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.

 kodos wrote:
going by that, it could be Horus sitting on the Golden Throne sacrificed himself freely to save the Emperor from Sanguinius and E. himself is still alive but running from Russ who swore to find and kill him

and it was the Lion with Russ who killed of the 2 lost Legions as those were female Marines who were protected by Horus and the other 2 did not accepted woman among the crusade

this is also the real reason why the Lion returned, because Cawl is going to bring the female Marines back and he wants to stop it

every story that say different is just narrators who messed up the details over 10k years or in universe propaganda

I sense a lack of nuance here...

If we do take the approach that no source in 40k is absolute: you could say the above is plausible, but based on all the sources we do have (even if all individual sources are unreliable narrators) it would still make your version of events incredibly unlikely. All the sources we currently have suggest a different course of events. There would be degrees of confidence and the main events of the Horus Heresy would have a very high level of confidence.

A body of information based on unreliable narrators isn't useless (otherwise you'd have to consider much of history as made up!).

Tyel wrote:
Ultimately this is a retcon. I don't think it matters that much - and I agree there have been far bigger retcons throughout 40k's history, and will likely be more still in the years to come. But I can see why people would be annoyed.

It's a retcon which is actually detrimental to female Custodes.

With a little thought and care, it could have gone some thing like: The creation of Custodes isn't gender-locked, but requires some sort of specific genetic marker which is most common in the noble houses of Terra; thus that's where they mostly recruit from. They traditionally recruited males because that's what the Emperor did. However after their losses at the battle of the Lion's Gate, and the ongoing pressures of the Indomitus Crusade, their recruitment can no longer keep up with demand, and so they've chosen to widen their pool of potential candidates to include women from the Terran houses.

Instead we get: There have always been female Custodes, but they've never done anything notable enough to be mentioned in any of the Horus Heresy, Siege of Terra, Emperor's Legion, Dawn of Fire (etc.) novels, or any sourcebooks.

It's frustrating that for so many people, the destination is all that matters, regardless of how it is reached.

This is literally the laziest way of introducing female Custodes, or increasing female representation in the faction possible. It's on the same level as Rise of Skywalker featuring the first gay couple in Star Wars History! - two nameless characters without any lines, in the background of a scene, who were cut out for the Chinese release. Stunning and brave.

Imagine a world where instead of a lazy retcon and a horribly proportioned Shield Captain (but now he has a new hat spear!) there was a thoughtful introduction of female Custodes, and either a female model/female upgrade sprue or Sisters of Silence upgrade sprue to give the existing female sub-faction some depth on the tabletop.

Lord Damocles - may I pose a question that I asked in a different thread?

An honest question, to both yourself and anyone else who feels strongly on the "they've always been there" comment: what would you have rather had GW do?

Let's say that they did fully want to retcon Custodes, instead of it being a development within universe, which is pretty clearly what they intend for. How should GW handle retcons?

Public announcement that they *are* retconning something (which I've never known them to explicitly do)?
Retcon and not elaborate (Necrons, Votaan)
Retcon, and explain WHY they're retconning it (again, never really known to happen)

I'm genuinely curious as to what GW "should" have done about this retcon (and before anyone suggests, I'm not going to accept "advance the narrative" - it's very clear that GW weren't going to do this approach).

Again, to emphasise, it's very clear that GW *were not going to advance the narrative here*. They want to have it so that Custodes have been present since the Heresy. Assuming that is their objective, so that Custodes ALWAYS have been able to have women, how would you have wanted them to announce or reveal such a thing?

Yep. Missed opportunity to herald and celebrate this new canon.

GW should have done a Commemorative Series female captain (follow the SCE and Chaos Warrior women armour cues). Then the folks that don’t want her wouldn’t have to buy her.

The ‘drop-and-run’ seems like they were worried about the backlash- but I think it’s actually given some folk more to complain about than had GW bitten the bullet.

retcons or not aside it is indeed something akin to "there have always been centurions" and somehow Cawl pulled a million marines out of his back passage, I do agree it is lazy.

As for the GW community post, do not care, a community post means nothing when they have gotten even simple things like legion numbers wrong in the past, it needs to be in a novel, story or codex to be legit to me, which it now is.

