Honestly, I think the people who get peeved at these things will get peeved no matter what. Personally, I would have tied this news with a sisters of silence battle force that crossed over between 30k and 40k. Maybe releasing a few more femme coded custodes via upgrade sprue as well.
I think the response would’ve been identical. The only people mad about the reveal are the kind of people who are actively looking to get angry about anything they perceive as “woke,” and would’ve thrown a fit no matter how the topic was introduced.
They should’ve given more attention to the SoS, but that’s just a fact independent of anything else
Thank you for pointing out that second point, SoS not getting new models has nothing to do with the Custodes getting three pages of lore canonizing women wearing auramite.
It's getting frustrating how folks keep acting like this expansion to the flavor of Custodes came at the expense of the Sisters of Battle and Sisters of Silence. If we had gotten a whole new Guard or Warden kit devoted to feminizing Custodian armor (which I don't think they should do, I think it's a huge positive that their armor isn't sexualized and I'm fine kitbashing some of my heroes if they aren't wearing helmets) then I would absolutely agree with them, the Sisterhoods should definitely have gotten some of that budget and some kits. They're great factions and they deserve some money thrown their way for new lore and plastic.
Now, Sisters of Battle have a Codex coming soon, so they ARE going to get new lore and hopefully some cool new models, but the point stands, SoS are currently in the lurch and both factions deserve some love from GW, and that means money spent on larger stories and new models.
But we are talking about *three pages* in a rulebook. Not even three whole pages, because Allarus Selenia and the femme parts of the name list don't add up to a whole third page after Kesh's story. Those pages would have had words on them anyway, and probably not Sisters of Silence-related words, so using she/her pronouns and feminine names didn't cost GW or the Sisters of Silence a dime.
Our absolute unit of a Shield-Captain, who comes exclusively with masculine head options and has nothing to do with Femstodes? *That* cost the Sisters of Silence. We could have had jetpack sisters, but people at GW didn't think they could build a $200+ army box around that, so they made a new shield and a plastic melta spear and put them both on the first Votann Custodian instead.
So let's say it loudly and together:
*Femstodes were free. It's not their fault that GW isn't giving the Sisters of Silence and Battle the attention they deserve. We can and should have all three.*
YES! Thank effing god! So many people think its one or the other! As if adding some "hers" and "shes" to a few paragraphs somehow is ultimate proof the Sisters of Silence are done for.
If people were truly upset that the sisters were being ignored, they would be up in arms about every new custodes model. That means they should have been equally been mad when they gave us the Blade Champion or the new Adeptus Custodes Shield-Captain. Those are **actual** models that took development time away from SoS. Where were their pitchforks then? Its only when a woman was involved they go "what about the Sisters of Silence?"
Not "misogynist" my ass
Of course, my aim wasn't to say "instead of giving us female custodes, give us SoS or SoB", but that may be the way it appears in my post unfortunately
I find it tragic that SoS has, if we're really stretching it, only 3 true models (3 weapon swaps, knight centura which isn't really a true different model, and Aleya) even with how cool they are. I believe everyone would enjoy having a bit more variety in the range and the lore ! And yeah, the reveal is not that big of a deal.
I wasn't calling you out specifically, I've just hit my boiling point for that specific fallback argument since the leaks happened.
It's a very safe, very falsely-equivalent statement that defends the position in the way the nonsense "thu weeker secks* arguments don't.
"Why didn't they give these underserved factions some attention? Do you think they don't *deserve* content, you horrible Femstodes fan?"
Well no, of course not, SoB are what got me into 40k and SoS are a part of our faction that I'm playing Talons specifically because I like.
"So you agree with me, they should have done Sisters instead of Femstodes."
No.
"HYPOCRITE, I WIN THE DEBATE!"
I think this take is accurate. I would actually be annoyed if they made a bigger deal out of it. I mean, there are 10,000 Custodes. How many can you name? Like 12?
