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.

 insaniak wrote:

The setting evolves, and things change. So, please, stop with the 'gaslighting' nonsense.

Comes down to how you interpret the post, imo.

If you interpret it as "we are changing the lore to : there have always been female Custodes in-universe, not just changing it for present M41", that's one thing.

If you interpret it as "Custodes as a faction have never been all-male in lore" despite passages mentioning "men" and "sons", that's a different thing.

I don't think it's something to harp on, and I dislike the term gaslighting to begin with. But the second one is a potential interpretation of what was posted.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

The setting evolves, and things change. So, please, stop with the 'gaslighting' nonsense.

Comes down to how you interpret the post, imo.

If you interpret it as "we are changing the lore to : there have always been female Custodes in-universe, not just changing it for present M41", that's one thing.

If you interpret it as "Custodes as a faction have never been all-male in lore" despite passages mentioning "men" and "sons", that's a different thing.

I don't think it's something to harp on, and I dislike the term gaslighting to begin with. But the second one is a potential interpretation of what was posted.

The latter is not a reasonable interpretation in any way. It is totally obvious that it is talking about in-universe lore, explicitly referring the creation of the first ten thousand Custodes, not the conception of the idea of the Custodes in the Rogue Trader.

insaniak 813539 11660925 wrote:And now things have been rewritten, and there have always (so far as the setting is concerned) been female custodes, in just the same way as there were no Rogal Dorn tanks... until there were always Rogal Dorn tanks. Space Marines didn't use fighter craft... until they always did. Centurions didn't exist... Until they did. Tau didn't exist... until they did.

I wasn't around for the tau, but the other ones were very much mocked for how hamfisted they were inserted into the lore (especially the Centurions, due to the concept of being armour-armour). Same with knights in 6th, and votann to a certain extent. Same with cawl.

"Actually has always been there/like that" is always the laziest narrative way to do things in GWs arsenal of story telling methods; them doing it a lot shouldnt be a further excuse for bad sorry telling.

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

The setting evolves, and things change. So, please, stop with the 'gaslighting' nonsense.

Comes down to how you interpret the post, imo.

If you interpret it as "we are changing the lore to : there have always been female Custodes in-universe, not just changing it for present M41", that's one thing.

If you interpret it as "Custodes as a faction have never been all-male in lore" despite passages mentioning "men" and "sons", that's a different thing.

I don't think it's something to harp on, and I dislike the term gaslighting to begin with. But the second one is a potential interpretation of what was posted.

The latter is not a reasonable interpretation in any way. It is totally obvious that it is talking about in-universe lore, explicitly referring the creation of the first ten thousand Custodes, not the conception of the idea of the Custodes in the Rogue Trader.

Sometimes what is totally obvious to one person is very much not to another.

I don't agree with the 2nd interpretation. But it is a possible interpretation.

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:

I wasn't around for the tau, but the other ones were very much mocked for how hamfisted they were inserted into the lore (especially the Centurions, due to the concept of being armour-armour). Same with knights in 6th, and votann to a certain extent. Same with cawl.

Sure. None of them, however, were labelled as 'gaslighting'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:


I don't agree with the 2nd interpretation. But it is a possible interpretation.

It's a possible interpretation if you're actively looking for something to be angry about. It's blatantly obvious that it's an in-universe explanation.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Given the extreme physical enhancements that turn an ordinary smelly hooman into a Custard? I suspect any sexual dimorphism would be well obscured.

Since it is ultimately a fantasy setting, it could go either way.

Even being "realistic" about it since the Custodes armor design is 90% fashion and 10% function. I mean, sure- very functional armor can look the same on a man or woman, but Custodes are walking cathedral decorations.



----


One of the things I find very interesting about this is that the lore creator came out and said that he intended to include female custodes when he wrote their first book (seven years ago?) but got a mandate from corporate to not mention women because they had male minis to sell.

It is just kind of funny- because it seems that the pandering happened when they first released the book. I mean, isn't that what that story was?

Anyway, I don't think that Custodes gender inclusive recruitment policies ruin even a tiny portion of the lore (and don't be calling me a noob- I've been here since the late RT era and can probably cite more ret-cons than you)

 insaniak wrote:

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:

I wasn't around for the tau, but the other ones were very much mocked for how hamfisted they were inserted into the lore (especially the Centurions, due to the concept of being armour-armour). Same with knights in 6th, and votann to a certain extent. Same with cawl.

Sure. None of them, however, were labelled as 'gaslighting'.

That's because all those examples didn't have contemporary established lore. Different context.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:


I don't agree with the 2nd interpretation. But it is a possible interpretation.

It's a possible interpretation if you're actively looking for something to be angry about. It's blatantly obvious that it's an in-universe explanation.

