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 love it. Love the idea of it, love the execution. Love it. I hope they don't do any over-sexualised models too and they're just battle-hardened and enligtened super-warriors like the men.
When it comes to things like this, I am dubious about diversity for diversity's sake (ie we need to have ??% of ?? minority to ensure we are diverse, it's better posed as "why don't we have more of ?? minority and how can we create something new or change a practice to be inclusive and attractive so that no one is unreasonabky excluded) but at the same time I have to ask myself... what the harm is, or is there any benefit?
For example, if being a certain gender or even ethnicity is intrinsic to a character or identity, then I would have to question the merit to a change in those things and also ask why not create something unique to represent your vision? For example, James Bond. I'd argue James Bond being a man is intrinsic to his character. Rather than make Jamie Bond, create a female secret agent that has her own proclivities, identity etc etc. On the other hand, Moriarty from Sherlock Holmes, i'd argue that gender and even ethnicity are not relevant to the character and what they serve to the story (although the time period and values associated with that period in which that particular rendition of SH is being told may affect such a portrayal). Hell, even Sherlock Holmes. I think Elementary did a great job in this area.
In terms of Custodes, there's nothing at all in their organisation or character that makes them being male intrinsic to their existence, character or portrayal. They're bodyguards that train in different ways, work solo (but can work in groups), are philosophers etc etc... none of that is in any way exclusively connected to any gender or ethnicity.
Space Marines, on the other hand, have a whole 'brotherhood' and 'brother lodge' aspect, not to mention a very very deep history and lore of Space Marine = Man and ONLY Man AND we have sister's of battle as an alternative counterpart and they get to do their own thing and play in different ways, which is great. Also though, why can't the developments with Primaris allow a change to include ladies? Could Slaanesh also allow for gender changes? Absolutely yes to both.
So yes, bring on the change and anything reasonable to open up the hobby to as many people as possible.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/04/16 20:05:41
kodos wrote: when people argue that female models for factions that were exclusive male are important because it will get girls into the hobby and not just boys and not having it is sending the wrong message
I have to say that the problem in attracting girls is not that the bodyguard of the dead Emperor of the fascist regime is male only and the message that is send out is the right one, the Imperium are not the good guys
In how female Custodes make the game better? I don't know, of course woman can commit genocide too it is nice for equality to bring that aspect to the setting, but this does not improve the game
It'll make at least a handful of the people toxic to women quit the hobby, and nothing opens the hobby for women more then driving out the gaks who harass them
and already seen the first ones now using this to get rule 34 on the table, doubt that this is makes people feel better
if GW would finally do something to get the nazis out.....
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
Crimson wrote: Why didn't people have a meltdown when the exact same thing happened with Imperial Knights? Or did it happen and I just do not remember it?
But like I said on the other forum, I think it is related to how massive, muscular, super-powered hulk that marines and custodes are is a male power fantasy, and some men feel very threatened if women are allowed to be that.
Grifters are much much worse than they were when the Knight change happened. I'm not sure if I mentioned it in this thread or the other basically identical one but the biggest market for Warhammer "content" (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense) is drama and rage baiting.
Some people will watch a video about the Burning of Prospero but they're likely going to be that channel's subscribers or if the creator is lucky it might break out into the wider 40k fandom if its good enough.
The number of people who will watch an "X has RUINED Warhammer, GW COLLAPSING" is much higher and if that breaks out of the Warhammer bubble it will only pick up steam and roll into a massive gakball until people find something new to rage about.
This whole thing will be over in a few weeks when the ragetubers aren't generating clicks anymore.
Crimson wrote: Why didn't people have a meltdown when the exact same thing happened with Imperial Knights? Or did it happen and I just do not remember it?
I can vaguely recall something about it. IIrc there was a "women can't handle the physical stress of it." aspect to it that was gross, but there was a shared link to a study done by the Marine Corps or other U.S. military branch about compared bone injury frequency, or something, that was kinda shocking.