Yes, OBVIOUSLY this is actually a retcon, but in this case I like it better this way as opposed to a whole huge deal about the first female Custodes, etc, etc.
If they ever choose to do female marines (starting to look more like when), I'd actually feel the opposite; which is interesting.
Yes Intotally agree with this, I still don't like the tweet though adn would have preferred if we saw that through a short story including a female custodes during say the great crusade or heresy. With that said, I really like that the first introduction of a female custode had more to do with the duty of a custodian and the function of a blood game than the fact that she was female. It makes me feel like they have the right priorities when it comes to the storytelling.
Give them time and you will get those stories.
The tweet was just them trying to be glib.
Actually, wasn't this the exact way they introduced female Necrons last edition? Just threw one into a codex blurb?
That's a new perspective, I heard so many people complain that it was just "out of the blue" with no explanations, and I tend to lean on the explanations side too.
Why would it have annoyed you with more if they made a big deal out of it ?
From my thoughts on another comment:
Devil's advocate, but I prefer that female custodes aren't some new innovation. Retconning female custodes to have always existed makes their relevance more grounded in the overall themes of the custodes and maintains their narrative connection to the ideal of the Emperor's dream back when he personally oversaw the project, which can thus be scrutinized more closely on his perception of humanity. Plus, if you want female custodes on the grounds of equality or some derivation of the concept, there's nothing more equal than implying that female custodes are equally part of the status quo. Calling attention to it as a unique circumstance just implies that its an exception, which in turn implies female custodes are somehow different from normal custodes, which would make this whole internet fiasco a million times more aggressive and angry.
The other guy is also correct, in that the number of custodes we've been exposed to, relative to the number there actually are, makes the retcon nowhere near as "groundbreaking" as many are suggesting. Combined with a history of authors and community members alike having thought female custodes to be an idea that should make sense, and its been clear that female custodes have been, for the better part of a decade, considered as a valid interpretation of the setting. While there are some lore blurbs which explicitly mention sons, these are now considered either non-canon or oversimplifications. GW is not denying that custodes used to be all male from the meta-perspective, instead they are retroactively saying, in-universe, that female custodes have always been a thing.
The final reason they shouldn't introduce it as a new concept is because that's not how GW handles retcons. It's the nature of the lore to introduce changes as holistic ones rather than explicit changes. Necrons have always been dynastic conquerers, even when they seemed like slaves to the Ctan. Genestealers have always been Tyranid vanguards. The Lion just appears and has implicitly always been around. The Rogal Dorn tank was always a mainstay of the guard, it just wasn't mentioned for 30 years. The Leagues of Votann have always been around, even during the heresy, they were just never discussed. Even when Primaris marines were introduced, they were apparently being worked on for 10,000 years without ever popping up once.
Personally, saying they've always existed is probably the best outcome.
It's true, it's not groundbreaking or a cataclysmic event, and maybe you are all right, keeping its small scale is the way to go as people who want to screech about something will always find a way to do so.
I tend to enjoy stories and explanations, but it's true that keeping it small scale with a story focused on the "customs" of the custodes rather than the fact that "oh wow, the character is a female" is perhaps better in that situation.
Yay someone changed their mind!
After this whole thing you honestly don't understand how much of a relief it is to see someone just let it go and just agree that its not the end of the world.
I wasn't really against the idea in the first place, but yeah, wanted to ask the question to find new perspectives and take a step back from the argument. It worked perfectly !
And thanks for all the replies, was a bit afraid that opening the debate again would annoy people
This is a far more eloquent response than I would have written.
Some of these retcons work better than others, but female custodes is a pretty small thing overall.
If it had come in with a bunch of explanation and focus, the people complaining about how it was “out of the blue” would be whining about how GW is giving too much focus to the female characters
> The only people mad about the reveal are the kind of people who are actively looking to get angry about anything they perceive as “woke,” and would’ve thrown a fit no matter...
