why people have such a difficult time accepting its a retcon. There is no need to pretend it always was the case there have been female Custodes since 1987, just because GW has decided to change things now.
Thought that last part was implied. Funny how many people get offended by the idea of bigots not being welcome.
Then it very much isn't for all, Hellebore seems to believe otherwise but using a line that implies that there's a but very much means it isn't for all.
I'm trying to interpret your post as generously as I can, but it seems like you're bothered by the notion that people are okay with excluding bigots from the hobby. Or else nitpicking at semantics? Sincerely not trying to cast you in a negative light or put words in your mouth, but are you trying to make the case that we should avoid stepping on the toes of intolerant people?
Bobthehero wrote: Given that statement is explicitely exclusive, I would not use it seriously in any sort of argument in favor of the GW marketing itself to anyone.
I think you misunderstood what was very clear to many of us:
The statement "Warhammer is for Everyone" clearly means "Warhammer is not a safe place to express racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia."
I find it hard not to negatively judge people who looked at that and said "Hey, that excludes me because of my bigotry. Hypocrite!"
Edit: (and yes, speaking philosophically, "tolerance" is not a universal virtue or even value since it is only a means to an end and we do have to consider "tolerance of what?" But "tolerance of other people's race/creed/gender/etc" is not the same as "tolerance of other people's desire to exclude people based on their race/creed/gender/etc." The real value is in treating other humans well regardless of differences. But that conversation has been had enough times that people don't usually feel the need to bring it up- it only comes up when someone is discussing abstract ethical systems in detail or when someone is being intentionally obtuse and trying to find hypocrisy to make themselves feel better).
I don't feel excluded by the statement, really. What excluded me from 40k was the poor treatment of the Death Korps and Legends, but that's a topic for another time.
GW has no mechanism to stop those whose views they disagree with from buying their stuff and gaming with/collecting it, so it really is literally for everyone who wants to participate.
One of the things that bothers me is that I really don't see how being all men was ever a major part of Custodes identity. Including women in the recruitment takes nothing away from them.
Back on Sisters of Silence (for whom gender does form an identity) what if there is a reason why they're all women?
I mean, men and women can be blanks, and blanks are extremely rare, but also useful- so you'd think that the imperium would exploit all of the blanks- right?
So what if they aren't recruiting Sisters of Silence from the extremely rare blanks in the world- what if they're making them?
If they took an original blank and cloned her into a fighting force, that would fit with pretty much everything we know (and it doesn't involve splitting up the blanks and assigning them jobs based on gender).
robbienw wrote: In this context, to mean what you claim it means it would have to have said something like "These people", or of course could have just said 'These men and women" if that was the actual intention.
Except you make a simple linguistic error here. You assume that since 1987 and now, convention in writtings have not changed which is false. Inculsive writting was not common in the late 80's outside of some academic publications. In English, the term men can be used in some context to people of either gender which led to the feminist joke at the time of: "there are only two gender: normal and women.". Nowday the joke is "there are only two gender: men and political". It would not be incorrect to say that in such context men could refer to both men and women. When talking or writting about people in general, the masculine form used to be fairly commonly used. It's a phenomenon of the last 25 years or so to include explicitly and equally both gender in writting format. Once upon a time, it was viewed as making the text too ponderous.
Furthermore there is what we could call the "except Jenny" problem. Let's say there is three female Space Marine in the entire universe, just three. Neither of these three female Space Marine are notable for anything else then being women. They are as average as Space Marines goes; they hold no special rank, no special fame not special feat to their name. Would it be incorrect to say that Space Marines are men or recruited from young men and boys from their respective planet? No, I think this would be a good description of who Space Marines are and from who they are recruited since there are so little women in them that they are more like exception that confirm the rule. It would be almost more misleading to say that Space Marine are men and women since this would give the impression that there would far more women than just three in over a million, that women being Space Marines is not a exceedingly rare and strange exception. It would also be strange to always highlight the exception like Space Marines are men, except Jenny, Suzanne and Gloria. It highlights a small detail that isn't required to the reader in a text where someone talks about a subject in general.
The sheer number of Sisters of Silence, since their initial incorporation, pre-Crusade, to the nascent Imperium suggests they’re not naturally occurring blanks, because at that point there wasn’t inter-solar-system-travel. So whilst yes, in the modern day, it could be the Black Ships also keep an eye out for Blanks as well as Psykers, that doesn’t explain their original numbers.
Sadly it’s not really touched upon in the background, so we can only speculate. And I speculate there’s some kind of cloning/cloneskein going on, which by limitation or sheer old tradition, only produces female Blanks.
General Kroll wrote: The idea that we now suddenly need male representation in things like the SoB or SoS displays an almost childlike immaturity. “Muuuuum, Johnny has a choc ice, Iiiiiiiii want a choc iiiiiice.” “But you already have a choc ice Timmy.”
The Custodes aren’t a particularly fleshed out faction, they’ve been background fluff for the majority of 40K, but it’s only in recent years that we’ve had models, books, codices etc. It doesn’t explicitly state in any of the background that they can’t be women. So this isn’t even a retcon.
I don’t understand why anyone needs to feel like they’ve had something taken away from them, or that anything needs “even-ing up” that would now necessitate a retcon to the two female only factions.
It’s all striking me as somewhat pathetic and needy.
Kinda have to ask: have you even read the original post? How am I needy and pathetic in wanting male sisters of silence? I wasn't even arguing that everything needs even-ing up like you say or everything needs to be 50:50, just that it would be cool if they included it. Explain that one to me.
On Custodes: first of all I said initially that I was fine with the change, BUT in all fairness it is a retcon: in both custodes codices (8th and 9th) it is stated that the noble families of terra give their sons as tribute. It doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things since they've now officially changed it, but saying it isn't even a retcon is just not correct.
I didn’t mention you or the first post in mine. But social media is awash with cry babies declaring that since there’s now female Custodes, GW must give them male Sisters of Battle, or Silence. We’ve even seen someone in this thread declare that if GW don’t they’re hypocrites.
As for if it’s a retcon or not, as I said in my original post, none of the lore explicitly states that women cannot be part of the Adeptus Custodes. Even the really ancient stuff that Doc Grotsnik kindly posted for us.
It only states that the nobles of Terra give their sons, it does not state that they only give their sons, and it does not state they don’t give give their daughters.
It actually did though. They've been referred to as all male since RT, as we can see from Mad Doc Grotsniks quote. There are other lore statements pre-10th edition codex. It’s 100% a retcon.
Sure, be happy with the change if you like it, but lets not pretend its not a retcon.
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
odinsgrandson wrote: One of the things that bothers me is that I really don't see how being all men was ever a major part of Custodes identity. Including women in the recruitment takes nothing away from them.
That's kind of where I'm at. Was a lack of lady bits really a major part of custodes' appeal for people? Do ovaries somehow detract from their interest in the Emperor's marine-spanking BFFs?
Back on Sisters of Silence (for whom gender does form an identity)
Does it though? I feel like SoS are much like custodes in this regard. Being an army of mysterious, witch-hunting blanks is what (I assume) attracts people to them; not the contents of their trousers. Being exclusively female kind of just makes them harder to differentiate from sisters, to my mind.
what if there is a reason why they're all women?
I mean, men and women can be blanks, and blanks are extremely rare, but also useful- so you'd think that the imperium would exploit all of the blanks- right?
So what if they aren't recruiting Sisters of Silence from the extremely rare blanks in the world- what if they're making them?
If they took an original blank and cloned her into a fighting force, that would fit with pretty much everything we know (and it doesn't involve splitting up the blanks and assigning them jobs based on gender).
Cool concept! Pure speculation, but fun speculation.
Sorry, got to wibble further about the possible origin of the Sisters of Silence.
In my last post I touched on the Votann using Cloneskeins to create further generations. Now it’s important to understand that’s not outright cloning. Rather, each Votann (essentially self-aware STCs) contains genebanks, and uses those to custom design each member of each generation of Kin, incorporating genetic tweaks and edits to fit them to a given need or role. Indeed the Kin’s short and stout stature and other common adaptations are themselves a result of that process, to better suit them to the high grav nature of the galactic core.
And it includes the “hardened souls” of the Kin, which render them highly resistant (but not immune) to the predation of the warp and its denizens. It’s also how the Grimnyr are granted their warp powers.
Now, 40K being 40K? That’s merely a sensible application of such technology, and presumably its original intent and purpose. To rapidly adapt colonists to non-Earth standard worlds without the moral queasiness of Eugenics or the time period needed for evolution - even evolution to a very different environment which would be comparatively rapid, provided said environment isn’t utterly hostile to the point nobody survives.