Like I said before if we get good models I am fine, please god not femstodes with THAT hair cut.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Lord Damocles - may I pose a question that I asked in a different thread?

I answered in the other thread.

GW shouldn't have carelessly retconned in femstodes. There is no good way to retcon in femstodes, regardless of whether they wanted to.

'How should GW do the thing that GW shouldn't do?'

Not Online!!! wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
No it isn't. The unreliable narrator excuse at this Stage is a cheap copout for predictable patern.

Would be interesting if gw financials would show ties to esg or bridge.

Addendum

Nope, they just have vanguard and blackrock as shareholders, some of the bigger ones


Yeah say goodbye to any decent story writing.

https://investor.games-workshop.com/shareholder-statistics

You'll toe the line to whatever our for-profit prison overlords require and you'll effin like it!

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Ultimately this is a retcon. I don't think it matters that much - and I agree there have been far bigger retcons throughout 40k's history, and will likely be more still in the years to come. But I can see why people would be annoyed.

It's a retcon which is actually detrimental to female Custodes.

With a little thought and care, it could have gone some thing like: The creation of Custodes isn't gender-locked, but requires some sort of specific genetic marker which is most common in the noble houses of Terra; thus that's where they mostly recruit from. They traditionally recruited males because that's what the Emperor did. However after their losses at the battle of the Lion's Gate, and the ongoing pressures of the Indomitus Crusade, their recruitment can no longer keep up with demand, and so they've chosen to widen their pool of potential candidates to include women from the Terran houses.

Instead we get: There have always been female Custodes, but they've never done anything notable enough to be mentioned in any of the Horus Heresy, Siege of Terra, Emperor's Legion, Dawn of Fire (etc.) novels, or any sourcebooks.

It's frustrating that for so many people, the destination is all that matters, regardless of how it is reached.

This is literally the laziest way of introducing female Custodes, or increasing female representation in the faction possible. It's on the same level as Rise of Skywalker featuring the first gay couple in Star Wars History! - two nameless characters without any lines, in the background of a scene, who were cut out for the Chinese release. Stunning and brave.

Imagine a world where instead of a lazy retcon and a horribly proportioned Shield Captain (but now he has a new hat spear!) there was a thoughtful introduction of female Custodes, and either a female model/female upgrade sprue or Sisters of Silence upgrade sprue to give the existing female sub-faction some depth on the tabletop.

Don't disagree that it couldn't have been done better.

Personally I think any lore justification based in a gakky decision by the Emperor being a fethwit and later being reversed is a good one- we now have dozens of books highlighting how much of a douchebag the Emperor is.

Lord Damocles wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Lord Damocles - may I pose a question that I asked in a different thread?

I answered in the other thread.

GW shouldn't have carelessly retconned in femstodes. There is no good way to retcon in femstodes, regardless of whether they wanted to.

'How should GW do the thing that GW shouldn't do?'

And as I said in my response to that (and in my post already), retcons are upon us, whether you like it or not. They aren't interested in advancing the narrative. They want Custodes to have always been present.

I'm not interested in hearing "they shouldn't have been retconned", because you're dodging the question. GW retconned. How do you think they should've handled it? A response that doesn't acknowledge GW's intention is not a productive response here, or an answer to my question.

But GW did give us a reason for Custodes breaking their oath and leaving Terra. That’s not a retcon, it was a short, straightforward little advance to their story.

The storyteller in me would have loved to see something similar here, because I like to see new bits woven into what I thought I knew about a story.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Lord Damocles wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Lord Damocles - may I pose a question that I asked in a different thread?

I answered in the other thread.

GW shouldn't have carelessly retconned in femstodes. There is no good way to retcon in femstodes, regardless of whether they wanted to.

'How should GW do the thing that GW shouldn't do?'

And as I said in my response to that (and in my post already), retcons are upon us, whether you like it or not. They aren't interested in advancing the narrative. They want Custodes to have always been present.

I'm not interested in hearing "they shouldn't have been retconned", because you're dodging the question. GW retconned. How do you think they should've handled it? A response that doesn't acknowledge GW's intention is not a productive response here, or an answer to my question.