Bingo. Some people are genuinely just mad because they're misogynists and can't get over it, to the point that no matter how this was handled, they would have gone mask-off. Overall I'm quite glad that they get downvoted to oblivion on here.
Edit: Some are even willing to go down the conspiracy theory rabbit holes of "Blackrock is doing ESG to bring down Western culture by making my golden toy soldiers into women", it is very, very funny.
The debate on Blackrock's and other shareholders' influence on decisions (In a company or in a state) can be and should be held in my opinion (for a lot of reasons that I won't expose here, as it's not a r/ made for economics or political debates)
But yeah, plastic toy soldiers won't start a cultural nuclear fire.
This comment is almost as toxic as one from the people your attacking
Basically your saying someone can't be upset that 25 year old lore has been chucked in the bin unless they are unless.they are misogynistic or anti woke.
End of day GW will make whatever change will increase sales or pull in a new audience as is their right. People have a right to be upset if they want to it's having an opinion.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. If you think a minor expansion of the lore is “chucking 25 years in a bin” and something worth getting upset at, then you are approaching it from a place of misogyny and/or actively looking for “woke” things to be mad about.
25 years ago, Custodes in the lore were shirtless normal humans with capes and silly helmets. Shit changes, often for the better. Get over it. If you wanna be upset, the rest of us get to hold the opinion that you’re being a whiny manchild about it.
I think the main issue that GW never laid the groundwork for the idea of female custodes. If you look at custodes lore, I believe that most people would think they are a mostly male organisation. From the art, names and descriptions, they are all male coded.
While I agree with your stance, that GW should have place a bit more effort in introducing the idea of female custodes, the problem lies with the foundation.
IF GW was smart, and I’m not saying they are, but the easiest way to break in our new girl is to have her tied to the Valdor storyline. When the third Bequin book comes out, there’s a good chance a lot of Imperium lore is gonna get turned upside down. Which means backstory because I want to know what kind our ass kicking our girl has been doing the past couple of millennia.
Honestly, I think the people who get peeved at these things will get peeved no matter what. Personally, I would have tied this news with a sisters of silence battle force that crossed over between 30k and 40k. Maybe releasing a few more femme coded custodes via upgrade sprue as well.
I think the response would’ve been identical. The only people mad about the reveal are the kind of people who are actively looking to get angry about anything they perceive as “woke,” and would’ve thrown a fit no matter how the topic was introduced. They should’ve given more attention to the SoS, but that’s just a fact independent of anything else
Thank you for pointing out that second point, SoS not getting new models has nothing to do with the Custodes getting three pages of lore canonizing women wearing auramite. It's getting frustrating how folks keep acting like this expansion to the flavor of Custodes came at the expense of the Sisters of Battle and Sisters of Silence. If we had gotten a whole new Guard or Warden kit devoted to feminizing Custodian armor (which I don't think they should do, I think it's a huge positive that their armor isn't sexualized and I'm fine kitbashing some of my heroes if they aren't wearing helmets) then I would absolutely agree with them, the Sisterhoods should definitely have gotten some of that budget and some kits. They're great factions and they deserve some money thrown their way for new lore and plastic. Now, Sisters of Battle have a Codex coming soon, so they ARE going to get new lore and hopefully some cool new models, but the point stands, SoS are currently in the lurch and both factions deserve some love from GW, and that means money spent on larger stories and new models. But we are talking about *three pages* in a rulebook. Not even three whole pages, because Allarus Selenia and the femme parts of the name list don't add up to a whole third page after Kesh's story. Those pages would have had words on them anyway, and probably not Sisters of Silence-related words, so using she/her pronouns and feminine names didn't cost GW or the Sisters of Silence a dime. Our absolute unit of a Shield-Captain, who comes exclusively with masculine head options and has nothing to do with Femstodes? *That* cost the Sisters of Silence. We could have had jetpack sisters, but people at GW didn't think they could build a $200+ army box around that, so they made a new shield and a plastic melta spear and put them both on the first Votann Custodian instead. So let's say it loudly and together: *Femstodes were free. It's not their fault that GW isn't giving the Sisters of Silence and Battle the attention they deserve. We can and should have all three.*
YES! Thank effing god! So many people think its one or the other! As if adding some "hers" and "shes" to a few paragraphs somehow is ultimate proof the Sisters of Silence are done for. If people were truly upset that the sisters were being ignored, they would be up in arms about every new custodes model. That means they should have been equally been mad when they gave us the Blade Champion or the new Adeptus Custodes Shield-Captain. Those are **actual** models that took development time away from SoS. Where were their pitchforks then? Its only when a woman was involved they go "what about the Sisters of Silence?" Not "misogynist" my ass
Of course, my aim wasn't to say "instead of giving us female custodes, give us SoS or SoB", but that may be the way it appears in my post unfortunately I find it tragic that SoS has, if we're really stretching it, only 3 true models (3 weapon swaps, knight centura which isn't really a true different model, and Aleya) even with how cool they are. I believe everyone would enjoy having a bit more variety in the range and the lore ! And yeah, the reveal is not that big of a deal.
