Thematic Discussion of Female Custodes - Straight From the Page

[hd3]

 

 

 

 

"Tyrith Shiva Kyrus (the first three of a long list of honorific names earned fighting for the Emperor) has the privilege of being our first portrayal of a female Custodian Guard since the recent revelation that Custodians can be any gender. This fact came as a real surprise to many, since it wasn’t something previously explored. That, in and of itself, isn’t a particularly unusual thing for Warhammer 40,000 and its lore; there are simply loads of things the Warhammer Studios have never expressly stated, whether that’s ruling them in or out.

Since the earliest conversations about bringing the Horus Heresy to the tabletop and Black Library fiction, the exact nature of the Custodians has been under discussion – after all, their origins and means of creation, unlike for example, the Legiones/Adeptus Astartes, are shrouded in mystery.

A significant advantage to this portrayal is that it helps us to address a common misconception – that the Custodes are just bigger, better Space Marines. They aren’t."

 

That's directly from the article, posted by GW. They say that the reason for the change, or part of it, is to further differentiate the Adeptus Custodes from the Space Marines. They simply are not the same thing, despite the fact that a lot of the people in the 40k community believe that they are. This change pushes them away from that and allows them to inhabit a new space in the background. I think part of the problem with the introduction of the female Custodes stems from this idea that they are just big Space Marines in gold. Despite the design language of the models being very different, people see "big person in power armor" and assume Space Marine. And there's a lot to be said about GW marketing and how effective it is. 

 

For me, having read all of the available lore on and novels featuring Custodes since they were re-introduced in the Horus Heresy and then 40k, this change makes sense. It does its job and pushes Custodes further from the Space Marines they already weren't. I always saw Custodes as totally different from Space Marines. It has been described that Custodes do not fight as squads but as individual champions, simply so well-versed in various arts of combat that they don't get in each others' way. Their individuality has been stressed over the squad-level, chapter-level, fraternal-bonding of Space Marines. And I think the novels and the lore reflect that as well, from the Blood Games to simple interactions between Custodes characters. They seem more like... co-workers than battle-brothers. But that's me. I can see not everyone having the same view. But I do think that stems from that popular misconception.

 

I think there is a lot more one can infer from the language used in those paragraphs as well. For what it is worth, I think that this statement in particular also shuts the door on female Space Marines, but that's not the subject of this discussion.

 

 

Doesn't that undermine the point of 'fem'stodes entirely though? The entire bottom paragraph was known to anyone familiar with the setting before the introduction and is no clearer now. If anything it just underlines 'fem'stodes didn't contribute anything to the setting narratively or gameplay wise.  Anyone who knows the setting probably already knows the difference, thus it contributes nothing. Anyone who doesn't STILL isn't going to be able to make that distinction either. 

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

 

Height is a sex-based trait, not gender.

 

That's a whole different conversation!

 

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

 

I was making a point about the difference between tendency (what Evil Eye was actually talking about) vs. exclusivity (what aa.logan was contorting his words into). The point remains universal no matter whether we're talking sex, gender, or number of days in July when the temperature drops below freezing.

 

Edited September 7 by Lord Nord in Gravis Armour

[Shield-Captain]

 

 

 

Doesn't that undermine the point of 'fem'stodes entirely though? The entire bottom paragraph was known to anyone familiar with the setting before the introduction and is no clearer now. If anything it just underlines 'fem'stodes didn't contribute anything to the setting narratively or gameplay wise.  Anyone who knows the setting probably already knows the difference, thus it contributes nothing. Anyone who doesn't STILL isn't going to be able to make that distinction either. 

 

To be honest, I am not clear on what your argument is. Because people who knew that Custodes were different from Space Marines already knew that, this change is bad because it doesn't provide anything new? And because people who didn't or don't know that Custodes weren't or aren't different from Space Marines didn't or don't know that, this change is not going to change that? And therefore that makes the change bad? 