To be frank, I don't care what you're interested in hearing.

Your question is malformed. Just because GW have taken a certain approach doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be criticised.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Your question is malformed. Just because GW have taken a certain approach doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be criticised.

There's a place for honest criticism, but right now, I'm interested in hearing answers to the question I asked. I want to hear what they *should* have done, taking GW's intent into account. Evidently though, you don't care about any intent that isn't yours - thankfully, I'm sure there are plenty other people who are actually able to answer the honest question I put out.

If you actually have an answer, I'm interested to hear it.

 kodos wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Ultimately, though, it's not really relevant whether you choose to call something a retcon or not. If it's what's in the current book, it's the way things are, and as of now the way they always have been. That's just how 40K works.

I guess a lot of people don't know how 40k work because they joined rather recently so that everything is subject of change and not just the rules (which the new people learned the hard way with 10th) is something new for them

specially of they were sold on the product by "30 year old established setting that" and "stability" of the product and now realising that the established setting is just 3 years old and because it does not have an ongoing timeline is going to retcon to advance

I feel like anyone who rode through the 4th-5th transition, with the Newcrons, wacky Grey Knights and Dumber Tyranids has become numb to such small changes as female Custodes.

But darn if I’m not still nettled they decanonized Primarch Rubinek of the Iron Hearts.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Lord Damocles wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Lord Damocles - may I pose a question that I asked in a different thread?

I answered in the other thread.

GW shouldn't have carelessly retconned in femstodes. There is no good way to retcon in femstodes, regardless of whether they wanted to.

'How should GW do the thing that GW shouldn't do?'

And as I said in my response to that (and in my post already), retcons are upon us, whether you like it or not. They aren't interested in advancing the narrative. They want Custodes to have always been present.

I'm not interested in hearing "they shouldn't have been retconned", because you're dodging the question. GW retconned. How do you think they should've handled it? A response that doesn't acknowledge GW's intention is not a productive response here, or an answer to my question.

Since you, emphasis on YOU, want to change the status quo, the onus is on you.
Representation is allready covered in factions in general. There was no need for any of this.


End of story.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Lord Damocles wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Lord Damocles - may I pose a question that I asked in a different thread?

I answered in the other thread.

GW shouldn't have carelessly retconned in femstodes. There is no good way to retcon in femstodes, regardless of whether they wanted to.

'How should GW do the thing that GW shouldn't do?'

And as I said in my response to that (and in my post already), retcons are upon us, whether you like it or not. They aren't interested in advancing the narrative. They want Custodes to have always been present.

I'm not interested in hearing "they shouldn't have been retconned", because you're dodging the question. GW retconned. How do you think they should've handled it? A response that doesn't acknowledge GW's intention is not a productive response here, or an answer to my question.

Since you, emphasis on YOU, want to change the status quo, the onus is on you.
Representation is allready covered in factions in general. There was no need for any of this.


End of story.

Do you honestly believe that representation in non-Marine factions is equal to representation within Marines themselves?

Especially since there's no 'Dex that's entirely female. Sisters of Silence are (the smaller) half of Talons. Sisters of Battle can take 885 points and 54 bodies without having to touch any models that are female.
Meanwhile, the only model in the Marine's 'Dex that can arguably be female, Servitors, are (1) Legends and (2) a four-person squad, with a max of three taken since it's not battleline. 12 models, 165 points.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Do you honestly believe that representation in non-Marine factions is equal to representation within Marines themselves?(A)

Especially since there's no 'Dex that's entirely female (B). Sisters of Silence are (the smaller) half of Talons. Sisters of Battle can take 885 points and 54 bodies without having to touch any models that are female.
Meanwhile, the only model in the Marine's 'Dex that can arguably be female, Servitors, are (1) Legends and (2) a four-person squad, with a max of three taken since it's not battleline. 12 models, 165 points.(C)

A: Strawman. I never ever thought the balance of the releases was correctly done. It's clear to anyone with their heads on their shoulder Marine overrepresentation and saturation since primaris and even before will longterm and has longterm crippled the universe.

B: Irrelevant the core of those are Either male only or female only. basically semantics.