But let’s weaponise it to a greater or lesser degree. If you and yours detest Psykers and the risks they bring, either foresightedly or a direct result of the Age of Strife, creating Blanks is….not that bad an idea, really. I mean, if proximity to a single Blank can yeet a Daemon back into the warp, or cause a Psyker intense pain and even death? What effect might a citadel or city full of the buggers do? At the very least, it’s a hell of an advantage in the right circumstances, right circumstances we know to have occurred.
Less wibbly? Kin/Votann prove gene editing and designer babies were well within Peak Humanity’s capabilities. Blanks are just too rare for the ranks of the Sisters of Silence to have manifested naturally in such number. Therefore, the evidence strongly points to someone arseing about with Genhancement.
Why only women? Could be a strict limitation of the technology. Could be someone misplaced the instructions to create male Blanks, could just be good old fashioned “that’s our tradition and if you don’t roll with it we’ll smash up the production facilities just to spite you, because we hold that card, screw you”.
odinsgrandson wrote: One of the things that bothers me is that I really don't see how being all men was ever a major part of Custodes identity. Including women in the recruitment takes nothing away from them.
Back on Sisters of Silence (for whom gender does form an identity) what if there is a reason why they're all women?
I mean, men and women can be blanks, and blanks are extremely rare, but also useful- so you'd think that the imperium would exploit all of the blanks- right?
So what if they aren't recruiting Sisters of Silence from the extremely rare blanks in the world- what if they're making them?
If they took an original blank and cloned her into a fighting force, that would fit with pretty much everything we know (and it doesn't involve splitting up the blanks and assigning them jobs based on gender).
We basically know that (at least present day) Sisters of Silence aren't clones, since their codex talked about them spreading their genes throughout humanity.
What if there is a reason that the Custodes are all men? There is a reason that Astartes are all men, but that doesn't deaden the calls for femarines.
Clones aren’t necessarily sterile. So a cloned Sister of Silence, once aged beyond necessary combat efficiency, could well go off to get knocked up, and try to spread the gene further.
odinsgrandson wrote: One of the things that bothers me is that I really don't see how being all men was ever a major part of Custodes identity. Including women in the recruitment takes nothing away from them.
GW didn't help matters by 1984ing it instead of spending two minutes writing how the structure of Terras nobility had changed - the Custodes being the first born heir of the noble houses as a way to secure their allegiance to the throne and the immediate post techno-barbarian nobility simply being a system of kings and their sons at that particular time.
Gotcha. Saying this with the best intentions: might want to be careful with that. Don't want to paint yourself in a bad light by accident.
Yeah, I was about to assume the worst and mentally categorize BobtheHero with some of the guys who just got banned. Good to know he’s actually just a linguistic party pooper.
The Culexus temple holds all Pariahs (2nd edition Codex:Assassins page 21), presumably the Sisters of Silence skim any aspirants that show promise off the top of that crop and then leave the rest to the Officio, minus any that Inquisitors find particular use of.
It's entirely possible that there's no genetic reason for the Sisters of Silence to HAVE to be all female, it's just that they choose to be. A lot of stuff in 40k happens because "this is the way it has always been", ontological inertia carries a lot of weight, so because they're called the sisters of silence, they must now always be female, not for any good reason other than tradition.
So if they do skim off the black ships it would go:
- Black ships gather up both psykers and Pariahs
- Sisters identify potential candidates and the rest get shipped off to the Culexus temple known as The Fortress "on the edge of the galaxy"
- Black ships complete their cycle and return to Terra with a small number of Pariahs that have been selected out for recruitment (it has to be a small number, before the Culexus temple was founded all Pariahs were shipped to terra and it disrupted the Astronomican, hence why The Fortress was constructed to keep them out of the way)
So there doesn't need to be a good or biological reason for sisters to be all female, it can just be "because they are", but similarly if you want male sisters of silence then go for it too. It's not like Pariahs are even that rare, "less than one in a billion" which would put the number at just under 8 on earth right now, and that's to say nothing of the hive worlds and the vast breadth of the Imperium. there's plenty of scope for splinter factions of SoS who have expanded their recruitment
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The sheer number of Sisters of Silence, since their initial incorporation, pre-Crusade, to the nascent Imperium suggests they’re not naturally occurring blanks, because at that point there wasn’t inter-solar-system-travel. So whilst yes, in the modern day, it could be the Black Ships also keep an eye out for Blanks as well as Psykers, that doesn’t explain their original numbers.
Sadly it’s not really touched upon in the background, so we can only speculate. And I speculate there’s some kind of cloning/cloneskein going on, which by limitation or sheer old tradition, only produces female Blanks.
Not explained in the background REALLY means "this lore does not exist yet."
So while I like the idea that they're some kind of clone or otherwise artificially created blanks, the fact that it is not outright stated means that this is just headcanon for now.
The difference is that when headcanon is altered, it isn't actually a retcon except to the people who confused themselves into thinking that their headcanon was canon
(I hope they go this route with the Sisters of Silence because it is cool)
odinsgrandson wrote: One of the things that bothers me is that I really don't see how being all men was ever a major part of Custodes identity. Including women in the recruitment takes nothing away from them.
GW didn't help matters by 1984ing it instead of spending two minutes writing how the structure of Terras nobility had changed - the Custodes being the first born heir of the noble houses as a way to secure their allegiance to the throne and the immediate post techno-barbarian nobility simply being a system of kings and their sons at that particular time.
But that wasn’t necessary.
It’s a retcon, not a development. Just like Marines going from “just well armed, trained and armoured” to being genetically enhanced. Just as Lion El’Jonson was first mentioned as Lynn Elgynsen (spelling to be confirmed!) in Rogue Trader, in a description of the first Feast of Malediction, which in that passage was a rite of the Dark Angels, not Blood Angels.
robbienw wrote: GW has no mechanism to stop those whose views they disagree with from buying their stuff and gaming with/collecting it, so it really is literally for everyone who wants to participate.
They do have a mechanism, though. Every time they notice an abundance of bigots buying their minis, they put out a statement hat Warhammer is for Everyone or they add in black space marines and female Custodes. Keep pushing it and you’ll force them to retaliate with Femmarines.
<insert your opinon here> is wrong, it has always been <insert contradicting opinion here>.
And we have always been at war with eastasia.
Incidentally Corvus Corax was originally a proto-repentia.
They did this with dozens of retcons, though. They did it with Necrons, Tyranids, Centurion armor, Ultramarines being the best and all other marines wished they could be Ultramarines.
GW has always been an arrogant company that treats its customers with condescension. It always will be. It used to be even worse during the Kirby era. Really, this is a great opportunity for you to get out and find some non-GW gaming companies that aren’t market-dominating jerkasses.
The real win-win here is that GW can shed some of the more toxic elements of its fandom and people shook by typical GW behavior have that shove to get them out the door and playing Battletech or Warmahordes or Flames of War or whatever.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The real win-win here is that GW can shed some of the more toxic elements of its fandom and people shook by typical GW behavior have that shove to get them out the door and playing Battletech or Warmahordes or Flames of War or whatever.
It would be sadly ironic for poor handling of a diversity statement to lead to less diversity in the hobby.
Maybe we are approaching this from the wrong angle and the actual reason for why certain units/factions have historically been coded for a specifix sex is simply their miniatures.
Space Marines and Custodes have been considered male because their miniatures use an exaggerated male silhouette, while SoB and (maybe to a lesser extent) SoS have more of an hourglass type silhouette and proportions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is currently any female model in standard (male) power armor available from GW. Inquisitors Draxus and Greyfax both wear female silhouettes, with the latter being more overt and the former being a bit more subdued.
If we take the closest analogue from AoS, they also have distinctive designs for male and female storm cast in terms of proportions and armor design.
So maybe this is mostly a case of lore being subordinate to whatever miniature concepts are deemed feasible.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: If you’re gonna quote, quote the whole thing. Because there’s more to post, isn’t there?
I didn't see the point of padding things out with the part of the post I wasn't replying to.
But for what it's worth the rest of you post :
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s a retcon, not a development. Just like Marines going from “just well armed, trained and armoured” to being genetically enhanced. Just as Lion El’Jonson was first mentioned as Lynn Elgynsen (spelling to be confirmed!) in Rogue Trader, in a description of the first Feast of Malediction, which in that passage was a rite of the Dark Angels, not Blood Angels.
Yes, I agree - that's what I meant when I said 1984ing it.
It was a needless and ham-fisted retcon where where a lore change would have served. The fact that other things have been retconned in the past doesn't change the laziness of this change.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The real win-win here is that GW can shed some of the more toxic elements of its fandom and people shook by typical GW behavior have that shove to get them out the door and playing Battletech or Warmahordes or Flames of War or whatever.
