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.
You interpreted it that way, as a statement of intent, which is reasonable.
Others interpreted an unambiguous statement of fact on the GW official account, which could legitimately be argued contradicts lore and previous GW directives to authors, in the context of "bigots will not be missed", as gaslighting. In context, that's also a reasonable interpretation.
"Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia" is the classic literary example of institutional gaslighting.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/04/24 08:05:55
so how to solve this as a compromise, change the poster boy to include females or change the poster boy faction to include females, for every marine, show a sister, push that these are factions that work in concert, they are a mirror of each other and cover each others gaps and weaknesses, men and woman working in concert expressing their strengths in different ways, the marines are the shield, the bulwark against the physical threat, the sisters are the bulwark and shield against the spiritual one.
Spoiler:
Exactly but put this EVERYWHERE, see a cardboard cut out of a marine, you also get a sister, see a poster of a marine, there is a sister in there too just as prominent.
This interests me. How can you tell which gender each character is on that poster?
Are we to suppose bob cut, small wait, hips and boobs must be front and centre for inclusivity to be shown? Or is it perhaps a better idea that a female marine could wear the exact same plate, use the same equipment and be visually indistinguishable in armour?
Most of the examples of people wanting reduce male dominance of the 40k marketing seem to also be hyper focused on using (to one degree or another) sexualised body forms to get the point across, which might not be helping.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/24 08:13:28
It’s..really not gaslighting, as I explained above. See also “please learn how to words”.
And whilst you’re at that? I still don’t think anyone has explained why, among the dozens if not hundreds of such retcons since the very beginning of the game (like Custodes being genhanced and swapping leather strides, black cloaks and techno helmets for Massive Suits of Armour) is the one that’s apparently A Step Too Far, and a slap in the face and gaslighting and all that hysteria inducing good stuff.
Why this one? Why now?
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
And whilst you’re at that? I still don’t think anyone has explained why, among the dozens if not hundreds of such retcons since the very beginning of the game (like Custodes being genhanced and swapping leather strides, black cloaks and techno helmets for Massive Suits of Armour) is the one that’s apparently A Step Too Far, and a slap in the face and gaslighting and all that hysteria inducing good stuff.
Why this one? Why now?
F@#!in hell man, can you not read? I feel this has been adequately responded to several times now.
1. People have been quite upset about retcons/changes prior to this one.
2. Because this is inherently part of a larger culture war, this one gets amplified.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/24 08:20:59
A retcon….inherently changes the background, that’s what a retcon is.
Where was this same “outrage” when Custodes and Marines went from Just Being Warriors, to genhanced post-human monstrosities? Becuase….that just happened. And it invalidated descriptions and histories in the Rogue Trader book.
Where was it when the Basilisk became the adaptation of the Chimera chassis, flying in the face of the established lore of Titan Legions?
Or any of the other dozens if not hundreds of such retcons since 1987?
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: A retcon….inherently changes the background, that’s what a retcon is.
Where was this same “outrage” when Custodes and Marines went from Just Being Warriors, to genhanced post-human monstrosities? Becuase….that just happened. And it invalidated descriptions and histories in the Rogue Trader book.
Where was it when the Basilisk became the adaptation of the Chimera chassis, flying in the face of the established lore of Titan Legions?
Or any of the other dozens if not hundreds of such retcons since 1987?
It was pointed out multiple times to you, that before 3rd edition you don't really HAVE an established lore-cannon so the custodes exemple is just not an honest exemple at all, and you know that, you just don't care, but since you are willfully thick in the head here to defend a narrative:
There are three types of retcons, hated ones and those that make sense and those that made 40k out of rogue trader (pre 3rd edition).
The later here don't count at all because rogue trader is not 40k at that stage and has not cannonised itself.
Hated ones like nucrons and primaris atleast had more lore to them than what currently happenens.
Those that make sense f.e. The chimera is the basis for the basi not inverted because that is normally how SPA happened.
Then we have whatever the feth this is, in which we would have a retconn at hand if it weren't for the communication behaviour exemplified by an official PR channel of the company. Which is why the later part is gaslighting whilest the former retcons are retcons of differing quality. (primaris come to mind as probably the worst offenders of bad writing for that matter, because deus ex cawl is probably the single most nonsensical thing.)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/04/24 08:42:55
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
I don't like it because I like lore that retains internal integrity rather than bending to the exterior climate.
More representation in 40k is great. You don't have to make female marines to do that. There's a vast array of opportunities for more representation requiring zero lore adjustments. Seeing female Guard is great. More female Imperial agents would be great. And getting more attention on literally anything other than Space Marines, while we're at it, would also be great.