C: Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe with a lack of fleshing out actual other gendered subparts, like SoB, SoS, etc..

Not Online!!! wrote:
Since you, emphasis on YOU, want to change the status quo, the onus is on you.
Representation is allready covered in factions in general. There was no need for any of this.


End of story.

Dude, GW did this. They explicitly wanted to retcon the Custodes - and seeing as some of y'all are complaining that they went about this the wrong way, I want to ask "what was the right way GW should've retconned this".

Bottom line, GW disagrees with you. There *was* a need for this. End of story. I'm asking how they could've done it better - and the response I seem to be getting from at least two people is "they shouldn't have at all". If that's the most constructive response you can muster, then I have no sympathy for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe

holy exaggeration, Batman!!

Tell me - if Custodes had ALWAYS been mixed gender (as ADB and HH book 7 implied), would 40k have been crippled then?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Since you, emphasis on YOU, want to change the status quo, the onus is on you.
Representation is allready covered in factions in general. There was no need for any of this.


End of story.

Dude, GW did this. They explicitly wanted to retcon the Custodes - and seeing as some of y'all are complaining that they went about this the wrong way, I want to ask "what was the right way GW should've retconned this".

Bottom line, GW disagreed with you. There *was* a need for this. End of story. I'm asking how they could've done it better - and the response I seem to be getting from at least two people is "they shouldn't have at all". If that's the most constructive response you can muster, then I have no sympathy for you.

Lol. What GW thinks at this stage of corporate level in regards to their universe is even more irrelevant. GW also thinks that you should pay 35 CHF for a Single HQ.
At the end of the day, you push a minority position for minority representation and so does GW for obvious reasons seeing as blackrock and vanguard are now rather large shareholders with a clear agenda that isn't btw liked at all.
And even funnier if that was such an issue to you, counter question Why are you playing in the first place then?

 Haighus wrote:

 kodos wrote:
going by that, it could be Horus sitting on the Golden Throne sacrificed himself freely to save the Emperor from Sanguinius and E. himself is still alive but running from Russ who swore to find and kill him

and it was the Lion with Russ who killed of the 2 lost Legions as those were female Marines who were protected by Horus and the other 2 did not accepted woman among the crusade

this is also the real reason why the Lion returned, because Cawl is going to bring the female Marines back and he wants to stop it

every story that say different is just narrators who messed up the details over 10k years or in universe propaganda

I sense a lack of nuance here...

If we do take the approach that no source in 40k is absolute: you could say the above is plausible, but based on all the sources we do have (even if all individual sources are unreliable narrators) it would still make your version of events incredibly unlikely. All the sources we currently have suggest a different course of events. There would be degrees of confidence and the main events of the Horus Heresy would have a very high level of confidence.

A body of information based on unreliable narrators isn't useless (otherwise you'd have to consider much of history as made up!).

problem is, your sources are all imperial and based on the tellings of people who messed up things in the first place and just because there are many copies based on the bad source does not make it ture
if everything is unreliable and everything an in-universe story without a outsiders absolut point of view, you have nothing to proof the above wrong and it is as true as the stuff written in the rulebook

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Ultimately, though, it's not really relevant whether you choose to call something a retcon or not. If it's what's in the current book, it's the way things are, and as of now the way they always have been. That's just how 40K works.

I guess a lot of people don't know how 40k work because they joined rather recently so that everything is subject of change and not just the rules (which the new people learned the hard way with 10th) is something new for them

specially of they were sold on the product by "30 year old established setting that" and "stability" of the product and now realising that the established setting is just 3 years old and because it does not have an ongoing timeline is going to retcon to advance

I feel like anyone who rode through the 4th-5th transition, with the Newcrons, wacky Grey Knights and Dumber Tyranids has become numb to such small changes as female Custodes.
But darn if I’m not still nettled they decanonized Primarch Rubinek of the Iron Hearts.

yeah we have seen bigger changes and were told to stop hating and just accept the change for the sake of change

but maybe GW will pick up on the story line of GK using Sisters to clean their armour and Blood Angles being best friends with Necrons

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe

holy exaggeration, Batman!!