 

I guess I would argue that this change will help people who didn't know that Custodes weren't Space Marines identify the difference because Custodes can be any gender. They are different from Space marines on that front. And that's a very surface level difference but a more obvious one than the other differences I listed. Female Custodes do little for us that are well-versed in Custodes or 40k lore but that holds true even for larger changes than this. 

 

A lot of learning 40k lore--hell, a lot of learning--is learning that something someone told you is wrong. Or inaccurate. For me, this is like learning about gravitational waves. They weren't in my physics textbooks when I was an undergrad, but they will be going forward for the next generation of students. Their existence doesn't change how I was educated but it does broaden my knowledge of the universe. Their inclusion will have, perhaps, a stronger effect on the next generation of students. And that will be a next positive. I admit that this is not the greatest comparison. 

 

I think that this helps, maybe in a small way, widen that gap in the background between the two factions. Custodes, at the present, have no obviously female or non-male miniatures. I don't think it is insane to say that they will have some eventually, whether that be through a redesign of the line or a new kit with a female head option. Any player can currently do this with available bits. I don't think that it will have any effect on gameplay. There are female guardsmen models. They do not have different rules to their male counterparts. There are female Stormcast in AoS. They don't have separate rules either. 

[Scribe]

So let's be honest.

 

This won't make for new stories. Custodes are taken as babies, and rebuilt. They are not human really. So you are not telling women's stories. You are not telling men's stories. Adding the other sex doesn't change what stories can be told.

 

Adding the other sex is not going to allow for an inspection of gender roles, as if that is any way relevant to 40K anyway.

 

So what's changed? Nothing. It's a retcon for shallow purposes. The only representation added is the most superficial kind.

 

Does she get Golden bookplate?

[Captain Idaho]

 

 (I want to add that discussion here has in most part been perfectly civil, and it's not what I mean by toxicity.)

 

 

Hey that's cool, I've enjoyed engaging in discourse with people here on this also and everyone being relaxed enough to be adult about it.

 

I even think we could all just say "oh well" and play a game with a drink after.

 

I respect everyone in this thread. It's been good.

Edited September 7 by Captain Idaho

[Gamiel]

 

So let's be honest.

 

This won't make for new stories. Custodes are taken as babies, and rebuilt. They are not human really. So you are not telling women's stories. You are not telling men's stories. Adding the other sex doesn't change what stories can be told.

 

Adding the other sex is not going to allow for an inspection of gender roles, as if that is any way relevant to 40K anyway.

 

So what's changed? Nothing. It's a retcon for shallow purposes. The only representation added is the most superficial kind.

 

Does she get Golden bookplate?

But you seem to dislike it, if it changes nothing why not just shrug about it?

[Scribe]

 

But you seem to dislike it, if it changes nothing why not just shrug about it?

 

Because it's a change at all. That it's a cheap superficial change for dubious reasons that GW is trying to gaslight us with makes it laughable. 

 

And this is me shrugging.

[Scribe]

To provide some comparison and context I find the Black Templars and Iron Hands lore changes infinitely worse lol

[Crimson Longinus]

 

To provide some comparison and context I find the Black Templars and Iron Hands lore changes infinitely worse lol

What's the Iron Hands lore change?

[Scribe]

 

What's the Iron Hands lore change?

 

The one where the Chapter Master decided it was all about feelings actually. 

[Crimson Longinus]

 

 

The one where the Chapter Master decided it was all about feelings actually. 

I see. Sounds rather ill fitting. 

[Scribe]

 

I see. Sounds rather ill fitting. 

 

Yeah it was pretty bad. No clue if they backed off on it. The only real lore for Iron Hands is Wrath of Iron.

[Rob P]

 

To provide some comparison and context I find the Black Templars and Iron Hands lore changes infinitely worse lol

I think we all have lore we REALLY don't like!

 

 

[SvenIronhand]

I think this attitude towards lore changes is a uniquely 40k thing, for sure. Retcons are an accepted thing in, say, Star Wars fandom (and don't get me started on Transformers continuities). Furthermore, much of the prior lore people have been pointing to was cast as the assumptions of the Terran populace at large, people who aren't exactly familiar with the secret alchemies involved here. 