It would be sadly ironic for poor handling of a diversity statement to lead to less diversity in the hobby.
Getting rid of gatekeepers and bigots is not a reduction in diversity in the hobby. They all had pretty much the same perspective. It does however, allow more normies to feel comfortable getting into the game or buying a copy for their previously-unwelcomed friends.
It does when talking about a body of soldiers. "Men" in such context absolutely cannot be assumed to exclude women.
I'm not sure why people have such a difficult time accepting its a retcon. There is no need to pretend it always was the case there have been female Custodes since 1987, just because GW has decided to change things now.
The only clearish statement for excluding women was in the 8th edition codex, and it was already changed for the 9th. So yes, it is a super minor retcon, similar to the same thing happening with Imperial Knights. And of course absolutely pales in comparison with the retconning of Custodes to be gold armoured gigantic super soldiers.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Getting rid of gatekeepers and bigots is not a reduction in diversity in the hobby. They all had pretty much the same perspective. It does however, allow more normies to feel comfortable getting into the game or buying a copy for their previously-unwelcomed friends.
Perhaps I misread your post. It seemed to suggest that the controversy would put people off and direct them to battletech and the like, or were you literally talking about shoving people out of the hobby?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Getting rid of gatekeepers and bigots is not a reduction in diversity in the hobby. They all had pretty much the same perspective. It does however, allow more normies to feel comfortable getting into the game or buying a copy for their previously-unwelcomed friends.
Perhaps I misread your post. It seemed to suggest that the controversy would put people off and direct them to battletech and the like, or were you literally talking about shoving people out of the hobby?
I’m saying the people who leave GW are always going to find better gaming experiences. I’m also saying that anyone who wasn’t put off by all the earlier retcons, but found THIS retcon to be the one that makes them leave GW will make the GW fanbase less toxic by leaving. The gamer wins and the GW fans win.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I’m also saying that anyone who wasn’t put off by all the earlier retcons, but found THIS retcon to be the one that makes them leave GW will make the GW fanbase less toxic by leaving.
odinsgrandson wrote: Not explained in the background REALLY means "this lore does not exist yet."
So while I like the idea that they're some kind of clone or otherwise artificially created blanks, the fact that it is not outright stated means that this is just headcanon for now.
The difference is that when headcanon is altered, it isn't actually a retcon except to the people who confused themselves into thinking that their headcanon was canon
One of the common mistakes fandoms make is using conclusions reached in a theory discussion to support a new theory. Nothing is scarier than headcanon hype built on headcanon.
odinsgrandson wrote: Not explained in the background REALLY means "this lore does not exist yet."
So while I like the idea that they're some kind of clone or otherwise artificially created blanks, the fact that it is not outright stated means that this is just headcanon for now.
The difference is that when headcanon is altered, it isn't actually a retcon except to the people who confused themselves into thinking that their headcanon was canon
One of the common mistakes fandoms make is using conclusions reached in a theory discussion to support a new theory. Nothing is scarier than headcanon hype built on headcanon.
That depends.
Head cannon informed by existing background is a very different beast from “it says nothing, therefore I’ll just invent whatever I want”, not to mention “it says nothing, therefore I’ll just invent whatever I want and insist that it’s now therefore canon”.
odinsgrandson wrote: One of the things that bothers me is that I really don't see how being all men was ever a major part of Custodes identity. Including women in the recruitment takes nothing away from them.
GW didn't help matters by 1984ing it instead of spending two minutes writing how the structure of Terras nobility had changed - the Custodes being the first born heir of the noble houses as a way to secure their allegiance to the throne and the immediate post techno-barbarian nobility simply being a system of kings and their sons at that particular time.
But that wasn’t necessary.
It’s a retcon, not a development. Just like Marines going from “just well armed, trained and armoured” to being genetically enhanced. Just as Lion El’Jonson was first mentioned as Lynn Elgynsen (spelling to be confirmed!) in Rogue Trader, in a description of the first Feast of Malediction, which in that passage was a rite of the Dark Angels, not Blood Angels.
In another discussion about retcons, someone brought up all the different descriptions of imperial guard companies- and after all of them pointed out that each one used only male terms for what was officially mixed gender forces.
GW hasn't really stopped using the subtly sexist language- I think because it echoes a lot of their source material (they like to sound like an old chivalric epic, you know?). But that means that using male terms is the least reliable indication that a group is made up of only one gender.
odinsgrandson wrote: Not explained in the background REALLY means "this lore does not exist yet."
So while I like the idea that they're some kind of clone or otherwise artificially created blanks, the fact that it is not outright stated means that this is just headcanon for now.
The difference is that when headcanon is altered, it isn't actually a retcon except to the people who confused themselves into thinking that their headcanon was canon
One of the common mistakes fandoms make is using conclusions reached in a theory discussion to support a new theory. Nothing is scarier than headcanon hype built on headcanon.
That depends.
Head cannon informed by existing background is a very different beast from “it says nothing, therefore I’ll just invent whatever I want”, not to mention “it says nothing, therefore I’ll just invent whatever I want and insist that it’s now therefore canon”.
Many, many shades.
You're right. Head canon is often not a problem at all. To be honest, I don't think that so many people put so much stock into that line about "sons" so much as they transported the astartes lore on the topic and saw how all of the minis were male. I mean, I think Middle Earth should be a world that is 50% women, but The Hobbit doesn't contain an interaction with even a single one.
And ultimately a lot of things are scarier than head canon build on head canon.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The sheer number of Sisters of Silence, since their initial incorporation, pre-Crusade, to the nascent Imperium suggests they’re not naturally occurring blanks, because at that point there wasn’t inter-solar-system-travel. So whilst yes, in the modern day, it could be the Black Ships also keep an eye out for Blanks as well as Psykers, that doesn’t explain their original numbers.
Sadly it’s not really touched upon in the background, so we can only speculate. And I speculate there’s some kind of cloning/cloneskein going on, which by limitation or sheer old tradition, only produces female Blanks.
Nah I think you are onto something here, and there is a slight nod to it, Bequin is a clone, she goes to a realm with other clones of blanks and allegedly its run by Constantine Valdor, it could be nothing at all but your theory is not baseless.
Nah I think you are onto something here, and there is a slight nod to it, Bequin is a clone, she goes to a realm with other clones of blanks and allegedly its run by Constantine Valdor, it could be nothing at all but your theory is not baseless.
Where is that from? I don't remember this from Eisenhorn or Ravenor...
I think it's from the Bequin novel. Haven't read/ heard it myself yet but I am a fan of Dan Abnett novels, Inquisitor ones especially. I expect if you've been in the military you'd get more out of Gaunt's Ghosts.
What'd be interesting to see if clone Bequin's blank status is due to genetics, or fact she is cloned. Ancient alchemists feared "Homunculi" as they were born outside the womb, ergo no soul, ergo- abominations.
My current headcannon says the Pariah gene may be on the MRNA strand, which you get from your Mom- so it's more prevalent/ passed on in women. IE: A male blank got if from Mom, but can't pass it on; but her daughter can. This'd explain the Sisterhood, as they'd all "breed true" over successive matrilineal lines.
And though peeps don't like to cite War of the Beast, Vulkan knew about the sisterhood and found them in hiding, and they still had numbers despite no overt Black Ships backing.
odinsgrandson wrote:GW hasn't really stopped using the subtly sexist language- I think because it echoes a lot of their source material (they like to sound like an old chivalric epic, you know?). But that means that using male terms is the least reliable indication that a group is made up of only one gender.
Not to mention a lot of this was written in the 1980’s, by folk that grew up in the 60’s and 70’s.
Whilst sexist language was common, even in the “right on” lefty Alternative Comedy scene, we should be careful of assigning sexist intent to that wording.
Cop out it may be to some, but it really was a different time. I was born in 1980, and grew up when sexist and racist language (which I won’t go into specific examples of) was just…normal. And it doesn’t mean everyone who grew up then is or was sexist, racist or homophobic. And that’s reflected in the media of those times.
As an example? Check YouTube for “Young Ones, Racist Policeman”. A very, very right on comedy, and a scene making fun of the Police being racist. But good god the language used in that scene would not be acceptable now.
And lefty as I am, I am careful to keep such changes in mind where others might just outright criticise the use of certain words, phrases or even stereotypes. There is after all a world of difference between The Black and White Minstrel Show, and Papa Lazarou of League of Gentleman even though they both use black face. Quick hint? The former is a racist portrayal to its core. The latter is basically just Clown Goth Makeup. Insensitive yes, but not racist in intent or performance.