Tell me - if Custodes had ALWAYS been mixed gender (as ADB and HH book 7 implied), would 40k have been crippled then?

Atleast quote the full thing. Basic curtesy for debate.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Dude, GW did this. They explicitly wanted to retcon the Custodes - and seeing as some of y'all are complaining that they went about this the wrong way, I want to ask "what was the right way GW should've retconned this".

Bottom line, GW disagreed with you. There *was* a need for this. End of story. I'm asking how they could've done it better - and the response I seem to be getting from at least two people is "they shouldn't have at all". If that's the most constructive response you can muster, then I have no sympathy for you.

Lol. What GW thinks at this stage of corporate level in regards to their universe is even more irrelevant. GW also thinks that you should play 35 CHF for a Single HQ.
At the end of the day, you push a minority position for minority representation and so does GW for obvious reasons seeing as blackrock and vanguard are now rather large shareholders with a clear agenda that isn't btw liked at all.

Actually, I think you'll find most people are pretty happy. I think you've overestimated the majority of your position.

Ultimately, we're gonna be here and happy with the way GW is going. Where will you be?

And even funnier if that was such an issue to you, counter question Why are you playing in the first place then?

Been here for long enough. I've been hoping and asking for GW to recognise the changing playerbase and attitudes of society - and they have. The hobby's developing in a way that I'm quite happy with.

If women being featured more in 40k threatens you, I'm sorry for your sense of priorities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe

holy exaggeration, Batman!!

Tell me - if Custodes had ALWAYS been mixed gender (as ADB and HH book 7 implied), would 40k have been crippled then?

Atleast quote the full thing. Basic curtesy for debate.

Why? You talk about how mixed gender Custodes will cripple 40k in some capacity - irrespective of the context it's with, it's a laughable comment to make. Cripple, my ass.

Women being in the Custodes won't cripple 40k's "female representation" any more so than having women Guardsmen crippled the representation of Sisters of Battle, or vice versa.

And you talk about "basic courtesy for debate"?? You can't even answer the question I asked without throwing a fit and moving the goalposts.

I repeat: "if GW *is* to retcon, how should they go about doing it"? The questions presupposes that a retcon is happening. If you can't answer it without addressing that point, don't bother replying.

Female Custodes does nothing to threaten the universe. Tyranids are still mindless eating machines, Orks still waaagh, humans still push a Xenophobic view with a security state agenda (that would make Stalin blush) while perpetrating massacres of entire planets for lack of loyalty and chaos still seeks to upend the entire universe at the whims of gods who could care less what mortals actually do

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Dude, GW did this. They explicitly wanted to retcon the Custodes - and seeing as some of y'all are complaining that they went about this the wrong way, I want to ask "what was the right way GW should've retconned this".

Bottom line, GW disagreed with you. There *was* a need for this. End of story. I'm asking how they could've done it better - and the response I seem to be getting from at least two people is "they shouldn't have at all". If that's the most constructive response you can muster, then I have no sympathy for you.

Lol. What GW thinks at this stage of corporate level in regards to their universe is even more irrelevant. GW also thinks that you should play 35 CHF for a Single HQ.
At the end of the day, you push a minority position for minority representation and so does GW for obvious reasons seeing as blackrock and vanguard are now rather large shareholders with a clear agenda that isn't btw liked at all.

Actually, I think you'll find most people are pretty happy. I think you've overestimated the majority of your position.

Ultimately, we're gonna be here and happy with the way GW is going. Where will you be?

And even funnier if that was such an issue to you, counter question Why are you playing in the first place then?

Been here for long enough. I've been hoping and asking for GW to recognise the changing playerbase and attitudes of society - and they have. The hobby's developing in a way that I'm quite happy with.

If women being featured more in 40k threatens you, I'm sorry for your sense of priorities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe

holy exaggeration, Batman!!

Tell me - if Custodes had ALWAYS been mixed gender (as ADB and HH book 7 implied), would 40k have been crippled then?

Atleast quote the full thing. Basic curtesy for debate.

Why? You talk about how mixed gender Custodes will cripple 40k - irrespective of the context it's with, it's a laughable comment to make.

