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.

Why is it inflammatory? Seems like a good retcon to me, like when the Legions were retconned from 10k to ~150k men each.

Sure, some people were unhappy about that too, but that didn't mean there was any need to dance on eggshells about it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


If you really want to play this game? Buckle up, because I can happily go grab my Rogue Trader book and start gutting the game and setting as we know it, by demanding the erasure of each and every single change ever made. And I’ll keep doing it until you start feeling a bit silly.

Relax, no need for anyone to be grabbing their old books, we've both been here since the switchover. I've been civil, you have the sanctioned opinion and get a bit more leeway to chuck around talk of weirdos and silliness (good chance my input is deleted, civility or no). Do me a favour, go look at that YT comments section and then tell me with a straight face that this is a non-contentious non-issue and your perspective here is objectively the correct one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GrosseSax wrote:


Was it for inclusion purposes when women are already prominently featured in the Warhammer universes? Was it pressure from a progressive activist within GW who just wanted to "own the chuds"? Or maybe something to do with this whole Amazon production?

All this and a bit more besides. None of this discussion is available here, being a closed and regulated ecosystem, for better or worse. Unmoderated dialogue elsewhere shows a more faithful representation of the current zeitgeist (anyone remember when that used to be Dakka?)

JWBS wrote:
All this and a bit more besides. None of this discussion is available here, being a closed and regulated ecosystem, for better or worse. Unmoderated dialogue elsewhere shows a more faithful representation of the current zeitgeist (anyone remember when that used to be Dakka?)

I'll be real with you, I've seen the "unmoderated dialogue" come to the fore in places like youtube comments, and I do not think I exaggerate when I call it the sewage of the internet.

I cannot describe how much better Dakka is for any discussion or conversation deserving of the term.

Changes happen. Custodes now recruiting from both sexes is a super minimal one.

Like Astartes, once the Custodes is complete? They’re no longer human. At all. They’re transhuman. And no, I don’t use that term to be provocative, it’s how Astartes and Custodes are described in the background.

Astartes are assembly line, one size fits some. Custodes are Extra Special Custom Tailored Jobs.

Neither, despite having a common starting cloth, are even remotely human at the end of their respective process.

But please. Tell me why the change from this…



To this

\

Hasn’t bothered anyone. But this



Is somehow contentious?

Please note. I am genuinely not prejudging you or anyone here.

I want to know why one, pretty radical change (including the whole gene tailoring thing) is beyond contention, whereas the other is too much.

Your reasoning, if you please. No. Not YouTube comments. YOUR reasoning.

Wilderness would be a less uncharitable descriptor than sewer, some people prefer that.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Your reasoning, if you please. No. Not YouTube comments. YOUR reasoning.

Same reason why the Smurf Ultramarine army causes no stir, and why you see people paint Space Marines with the flag of Brazil on them, all without so much as a breath of complaint, whereas if someone puts a feminine head on their model it makes some people go berserk about the "sanctity of the lore".

Some people just have an axe to grind. It's not worth your time.

Please, at this time, don’t speak for others. Respectfully, it’s not your opinion that of interest here. And your response risks poisoning the well.

This thread seems like a sensible place to bring the current discussion to

 BrookM wrote:
Oh goody, the alerts panel is flashing and screaming at me again, kindly take all that discussion to a thread of its own.

JWBS wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


If you really want to play this game? Buckle up, because I can happily go grab my Rogue Trader book and start gutting the game and setting as we know it, by demanding the erasure of each and every single change ever made. And I’ll keep doing it until you start feeling a bit silly.

Relax, no need for anyone to be grabbing their old books, we've both been here since the switchover. I've been civil, you have the sanctioned opinion and get a bit more leeway to chuck around talk of weirdos and silliness (good chance my input is deleted, civility or no). Do me a favour, go look at that YT comments section and then tell me with a straight face that this is a non-contentious non-issue and your perspective here is objectively the correct one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GrosseSax wrote:


Was it for inclusion purposes when women are already prominently featured in the Warhammer universes? Was it pressure from a progressive activist within GW who just wanted to "own the chuds"? Or maybe something to do with this whole Amazon production?

All this and a bit more besides. None of this discussion is available here, being a closed and regulated ecosystem, for better or worse. Unmoderated dialogue elsewhere shows a more faithful representation of the current zeitgeist (anyone remember when that used to be Dakka?)

Changes are made for reasons. GW isn't obligated to offer an explanation, but I don't think its unreasonable to ask for one.

 xttz wrote:
This thread seems like a sensible place to bring the current discussion to

 BrookM wrote:
Oh goody, the alerts panel is flashing and screaming at me again, kindly take all that discussion to a thread of its own.

Sounds good.

On the topic of these previews from another angle, I noticed that Custodes seem to continue to enjoy the exemption from GW's current penchant for range separation.

I suspect due to raw popularity GW sees too much of a loss in enforcing an admech-style split. Good news for them. I hope it's a sign, though I'd not necessarily bet it is.

 xttz wrote:


Why is this (largely cosmetic) retcon in particular an issue?

Simply put: the ulterior motive. Which is kind of hard to fully explain given the forum rules but put it this way; I've never had anyone imply I'm a bad person IRL because I mocked Centurions, thought the Nucron fluff was rubbish, or expressed the view that the Rogal Dorn isn't a very interesting tank.

Seems the bright red text quoted multiple times is not sufficient notice to take this chain of discussion elsewhere, but as this thread has run its course anyway time to lock it up. Follow up conversation can be found in the game specific threads.