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You misunderstand MDGs question. They are not asking what the evidence is for Custodes previously being male, but what the evidence was for Custodes previously being locked to male for any reason other than "because they are male". Astartes have a lore reason for being male, however much a person agrees with it. Sisters of Battle likewise. Both Custodes and Sisters of Silence have never had such a rationale supplied.
The implication is that either group (lorewise) could recruit from the opposite sex, but does not for some unknown reason like tradition or the Emperor being a douchebag (the latter is my headcanon- he is an arsehole in every other regard, why would he be different in this?).
robbienw wrote: GW has no mechanism to stop those whose views they disagree with from buying their stuff and gaming with/collecting it, so it really is literally for everyone who wants to participate.
They do have a mechanism, though. Every time they notice an abundance of bigots buying their minis, they put out a statement hat Warhammer is for Everyone or they add in black space marines and female Custodes. Keep pushing it and you’ll force them to retaliate with Femmarines.
They don't though. 'An abundance of bigots' . They aren't going to know the views of 99.99% of people who buy their stuff, and they cant stop people enjoying and buying 40k in whatever format they like, which includes ignoring changes GW have made to the lore. It is literally for everyone.
Odd comment about black space marines though, i think you'll find they've been around for a long long time. What did you mean by that?
robbienw wrote: cant stop people enjoying and buying 40k in whatever format they like, which includes ignoring changes GW have made to the lore. It is literally for everyone.
Correct.
So what’s with the repeated world record attempts for “furthest distance Teddy has been thrown from the pram”?
It does when talking about a body of soldiers. "Men" in such context absolutely cannot be assumed to exclude women.
This is false. There is no other way you'd be able to able to convey they were men, if you assume in this instance all mention of 'men' in RT referred to mankind. If they were doing this they'd also be no mention of 'Women' or 'Men and Women' in RT. If they had wanted to leave it ambiguous they would have said 'These Custodians'. If they had wanted to include both men and women, they would have just said 'These men and women'.
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You misunderstand MDGs question.
I'm not misunderstanding the question. The reason whey they were locked to being male was not given; that does not mean they were not locked to being male. They obviously were until the lore change. Lack of female Custodians does not imply female Custodians are possible, it can only imply they were not.
odinsgrandson wrote: One of the things that bothers me is that I really don't see how being all men was ever a major part of Custodes identity. Including women in the recruitment takes nothing away from them.
GW didn't help matters by 1984ing it instead of spending two minutes writing how the structure of Terras nobility had changed - the Custodes being the first born heir of the noble houses as a way to secure their allegiance to the throne and the immediate post techno-barbarian nobility simply being a system of kings and their sons at that particular time.
But that wasn’t necessary.
It’s a retcon, not a development. Just like Marines going from “just well armed, trained and armoured” to being genetically enhanced. Just as Lion El’Jonson was first mentioned as Lynn Elgynsen (spelling to be confirmed!) in Rogue Trader, in a description of the first Feast of Malediction, which in that passage was a rite of the Dark Angels, not Blood Angels.
In another discussion about retcons, someone brought up all the different descriptions of imperial guard companies- and after all of them pointed out that each one used only male terms for what was officially mixed gender forces.
GW hasn't really stopped using the subtly sexist language- I think because it echoes a lot of their source material (they like to sound like an old chivalric epic, you know?). But that means that using male terms is the least reliable indication that a group is made up of only one gender.
-
That was me! GW also exclusively referred to generic players using male pronouns in their rulebooks ("Player two fails a save, so he removes one Marine as a casualty" etc.), despite having female staff members working on the setting and rules throughout this period. Male as default was the norm then, female only neing used for groups with no or exceptionally few men present.
That said, I think in those various Custodes snippets, the intention seems to have been to suggest they are indeed all male, and the recent lore is a small retcon.
odinsgrandson wrote: In another discussion about retcons, someone brought up all the different descriptions of imperial guard companies- and after all of them pointed out that each one used only male terms for what was officially mixed gender forces.
I haven't had a guard book since 8th edition but glancing at the regiments section there is only one that uses the term 'his'. Ironically it is also the only regiment represented by a distinctly female image while the rest look like drawings of the old pewter (all male) model ranges.
The original 80s rogue trader actually had a number of female warriors depicted, I would imagine the 2nd ed guard book not so much - the 90s were somewhat uncertain times on girls in games and on boys playing girls in games, though more so in America than europe.
robbienw wrote: cant stop people enjoying and buying 40k in whatever format they like, which includes ignoring changes GW have made to the lore. It is literally for everyone.
Correct.
So what’s with the repeated world record attempts for “furthest distance Teddy has been thrown from the pram”?
I wouldn't know. You'd have to ask the newly minted female Custodian fans why they are having tantrums because some people objected to a lore change.
No one had tantrums about people objecting to the Black Templars turning from Imperial Truthers to God Emperor believers for example, or tantrums about people objecting to the massive Necron lore change around 5th edition. Why now we wonder?
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You misunderstand MDGs question.
I'm not misunderstanding the question. The reason whey they were locked to being male was not given; that does not mean they were not locked to being male. They obviously were until the lore change. Lack of female Custodians does not imply female Custodians are possible, it can only imply they were not.
That is a logical fallacy to assume Custodes were locked- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I actually agree the recent Custodes lore is a retcon, but no previous lore stated Custodes had to be male, only that they were male. When I say this implies they are not locked, I mean from a GW perspective- every other such factions with as much prominence have had lore justifications given, yet they omitted these two factions.
If you follow your logic, most of the additions to the setting are retcons rather than simply filling out gaps in a vast setting, and I disagree with that interpretation. I don't think Land Raider Crusaders or Rogal Dorn tanks are retcons just because they were never mentioned previously, for example.
odinsgrandson wrote: In another discussion about retcons, someone brought up all the different descriptions of imperial guard companies- and after all of them pointed out that each one used only male terms for what was officially mixed gender forces.
I haven't had a guard book since 8th edition but glancing at the regiments section there is only one that uses the term 'his'. Ironically it is also the only regiment represented by a distinctly female image while the rest look like drawings of the old pewter (all male) model ranges.
The original 80s rogue trader actually had a number of female warriors depicted, I would imagine the 2nd ed guard book not so much - the 90s were somewhat uncertain times on girls in games and on boys playing girls in games, though more so in America than europe.
I only quoted up to the 6th edition Codex (2014) because I had enough quotes to highlight the point that GW is horrendously inconsistent on most of even its basic lore. The gendered language was a side note. I also stopped at 6th because my newer books are still packed in a box somewhere due to a recent house move...
However, the timeframe between 6th and 8th seems about right for GW shifting to a more inclusive tone in their writing.
Interestingly, after Rogue Trader, 3rd edition had the most female Guard troopers until 9th. There were frequent references to female Guard units (like the Xenonian free companies), the Last Chancers set included 2 (including a Xenonian) the Tanith models included one. Proportionate to the size of the sets, this was a lot. I think the female Commissar and Catachan with grenade launcher were 2nd edition.
Then nothing until Ripper Jackson and Severina Raine in... 8th?
Odd comment about black space marines though, i think you'll find they've been around for a long long time. What did you mean by that?
Some years ago (feels like fairly recently, but it is probably longer time than I imagine) there was a Black Library book with a prominent black Space Marine (Ultramarine IIRC) on cover, and a bunch of people had a fit about it. Quite similar than this current Custodes incident.
And perhaps you don't remember, but non-white people used to be pretty rare in GW art and miniature paintjobs. It has thankfully changed now.
Haighus wrote: Then nothing until Ripper Jackson and Severina Raine in... 8th?
Wasn't much infantry released for the guard at all between 3rd and 8th. Command squads and tempestus scions - IIRC the latter originally mostly/exclusively male because their sex excluded them from the sisterhood (as elite schola progenium graduates).
Odd comment about black space marines though, i think you'll find they've been around for a long long time. What did you mean by that?
Some years ago (feels like fairly recently, but it is probably longer time than I imagine) there was a Black Library book with a prominent black Space Marine (Ultramarine IIRC) on cover, and a bunch of people had a fit about it. Quite similar than this current Custodes incident.
And perhaps you don't remember, but non-white people used to be pretty rare in GW art and miniature paintjobs. It has thankfully changed now.
The prominent examples also tended to be segregated into their own units, like the Salamanders. Whilst "planet of hats" theming to much of 40k gives a lore justification, it is problematic when considering the real-world history of racial segregation of dark-skinned people.
Planet of hats is also a bit weird and potentially problematic in its own right, which is why a setting like Necromunda is so refreshing with its myriad cultures that are all still Necromundan. Whilst prevailing conditions on a world will shape culture and ethnicity (all Valhallans wearing winter clothes is obviously a requirement for life), people from different regions of a world would be expected to have variants of culture and ethnicity (between Valhallan hives, for example).