Women being in the Custodes won't cripple 40k's "female representation" any more so than having women Guardsmen crippled the representation of Sisters of Battle, or vice versa.

Really, That is your argument? Wait what happened to Marvel, Disney in general, star wars?

The new audience doesn't seem to show up. Could it be that is BS pushed by companies i pointed out even publically? Nooo that ain't it./S

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


And you talk about "basic courtesy for debate"?? You can't even answer the question I asked without throwing a fit and moving the goalposts.

I repeat: "if GW *is* to retcon, how should they go about doing it"? The questions presupposes that a retcon is happening. If you can't answer it without addressing that point, don't bother replying.

There was no goalpost moving, the only one having moved the goalpost was you with your stipulation that it HAS to happen, because consistency is anathema to your position and the one GW is now shoving and you and GW knows it hence why GW is gaslighting right now.


Also what is really laughable that you can't even quote propperly and rather disingeniously just pick and chose. The issue is obviously not the strawman but rather the contradictory maner it was done destabilising, just as primaris did before, the consistency of the universe. ALAS you prove again and again that you are not after an honest discussion and i will leave it at that.
Have a nice evening

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Your question is malformed. Just because GW have taken a certain approach doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be criticised.

There's a place for honest criticism, but right now, I'm interested in hearing answers to the question I asked. I want to hear what they *should* have done, taking GW's intent into account. Evidently though, you don't care about any intent that isn't yours - thankfully, I'm sure there are plenty other people who are actually able to answer the honest question I put out.

If you actually have an answer, I'm interested to hear it.

Now, I'm broadly fine with this (lorewise) minor retcon to a faction with mostly recent lore. However, I do think Lord Damocles has a point over the execution, and I think you are being a bit unfair when they stated their position on the same page in this very thread:

Lord Damocles wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Ultimately this is a retcon. I don't think it matters that much - and I agree there have been far bigger retcons throughout 40k's history, and will likely be more still in the years to come. But I can see why people would be annoyed.

It's a retcon which is actually detrimental to female Custodes.

With a little thought and care, it could have gone some thing like: The creation of Custodes isn't gender-locked, but requires some sort of specific genetic marker which is most common in the noble houses of Terra; thus that's where they mostly recruit from. They traditionally recruited males because that's what the Emperor did. However after their losses at the battle of the Lion's Gate, and the ongoing pressures of the Indomitus Crusade, their recruitment can no longer keep up with demand, and so they've chosen to widen their pool of potential candidates to include women from the Terran houses.

Instead we get: There have always been female Custodes, but they've never done anything notable enough to be mentioned in any of the Horus Heresy, Siege of Terra, Emperor's Legion, Dawn of Fire (etc.) novels, or any sourcebooks.

It's frustrating that for so many people, the destination is all that matters, regardless of how it is reached.

This is literally the laziest way of introducing female Custodes, or increasing female representation in the faction possible. It's on the same level as Rise of Skywalker featuring the first gay couple in Star Wars History! - two nameless characters without any lines, in the background of a scene, who were cut out for the Chinese release. Stunning and brave.

Imagine a world where instead of a lazy retcon and a horribly proportioned Shield Captain (but now he has a new hat spear!) there was a thoughtful introduction of female Custodes, and either a female model/female upgrade sprue or Sisters of Silence upgrade sprue to give the existing female sub-faction some depth on the tabletop.

Emphasis mine. This seems like a reasonable lore narrative to introduce female Custodes. You could go a little further and state Custodes recruitment was broadened at the beginning of the Heresy in anticipation of heavy fighting (as the models do cover both settings).

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:Female Custodes does nothing to threaten the universe. Tyranids are still mindless eating machines, Orks still waaagh, humans still push a Xenophobic view with a security state agenda (that would make Stalin blush) while perpetrating massacres of entire planets for lack of loyalty and chaos still seeks to upend the entire universe at the whims of gods who could care less what mortals actually do

Exactly. Anyone who says this "cripples" 40k is ignoring the whole swathes of factions that have nothing to do with Custodes. If Custodes having women is such an earth-shaking revelation, kindly, what on earth are your priorities?