Crimson wrote: Why didn't people have a meltdown when the exact same thing happened with Imperial Knights? Or did it happen and I just do not remember it?
one point here is that AC was the cheap viable army to get into 40k for a long time even compared to other wargames and not just GW cheap combined with easy to paint (gold primer and a wash) and low model count unlike knights which were still expensive, not easy to paint despite being less models and not really easy to play or a viable army in their own, specially not for beginners
so you have a lot of people new to 40k, not knowing that constant change is part of "the hobby", reading lore that is not well written and missing the better stuff from the past, first seeing their army nerfed in get into the need to buy more to keep playing, than seeing their first full reset of the rules and a re-released codex with worse rules and a retcon in the lore combine this with people being young and unstable in a time were they search stability with a hobby and found one that was marketed as stable but isn't at all and if you add in that teens and young adults look for certain idols and feel related to their army were any change in the level of "always has been" hurts much more than it should
the misogynic part has always been there in the hobby and always was vocal about such things while being a minority but Warhammer has more people following the lore than ever and social medias do their part to grow this into pop culture and the less stable society looks like the worse is the reaction in the pop culture if change is happening
if 40k would have been popular back than the way it is now and social medias being a thing, the lore change in 3rd/4th or 5th/6th would have caused similar issues
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/04/16 23:16:18
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
My Initial reaction was no. however, after some level headed responses from the other side of the debate, I concluded that actually, I can see a place for female custodes, even female space marines, were it handled well. Warcoms response disheartened me on that, and area's of the community who only seemed to like it for the political point scoring also put me off.
I'm put in mind of the bene gesserit in Dune, and them being all female. I would not like it if somebody decided to change that. The same is true for the sisters, both of battle and silence. In stories, an all female group would very likely behave differently then a group of mixed genders. This being the case, I think the same can be said for all male groups, as with the space marines. I can't remember which horus heresy book it was, but there were a group of scouts who after experiencing some form of loss, came across as lost boys, and it changed how I viewed the Space Marines.
I instinctively would like to say the same of the Custodes, but objectively can't. In lore, it seem's only tradition kept them male. I'd prefer that it be handled that yes, they were always male, but now, things have changed. Instead of just telling us that it's always been that way and we missed it.
As for the reasons behind it, I don't know what caused the change. I would like somebody to explain why representation is a good thing. Personally I think it's morally neutral, and it's implentation can be positive or negative. I worry that throwing this lore into the custodes may come across as tokenism.
I also worry from the political points scoring crowd, that there reason for praising this is that they have a system of thinking that is all about breaking people down by their immutable characteristics, and seeking to engineer society, and in turn, societies entertainment, by those same immutable characteristics.I don't like where this goes.Outside of 40k. I love 40k, but it's not that important to worry about it here alone.
As for bringing more people into the hobby. (Ignoring excluding those who you would describe as mysogistic bigots). My admittedly anecdotal experience is that women who have sisters armies tend to be the beleaguered Wives and Girlfriends of well meaning, but naive hobbiests who though that "This is a girl faction, you'll like them". It's slightly sexist. When Women are left to their own devices in the hobby, I tend to see them migrate to Eldar, becuase they're aesthetically beautiful, Tyranids, Because they're cute, and Orks, because they're funny. None of these are because they're women, and I don't think adding female custodes will change that.
I hope that wasn't too rambling, I just wanted to get my thoughts out.
Edited for clarity.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/16 21:16:28
My Initial reaction was no. however, after some level headed responses from the other side of the debate, I concluded that actually, I can see a place for female custodes, even female space marines, were it handled well. Warcoms response disheartened me on that, and area's of the community who only seemed to like it for the political point scoring also put me off.
I'm put in mind of the bene gesserit in Dune, and them being all female. I would not like it if somebody decided to change that. The same is true for the sisters, both of battle and silence. In stories, an all female group would very likely behave differently then a group of mixed genders. This being the case, I think the same can be said for all male groups, as with the space marines. I can't remember which horus heresy book it was, but there were a group of scouts who after experiencing some form of loss, came across as lost boys, and it changed how I viewed the Space Marines.
I instinctively would like to say the same of the Custodes, but objectively can't. In lore, it seem's only tradition kept them male. I'd prefer that it be handled that yes, they were always male, but now, things have changed. Instead of just telling us that it's always been that way and we missed it.