[Noserenda]

Im deeply tied up by stuff irl to do an in depth response, but i think what a lot of this thread proves is exactly why representation is important to people, unless they already have loads of representation and suddenly its not important that others get some. 

Like not as a moral choice, its simply like oxygen, you dont notice it being around until its gone, (Or i guess until theres too much and things catch fire? :P ) when you really notice! 

The diversity that it encourages is a huge net positive for the hobby, whilst GW itself has been particularly stagnant and inspiring with 40k for a while now, the things out communities are producing are expanding and improving in all kinds of ways i couldnt have imagined 30+ years ago. 

No longer are wargamers almost exclusively nerdy middle class white guys and i think thats amazing, and if a bit more diversity in the Custodes adds to that (Which it manifestly does) all the better.

Plus, i guess a bit more money to GW to keep the whole thing rolling. Eh.

[Evil Eye]

 

The diversity that it encourages is a huge net positive for the hobby

 

 

No longer are wargamers almost exclusively nerdy middle class white guys and i think thats amazing

Because...?

[The_Worker]

First off, I just want to say that I opened this thread with some trepidation - I fully expected a six page flame war and there just hasn't been one and that's fantastic. Top stuff to see.

That out the way, I thought I'd give my perspective as someone who's been playing in the 40K sandpit since 1995 and is a trans woman. So I've sort of seen both sides - ha - of the nerd sex wars, first as a boy (and then man) and nowadays as a woman with many friends of all genders involved in 40K from GW HQ to fellow hobbyists and Black Library authors.

 

The addition of women to the Golden Bananas makes no in-universe difference to the operation of the Custodes as both the immortal bodyguard of the Emperor and the hand of the Throne on Terra and abroad. It doesn't change their existence as post-human bespoke gene-crafted super-soldiers who bear only a passing physical resemblance to the average human of the Imperial period. It doesn't stop them being the inhumanly efficient killing machines, warrior-poets, or diplomats that they've always been.

 

I have some sympathy for @Captain Idaho's position that it is a loss of a fraternity, but - with all due respect - the various traits you note as being somehow essential to masculinity are, actually, not limited to just men or even a purely male experience. I understand that you have been brought up in that mindset, that our wider social cultural norms have ideas of acceptable gender norms and all that - but the reality is that these norms are fluid, change much more rapidly than people think they do, are wildly different around the world and often even within class divides and so on and so forth. Blue was a girl's colour, and then it wasn't. Men were expected to cry, and then they weren't. Times and traditions change.

In terms of sororities, the Sisters of Silence which have been brought up as an all-female faction aren't, in fact, as they are designed to work alongside the Custodes in game and struggle if you field them as exclusively SoS units. The Sisters of Battle meanwhile have always had men in their ranges - from Redemptor Kyrinov and the Frateris Militia to the uhhh pilots (?) of Penitent Engines or the frothing suicide-servitor arco-flagellants; and in the background are frequently at the beck and call of male priests and Inquisitors.

 

Adding women to the Ten Thousand may have irrevocably tainted them for Captain Idaho, which I think is - honestly - a shame, but as has been pointed out the Space Marines remain all child soldiers men. If you really truly need an all male warrior brotherhood then the explicitly monastic brotherhood of the Astartes is much closer to that than the constructed Custodes whose emotions and intellect have been bent entirely to the Emperor's purpose to the point that they openly wonder if they actually have any real agency. And the Astartes have the benefit of being much, much more varied than the Golden Statues - you can have warrior artists (Marines Resplendent), space vampire pretty boys (Bangles), Roman military engineers (Ultramarines), emotionless machine men (Iron Hands), brutal and callous murder machines whose only desire is to kill the enemies of the Emperor and if shelling a refugee camp will do that at the expense of innocents then pass the ammunition and give me a firing solution (Marines Malevolent), and so on and so forth.