Not Online!!! wrote:Really, That is your argument? Wait what happened to Marvel, Disney in general, star wars?

Marvel, which was doing really well prior to Phase 4? Star Wars, of which Clone Wars and Mandalorian were massively critically successful?

Oh, sorry, you're talking about the badly written ones - which have nothing to do with "representation". Those are bad because they're written terribly. The SW sequels aren't bad because Rey's a woman. They're bad because they have terrible writers.

Grow up, and open your eyes.

The new audience doesn't seem to show up.

Huh?? Marvel went from basically economically dying to a powerhouse. Star Wars is massively popular, especially with young audiences. And 40k is only growing.

I think your sources are mistaken.

The issue is obviously not the strawman but rather the contradictory maner it was done destabilising, just as primaris did before, the consistency of the universe.

And so I ask again - assuming that a retcon is happening, how do you plan on making it less destabilising? What is your solution? What is your compromise? What is your fix, beyond "nuh uh"?

ALAS you prove again and again that you are not after an honest discussion and i will leave it at that.

Right back atcha. I've asked a very simple question three times now to you, and you haven't even attempted to answer it once. You clearly aren't interested in discussing this.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
There was no goalpost moving, the only one having moved the goalpost was you with your stipulation that it HAS to happen, because consistency is anathema to your position and the one GW is now shoving and you and GW knows it hence why GW is gaslighting right now.

Mate, I *asked the question*. How can I be the one "moving the goalposts" when I'm the one setting the goal in the first place??

Jeez, you're really missing the mark here, huh. I posed the question like that *from the start*. If you couldn't answer it, why comment?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Your question is malformed. Just because GW have taken a certain approach doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be criticised.

There's a place for honest criticism, but right now, I'm interested in hearing answers to the question I asked. I want to hear what they *should* have done, taking GW's intent into account. Evidently though, you don't care about any intent that isn't yours - thankfully, I'm sure there are plenty other people who are actually able to answer the honest question I put out.

If you actually have an answer, I'm interested to hear it.

Now, I'm broadly fine with this (lorewise) minor retcon to a faction with mostly recent lore. However, I do think Lord Damocles has a point over the execution, and I think you are being a bit unfair when they stated their position on the same page in this very thread:

Emphasis mine. This seems like a reasonable lore narrative to introduce female Custodes. You could go a little further and state Custodes recruitment was broadened at the beginning of the Heresy in anticipation of heavy fighting (as the models do cover both settings).

As I said to Lord Damocles, their position does not acknowledge GW's intent, or that GW wants to be able to have Custodes present in 30k from the start. Any position that doesn't address these factors is, evidently, at odds with GW's intent, which is to retcon.

Now, I really like your comment that, perhaps during the Unification Wars, it was all male, and before the Unification Wars was done, there were women members too. But ultimately I believe it misses the question I'm asking.

If GW is to retcon, how should they do it? And to answer that question, one MUST address that retconning is going to be happening, whether they like it or not. If they don't like that question, they needn't bother answering.

Really? Smudge, have you seen the Shares of disney the last 5 years.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/04/14/disneys-star-wars-box-office-profits-fail-to-cover-cost-of-lucasfilm/

Or the fact that they are seriously padding the numbers. Yeah, Star wars has worked out great for disney

And my fix would've been to not do that OR primaris and rather just have upscaled the normal marine side of things, let the armies profit of the synergy of the HH system. Would've pushed SoB and SoS as actual armies and or subparts of armies a lot earlier. Preferably in the timeframe that primaris got introduced as an actual consistent alternative and NOT fethed with the consistency because without the IP in a good condition, let's be blunt, gw has nothing else other plastic model companies didn't have 5 years ago.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Really? Smudge, have you seen the Shares of disney the last 5 years.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/04/14/disneys-star-wars-box-office-profits-fail-to-cover-cost-of-lucasfilm/

Or the fact that they are seriously padding the numbers. Yeah, Star wars has worked out great for disney

Yes, I know - and that's not because of "representation" - that's because *they had terrible writers*. Representation isn't a problem - bad writing is.
Again, I'm not commenting on *all of Star Wars* - I'm commenting on Mandalorian and Clone Wars. Equally as "representative", but massively popular. Why? Because they *were written well*.