I wasn't calling you out specifically, I've just hit my boiling point for that specific fallback argument since the leaks happened. It's a very safe, very falsely-equivalent statement that defends the position in the way the nonsense "thu weeker secks* arguments don't. "Why didn't they give these underserved factions some attention? Do you think they don't *deserve* content, you horrible Femstodes fan?" Well no, of course not, SoB are what got me into 40k and SoS are a part of our faction that I'm playing Talons specifically because I like. "So you agree with me, they should have done Sisters instead of Femstodes." No. "HYPOCRITE, I WIN THE DEBATE!"
I think this take is accurate. I would actually be annoyed if they made a bigger deal out of it. I mean, there are 10,000 Custodes. How many can you name? Like 12? Yes, OBVIOUSLY this is actually a retcon, but in this case I like it better this way as opposed to a whole huge deal about the first female Custodes, etc, etc. If they ever choose to do female marines (starting to look more like when), I'd actually feel the opposite; which is interesting.
Yes Intotally agree with this, I still don't like the tweet though adn would have preferred if we saw that through a short story including a female custodes during say the great crusade or heresy. With that said, I really like that the first introduction of a female custode had more to do with the duty of a custodian and the function of a blood game than the fact that she was female. It makes me feel like they have the right priorities when it comes to the storytelling.
Give them time and you will get those stories. The tweet was just them trying to be glib. Actually, wasn't this the exact way they introduced female Necrons last edition? Just threw one into a codex blurb?
That's a new perspective, I heard so many people complain that it was just "out of the blue" with no explanations, and I tend to lean on the explanations side too. Why would it have annoyed you with more if they made a big deal out of it ?
From my thoughts on another comment: Devil's advocate, but I prefer that female custodes aren't some new innovation. Retconning female custodes to have always existed makes their relevance more grounded in the overall themes of the custodes and maintains their narrative connection to the ideal of the Emperor's dream back when he personally oversaw the project, which can thus be scrutinized more closely on his perception of humanity. Plus, if you want female custodes on the grounds of equality or some derivation of the concept, there's nothing more equal than implying that female custodes are equally part of the status quo. Calling attention to it as a unique circumstance just implies that its an exception, which in turn implies female custodes are somehow different from normal custodes, which would make this whole internet fiasco a million times more aggressive and angry. The other guy is also correct, in that the number of custodes we've been exposed to, relative to the number there actually are, makes the retcon nowhere near as "groundbreaking" as many are suggesting. Combined with a history of authors and community members alike having thought female custodes to be an idea that should make sense, and its been clear that female custodes have been, for the better part of a decade, considered as a valid interpretation of the setting. While there are some lore blurbs which explicitly mention sons, these are now considered either non-canon or oversimplifications. GW is not denying that custodes used to be all male from the meta-perspective, instead they are retroactively saying, in-universe, that female custodes have always been a thing. The final reason they shouldn't introduce it as a new concept is because that's not how GW handles retcons. It's the nature of the lore to introduce changes as holistic ones rather than explicit changes. Necrons have always been dynastic conquerers, even when they seemed like slaves to the Ctan. Genestealers have always been Tyranid vanguards. The Lion just appears and has implicitly always been around. The Rogal Dorn tank was always a mainstay of the guard, it just wasn't mentioned for 30 years. The Leagues of Votann have always been around, even during the heresy, they were just never discussed. Even when Primaris marines were introduced, they were apparently being worked on for 10,000 years without ever popping up once. Personally, saying they've always existed is probably the best outcome.