 

At the end of the day, having a wider range of representation is key to widening the appeal of Games Workshop's products, and I can tell you without a word of a lie that none of the people in my wargaming circle of 40K nerds and hobbyists think that this addition is a bad thing. In fact, as was noted earlier by a commenter, it helps to drive out the actual factual misogynists, nazis, fascists, and other deeply unsavoury types who unironically think that the Imperium's totalitarian theocratic nightmare world is a utopia to be held up as an ideal.

Oh, and one last thing - @DarkChaplain that is both a deeply personal thing to share, thank you for trusting us with it... and you can just be a girl if you want! <3

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

 

mI think this attitude towards lore changes is a uniquely 40k thing, for sure. Retcons are an accepted thing in, say, Star Wars fandom (and don't get me started on Transformers continuities). Furthermore, much of the prior lore people have been pointing to was cast as the assumptions of the Terran populace at large, people who aren't exactly familiar with the secret alchemies involved here. 

 

"Much." Not all.

 

"It is KNOWN that ALL Custodians begin their lives as the infant SONS of the noble houses of Terra."

 

There's no assumption from in-universe characters there. It's a recent, objective, definitive answer to whether female Custodes exist. And the answer is "no."

 

Again (for about the fifth time this week), my problem and the problem many of us have is not with CHANGE. It's with the LYING about it being a change.

 

You would think that those of you who feel that change - in particular, THIS change - is great and worthy of celebration would be the first in line to demand that GW ADMIT that this is a change and stop with the excuses about how it's NOT a change.

 

But for some reason those of you who think it's a great CHANGE are angry with those of us who are making no bones that it IS a change while defending the corporation that keeps lamely lying about it NOT being a change.

 

Weird.

 

Edited September 7 by Lord Nord in Gravis Armour

[wecanhaveallthree]

>In terms of sororities, the Sisters of Silence which have been brought up as an all-female faction aren't, in fact, as they are designed to work alongside the Custodes

 

 

Surely the obvious argument there is that this applies equally to the Adeptus Custodes: that they're not, in fact, an all-male faction because they're designed to work alongside the Psykana?

 

>The addition of women to the Golden Bananas makes no in-universe difference 

 

We are, as said, seven pages deep into a high-quality discussion and this remains the champion argument for their inclusion: the absolute best-case scenario for this change is that it doesn't do anything. I'd argue otherwise - and nobody appears to want to mud-wrestle with me on the subject, in favour of linking real-world medical journals and debating changing ideas of masculinity (very cool, and very informative of a personal dimension to the changes, but not enormously relevant to a thematic discussion). Maybe I'm just grumpy on Sunday morning, but despite best efforts to keep the discussion on the original rails, it seems this debate always comes back to subjective views - 'vibes', in short. While there's plenty of good faith, I'm seeing a lot of talking past each other because people feel a certain way about the change as opposed to having a strong argument on why it adds value beyond nebulous out-of-setting ideals. 

 

'I just like/don't like it' is a perfectly reasonable position to take, but I think there's much more of that than serious attempts to wrangle with design and themes.

[The_Worker]

 

>In terms of sororities, the Sisters of Silence which have been brought up as an all-female faction aren't, in fact, as they are designed to work alongside the Custodes

 

 

Surely the obvious argument there is that this applies equally to the Adeptus Custodes: that they're not, in fact, an all-male faction because they're designed to work alongside the Psykana?

 

 

For sure! That is absolutely an argument you could make if it wasn't the case that you can take a completely Custodian-only army and not be missing critical elements of a force.

 

As far as themes go - the theme of the Custodes is broadly that of the Praetorian Guard, Persian Immortals, and so on. The super-extra-mega elite of the elite that ended up actually sitting in a capital city and decaying into a sort of kingmaker group that could do things like have Van Dire killed by his bodyguard (much in the tradition of the real Praetorian Guard stabbing up various Emperors who didn't pay them enough or whatever). It doesn't impact this theme to have women involved.

If on the other hand they'd been designed as a sort of Theban Sacred Band, comprised of homosexual couples and lovers, sworn to protect each other on the field of battle and to die for their Emperor - then the addition of women might be a bit odd (although of course lesbianism is an option). I actually think this would be an interesting take on the Custodes, as a sort of gay warrior elite, but - alas! - we won't ever see that one I think.