I agree with you in that it seems obvious. But I disagree that it is readily obvious to everybody, given the context. It's really hard to tell where people are coming from.

A female voice

oh crikey she is gonna get a lot of hate for that video.

quick reply more about the Tau introduction, people were much much more annoyed at the time as they though sisters of battle were next in the codex treatment line, then suddenly the anime boyz turned up out of nowhere and were all noble bright in the grim dark (not anymore, story progressed), kinda similar to what happened with Ogre Kingdoms back in the day suddenly taking up a spot people ASSUMED was for another army waiting in line.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:

I wasn't around for the tau, but the other ones were very much mocked for how hamfisted they were inserted into the lore (especially the Centurions, due to the concept of being armour-armour). Same with knights in 6th, and votann to a certain extent. Same with cawl.

Sure. None of them, however, were labelled as 'gaslighting'.

That's because all those examples didn't have contemporary established lore. Different context.

Not really. When the Riptide was introduced it was retroactively inserted into battles which previously talked about Hammerheads decimating Imperial armour columns and the Hammerhead was removed from those stories.

Also, to put it into proper perspective, I present to you..

Mad Doc Grotsnik’s Marvellous And Incomplete List Of Stuff What Got Retconned And Nobody Threw Teddy From The Pram About It

1. Dreadnoughts used to be a suited of cybernetic armour you could get in and out of, but slowly drove you insane

2. Primarch was a Rank

3. Marines weren’t genhanced super soldiers

4. The Imperium had lost the secret of atmospheric aircraft, which is why Epic never had fliers outside of the Thunderhawk until suddenly it did

5. Imperial Battleships looked like this.



Until they suddenly didn’t

6. The Basilisk was the originator of that chassis, the Chimera an adaptation. Until it wasn’t.

7. Titan grade Plasma Weapons required a Plasma Reactor, until GW released the Stormblade

And so on, and so forth. Nobody much seemed to care. Yet they’ve all been retconned. Sometime more than once.

So one has to ask. Why has simply saying “yeah women can undergo the conversion process to become Custodes, and we’ve decided that’s now always been the case because you see, it’s our sandpit, and we get to decide these things unilaterally” attracted so much (carefully nurtured) heat, when at the end of the day it’s just another in long, long tradition of GW changing the fluff on a whim?

 Insectum7 wrote:
That's because all those examples didn't have contemporary established lore. Different context.

you might want to go back and read those things again
best to read the 7th Edition books and than again the 9th/10th Edition books and compare those to 3rd Edition books
even the Rogal Dorn Tank removed contemporary established lore with "has always been there" and the newest Space Marine weapons have been used since the Horus Heresy

why are you ignoring every single retcon happening with 10th that removed established lore?

The problem is Not the retconn or the change. The problem is the as pointed out blatant "just because and you are going to like it" answer including Bans for people pointing it out in their own codices.

The correct question is why doesn't it matter. A lot of your exemples f.e. are things that made the universe more logical but not developped in the mature cycle of lore were consistency was becomming a point of contention. And even there GW fethed up things that got complained about vividly.
And as a friendly reminder, GW quality compared to other plastic companies has declined, an exemple can be pointed out in the Wargames atlantic discussion about sprues and quality.
The only real draw GW has is it's universe, not even the shops are a draw anymore due to how they are run and where they are.

 kodos wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
That's because all those examples didn't have contemporary established lore. Different context.

you might want to go back and read those things again
best to read the 7th Edition books and than again the 9th/10th Edition books and compare those to 3rd Edition books
even the Rogal Dorn Tank removed contemporary established lore with "has always been there" and the newest Space Marine weapons have been used since the Horus Heresy

why are you ignoring every single retcon happening with 10th that removed established lore?

Because you’re ignoring that this has always happened in 40K. And nobody much cared before. It being part and parcel.

Seriously. I’ve a complete set of Rogue Trader era books. Read them in order and see what I mean. Stuff changed and tweaked and dare I say refined on the fly.

This is therefore….nothing new, not remarkable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
GW quality compared to other plastic companies has declined, an exemple can be pointed out in the Wargames atlantic discussion about sprues and quality.
The only real draw GW has is its universe, not even the shops are a draw anymore due to how they are run and where they are.

Hi, I’m Mad Doc Grotsnik, and I’d like an evidence based citation for this.