As for the reasons behind it, I don't know what caused the change. I would like somebody to explain why representation is a good thing. Personally I think it's morally neutral, and it's implentation can be positive or negative. I worry that throwing this lore into the custodes may come across as tokenism.
I also worry from the political points scoring crowd, that there reason for praising this is that they have a system of thinking that is all about breaking people down by their immutable characteristics, and seeking to engineer society, and in turn, societies entertainment, by those same immutable characteristics.I don't like where this goes.Outside of 40k. I love 40k, but it's not that important to worry about it here alone.
As for bringing more people into the hobby. (Ignoring excluding those who you would describe as mysogistic bigots). My admittedly anecdotal experience is that women who have sisters armies tend to be the beleaguered Wives and Girlfriends of well meaning, but naive hobbiests who though that "This is a girl faction, you'll like them". It's slightly sexist. When Women are left to their own devices in the hobby, I tend to see them migrate to Eldar, becuase they're aesthetically beautiful, Tyranids, Because they're cute, and Orks, because they're funny. None of these are because they're women, and I don't think adding female custodes will change that.
I hope that wasn't too rambling, I just wanted to get my thoughts out.
Edited for clarity.
It dilutes sisters of silence. It just seems like empty tokenism, sisters of silence painted gold basically already fit the bill, so it really feels like forced pandering/tokenism. I'm not sure what the progressive obsession is with trying to sanitize a grimdark dystopian setting, but the lack of irony present is palpable. Like the only two possible reactions are total love for the change or blind hatred for it, like cynical indifference for something one thought long dead anyway wasn't a perfectly cromulent third option.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2024/04/16 23:17:40
I'm not sure you can dilute Sisters of Silence when their presence in the lore and tabletop was already as thin as hydrogen gas.
They aren't even a faction, they are what 2-3 kits no one ever plays because they have always been awful and the lore already forgets they exist 99 times out of 100.
Just by this lore change I expect femcustodes conversions to be 100 times more common than the SoS on tables if only because horny players that want big powerful women to step on them.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/04/16 21:28:47
Tyran wrote: I'm not sure you can dilute Sisters of Silence when their presence in the lore and tabletop was already as thin as hydrogen gas.
They aren't even a faction, they are what 2-3 kits no one ever plays because they have always been awful and the lore already forgets they exist 99 times out of 100.
Just by this lore change I expect femcustodes conversions to be 100 times more common on tables if only because horny players that want big powerful women to step on them.
one kit that builds three units, plus a character built out of the same kit, plus a named character that comes packaged with a named custodian. oh, and a space marine rhino (not even a fancy upgrade sprue rhino like SoB get)
sisters do actually have a solid role in the army as "the models that aren't 50 ppm" and that won't be changing, so i expect SoS to be played as much as they ever have. the gameplay need is still there; as you say, people didn't care about the lore before and this won't change that
My Initial reaction was no. however, after some level headed responses from the other side of the debate, I concluded that actually, I can see a place for female custodes, even female space marines, were it handled well. Warcoms response disheartened me on that, and area's of the community who only seemed to like it for the political point scoring also put me off.
I'm put in mind of the bene gesserit in Dune, and them being all female. I would not like it if somebody decided to change that. The same is true for the sisters, both of battle and silence. In stories, an all female group would very likely behave differently then a group of mixed genders. This being the case, I think the same can be said for all male groups, as with the space marines. I can't remember which horus heresy book it was, but there were a group of scouts who after experiencing some form of loss, came across as lost boys, and it changed how I viewed the Space Marines.
I instinctively would like to say the same of the Custodes, but objectively can't. In lore, it seem's only tradition kept them male. I'd prefer that it be handled that yes, they were always male, but now, things have changed. Instead of just telling us that it's always been that way and we missed it.
As for the reasons behind it, I don't know what caused the change. I would like somebody to explain why representation is a good thing. Personally I think it's morally neutral, and it's implentation can be positive or negative. I worry that throwing this lore into the custodes may come across as tokenism.