This is the correct position of the majority of people talking on this subject.
the sheer amount of misrepresentation going on is ridiculous and at this point should warrant a mod stepping in to caution those who repeatedly do it.
While I personally don't mind the more inclusive version, I do understand your position. Back somewhere around page 10 I remember someone writing that the problem isn't a male only faction- that's fine. It's that the posterboys of game are all male; the poster suggested that things like normalizing mixed Marine/ Sister armies for example by providing a mixed detachment and including units from both factions in Launch and Starter boxes.
That still isn't as inclusive as just opening up the faction, but it is an interesting compromise which may actually go further toward changing the culture by baby-stepping us into change rather than shocking the monkey. Others have suggested that providing a lore hook for the change might have made it more palatable to people- and it's painfully easy- someone had suggested that the Custodes involvement in Indomitus would require some recruitment to maintain the force on Terra and replace losses in the Crusade.
Just out of interest, because I couldn't find an example off the top of my head: What would a fictional veneer for segregation of human sexes look like? How can you do it in such a way that it does meet your requirements for tolerable fiction?
I addressed this a while back - if you're going to apply arbitrary restrictions in your setting, they should serve a narrative purpose. Otherwise, they're pointless, and just get in the way of creativity.
I don't like the Decree Passive as a thing, but it does at least provide a reason for the Sisters of Battle to be women, and provides narrative potential - what happens when a branch of the Eclessiarchy chooses to ignore it, for example.
Space Marines or Custodes being all male, particularly when the reason given for it is 'just because' provides no such narrative purpose, and worse, it makes no sense in a setting where roles are otherwise never restricted by gender. Sure, having them all be men means you can tell stories about 'brotherhood' (assuming that's the sort of story you feel is necessary to tell and is meaningfully different from stories of companionship or friendship with mixed genders, and would even still be a thing in a society that doesn't have segregated gender roles)... but you can still do that if female space marines exist, because male space marines also still exist. So you still have the opportunity to tell stories of a group of men doing manly stuff... you've just also opened up the potential for wider stories involving different groups.
So purely from a fiction point of view, allowing mixed Marines is a better option. And from a modelling point of view, you get the same thing... having restrictions does nothing but restrict modelling options. In a game that has been pushing the idea for 30 years that 'It's your hobby, do what you want with your models', it's just downright odd for it to simultaneously say '...oh, but not that' for no reason other than that badly sculpted female models didn't sell well in the early '90s.
To expand on this. The Vostroyan Firstborn are notably an all-male regiment of the Guard. I think I have encountered maybe two people ever who expressed a problem with this. Most people are fine with it, because they could instead collect a mixed-gender Cadian force, or a segregated Valhallan force, or a female-only Xenonian force if they choose. The Imperial Guard is mixed on the whole, and specific flavours are available within that.
If Cadians, as the primary Guard poster faction, were exclusively male, I think that would be a bigger problem. Now Space Marines take that issue of prominence and flavours and ramp it up to 11- they are by far the most prominent, are the poster faction for the whole setting, and have loads of flavours except women. I agree that if Marines were a niche faction few would care that they are gender-locked.
Men and women are, on average, temperamentally different, which has implications for group dynamics.
But the difficulty with this premise is that "temperament" is more of a result of environmental factors than biological ones.
Do boys behave differently than girls because they receive different cues from adults and the media?
We KNOW that the harshness of the 40k universe already breaks that difference in socialization due to female participation in other Imperial organizations, so these "temperamental" differences you speak of would be minimized to some degree or another, if they exist at all. Heck, 40k years might even be long enough for even biological markers to shift.
Either way, I don't think we can really compare the potential "temperaments" between 21st century boys and girls with those raised in the 40k Grimdark. Not by a long shot.
Yeah, this is very much an area where humanity does not know the answer. Differences are observable in "temperament", but the cause is not known. I think environmental causes look to be the stronger factor but it is not settled science (and difficult to study ethically).
catbarf wrote:
BobtheInquisitor wrote:I repeat my refrain from earlier: it’s not that you have a problem with retcons, is that you have a uniquely outsized problem with *this* retcon that’s the red flag.
Uh, Insectum has publicly and vocally hated the Necron retcon, among others. I did too.
'Here's some bull gak I assume you believe- gotcha, hypocrite!' isn't an incisive blow so much as it is just, well, tiring. Especially when the guy you're arguing with really isn't part of the reactionary 'anti-woke' crowd and has made his position pretty clear a couple of times in this thread.
@Bob, where you intending "you" as in Insectum7 specifically, or "you" in the general sense? If the former I agree that is unwarranted, and Insectum7 has been engaging in this thread very thoughtfully on the whole. If the latter, the wording is poor.