Haighus wrote: Then nothing until Ripper Jackson and Severina Raine in... 8th?
Wasn't much infantry released for the guard at all between 3rd and 8th. Command squads and tempestus scions - IIRC the latter originally mostly/exclusively male because their sex excluded them from the sisterhood (as elite schola progenium graduates).
Vostroyans, Catachan and Cadian command squads, about 5 commissars from GW, primaris psyker, the 3 regimental advisors, Straken, Harker, technically Ogryns and Ratlings but we don't know whether they have visible gender differences, the entire Elysian and resin DKoK ranges + the resin Cadian and Tallarn models from FW, and the scions (which I agree would likely have low numbers of females due to Sororitas recruitment pressures). The vehicles also got heavily reworked with no female crew added- almost every crew model is from 4th onwards except the upgrade sprue.
Compared to the plastic Catachan and Cadian infantry squads and heavy weapons teams, the Steel Legion, the metal Stormtroopers, metal Kasrkin and Cadian command squad plus some other cadian and catachan officers and special weapons, the Tanith, Yarrick, Creed and Kell, the Last Chancers, sanctioned psykers, and Ogryns again. There is the current Guard vehicle crew sprue from third too, which has some male crew.
I'm probably missing some releases but FW brings the balance up massively for post-3rd, for GW proper the plastic releases definitely weight in favour of 3rd. Metals and characters are pretty even.
Odd comment about black space marines though, i think you'll find they've been around for a long long time. What did you mean by that?
Some years ago (feels like fairly recently, but it is probably longer time than I imagine) there was a Black Library book with a prominent black Space Marine (Ultramarine IIRC) on cover, and a bunch of people had a fit about it. Quite similar than this current Custodes incident.
And perhaps you don't remember, but non-white people used to be pretty rare in GW art and miniature paintjobs. It has thankfully changed now.
Its odd the way he phrased the comment though, like he is saying its primarily been done by GW as a punishment.
Non-white people have been in GW art and studio models for a long time, its not a new thing.
Haighus wrote: Vostroyans ... the entire Elysian and resin DKoK ranges
I had assumed they were older as they were all metal. 4th edition though.
Krieg of course vary from all male to all female at the whim of the player thanks to baggy greatcoaks and gasmasks.
Me too, until quite recently Over the last couple of years I've done a lot of digging through old White Dwarfs and the Vostroyans were released as a tie in to Cities of Death and the Medusa V worldwide campaign. They were the last gasp of the 2nd-through-3rd paradigm of Guard releases. After that, the range gradually contracted in variety.
Agreed re. Steel Legion and DKoK, personally I am comfortable declaring some of mine are female under all the clobber. However, I am equally comfortable in assuming they were designed as male given the accompanying lore only describes male characters when they were released.
...I now realise this has veered way off-topic, although the mismatch between model range and lore references is of relevance.
To come back to the thread: lorewise, male sisters of silence is plausible unless further reasoning is provided. Out of lore, it has problematic real-world connotations whilst 40k representation in marketing and model range remains so unbalanced (which is in contravention to the overall lore of the setting, as the Guard model issues highlight above). This entire debate has a tension between lore and reality, where lore can be consistent but remain problematic in the context of real life.
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You misunderstand MDGs question.
I'm not misunderstanding the question. The reason whey they were locked to being male was not given; that does not mean they were not locked to being male. They obviously were until the lore change. Lack of female Custodians does not imply female Custodians are possible, it can only imply they were not.
That is a logical fallacy to assume Custodes were locked- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I actually agree the recent Custodes lore is a retcon, but no previous lore stated Custodes had to be male, only that they were male. When I say this implies they are not locked, I mean from a GW perspective- every other such factions with as much prominence have had lore justifications given, yet they omitted these two factions.
If you follow your logic, most of the additions to the setting are retcons rather than simply filling out gaps in a vast setting, and I disagree with that interpretation. I don't think Land Raider Crusaders or Rogal Dorn tanks are retcons just because they were never mentioned previously, for example.
Its not a logical fallacy, its reasonable to conclude there are no females and can be no females from the evidence. You are essentially saying because there is no proof female Custodes existed or can exist, this proves they can exist
Hellebore wrote: Any argument for an egalitarian imperium only supports more women in things, not less. Thats like saying I cant be sexist I have daughters.
If marines were a minor faction that had as much popularity as genestealer cults then sure. But marines are the central pillar of 40k. They are the best at everything and have all the best stuff. But you can't be one of you're a girl.
A woman will literally never get to be a super warrior paladin of the imperium because girls.
I think you are ignoring my main argument a bit: If I were to write a fictional setting were there are is an all male paladin order front and center, I cannot for the life of me understand how it follows that I am saying that women can't or shouldn't be paladins in any setting anywhere. They just can't in this hypothetical setting. And that has to be ok under the rubric of freedom of artistic expression, it just has to be or else that term has no meaning.
Emphasis mine. I don't think anyone is making the case that GW is trying to discourage people from having female space marines when they play like, Halo or some other franchise. But marines being the main face/focus of 40k means that gender-locking them makes the franchise a little less approachable and in-turn means that there are people not making happy gaming memories with you that they otherwise might.
I get your point, honestly I do....but, so what? Again, I'm fine with the change, but still GW is under no obligation to actually provide that for you. If you grant that it is not morally wrong for GW to not change something, which I believe you have somewhat....you can call it baffling or lame and that is to be respected, but it gives neither you nor anyone any ground to demand a specific change you want. It's artistic choice and also has to be respected.
I say again, because this one thing is really important to me: if GW chose to not include female Custodes, that choice can not be called morally wrong or bigoted, because it has to fall under the rubric of freedom of artistic expression.
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You can keep stomping your foot and repeating the same thing over and over again, but you’ve spectacularly missed my point. None of what you state above explicitly states the Custodes cannot be women.
There’s nearly 60 years of Star Trek on television and film. And not once does anyone use a toilet. By your logic toilets cannot exist in the Star Trek universe.
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You can keep stomping your foot and repeating the same thing over and over again, but you’ve spectacularly missed my point. None of what you state above explicitly states the Custodes cannot be women.
There’s nearly 60 years of Star Trek on television and film. And not once does anyone use a toilet. By your logic toilets cannot exist in the Star Trek universe.
It does explicitly state Custodes can't be women. It doesn't give you the technical reason why, but its obvious from the lore (until the retcon ofc) that they can't be.
Kirk is seen sitting on a toilet in the brig in Star Trek V. Additionally, toilets are both seen and discussed in various Trek episodes from various series over the years. Try again
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You can keep stomping your foot and repeating the same thing over and over again, but you’ve spectacularly missed my point. None of what you state above explicitly states the Custodes cannot be women.
There’s nearly 60 years of Star Trek on television and film. And not once does anyone use a toilet. By your logic toilets cannot exist in the Star Trek universe.
It does explicitly state Custodes can't be women. It doesn't give you the technical reason why, but its obvious from the lore (until the retcon ofc) that they can't be.
Kirk is seen sitting on a toilet in the brig in Star Trek V. Additionally, toilets are both seen and discussed in various Trek episodes from various series over the years. Try again
"My men are ready,"-an officer telling their superior that their mixed gender forces are prepared for battle.
Does that statement state, or even imply, that the women in the officer's forces are actually all men? Or is it just an instance of English using masculine as the default?
robbienw wrote: It does explicitly state Custodes can't be women
More accurately that only boys are were accepted, sometimes entire generations of offspring of which only one out of countless thousands of aspirants survive.
Which would make you think that Terran nobility might be quite the matriarchy when all is said and done. Or at least was, the consequences of that particular piece of lore were never explored and I suppose now never will be.
Nah I think you are onto something here, and there is a slight nod to it, Bequin is a clone, she goes to a realm with other clones of blanks and allegedly its run by Constantine Valdor, it could be nothing at all but your theory is not baseless.
Where is that from? I don't remember this from Eisenhorn or Ravenor...
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You can keep stomping your foot and repeating the same thing over and over again, but you’ve spectacularly missed my point. None of what you state above explicitly states the Custodes cannot be women.
There’s nearly 60 years of Star Trek on television and film. And not once does anyone use a toilet. By your logic toilets cannot exist in the Star Trek universe.
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You can keep stomping your foot and repeating the same thing over and over again, but you’ve spectacularly missed my point. None of what you state above explicitly states the Custodes cannot be women.
There’s nearly 60 years of Star Trek on television and film. And not once does anyone use a toilet. By your logic toilets cannot exist in the Star Trek universe.
It does explicitly state Custodes can't be women.
Where? Give me a quote.