I also worry from the political points scoring crowd, that there reason for praising this is that they have a system of thinking that is all about breaking people down by their immutable characteristics, and seeking to engineer society, and in turn, societies entertainment, by those same immutable characteristics.I don't like where this goes.Outside of 40k. I love 40k, but it's not that important to worry about it here alone.
As for bringing more people into the hobby. (Ignoring excluding those who you would describe as mysogistic bigots). My admittedly anecdotal experience is that women who have sisters armies tend to be the beleaguered Wives and Girlfriends of well meaning, but naive hobbiests who though that "This is a girl faction, you'll like them". It's slightly sexist. When Women are left to their own devices in the hobby, I tend to see them migrate to Eldar, becuase they're aesthetically beautiful, Tyranids, Because they're cute, and Orks, because they're funny. None of these are because they're women, and I don't think adding female custodes will change that.
I hope that wasn't too rambling, I just wanted to get my thoughts out.
Edited for clarity.
Representation is simply the act of re presenting a persons views on behalf of them if they are absent, this is why our politicians are called representatives (whether they actually do this is another topic), the effort to "bring before" a persons or groups views for them to another group or person.
possibly not allowed, delete if so.
Spoiler:
this however has an alternative meaning on the political left, within this context representation is the suppression of the selected out group in favour of the selected in group, so one could supress the views and ideals of a majority or minority in favour of those within you "tribe", this obviously manifests very differently depending on many factors such as nation, chosen groups etc.
in this case it has been decided that representation is the suppression of those who want all male custodes in favour of those that want multiple sexes in the custodes, it is an exclusion of one group in favour of another and a quick perusal of the cess pit that is twitter will show you that everyone is very much aware of this fact and all are behaving very poorly in response to something that is quite frankly in my opinion not that much of a big deal and I am not making a moral judgement on this change.
Then we have GW and their very poor statement "they have always been there", well we know this is a lie, people do not like being gaslighted and lied to so this has kicked up a stink too from what I have seen, in this case rightly so as it shows a fundamental disrespect to their loyal customers and fans, saying nothing would have been better or at least an admission its a change.
Tyran wrote: I'm not sure you can dilute Sisters of Silence when their presence in the lore and tabletop was already as thin as hydrogen gas.
They aren't even a faction, they are what 2-3 kits no one ever plays because they have always been awful and the lore already forgets they exist 99 times out of 100.
Just by this lore change I expect femcustodes conversions to be 100 times more common on tables if only because horny players that want big powerful women to step on them.
one kit that builds three units, plus a character built out of the same kit, plus a named character that comes packaged with a named custodian. oh, and a space marine rhino (not even a fancy upgrade sprue rhino like SoB get)
sisters do actually have a solid role in the army as "the models that aren't 50 ppm" and that won't be changing, so i expect SoS to be played as much as they ever have. the gameplay need is still there; as you say, people didn't care about the lore before and this won't change that
They don't fill that role though. There is so little that they bring that you take more good stuff instead of wasting points on SoS.
They actually have interesting fluff, but it's stuck in a 'Talons' bog and can't really get any momentum.
My Initial reaction was no. however, after some level headed responses from the other side of the debate, I concluded that actually, I can see a place for female custodes, even female space marines, were it handled well. Warcoms response disheartened me on that, and area's of the community who only seemed to like it for the political point scoring also put me off.
I'm put in mind of the bene gesserit in Dune, and them being all female. I would not like it if somebody decided to change that. The same is true for the sisters, both of battle and silence. In stories, an all female group would very likely behave differently then a group of mixed genders. This being the case, I think the same can be said for all male groups, as with the space marines. I can't remember which horus heresy book it was, but there were a group of scouts who after experiencing some form of loss, came across as lost boys, and it changed how I viewed the Space Marines.
I instinctively would like to say the same of the Custodes, but objectively can't. In lore, it seem's only tradition kept them male. I'd prefer that it be handled that yes, they were always male, but now, things have changed. Instead of just telling us that it's always been that way and we missed it.