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
Your argument was that this one is the one that was a step too far, presumably because bigots. You also hilariously undermined yourself by claiming nobody had covered previous retcons.
People still don't like Primaris for example, and it's all been covered in excruciating detail that you just don't seem to want to see, because you'd apparently rather assert it's just bigots being bigots. All the while demanding receipts while providing none.
Primaris isn't a retcon, its a progression. I'd prefer it if they were a retcon, personally, because it means that a lore-accurate Primaris force could be used before the very end of M41 rather than splitting the Marine range into three epochs and phasing out the middle one for which most the existing setting was written in. But that ship has sadly sailed.
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
robbienw wrote: Saying there hasn't been massive reactions to previous retcons/controversial addition/changes is definitely gaslighting, and is objectively ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ruprecht wrote: Inherent in the social contract of a forum is that everything is an opinion unless presented as fact.
It's funny that in 30 pages of opinion, the people triggered by my opinion are ignoring the substance of the opinion and instead using lazy identity branding to discredit, and wanting receipts for opinions. You'll do literally anything to avoid thinking critically about what was actually being said. You just label, categorise and reach for a reddit screenshot that seems the right amount of edgy to virtue signal to your tribe.
Agreed, and the same people demanding proof will then go into 'that doesn't count cause reasons' mode or begin hair splitting when you provide ironclad proof of what you are saying, or will ignore your proof and keep asking the same question. They will then demand you accept their baseless claims as absolute truth. Its odd behavior to say the least.
Changes to Necrons, separating Daemons from wider Chaos etc all had a direct impact on people’s armies. Necrons to a lesser extent, as whilst Pariahs no longer exist, the models are at least comfortable proxies for Praetorians or whatever they’re called. And the background shift was significant (but not entirely mutually exclusive). Daemons being pulled from CSM left people with unfieldable armies. Those and changes like them? I absolutely get that.
But “Custodes now have males and females” isn’t on par. At all. No models have been invalidated. No armies have had their character or composition fundamentally changed. Nobody has sat you down and threatened your fingers with a hammer if you don’t change the plumes on 50% of your Custards to pigtails. Nobody has insisted you start assigning a gender to specific models in your collection on pain of losing kneecap privileges.
It’s not a big change. It’s had no discernible impact on existing model collections. It hasn’t changed the character, purpose or overall background of Custards. In fact, of all the changes and direct retcons Custards have received? This is the least of them.
So why the outrage at it? Why is this the step too far?
No. Not “people am angyr at GSC change”. Why the outrage that now, in a step which does nothing to your collection or the overall background and purpose of that armed force of the Imperium, at least some Custodes aren’t smuggling budgies under their armour.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s..really not gaslighting, as I explained above. See also “please learn how to words”.
And whilst you’re at that? I still don’t think anyone has explained why, among the dozens if not hundreds of such retcons since the very beginning of the game (like Custodes being genhanced and swapping leather strides, black cloaks and techno helmets for Massive Suits of Armour) is the one that’s apparently A Step Too Far, and a slap in the face and gaslighting and all that hysteria inducing good stuff.
Why this one? Why now?
Because right now GW instead of pointing out that it is a "normal retcon" (which remind me were not ever well recieved after i'd say 3-4th edition but he that is not enough for you for some reason) is banning everyone pointing out that their statement is not true on the twatter regardless how respectfully they did it
Also just because the "Zersetzung-part" wasn't achieved doesn't mean that such behaviour is not indicative of the typicall behaviour and communication formation that aims to achieve the gaslighting effect.
It is true though, that’s what the lore is now.
The fact that the lore was different last month is by the by. They own the IP and they changed it. That’s pretty much how they always do retcons.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s..really not gaslighting, as I explained above. See also “please learn how to words”.
And whilst you’re at that? I still don’t think anyone has explained why, among the dozens if not hundreds of such retcons since the very beginning of the game (like Custodes being genhanced and swapping leather strides, black cloaks and techno helmets for Massive Suits of Armour) is the one that’s apparently A Step Too Far, and a slap in the face and gaslighting and all that hysteria inducing good stuff.
Why this one? Why now?
Because right now GW instead of pointing out that it is a "normal retcon" (which remind me were not ever well recieved after i'd say 3-4th edition but he that is not enough for you for some reason) is banning everyone pointing out that their statement is not true on the twatter regardless how respectfully they did it
Also just because the "Zersetzung-part" wasn't achieved doesn't mean that such behaviour is not indicative of the typicall behaviour and communication formation that aims to achieve the gaslighting effect.
