Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't care about female Custodes and I think they can make female Marines too. Why not? The transformation they undergo makes them acid drooling monsters anyway, who cares what else is under the power armour?

I'd be disappointed if they make models for them and they're sexualised, but I also wouldn't care because no one is putting a gun to my head making me buy models I don't like.

Thanks

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I feel like anyone who rode through the 4th-5th transition, with the Newcrons, wacky Grey Knights and Dumber Tyranids has become numb to such small changes as female Custodes.

For me at least, the difference is in the reason for the respective changes.

5th edition brought about a massive change to Necron lore. Not a change I was particularly fond of, but one that seemed to be rooted in expanding the faction (and models obviously) as the old lore was perhaps considered a little too limited in terms of being able to characterise the Necrons.

Meanwhile, female Custodes might be a smaller change in the grand scheme of things, but it's also a change that is driven entirely by people trying to force their political opinions into the game. This is what I take issue with.

If longstanding lore is going to be changed, I want it to be to tell better stories, not because someone on Twitter is screeching about gender representation.

To expand a little more, look at how this change has been handled.

Lord Damocles already suggested some reasonable ideas about how the Custodes could be forced to change their change their normal policies of taking in only the sons of noble houses. The daughters of noble houses joining a unit that has consisted only of men for thousands of years seems like it could make for an interesting story. It still doesn't seem like a necessary change, but at least it would be expanding on the existing lore to potentially tell an interesting story.

Hell, they could have done something truly revolutionary and focussed on main characters who aren't wearing Power Armour!

Instead, what we got was "There have always been female Custodes, they were just never mentioned before. If any previous lore would appear to contradict this, please insert it into your nearest Citadel(TM) Memory Hole."

It doesn't exactly suggest that this is being done to tell better stories, only to boost their ESG score.

I note, too, that many people are already celebrating this as a stunning and brave victory for women, even though we have yet to see what (if anything) it will mean in terms of models and/or stories. Almost as if it was a political and ideological victory, rather than any desire to improve the game. But there I go being cynical again.

 vipoid wrote:
If longstanding lore is going to be changed, I want it to be to tell better stories, not because someone on Twitter is screeching about gender representation.

Why would women being Custodes mean that they would be worse stories? Did the Custodes being all male lead to better stories?

Also, longstanding? Custodes being all men was only put in write in the 7th(?) ed codex. And there are sources prior to that (HH book 7) which make no mention of gender. It's hardly longstanding.

And that's before getting into "what makes something 'better' anyways?"

I note, too, that many people are already celebrating this as a stunning and brave victory for women, even though we have yet to see what (if anything) it will mean in terms of models and/or stories. Almost as if it was a political and ideological victory, rather than any desire to improve the game.

Sidestepping the tone here, some might argue that this *is* an improvement of the game.

when people argue that female models for factions that were exclusive male are important because it will get girls into the hobby and not just boys and not having it is sending the wrong message
I have to say that the problem in attracting girls is not that the bodyguard of the dead Emperor of the fascist regime is male only and the message that is send out is the right one, the Imperium are not the good guys

In how female Custodes make the game better? I don't know, of course woman can commit genocide too it is nice for equality to bring that aspect to the setting, but this does not improve the game

 kodos wrote:
I have to say that the problem in attracting girls is not that the bodyguard of the dead Emperor of the fascist regime is male only and the message that is send out is the right one, the Imperium are not the good guys

I don't think anyone's claiming the Imperium is good because they have women serving.

But you know what *is* a turn-off for the women I know? The people who get up in arms about more women toy soldiers.

In how female Custodes make the game better? I don't know, of course woman can commit genocide too it is nice for equality to bring that aspect to the setting, but this does not improve the game

... for you.

And, conversely, how does it make it worse?

The game rules won’t be improved, no, but the modeling and painting opportunities are. And the opportunity to add more flavor to one’s armies has opened up, in that the option for all male forces has not been taken away from those who want to model them but new options are there for those who don’t need to feel bound by it.


Also, having female Custodes or marines is no more political than saying No Female Custodes or marines. The only difference is who feels excluded now.

That is not the case as consistency of the faction dropped. IoW investment in the faction dropped. Which will mean lower effort.

And no it's allways only political if it's the opposing viewpoint.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't think anyone's claiming the Imperium is good because they have women serving.

you should look to the social media how the Imperium is now the peak of humanity

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
... for you.
And, conversely, how does it make it worse?

what does it change about the game? Nothing, it changes nothing about the game at all
so claiming it makes the game better is a little off


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
And the opportunity to add more flavor to one’s armies has opened up

yeah, for those who only support what is officially allowed by GW, it is a massive improvement of course
but the cult of officialdom is also the one raging at the moment because GW never retcons something that is official

 kodos wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't think anyone's claiming the Imperium is good because they have women serving.

you should look to the social media how the Imperium is now the peak of humanity

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
... for you.
And, conversely, how does it make it worse?

what does it change about the game? Nothing, it changes nothing about the game at all
so claiming it makes the game better is a little off

So either replace "Game" with "40k overall" or, because it does nothing to the game, it can't make it better OR worse.

for 40k overall?, that this is even a 6 page topic and controversial at all just tells me that it does not make 40k better but just shows the bad state of this whole thing

 kodos wrote:
for 40k overall?, that this is even a 6 page topic and controversial at all just tells me that it does not make 40k better but just shows the bad state of this whole thing

There's lots of things that are controversial that really shouldn't be.