As for the reasons behind it, I don't know what caused the change. I would like somebody to explain why representation is a good thing. Personally I think it's morally neutral, and it's implentation can be positive or negative. I worry that throwing this lore into the custodes may come across as tokenism.
I also worry from the political points scoring crowd, that there reason for praising this is that they have a system of thinking that is all about breaking people down by their immutable characteristics, and seeking to engineer society, and in turn, societies entertainment, by those same immutable characteristics.I don't like where this goes.Outside of 40k. I love 40k, but it's not that important to worry about it here alone.
As for bringing more people into the hobby. (Ignoring excluding those who you would describe as mysogistic bigots). My admittedly anecdotal experience is that women who have sisters armies tend to be the beleaguered Wives and Girlfriends of well meaning, but naive hobbiests who though that "This is a girl faction, you'll like them". It's slightly sexist. When Women are left to their own devices in the hobby, I tend to see them migrate to Eldar, becuase they're aesthetically beautiful, Tyranids, Because they're cute, and Orks, because they're funny. None of these are because they're women, and I don't think adding female custodes will change that.
I hope that wasn't too rambling, I just wanted to get my thoughts out.
Edited for clarity.
Representation is simply the act of re presenting a persons views on behalf of them if they are absent, this is why our politicians are called representatives (whether they actually do this is another topic), the effort to "bring before" a persons or groups views for them to another group or person.
possibly not allowed, delete if so.
Spoiler:
this however has an alternative meaning on the political left, within this context representation is the suppression of the selected out group in favour of the selected in group, so one could supress the views and ideals of a majority or minority in favour of those within you "tribe", this obviously manifests very differently depending on many factors such as nation, chosen groups etc.
in this case it has been decided that representation is the suppression of those who want all male custodes in favour of those that want multiple sexes in the custodes, it is an exclusion of one group in favour of another and a quick perusal of the cess pit that is twitter will show you that everyone is very much aware of this fact and all are behaving very poorly in response to something that is quite frankly in my opinion not that much of a big deal and I am not making a moral judgement on this change.
Then we have GW and their very poor statement "they have always been there", well we know this is a lie, people do not like being gaslighted and lied to so this has kicked up a stink too from what I have seen, in this case rightly so as it shows a fundamental disrespect to their loyal customers and fans, saying nothing would have been better or at least an admission its a change.
I think that's a pretty fair assessment of it, I'm more upset by people celebrating that they think it will make their political opponents leave the hobby than the change, but the gaslighting just comes off as one side doing a victory lap. The gaslighting especially isn't helpful, an almost universal reaction was people having 1984 flashbacks.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2024/04/16 23:19:16
My Initial reaction was no. however, after some level headed responses from the other side of the debate, I concluded that actually, I can see a place for female custodes, even female space marines, were it handled well. Warcoms response disheartened me on that, and area's of the community who only seemed to like it for the political point scoring also put me off.
I'm put in mind of the bene gesserit in Dune, and them being all female. I would not like it if somebody decided to change that. The same is true for the sisters, both of battle and silence. In stories, an all female group would very likely behave differently then a group of mixed genders. This being the case, I think the same can be said for all male groups, as with the space marines. I can't remember which horus heresy book it was, but there were a group of scouts who after experiencing some form of loss, came across as lost boys, and it changed how I viewed the Space Marines.
I instinctively would like to say the same of the Custodes, but objectively can't. In lore, it seem's only tradition kept them male. I'd prefer that it be handled that yes, they were always male, but now, things have changed. Instead of just telling us that it's always been that way and we missed it.
As for the reasons behind it, I don't know what caused the change. I would like somebody to explain why representation is a good thing. Personally I think it's morally neutral, and it's implentation can be positive or negative. I worry that throwing this lore into the custodes may come across as tokenism.
I also worry from the political points scoring crowd, that there reason for praising this is that they have a system of thinking that is all about breaking people down by their immutable characteristics, and seeking to engineer society, and in turn, societies entertainment, by those same immutable characteristics.I don't like where this goes.Outside of 40k. I love 40k, but it's not that important to worry about it here alone.