And bear in mind-a statement saying "Custodes ARE men," is not the same as saying "Custodes MUST BE men."
You're trying to get this poster to say where in the process map we've never seen it says women can't be Custodes?
That's really not the strong gotcha card you seem to think you're playing there, you know, and demonstrates the weakness of the "this wasn't a retcon" position.
"It is known that all Custodians begin their lives as the infant sons of the noble houses of Terra. It is a mark of incredible prestige to surrender one’s child to this most glorious of callings within the Imperium, and many notable clans amongst the Terran aristocracy have willingly given up almost entire generations of newborn sons to earn it."
8th edition codex, page 14, shadows and alchemy in the brotherhood of demigods section of the book.
Custodes were not mentioned to be all men in the original Rogue Trader, i'm not familiar if there was anything else predating 6th.
Dysartes wrote: You're trying to get this poster to say where in the process map we've never seen it says women can't be Custodes?
That's really not the strong gotcha card you seem to think you're playing there, you know, and demonstrates the weakness of the "this wasn't a retcon" position.
Nobody is trying to gotcha anyone.
He’s stated several times that the lore explicitly states that custodes cannot be women.
He’s wrong. There’s nowhere in the lore that does this. It gives examples of male recruitment, and male characters. Nowhere within those examples does it exclude the possibility of female recruits. Nowhere.
That doesn’t demonstrate any weakness in a reasonable position taken by some of us, that GW are not making a seismic change here.
40K lore has always been a malleable and fluid beast, it’s never been wholly consistent and for many years they’ve pushed the idea that all the myriad law changes are canon, but not all of them are true. This allows them to make all sorts of minor and major retcons and imo is a good way of allowing the universe to shift and move to whatever narrative they want to tell at any given time without them actually being hard retcons.
The introduction of female custodes is wholly consistent with their handling of the lore over the last 40 years of publications. I find it utterly pathetic that we now have this crybabying and bellyaching about this with added demands to introduce male characters to previously all female factions. I mean how insecure and weak in your own masculinity does one need to be to demand that, or to call GW hypocrites for not doing it?
"It is known that all Custodians begin their lives as the infant sons of the noble houses of Terra. It is a mark of incredible prestige to surrender one’s child to this most glorious of callings within the Imperium, and many notable clans amongst the Terran aristocracy have willingly given up almost entire generations of newborn sons to earn it."
6th edition codex, page 14, shadows and alchemy in the brotherhood of demigods section of the book.
Custodes were not mentioned to be all men in the original Rogue Trader, i'm not familiar if there was anything else predating 6th.
Don't you mean 8th? IIRC Custodes were not playable in the sixth.
In any case wasn't this already changed for the 9th edition codex?
Crimson wrote: Don't you mean 8th? IIRC Custodes were not playable in the sixth.
Sorry, yes 8th - i'll correct that.
(I had played them back in 6th using the old 5e Siege of Terra rules - sisters of silence made from dark eldar and custodes from dark angels with high elf helms)
I wonder if the Sisters of silence would be cooler if they went for a more Bene Gesserite kind of direction. A cult of woman all participating in a ten millennia long attempt at esoteric eugenics. Sisters, daughters and mothers who occasionally produce members of a warrior caste. A badass warrior grandma sounds like peak 40k to me. I don't know if that's all too weird though...
I wonder if the Sisters of silence would be cooler if they went for a more Bene Gesserite kind of direction. A cult of woman all participating in a ten millennia long attempt at esoteric eugenics. Sisters, daughters and mothers who occasionally produce members of a warrior caste. A badass warrior grandma sounds like peak 40k to me. I don't know if that's all too weird though...
I was under the impression that this was kinda where GW was drawing from when they designed this peculiar order of magical women.
I wonder if the Sisters of silence would be cooler if they went for a more Bene Gesserite kind of direction. A cult of woman all participating in a ten millennia long attempt at esoteric eugenics. Sisters, daughters and mothers who occasionally produce members of a warrior caste. A badass warrior grandma sounds like peak 40k to me. I don't know if that's all too weird though...
I was under the impression that this was kinda where GW was drawing from when they designed this peculiar order of magical women.
Mr Nobody wrote: I wonder if the Sisters of silence would be cooler if they went for a more Bene Gesserite kind of direction. A cult of woman all participating in a ten millennia long attempt at esoteric eugenics.
Already exists - the Orders Famulous are one of the non-militant wings of the wider sisterhood.
epronovost wrote: I was under the impression that this was kinda where GW was drawing from when they designed this peculiar order of magical women.
They originated (as did the armoured custodes) in the 2003 horus heresy trading card game, with some details later filled out in the 2004 visions of war artbook - though I don't have a copy of it to hand.
"It is known that all Custodians begin their lives as the infant sons of the noble houses of Terra. It is a mark of incredible prestige to surrender one’s child to this most glorious of callings within the Imperium, and many notable clans amongst the Terran aristocracy have willingly given up almost entire generations of newborn sons to earn it."
8th edition codex, page 14, shadows and alchemy in the brotherhood of demigods section of the book.
Custodes were not mentioned to be all men in the original Rogue Trader, i'm not familiar if there was anything else predating 6th.
I've recently checked the 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition rulebooks, which have scant mentions with no gendered language at all.
A.T. wrote:
Mr Nobody wrote: I wonder if the Sisters of silence would be cooler if they went for a more Bene Gesserite kind of direction. A cult of woman all participating in a ten millennia long attempt at esoteric eugenics.
Already exists - the Orders Famulous are one of the non-militant wings of the wider sisterhood.
epronovost wrote: I was under the impression that this was kinda where GW was drawing from when they designed this peculiar order of magical women.
They originated (as did the armoured custodes) in the 2003 horus heresy trading card game, with some details later filled out in the 2004 visions of war artbook - though I don't have a copy of it to hand.
The armoured Custodes definitely appeared earlier- the 3rd edition rulebook has the classic image with a couple of Custodes standing in front of a huge pyramid stretching into the distance, and that was released in 1998:
There was also a John Blanche plate of a Custodian that was featured in the 4th edition rulebook (released 2004) but I'm pretty sure is older:
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You can keep stomping your foot and repeating the same thing over and over again, but you’ve spectacularly missed my point. None of what you state above explicitly states the Custodes cannot be women.
There’s nearly 60 years of Star Trek on television and film. And not once does anyone use a toilet. By your logic toilets cannot exist in the Star Trek universe.
It does explicitly state Custodes can't be women. It doesn't give you the technical reason why, but its obvious from the lore (until the retcon ofc) that they can't be.
Kirk is seen sitting on a toilet in the brig in Star Trek V. Additionally, toilets are both seen and discussed in various Trek episodes from various series over the years. Try again
"My men are ready,"-an officer telling their superior that their mixed gender forces are prepared for battle.
Does that statement state, or even imply, that the women in the officer's forces are actually all men? Or is it just an instance of English using masculine as the default?
No one would say that unless it was an all male force. If it was a mixed gender force they'd say my soldiers are ready. Or my company is ready. Or my force is ready. Or my crew are ready. Or just "we are ready".
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You can keep stomping your foot and repeating the same thing over and over again, but you’ve spectacularly missed my point. None of what you state above explicitly states the Custodes cannot be women.
There’s nearly 60 years of Star Trek on television and film. And not once does anyone use a toilet. By your logic toilets cannot exist in the Star Trek universe.
It does explicitly state Custodes can't be women.
Where? Give me a quote.
You've already been given several quotes. But once again you pretend they don't exist and ask the same question over and over.
[
And bear in mind-a statement saying "Custodes ARE men," is not the same as saying "Custodes MUST BE men."
robbienw wrote: No one would say that unless it was an all male force. If it was a mixed gender force they'd say my soldiers are ready. Or my company is ready. Or my force is ready. Or my crew are ready. Or just "we are ready".
No, in those cases they would often use men as a gender neutral term.
And as star trek was mentioned if you've seen Wrath of Khan they refer to the female officer as 'mister' - which is also gender neutral in this context.
Really it's just the 6th edition 'sons' which is explicit.
robbienw wrote: No one would say that unless it was an all male force. If it was a mixed gender force they'd say my soldiers are ready. Or my company is ready. Or my force is ready. Or my crew are ready. Or just "we are ready".
No, in those cases they would often use men as a gender neutral term.
They really wouldn't because then they'd think the group was entirely male, and its very easy to use other terminology to indicate a mixed group.
Haighus wrote: There was also a John Blanche plate of a Custodian that was featured in the 4th edition rulebook (released 2004) but I'm pretty sure is older
I dug around and found a few images of Blanches' which aren't dated, but suggested to be used/unused concept sketches for the card game / artbook - that wasn't amongst them but it might have been from the same era.