It is true though, that’s what the lore is now.
The fact that the lore was different last month is by the by. They own the IP and they changed it. That’s pretty much how they always do retcons.
Including the banning of people pointing out that wasn't the case? no? Again see above i explained it there.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s..really not gaslighting, as I explained above. See also “please learn how to words”.
And whilst you’re at that? I still don’t think anyone has explained why, among the dozens if not hundreds of such retcons since the very beginning of the game (like Custodes being genhanced and swapping leather strides, black cloaks and techno helmets for Massive Suits of Armour) is the one that’s apparently A Step Too Far, and a slap in the face and gaslighting and all that hysteria inducing good stuff.
Why this one? Why now?
Because right now GW instead of pointing out that it is a "normal retcon" (which remind me were not ever well recieved after i'd say 3-4th edition but he that is not enough for you for some reason) is banning everyone pointing out that their statement is not true on the twatter regardless how respectfully they did it
Also just because the "Zersetzung-part" wasn't achieved doesn't mean that such behaviour is not indicative of the typicall behaviour and communication formation that aims to achieve the gaslighting effect.
It is true though, that’s what the lore is now.
The fact that the lore was different last month is by the by. They own the IP and they changed it. That’s pretty much how they always do retcons.
Including the banning of people pointing out that wasn't the case? no? Again see above i explained it there.
Well, during a lot of the major retcons mentioned above GW refused to have a social media presence at all and barely interacted with their community in any overt way. So yeah, some interaction at all is different to the Kirby era.
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
Yeah except GW normally doesn't do just that when confronted with the lore either... So no still doesn't check out.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Why the outrage that now, in a step which does nothing to your collection or the overall background and purpose of that armed force of the Imperium, at least some Custodes aren’t smuggling budgies under their armour.
As has been explained at length, because of the way they did it and the optics of doing it for culture war and Amazon reasons.
I really couldn't care any less what they have under their armour. Again as I've said, I consider them neither male nor female - transhuman - and always assumed their dingdongs (relics of XY genes) were replaced with a waste valve compatible with power armour.
Tbh I would consider it more ‘shoving politics in peoples faces’ if they made a big song and dance about ‘look how progressive we are, Custodes have women now!’.
Releasing a single vignette with a female Custodes and a single tweet noting the lore that they’ve now always recruited women is just about the most low key way to make the change.
The same people complaining about the change then in the same breath complaining GW didn’t make enough of a fuss about it just seems weird to me
Bosskelot wrote: GW cannot ban people on Twitter so what are you even talking about
Blocking then, still holds true though.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
the dodo
doctor who
transformers
star trek
star wars
dc
marvel
magic the gathering
witcher
battletech
and now warhammer
reading this thread, i estimate that a third are fighting for female custode, a third fights against. and finally a third are ok ether way
when this book is released, i expect a review from a third of you and tell the rest of us if games workshop trying to make everyone happy is all worth it
the dodo is extinct by the way
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/04/24 09:16:29
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So because bad faith actors have decided to hammer this into their carefully constructed “culture war”, this is bad?
When it impacts nothing?
Yes. Recreationally offended gender activists and Amazon producers with commercial and social agendas throwing culture grenades into 40k and branding genuine fans as bigoted gatekeepers for questioning the motives and method of the clear retcon is a bad thing.
Battletech got a fight on because the reddits mods had some problem and there are right-wing writers that have some other work going hence the community wants them to be gone from BT
Yet I am missing what was wrong with Star Trek, as there I am only aware of the problems with bad writing
Witcher got problems because the writers hate the source material because it is for "gamers"
Star Wars again was bad writing and hoping people ingore it because it looked "woman strong"
doctor who wasn't really a big outcry in general, just that the first ones of the reboot set a high level
Man, for people screaming about how GW is shoving politics into everything, its just odd. Women, LGBTQ, minorities and so on really should not be political at all. They should simply exist. The people screaming to high heavens about *women* and *agendas* and *culture war* are the ones dragging some stone age politics into this.
Yet I am missing what was wrong with Star Trek, as there I am only aware of the problems with bad writing.
I find it absolutely hilarious that there genuinely are people who complain about Star Trek going woke. Star Trek! And same with X-men. Like that truly shows what sort of tourists a lot of these ragemongers are, as they obviously do not understand even the basics about these franchises in the first place.
Star Trek was never woke because it was subtle and not "in your face" so it never made it into TikTok vids or memes and therefore it never happened
ST is one of the best example of people complaining about a franchise the only know from memes (or see things out of context as how controversial / woke a black woman with a Masters degree at the command centre of a military craft was in the 60ies)
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
