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.

robbienw wrote:

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?).

 odinsgrandson wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 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.

robbienw wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

robbienw wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A.T. wrote:

 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?

 Crimson wrote:

robbienw wrote:

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).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A.T. wrote:

 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.

A.T. wrote:

 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.

It is reasonable to conclude there were* no female Custodes. It is a leap to then say that means there could not be female Custodes.

I wasn't saying it proves anything, but the possibility remained* open that it was simply a choice to use only males for Custodes.


*Past tense as of the recent change.

A.T. wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
Where? Give me a quote.

"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:

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.

There may also be degrees of blankness.

Charax wrote:
Seems like it's heavily paraphrasing the psychic mastery section of the Inquisition illustrated guide from black library (which is a terrible book)

It's not even a good paraphrase, human baseline is rho-pi, not just rho, and omega is just omega, there's no "omega minus" on the scale

I think it is combining several sources- Omega minus is from a different source and the 40k wikia looks to have assumed they are the same rank. Which they could be, but they could also be different, or one is a subrank of the other.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Or it’s just good old Imperial Efficiency!

It could be... but I don't trust the 40k wikia as far as I can throw it because they don't cite stuff properly, so it could be a mistake, a fudging assumption, or Imperial contradictory sources.

usmcmidn wrote:


There are going to be evil people in this world. It exists. There are bigots and racists. And I’ll happily walk shoulder to shoulder with you fighting that behavior. But simply assuming someone is something because they are saying “I care about the lore” is wrong. You’re imagining hate in their hearts. Unless someone specifically says something truly racist, bigoted, x-phobic etc… we can’t assume everyone is evil.

We need to be more open and loving. I’m not going to go into my background but I’ve seen some real evil. And that’s not necessarily it. This thread topic is going a whole different direction. I’d truly love to talk to you more about it on a PM if you like. Discussion and respect is extremely important.

Could there be male sisters of silence, sure. Model and paint them however you want. They are your toy soldiers. I’d love to get a game in with you regardless.

Whilst I agree that people should not be too quick to assume bigotry, especially via a written medium with an international membership, some contributors have helpfully made it clear that they do in fact hold some pretty bigoted and hateful views. The amount of red text by mods in the main thread is evidence of that, although the offending posts have been removed.