No. Links to YouTube channels don’t count, because I have actual, independently verified annual and six monthly reports to demonstrate the shops are doing perfectly well, thank you. Which being Primary Source, necessitates your source, if it’s to be taken seriously, to be of similar strength and independent veracity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and in case of ”but their share price” falls flat when you look at the full picture, and not just the one those with an axe to grind claim is the be all and end all.

making money is not necessarily linked to having the best product
and there are plenty of companies making more money with a mediocre product based on brand recognition while competitors with a superior product that is cheaper are half the size
(this is like claiming that McD makes the best quality food because their annual reports show that their products sells)

for GW plastic, they make good scale models
not the best quality out there, specially not for the price (comparing a perfect scale gundam kit with what you get for the same price from GW), yet hardly anyone makes as many SciFi and fantasy scale models

for gaming miniatures, they are mostly bad,
to complicated to assembly, fragile and hard to paint (like not being able to paint the rider and the mount independently is a big no here)

so yeah, easy to claim to be the most detailed and best looking if you are selling display models for gaming

Primarch still is a rank isnt it Grotsnik, the Thunder warriors have primarchs ?

Which in itself….is a retcon. And when it’s Thunder Warriors, the tense would be “had”. As they no longer exist.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
GW quality compared to other plastic companies has declined, an exemple can be pointed out in the Wargames atlantic discussion about sprues and quality.
The only real draw GW has is its universe, not even the shops are a draw anymore due to how they are run and where they are.

Hi, I’m Mad Doc Grotsnik, and I’d like an evidence based citation for this.

No. Links to YouTube channels don’t count, because I have actual, independently verified annual and six monthly reports to demonstrate the shops are doing perfectly well, thank you. Which being Primary Source, necessitates your source, if it’s to be taken seriously, to be of similar strength and independent veracity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and in case of ”but their share price” falls flat when you look at the full picture, and not just the one those with an axe to grind claim is the be all and end all.

Oh really mad doc, you mean that the shares going down has nothing to do with it Also atleast be honest because GW was until recently still in the covid boom area so an accurate assesment longterm isn't going to be accurate anyways but that's not the point now isn't it.

But you know what is also indicative of a badly run company? logistics. GW has massive logistical issues. Further the last quarter was also not a particular nice quarter on top of this shitshow either.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And when it’s Thunder Warriors, the tense would be “had”. As they no longer exist.

Laughing in Arik Taranis

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
That's because all those examples didn't have contemporary established lore. Different context.

you might want to go back and read those things again
best to read the 7th Edition books and than again the 9th/10th Edition books and compare those to 3rd Edition books
even the Rogal Dorn Tank removed contemporary established lore with "has always been there" and the newest Space Marine weapons have been used since the Horus Heresy

why are you ignoring every single retcon happening with 10th that removed established lore?

Because you’re ignoring that this has always happened in 40K. And nobody much cared before. It being part and parcel.

Seriously. I’ve a complete set of Rogue Trader era books. Read them in order and see what I mean. Stuff changed and tweaked and dare I say refined on the fly.

This is therefore….nothing new, not remarkable.

You are joking about the not caring, right? Because as above when Tau were released people that thought they were too bright threw a fit, when necrons got changed into Khemri in space people threw a fit. Do you remember what happened when Squats were eaten in the `nid codex?

Yes, you are right that GW has retconned the lore up, and down but as far as I can remember a part of the community has always been very vocal about those changes, more now that we have the tools to loudly complain at the reach of our fingertips.

M.

people care but it only matters to people whos factions this is about and everyone else does not care and the others are said to be just haters, angry grognards who don't accept change, people who want GW to fail (as they are a business and need those changes to make money) and so on

it hardly ever happens that there is a larger part of the community unhappy with retcons

 Insectum7 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

The setting evolves, and things change. So, please, stop with the 'gaslighting' nonsense.

Comes down to how you interpret the post, imo.

If you interpret it as "we are changing the lore to : there have always been female Custodes in-universe, not just changing it for present M41", that's one thing.

If you interpret it as "Custodes as a faction have never been all-male in lore" despite passages mentioning "men" and "sons", that's a different thing.

I don't think it's something to harp on, and I dislike the term gaslighting to begin with. But the second one is a potential interpretation of what was posted.

Other than the fact that 'men' and 'sons' can be gender ambiguous in the English language.

I'm sure if Gaunt was asked how many men he had available in the Tanith 1st, he'd include women in the number he gave as well.

Not Online!!! wrote:
[But you know what is also indicative of a badly run company? logistics. GW has massive logistical issues. Further the last quarter was also not a particular nice quarter on top of this shitshow either.

The *UK* has massive logistical issues thanks to our native feth sticks pulling the trigger on a collective economic kneecapping.

 kodos wrote:
people care but it only matters to people whos factions this is about and everyone else does not care and the others are said to be just haters, angry grognards who don't accept change, people who want GW to fail (as they are a business and need those changes to make money) and so on

it hardly ever happens that there is a larger part of the community unhappy with retcons

Which, in a setting of such fantastical nonsense, begs the question….why is “Custards are, as of now, comprised of male and female” candidates so controversial?