As for bringing more people into the hobby. (Ignoring excluding those who you would describe as mysogistic bigots). My admittedly anecdotal experience is that women who have sisters armies tend to be the beleaguered Wives and Girlfriends of well meaning, but naive hobbiests who though that "This is a girl faction, you'll like them". It's slightly sexist. When Women are left to their own devices in the hobby, I tend to see them migrate to Eldar, becuase they're aesthetically beautiful, Tyranids, Because they're cute, and Orks, because they're funny. None of these are because they're women, and I don't think adding female custodes will change that.
I hope that wasn't too rambling, I just wanted to get my thoughts out.
Edited for clarity.
Representation is simply the act of re presenting a persons views on behalf of them if they are absent, this is why our politicians are called representatives (whether they actually do this is another topic), the effort to "bring before" a persons or groups views for them to another group or person.
possibly not allowed, delete if so.
Spoiler:
this however has an alternative meaning on the political left, within this context representation is the suppression of the selected out group in favour of the selected in group, so one could supress the views and ideals of a majority or minority in favour of those within you "tribe", this obviously manifests very differently depending on many factors such as nation, chosen groups etc.
in this case it has been decided that representation is the suppression of those who want all male custodes in favour of those that want multiple sexes in the custodes, it is an exclusion of one group in favour of another and a quick perusal of the cess pit that is twitter will show you that everyone is very much aware of this fact and all are behaving very poorly in response to something that is quite frankly in my opinion not that much of a big deal and I am not making a moral judgement on this change.
Then we have GW and their very poor statement "they have always been there", well we know this is a lie, people do not like being gaslighted and lied to so this has kicked up a stink too from what I have seen, in this case rightly so as it shows a fundamental disrespect to their loyal customers and fans, saying nothing would have been better or at least an admission its a change.
What if I told you there are Horus Heresy books with male and female Custodes in them?
I'm put in mind of the bene gesserit in Dune, and them being all female. I would not like it if somebody decided to change that.
Someone did change that - the original author. The entire reason for the Bene Gesserit to be all female was so that it would be noteworthy that a male had their powers.
And that's the thing about gender-locking a group in a setting - it's only interesting if it serves some sort of narrative purpose. The Sisters of Battle arguably serve a narrative purpose, even if it's a badly dated and not very good one. But there is no narrative purpose that is served by Custodes being all men. They're elite warriors... but we know from the rest of the setting that women are just as capable of being elite warriors. They don't even have the bad-science crutch that Marines have of the geneseed only working on men because reasons. So they're just men for the sake of them all being men. It does nothing other than apply a completely arbitrary restriction. So why have it there?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/16 23:31:18
I was wondering about the claims that Custodes have always been a male organisation, so I went and read their blurb in all the rulebooks I own. I could only find neutral references for them in the 2,3,6,7,8th rulebooks. I'm interested to know when the first references to them being all male were, as the idea that it is long established lore being changed does not seem accurate from my limited search.
I'm thinking that it is probably their first codex, but I'm not sure and am wondering if anyone else knows.
What if I told you there are Horus Heresy books with male and female Custodes in them?
yeah I am aware of the small transcript going around I have seen it, its referring to sisters of silence and Custodes, with this new retcon one could now interpret it as a possible example of female custodes but that is a retroactive justification.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trickstick wrote: I was wondering about the claims that Custodes have always been a male organisation, so I went and read their blurb in all the rulebooks I own. I could only find neutral references for them in the 2,3,6,7,8th rulebooks. I'm interested to know when the first references to them being all male were, as the idea that it is long established lore being changed does not seem accurate from my limited search.
I'm thinking that it is probably their first codex, but I'm not sure and am wondering if anyone else knows.
Rogue trader.
"These men never leave Earth and only rarely leave the Imperial palace"
whoooooole lot has changed since then haha
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/16 23:42:17
I'm put in mind of the bene gesserit in Dune, and them being all female. I would not like it if somebody decided to change that.
Someone did change that - the original author. The entire reason for the Bene Gesserit to be all female was so that it would be noteworthy that a male had their powers.