One that stood out though might shed a little light on the conceptual origins GW of the sisters of silence - "proto SoB" (though obviously not from a lore perspective)
robbienw wrote: No one would say that unless it was an all male force. If it was a mixed gender force they'd say my soldiers are ready. Or my company is ready. Or my force is ready. Or my crew are ready. Or just "we are ready".
No, in those cases they would often use men as a gender neutral term.
They really wouldn't because then they'd think the group was entirely male, and its very easy to use other terminology to indicate a mixed group.
Tell me, when Gandalf says that it is in men we must place our trust in the Lord of the Rings, do you assume that he means only males?
robbienw wrote: No one would say that unless it was an all male force. If it was a mixed gender force they'd say my soldiers are ready. Or my company is ready. Or my force is ready. Or my crew are ready. Or just "we are ready".
No, in those cases they would often use men as a gender neutral term.
They really wouldn't because then they'd think the group was entirely male, and its very easy to use other terminology to indicate a mixed group.
Tell me, when Gandalf says that it is in men we must place our trust in the Lord of the Rings, do you assume that he means only males?
Haha, trick question. LotR specific use of terminology isn't really relevant to this discussion. Its known Tolkien specifically avoided the use of 'humans' and 'mankind' in universe to refer to humans as a collective in LotR.
On a causal watch of the films though i'd assume he was specifically referring to males, as the human leaders, soldiers and heroes are near exclusively male.
Odd comment about black space marines though, i think you'll find they've been around for a long long time. What did you mean by that?
Some years ago (feels like fairly recently, but it is probably longer time than I imagine) there was a Black Library book with a prominent black Space Marine (Ultramarine IIRC) on cover, and a bunch of people had a fit about it. Quite similar than this current Custodes incident.
And perhaps you don't remember, but non-white people used to be pretty rare in GW art and miniature paintjobs. It has thankfully changed now.
Its odd the way he phrased the comment though, like he is saying its primarily been done by GW as a punishment.
Non-white people have been in GW art and studio models for a long time, its not a new thing.
Not as a punishment necessarily, but as a reaction. GW started making 40k more inclusive as a reaction to market forces and the success of ‘woke’ AOS with people who don’t buy 40k. GW is for everyone but bigots was a reaction to players showing up to tournaments dressed with Nazi symbols. Making Custodes explicitly inclusive is likely a reaction to other market forces, or perhaps to market research done in the early stages of the Amazon/40k show deal. Having the main faction with most of the flavors gender-locked is something that might come under more scrutiny when making a TV show for a more mainstream market—and if the reputation for 40k fandom gets gross enough to be an issue, I have no doubt GW would choose femmarines over fidelity to the lore.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Pretty sure the Police Academy movies use “men” when addressing all the cadets, including the women. It’s always been used the way the French use “ils” to refer to any group with some male presence rather than exclusively male presence.
Crimson wrote: The Oxford dictionary gives as one definition of the word "man" the following:
ordinary members of the armed forces as distinct from the officers.
"he had a platoon of forty men to prepare for battle"
I hope this clears things up!
Funny, you have seem to have missed the definition which states it refers to an adult human male.
This is what the oxford dictionary has to say on the usage of the word man as reference to gender:
Man was considered until the 20th cent. to include women by implication, though referring primarily to males. It is now frequently understood to exclude women, and is therefore avoided by many people.
Looks like you have an outdated archaic understanding of the word, that fell out of use prior to the 20th century. Even prior to that it was understood to primarily refer to adult men.
In English, the use of men is a linguistic quirk arising from man being the generic word for people in old English. Hence mankind.
Males used to be called wer.
Regardless, male pronouns definitely used to be used for mixed-gender groups as the default into the 2000's. It seems to have faded out of use in the last couple of decades.
For example, the 3rd edition rulebook of 40k uses he/him to refer to the generic player in the rules, despite several women being credited for writing the book (including at least one editor). It also uses he/him to refer to generic models in the rules, despite Eldar, for example, definitely having female combatants and Sisters of Battle being a full army in the same rulebook.
This continued in the 4th edition rulebook (although use use of they/them for models becomes more common, he/him still features).
Using male pronouns as the default was common until quite recently.
That said, I think the 8th edition quote stating sons is pretty unambiguous, I'm not arguing that Custodes haven't been retconned.
Crimson wrote: The Oxford dictionary gives as one definition of the word "man" the following:
ordinary members of the armed forces as distinct from the officers.
"he had a platoon of forty men to prepare for battle"
I hope this clears things up!
Funny, you have seem to have missed the definition which states it refers to an adult human male.
This is what the oxford dictionary has to say on the usage of the word man as reference to gender:
Man was considered until the 20th cent. to include women by implication, though referring primarily to males. It is now frequently understood to exclude women, and is therefore avoided by many people.
Looks like you have an outdated archaic understanding of the word, that fell out of use prior to the 20th century. Even prior to that it was understood to primarily refer to adult men.
Hope this helps
No, because it depends on the context. The reference to military units is current as it is listed. Furthermore, 40K uses a lot of archaic language intentionally. And of course, the RT text we we were discussing was written in the 80's. Due these undeniable facts, one cannot conclusively infer from the source text that the group is exclusively male.
Crimson wrote: The Oxford dictionary gives as one definition of the word "man" the following:
ordinary members of the armed forces as distinct from the officers.
"he had a platoon of forty men to prepare for battle"
I hope this clears things up!
Funny, you have seem to have missed the definition which states it refers to an adult human male.
This is what the oxford dictionary has to say on the usage of the word man as reference to gender:
Man was considered until the 20th cent. to include women by implication, though referring primarily to males. It is now frequently understood to exclude women, and is therefore avoided by many people.
Looks like you have an outdated archaic understanding of the word, that fell out of use prior to the 20th century. Even prior to that it was understood to primarily refer to adult men.
Hope this helps
No, because it depends on the context. The reference to military units is current as it is listed. Furthermore, 40K uses a lot of archaic language intentionally. And of course, the RT text we we were discussing was written in the 80's. Due these undeniable facts, one cannot conclusively infer from the source text that the group is exclusively male.
Context
The context is obvious and agrees with my position, the Custodes were portrayed as all males at the time as we can see from art and the RT model. The terminology of men = men and women was as archaic in the 80's as it is now. Its outdated. Most military units were all male in the 1987 anyway, but no one would have referred to a mixed unit as 'men' in 1987 and no one would do it now. If they had intended to portray the Custodes as mixed then, they would have just said 'These Custodians', or 'These men and women' as previously stated.
Regardless, the 8th edition codex and other supporting evidence are definitive anyway.
robbienw wrote: If they had intended to portray the Custodes as mixed then, they would have just said 'These Custodians', or 'These men and women' as previously stated.
Ok, I think I'm done with the semantics. If people do not acknowledge the dictionary, it is no use.
There is one actually definite statement of Custodes gender, that's from 8th edition codex, and it was already changed in the 9th. The retcon is similar than to what happened to Imperial Knights, which passed without much notice.
Tiberias wrote: Right, so we have female Custodes confirmed. I for one am fully on board with big oiled up muscle mommys (just also please retcon the old rogue trader artwork to also include some female custodes without armor in ridiculously stupid poses....this needs a proper update). But Sisters of Silence are also a really cool, albeit neglected faction that form the other talon of the emperor.
So, why not create more diversity there as well? Expand the model range and add male Sisters of Silence models and lore while you are at it? I am pretty sure men can also be blanks in the lore...I mean I'm pretty sure that there are also male Culexus assassins. I'm dead serious here, I really like the sisters models and their lore, but why not add some more models in general and make at least some of them guys while also expanding their lore.
Don't think the name is even a problem since GW is pushing Anathema Psykana as a description for them anyway, which basically just means psychic anathema or psychic abomination if you want to be mean, which is a completely unisex description as far as I can see.
Getting back to this thread actually being about the Sisters of Silence...
It is something I've always wondered myself, blanks are so rare that why would you limit yourself to only using half of the already limited pool of candidates that you have. From everything I'm aware, there's nothing saying that they have to be women, just that they always have been. There was the possibility that they could be clones or some other kind of genetic design which is an interesting and logical take on it given what we know.
I do wonder though, if the male blanks are being used for some other purpose, other than the handful that become Culexus Assassins. I'm very much surprised that will the veritable mountain of Space Marine books out there, that we've never had a Space Marine character (so far as I know) that's also a blank. This would make for both an interesting character and an obvious tactical boon, so... why not?
If there is some darker secret behind all of this, I think it would make a great book. If not, then we should either get male Anathema Psykana units (they very much need more in their range anyway), OR find out why they can't / won't have them and get them somewhere else. Maybe in Imperial Agents or something.