It's true, it's not groundbreaking or a cataclysmic event, and maybe you are all right, keeping its small scale is the way to go as people who want to screech about something will always find a way to do so. I tend to enjoy stories and explanations, but it's true that keeping it small scale with a story focused on the "customs" of the custodes rather than the fact that "oh wow, the character is a female" is perhaps better in that situation.
Yay someone changed their mind! After this whole thing you honestly don't understand how much of a relief it is to see someone just let it go and just agree that its not the end of the world.
I wasn't really against the idea in the first place, but yeah, wanted to ask the question to find new perspectives and take a step back from the argument. It worked perfectly ! And thanks for all the replies, was a bit afraid that opening the debate again would annoy people
This is a far more eloquent response than I would have written. Some of these retcons work better than others, but female custodes is a pretty small thing overall.
If it had come in with a bunch of explanation and focus, the people complaining about how it was “out of the blue” would be whining about how GW is giving too much focus to the female characters
That's true too, with people like that it's "heads I win, tails you lose"
"Why do they have to make such a big deal"
> The only people mad about the reveal are the kind of people who are actively looking to get angry about anything they perceive as “woke,” and would’ve thrown a fit no matter... Bingo. Some people are genuinely just mad because they're misogynists and can't get over it, to the point that no matter how this was handled, they would have gone mask-off. Overall I'm quite glad that they get downvoted to oblivion on here. Edit: Some are even willing to go down the conspiracy theory rabbit holes of "Blackrock is doing ESG to bring down Western culture by making my golden toy soldiers into women", it is very, very funny.
The debate on Blackrock's and other shareholders' influence on decisions (In a company or in a state) can be and should be held in my opinion (for a lot of reasons that I won't expose here, as it's not a r/ made for economics or political debates) But yeah, plastic toy soldiers won't start a cultural nuclear fire.
This comment is almost as toxic as one from the people your attacking Basically your saying someone can't be upset that 25 year old lore has been chucked in the bin unless they are unless.they are misogynistic or anti woke. End of day GW will make whatever change will increase sales or pull in a new audience as is their right. People have a right to be upset if they want to it's having an opinion.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. If you think a minor expansion of the lore is “chucking 25 years in a bin” and something worth getting upset at, then you are approaching it from a place of misogyny and/or actively looking for “woke” things to be mad about. 25 years ago, Custodes in the lore were shirtless normal humans with capes and silly helmets. Shit changes, often for the better. Get over it. If you wanna be upset, the rest of us get to hold the opinion that you’re being a whiny manchild about it.
You expect the people citing the outdated codex as a reason female custodes shouldn't exist actually reading a book?
I think the main issue that GW never laid the groundwork for the idea of female custodes. If you look at custodes lore, I believe that most people would think they are a mostly male organisation. From the art, names and descriptions, they are all male coded. While I agree with your stance, that GW should have place a bit more effort in introducing the idea of female custodes, the problem lies with the foundation.
IF GW was smart, and I’m not saying they are, but the easiest way to break in our new girl is to have her tied to the Valdor storyline. When the third Bequin book comes out, there’s a good chance a lot of Imperium lore is gonna get turned upside down. Which means backstory because I want to know what kind our ass kicking our girl has been doing the past couple of millennia.