And my fix would've been to not do that

That's not an answer to the question. Until you can address the actual question, don't bother replying.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Do you honestly believe that representation in non-Marine factions is equal to representation within Marines themselves?(A)

Especially since there's no 'Dex that's entirely female (B). Sisters of Silence are (the smaller) half of Talons. Sisters of Battle can take 885 points and 54 bodies without having to touch any models that are female.
Meanwhile, the only model in the Marine's 'Dex that can arguably be female, Servitors, are (1) Legends and (2) a four-person squad, with a max of three taken since it's not battleline. 12 models, 165 points.(C)

A: Strawman. I never ever thought the balance of the releases was correctly done. It's clear to anyone with their heads on their shoulder Marine overrepresentation and saturation since primaris and even before will longterm and has longterm crippled the universe.

B: Irrelevant the core of those are Either male only or female only. basically semantics.

C: Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe with a lack of fleshing out actual other gendered subparts, like SoB, SoS, etc..

i don't understand why GW mentioning female custodes exist in a codex short story/on social media means they can't expand the SoB or SoS model ranges? we're talking about two unrelated departments with this. it's like complaining that the waiter refilling people's water isn't in the kitchen helping the chef make your dinner faster

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Do you honestly believe that representation in non-Marine factions is equal to representation within Marines themselves?(A)

Especially since there's no 'Dex that's entirely female (B). Sisters of Silence are (the smaller) half of Talons. Sisters of Battle can take 885 points and 54 bodies without having to touch any models that are female.
Meanwhile, the only model in the Marine's 'Dex that can arguably be female, Servitors, are (1) Legends and (2) a four-person squad, with a max of three taken since it's not battleline. 12 models, 165 points.(C)

A: Strawman. I never ever thought the balance of the releases was correctly done. It's clear to anyone with their heads on their shoulder Marine overrepresentation and saturation since primaris and even before will longterm and has longterm crippled the universe.

B: Irrelevant the core of those are Either male only or female only. basically semantics.

C: Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe with a lack of fleshing out actual other gendered subparts, like SoB, SoS, etc..

i don't understand why GW mentioning female custodes exist in a codex short story/on social media means they can't expand the SoB or SoS model ranges? we're talking about two unrelated departments with this. it's like complaining that the waiter refilling people's water isn't in the kitchen helping the chef make your dinner faster

Because GW is GW and a terrible company in regards to expanding the lore and models. They will go with the least effort hence you will see now some token female custodes but nothing relevant for SoB and SoS.
Though arguably consideirng the general quality of the recent books for custodes or the Battle for Garmon for HH gw hasn't produced anything of relevancy for some time now.

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Do you honestly believe that representation in non-Marine factions is equal to representation within Marines themselves?(A)

Especially since there's no 'Dex that's entirely female (B). Sisters of Silence are (the smaller) half of Talons. Sisters of Battle can take 885 points and 54 bodies without having to touch any models that are female.
Meanwhile, the only model in the Marine's 'Dex that can arguably be female, Servitors, are (1) Legends and (2) a four-person squad, with a max of three taken since it's not battleline. 12 models, 165 points.(C)

A: Strawman. I never ever thought the balance of the releases was correctly done. It's clear to anyone with their heads on their shoulder Marine overrepresentation and saturation since primaris and even before will longterm and has longterm crippled the universe.

B: Irrelevant the core of those are Either male only or female only. basically semantics.

C: Making custodes now female and or male will only further cripple the universe with a lack of fleshing out actual other gendered subparts, like SoB, SoS, etc..

i don't understand why GW mentioning female custodes exist in a codex short story/on social media means they can't expand the SoB or SoS model ranges? we're talking about two unrelated departments with this. it's like complaining that the waiter refilling people's water isn't in the kitchen helping the chef make your dinner faster

I agree on Sisters of Battle but Sisters of Silence were ignored previously after being crammed in as a afterthought into the Custodes Codex, Non Marines tend to get very limited model releases and so if they do start making female Custodes, the vanishingly small likelhood of getting any more Sisters of Silence becomes even less IMO.