For instance-trans women are women, and trans men are men. That shouldn't be controversial-respect people and let them be who they are.
But to a lot of people, that's a bridge too far. That doesn't make it reasonable.

 kodos wrote:
for 40k overall?, that this is even a 6 page topic and controversial at all just tells me that it does not make 40k better but just shows the bad state of this whole thing

The state is bad because people can’t accept more inclusion because they somehow see some kind of agenda where there isn’t one.

Removed.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Removed.

This isn’t a thread for talking about political philosophy

Removed.

 kodos wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't think anyone's claiming the Imperium is good because they have women serving.

you should look to the social media how the Imperium is now the peak of humanity

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
... for you.
And, conversely, how does it make it worse?

what does it change about the game? Nothing, it changes nothing about the game at all
so claiming it makes the game better is a little off


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
And the opportunity to add more flavor to one’s armies has opened up

yeah, for those who only support what is officially allowed by GW, it is a massive improvement of course
but the cult of officialdom is also the one raging at the moment because GW never retcons something that is official

Not just for those in the cult of officialdom, but also those who want to be able to share pictures of their work online. People like to show off their conversions and paint jobs, but when dozens of people start screaming at them because their conversions don’t fit the off oak lore, it can kill enthusiasm just as dead. The problem with GW’s official line isn’t that it prevents creatives from making what they want. It’s that it gives all kinds of people from fluff purists to trolls a reason and opportunity to be as toxic as possible. Shutting that down would make the game more welcoming, especially for people who mostly interact with the hobby on forums and Facebook, where this toxicity thrives best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Grinskull, do you think Custodes were not heavily rule 34’ed when they were all men? Have you not seen the pillar Custodes, or even the early Custodian miniature MDG posted earlier? That battle was already lost.

 kodos wrote:
for 40k overall?, that this is even a 6 page topic and controversial at all just tells me that it does not make 40k better but just shows the bad state of this whole thing

Nah. It shows there's still a reactionary rump hanging on to their fading relevance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Removed.

Is it his thinking on race in particular that you endorse?

Sowell? Not gonna take his advice on anything. He isn't taught in economics classes for a reason...

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Not just for those in the cult of officialdom, but also those who want to be able to share pictures of their work online. People like to show off their conversions and paint jobs, but when dozens of people start screaming at them because their conversions don’t fit the off oak lore, it can kill enthusiasm just as dead. The problem with GW’s official line isn’t that it prevents creatives from making what they want. It’s that it gives all kinds of people from fluff purists to trolls a reason and opportunity to be as toxic as possible. Shutting that down would make the game more welcoming, especially for people who mostly interact with the hobby on forums and Facebook, where this toxicity thrives best.

never really seen that happening, but I am also not part of the GW exclusive hobby channels that even don't allow 3rd party models to be posted

like people posting female Space Marines for a while now be it 3D printed or 3rd party models or conversions, without a social media meltdown

 Grimskul wrote:

Removed.

what did you expect to happen, of course this is now a good reason to 3D print models in bikini armour and put them on the table because if anybody finds it not appropriate you can counter it with this being official and the original Custodes were all topless

Removed.

Can someone please explain how this is an actual retcon and not just a clarification?

I've read the codex pages and apart from one stylistic word choice it's all been pretty neutral when discussing Custodes. Which makes sense if you accept there was supposed to be stories with female Custodes in them from launch.

Lammia wrote:
Can someone please explain how this is an actual retcon and not just a clarification?

I've read the codex pages and apart from one stylistic word choice it's all been pretty neutral when discussing Custodes. Which makes sense if you accept there was supposed to be stories with female Custodes in them from launch.

Considering they are from the "matured" cycle of the universe which has an established canon that is still a retcon.

Reported posts have been reviewed and if warranted, removed, warnings have been issued.

We were always at war with east asia.

 Crablezworth wrote:
We were always at war with east asia.

There is no war in Ba Sing Se.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Lammia wrote:
Can someone please explain how this is an actual retcon and not just a clarification?

I've read the codex pages and apart from one stylistic word choice it's all been pretty neutral when discussing Custodes. Which makes sense if you accept there was supposed to be stories with female Custodes in them from launch.

Spoiler:

Charax wrote:
8th edition codex, page 14, paragraph 3:


All Custodes begin their lives as the infant sons of the noble houses of Terra

9th edition codex page 7, 3rd column, paragraph 1:


submit a son

So yes, it has previously been explicit they've all been male, not sure why so many people I've seen talking about this over the past day have been stating that there was never anything saying they were.

Considering they are from the "matured" cycle of the universe which has an established canon that is still a retcon.

And that's a stylish quote, but it's pretty devoid of the context of the rest of the page. It's also a contradiction to earlier Codexes that used clunky, but explicitly gender neutral terms.

There were no earlier dexes though basically this is where they became an army and got solidified as a faction so noooooo.

Why didn't people have a meltdown when the exact same thing happened with Imperial Knights? Or did it happen and I just do not remember it?

But like I said on the other forum, I think it is related to how massive, muscular, super-powered hulk that marines and custodes are is a male power fantasy, and some men feel very threatened if women are allowed to be that.

 kodos wrote:
when people argue that female models for factions that were exclusive male are important because it will get girls into the hobby and not just boys and not having it is sending the wrong message
I have to say that the problem in attracting girls is not that the bodyguard of the dead Emperor of the fascist regime is male only and the message that is send out is the right one, the Imperium are not the good guys

In how female Custodes make the game better? I don't know, of course woman can commit genocide too it is nice for equality to bring that aspect to the setting, but this does not improve the game

It'll make at least a handful of the people toxic to women quit the hobby, and nothing opens the hobby for women more then driving out the gaks who harass them