And that's the thing about gender-locking a group in a setting - it's only interesting if it serves some sort of narrative purpose. The Sisters of Battle arguably serve a narrative purpose, even if it's a badly dated and not very good one. But there is no narrative purpose that is served by Custodes being all men. They're elite warriors... but we know from the rest of the setting that women are just as capable of being elite warriors. They don't even have the bad-science crutch that Marines have of the geneseed only working on men because reasons. So they're just men for the sake of them all being men. It does nothing other than apply a completely arbitrary restriction. So why have it there?
An argument could be made whether Paul was bene Gesserit, or was not, but had their powers. He certainly wasn't controlled by them. I think I might be making a distinction without a difference (or just being a pedant), so won't press it further (also, 40k thread, not Dune)
As for why have it there? I'm not sure if that's directed at me or more a general statement? If at me, then i beleive it was already in my post, but for expediency, I basically said I couldn't think of an objective reason, any reason I had would be subjective.
Lammia wrote: What if I told you there are Horus Heresy books with male and female Custodes in them?
For reals? That's interesting to know.
Edit: How recently were those published?
Echoes of Eternity has some very Legio Custodes coded reference to 'men and women' that protect the Emperor. Though as someone has pointed out, there are those assuming it's just SoS.
There's also the story of earlier books supposedly ment to have a Custode woman in it but that getting vetoed by management because they thought it would mess with the planned Custode release.
"These men never leave Earth and only rarely leave the Imperial palace"
whoooooole lot has changed since then haha
Yeah I usually consider rogue trader as an entirely different setting, it is so different. Interesting information though.
It's also not proof of them being all male, as in the English language, mixed-gender groups are often referred to using male nomenclature. Like if you talk about the guys at work, you could be referring to all of your male and female colleagues, not just the men.
Just reiterating my post from the other thread: Female Custodes. Cool. I hope that everyone enjoys the increased modeling options and representation, sincerely.
Lammia wrote: What if I told you there are Horus Heresy books with male and female Custodes in them?
For reals? That's interesting to know.
Edit: How recently were those published?
Echoes of Eternity has some very Legio Custodes coded reference to 'men and women' that protect the Emperor. Though as someone has pointed out, there are those assuming it's just SoS.
That very much comes across as ' ah yes, we'll increase female representation by wholey denying existing female representation'.
The fact that female Custodes were supposedly vetoed elsewhere would indicate that the female protectors of the Emperor were supposed to be understood as the existing and well known female protectors of the Emperor (ie the Sisters of Silence) and not unknown non existent female protectors of the Emperor (ie femstodes).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/17 03:41:41
BobtheInquisitor wrote: You think Sisters of Silence are well known? In terms of models available to buy or books available to read, they’re the consolation prize.
Ehhhh.....they have solid lore, and solid rules (at least in 30k). You're correct in that they need more models, but I'm seeing that as more of a problem to be solved with MORE MODELS than just "sidineing" them. To each thier own, and I again wish the best to those that celebrate this change, but don't the fans of the SoS deserve a bit more?
In terms of positive representation, I'm not sure that 'Women forced into a vow of silence and kept hidden away on the moon because 'normal' people find their presence disgusting' are tipping the scales in the right direction, honestly.
In terms of gameplay, Sisters of Silence are by their very nature too limited to exist as a viable faction in their own right. They should always have been an auxiliary unit added to Custodes or Inquisition forces, or a 'colour' unit added to specific scenarios for campaign gaming, rather than a separate force.
That very much comes across as ' ah yes, we'll increase female representation by wholey denying existing female representation'.
The fact that female Custodes were supposedly vetoed elsewhere would indicate that the female protectors of the Emperor were supposed to be understood as the existing and well known female protectors of the Emperor (ie the Sisters of Silence) and not unknown non existent female protectors of the Emperor (ie femstodes).
The idea that female Custodes are what will hold Sisters of Silence back from getting more representation in any capacity is delusional my friend.
They can do both: expand the one-trick-pony SoS faction and also allow women in the Custodes.
I’d also like to see Misters of Silence or some other type of blank role with make options, even if it’s just expanding the culexis. More options are always good.
- 10,000 pts CSM 