Tawnis wrote: I do wonder though, if the male blanks are being used for some other purpose, other than the handful that become Culexus Assassins
It is possible that (though in no way supported by lore) to be a simple split - one half of all blanks claimed for the throne, the other half claimed for the assassins and psi-titans much in the same way that the elite of the schola are split between the sisterhood and tempestus. There is no telling whether the sisters number more than the culexus or the failure rate of candidates for either.
Though now lost to history there was the matter of the necrons harvesting pariahs as well.
Based on basically nothing, I get the impression that assassin creation/training tends to have a pretty high mortality rate. It's possible that most of the male blanks are just dying in the process of becoming assassins. That would help to provide an in-universe justification for not training/augmenting most/all sisters to be more comparable in power to a culexus.
It's also possible that women might be more likely to be blanks for whatever reason.
Wyldhunt wrote: It's also possible that women might be more likely to be blanks for whatever reason.
While it's never mentionned in the fluff and there definitely is male blanks, I was under the impression that female blanks were much more common. Eisenhorn small school of blanks was composed exclusively of women.
On the joke side we can always say that in the masculinist power fantasy that is the 40K universe it should come to no surprise that women are more likely to be souless.
That's something I've always been a little unclear on. Are nulls/blanks *actually* soulless, or are their souls just functionally undetectable due to their null field?
Like, in D&D terms, an anti-magic field is still a magical effect.
Thought that last part was implied. Funny how many people get offended by the idea of bigots not being welcome.
While I wholeheartedly agree that bigots aren’t welcome, we’re seeing that word thrown around wildly. And it’s getting ridiculous. Just because you don’t like someone’s opinion doesn’t necessarily mean they are racist, bigoted, sexist, etc… I’ll give a good example.
I don’t care how someone models their plastic toy soldiers. I’ve never had a problem with people painting their toys or modeling their Space Marines female. Idc. It’s your hobby and your lore. I LOVE the idea of putting yourself in your army. I made a mostly male (not all, but mostly) sisters of battle army. I used GW Van Saar bodies, old Cadian respirator heads, and SOB bits. I rly enjoy the idea of having these elite regular humans (of all aspects of society) in power armor and armed with bolters. I had 1000 points of a awesome converted army using various GW bits. I went to play at a GW in Maryland and not only was I told I couldn’t play with the army but I was told to leave the store because I offended someone with my army. If you knew me you would know that’s not my personality at all, and due to personal reasons I’m going to leave it at that.
The problem we are seeing is we are throwing around these key words at the cyclic rate and being hypocritical with our message. This dilutes actual problematic people in the hobby… because the hobby absolutely has some far out there people. But again, who is the judge if one is being a bigot or not? Here are what my miniatures looked like.
Wyldhunt wrote: That's something I've always been a little unclear on. Are nulls/blanks *actually* soulless, or are their souls just functionally undetectable due to their null field?
Like, in D&D terms, an anti-magic field is still a magical effect.
It’s a bit vague, altering between “no presence in the warp” and “negative presence in the warp”.
A background book that I don't understand the purpose of says that the assignment has seven classes of people who are resistant to psychic effects, but only the most severe class are untouchables who are used the way the Sisters or Frauka are used. I don't expect that to matter for most other books
pelicaniforce wrote: A background book that I don't understand the purpose of says that the assignment has seven classes of people who are resistant to psychic effects, but only the most severe class are untouchables who are used the way the Sisters or Frauka are used. I don't expect that to matter for most other books
I am not into gender exclusivity. For example, Howling Banshees and Wyches are commonly depicted as female, but there are also male members. These organizations tend to be mostly female because their traditions are geared towards matriarchy, which means the men are likely not treated/seen as equal. In fact, male Wyches are essentially sex toys so that the female Wyches can reproduce.
I agree with female Custodes and I will agree with male/LGBT Sisters of Silence as well. I don't even like the name, by the way.
On the “hey, what’s with all the chicks?” feature of Sisters of Silence. As I’ve mentioned in a few interlinked threads, for me the evidence points to them not being natural manifestations of the Pariah mutation,
After all, there’s a pretty decent number of Sisters of Silence, especially for a mutation which has been described as a one in billions chance. So many billions, it’s possible a given planet may only produce a single Blank/Pariah/Null per generation. This is suggestive some kind of gene editing is going on.
That they’re all female, essentially reducing any already supposedly recruitment pool by approximately half? That again for me supports some kind of tech wizardry going on, as outside of Tradition (which whilst a poor reason still remains a reason) why would such a specialised Order impose such a restriction.
The tradition could stem from the onset of Old Night. Perhaps their base on Luna started off as a prison for sci-fi witch hunts. A place to keep bothersome Blanks away from a burgeoning psychic population. And it was their concentration in one place, and their immunity to warp shenanigans that allowed their survival. And as the dust settled, their persecution was remembered, and “Sisters, let no man ever bind as they once did” type stuff.
But that, in itself, doesn’t explain their frequency, only gives a possible Chinny Reckon as to why they’re all female. So the technological answer remains, for me at least, the most likely.
And we can look to the wider Imperium and Galaxy for similar examples. House Escher for instance? Whatever it is that makes their males feeble and imbecilic aside, we know they’ve mastered (or at least can do!) parthenogenesis. Essentially virgin births, where no male or sperm is involved.
House Goliath is almost the reverse there. Originally genetically designed to be big, strong, resilient, all-male and, importantly, sterile. But life uh…found a way. And whilst comparatively rare, when a Mummy Goliath and a Daddy Goliath love each very much, a Baby Goliath is possible.
And that’s just well documented examples from a world by no means at the top of the technological heap.
Next we’ll look at the Votann. Each and every one is a Designer Baby. The Votann determines what traits the members of the next generation will likely need, and provides those via gene bank. And on an individual basis. Which is remarkable.
So in-universe? We know that tech exists. So we know that theoretically it is possible to manufacture Blanks to order, we just can’t be sure that’s what the Sisters of Silence are doing.
Oh and of course we know cloning exists, and the Imperium is iffy at worst about that sort of thing.
Finally? All Hail Algorithmo for his bounty this day. Because this video popped up on my YouTube feed, covering the various forms of parthenogenesis in nature. It’s pretty low level stuff, but it is accessible and nicely factual. I present it as a way of demonstrating that the Imperium, or at least pre-Old Night Man could’ve adapted one, some or all of these natural versions to humans.
And finally, let’s not rule out that if my hypothesis of gene editing/cloning/cloneskein is correct, the manifestation of the Pariah Gene is by no means the original intent of the tech. It could be a happy accident that once people’s heads started exploding and things started crawling out? A failed experiment suddenly proved its worth, and was put into production.
From 40K wiki:
Omega Minus (-7) - Omega Minus grade psykers are actually the "anti-psykers" usually referred to as "Untouchables" or "Blanks." These individuals are so inert in the Warp as to actually exhibit a negative psychic influence upon others. This primarily manifests in realspace as a region of "blankness" (hence the name) surrounding the individual where psychic powers will not work. It is impossible for psychic powers or entities native to the Immaterium to penetrate or affect this space. Imperial science has learned that the psychically inert region surrounding the Omega grade subject even interferes with natural bioelectric function in an organic brain. This neurological effect on others often results in the development of the irrational fear and loathing that baseline Humans nearly always display towards Blanks. This can even manifest in psychosomatic effects, such as thinking that the Blank emits a highly offensive odor. For psykers, however, the sheer presence of a Blank produces excruciating physical and mental distress.
Psi (-6) - This grade of The Assignment, which actually includes Psi through Sigma grades inclusive, represents individuals who are oblivious to fluctuations in the Warp and are immune to psychic probing by a telepath. The range of this ability varies, with the highest class at Sigma grade being deemed "blunt" or resistant to some psychic effects, and the lowest grade of Psi being extremely resistant to the effects of psychic power, yet still capable of being affected by an extreme degree of psychic strength.
Chi (-5) See above.
Phi (-4) - See above.
Upsilon (-3) - See above.
Tau (-2) - See above.
Sigma (-1) - See above.
Rho (0) - An individual at Rho grade is incapable of manifesting any psychic abilities, but can be fully affected by them or other manifestations of Warp energy. This is the grade that encompasses the vast majority of Humans in the Imperium and serves as the baseline grade of The Assignment.
I had heard it before in Majorkill's vid on Psyker tier/ classes that they did go into "Negative" psyker-ness, but was unaware of the various degrees. I'm assuming Omega Minus means no warp whatsoever while Chi and Phi means a smaller range or extent?
Once again, thanks James Workshop for leading to more questions with the "Lost age of technology/ we dunno/ etc" hand-waving.