Necrons getting a whole new background is one thing. That was a fundamental change to their character and intentions for the Galaxy.

But this is just….nothing, really, is it? Custodes can now recruit from wee boys and wee girls. So what? Where’s the upset? How has that crossed a line where so many other changes didn’t?

And what’s your point?

Why has this upset you? Do you hold a matching stake in GW PLC and are now finding nobody is listening to you?

And why is it that Custodes recruiting from male and female candidates the step too far?

Please. Explain you precise concerns here.

I don't
My personal guess is:

40k has grown beyond the niche of gamers and a lot of people just follow the lore, read the books and play the computer games
in addition there is a large lore community around on youtube/social media that only cares about the lore and nothing else

already seen here in the forum posts that talk about years of established lore, which basically ignores that the lore follows the Edition cycle and whatever was there before is replaced by the new canon of the latest Codex

most of those people joined during Covid and don't know what GW is usually doing, specially as they are not engaged with the game and therefore don't know that the lore is there to follow the model releases and is changed whenever change is needed to fit a new release
so people were sold on 30 years of established lore, that make this setting different from all the other SciFi settings out there

combine this with the "we don't care" answer of "always has been" which is like the first time the wider non-gaming community made contact with "GW the company", and the recent rules reset.
so for a lot of people this is the first time ever that those things happen despite being promised something different

and because it is a change about woman that adds nothing to the game as there are no new models, of course the political people found its way adding fuel to the fire

PS:
this goes now strange ways of gatekeeping as people demand pics of your own painted models to add an opinion to the discussion which upsets all those who are just reading and/or pc-gamers (next level of gatekeeping, which does not really help at all)

So…capitalism? Working as intended, where those with the most dosh have the most clout, yeah?

I’m still yet to be given a reason why, as is the subject of this thread, the background now allowing for male and female Custodes, among the dozens if not hundreds of retcons, tweaks and changes made to the background over the past near 40 years, is the one that’s a step too far?

Because that’s what I’m seeking to understand. Why is this so controversial to some?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Which, in a setting of such fantastical nonsense, begs the question….why is “Custards are, as of now, comprised of male and female” candidates so controversial?

Necrons getting a whole new background is one thing. That was a fundamental change to their character and intentions for the Galaxy.

But this is just….nothing, really, is it? Custodes can now recruit from wee boys and wee girls. So what? Where’s the upset? How has that crossed a line where so many other changes didn’t?

Oh, that's easy, misogyny. The lore is and always was an excuse. It's like if you post a pic of a loyalist primaris World Eater everyone thinks it is cool, but if you post a pic of a female marine frothing ensues, even though both violate the lore.

 insaniak wrote:

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:

I wasn't around for the tau, but the other ones were very much mocked for how hamfisted they were inserted into the lore (especially the Centurions, due to the concept of being armour-armour). Same with knights in 6th, and votann to a certain extent. Same with cawl.

Sure. None of them, however, were labelled as 'gaslighting'.

I mean, that term wasn't really around for any of those except cawl and votann. And neither of those had had fairly modern lore stating the direct opposite. If they had and the term was in common use, then ya, the lore changes would probably be called gaslighting

I don’t want to put words in the mouths of others.

Hence I’ve been asking since quite early on “so what?”

I get some would prefer an in-universe thing to explain. That makes sense. And I could understand someone feeling that reason could be poorly written. No problem there.


But here, GW have gone the “it’s just always been that way now” approach. Which is….y’know, a clarification and pretty much fine.

Yet why it’s such an alleged controversy? I need the detractors to provide clarity on it. Because so far, I’m afraid it’s kind of feeling like they don’t actually know why they don’t like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:

I wasn't around for the tau, but the other ones were very much mocked for how hamfisted they were inserted into the lore (especially the Centurions, due to the concept of being armour-armour). Same with knights in 6th, and votann to a certain extent. Same with cawl.

Sure. None of them, however, were labelled as 'gaslighting'.

I mean, that term wasn't really around for any of those except cawl and votann. And neither of those had had fairly modern lore stating the direct opposite. If they had and the term was in common use, then ya, the lore changes would probably be called gaslighting

And it still would’ve been used incorrectly.

Gaslighting is try to change someone’s memory by constantly challenging it. It’s often used by malignant narcissists to start blaming others for the outcomes of the narcissists’ own behaviour and actions. For instance. Narcissist was drink driving, and shouldn’t have been behind the wheel. The car crashes. Gaslighting would be trying to pin the blame for the crash on their passenger distracting them etc.

This? This is just a retcon. A change made to a made up thing in a made up universe. Why that’s such a controversial change, when it’s done nothing to the character and application of said thing? I’m still awaiting some kind of explanation.