What do you think is lost from the Custodes, thematically, by adding women? I think we gain the possibility for interesting character pairings in fiction (see The Tithes for an example), we gain the interesting possibility of seeing in-universe sexism rub up against the most perfect expression of the Emperor's skill as a bio-engineer scientist-psychic, and so on.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

>In terms of sororities, the Sisters of Silence which have been brought up as an all-female faction aren't, in fact, as they are designed to work alongside the Custodes

 

 

Surely the obvious argument there is that this applies equally to the Adeptus Custodes: that they're not, in fact, an all-male faction because they're designed to work alongside the Psykana?

 

>The addition of women to the Golden Bananas makes no in-universe difference 

 

We are, as said, seven pages deep into a high-quality discussion and this remains the champion argument for their inclusion: the absolute best-case scenario for this change is that it doesn't do anything. I'd argue otherwise - and nobody appears to want to mud-wrestle with me on the subject, in favour of linking real-world medical journals and debating changing ideas of masculinity (very cool, and very informative of a personal dimension to the changes, but not enormously relevant to a thematic discussion). Maybe I'm just grumpy on Sunday morning, but despite best efforts to keep the discussion on the original rails, it seems this debate always comes back to subjective views - 'vibes', in short. While there's plenty of good faith, I'm seeing a lot of talking past each other because people feel a certain way about the change as opposed to having a strong argument on why it adds value beyond nebulous out-of-setting ideals. 

 

'I just like/don't like it' is a perfectly reasonable position to take, but I think there's much more of that than serious attempts to wrangle with design and themes.

The reason these discussions always turn into crap shoots or get locked is because once GW makes and change, you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. The culture war grifters already took off with it. How you feel about Custodes is now directly treated as a fundamental proclamation about who your are and what you think, just like black man Sigmarine, just like video game ladies with small boobs, and on and on and on. Everyone is now required to declare if they are a left wing or right wing war gamer upon arrival so your models can get liked and shared. 
 

Wargaming has become prison gangs. Doesn’t matter what you actually think you just get forced into one. 

[wecanhaveallthree]

>What do you think is lost from the Custodes, thematically, by adding women? 

 

I've got a few posts in this thread in the early pages. You can probably find em' easier through clicking on my profile, since they're my most recent.

 

E: I HAVE EDITED THIS POST BECAUSE I WAS YELLING INTO THE VOID AND THAT IS NOT POLITE

Edited September 7 by wecanhaveallthree
hadn't had my choccy milk yet

[The_Worker]

@Marshal Rohr I don't actually think that's true. No-one's asked anyone to declare their political allegiance.

My point was that the inclusion of women in the Custodes has a real-world side effect of driving away deeply unpleasant people that should be driven away - bigots who make things unpleasant for other people. I've encountered them, and I'm sure you have too, either online or in real life. Wargaming is a really fun hobby, with all sorts of cool aspects to it, and it's a good thing that companies like GW - which, let's be honest, is the wargaming monopoly really - are actively trying to encourage people of all genders and backgrounds to get involved.

I've been going to Salute! in London on and off since 1998 and in that time the attendees have become noticeably less male (it's probably about 90% male now as opposed to 99.9% back in the late 1990s) and fractionally less white and that's great! It's fantastic to see little girls wandering around with bags of minis and people like my Sudanese mate getting excited about Kill Team - these people will bring their own life experiences to future game systems, will ensure the longevity of the hobby, and that's fantastic.

The addition of women to Custodes may or may not bring more women into the hobby, but it sure as hell made me decide to add Custodes to my collection of 40K armies.

Going back to the topic of theme - I do want to know what people see as the theme of the Custodes, and how adding women to that detracts (or adds) to it. I think Captain Idaho has made the most cogent argument for his point, which is that the Custodes as a fraternity is diluted by the addition of women, if not destroyed. I don't agree with him, but I do think it's the most reasoned argument I've yet seen.

[The_Worker]

 

What we lose out on is an explicit design decision on themes pretty much as old as time: MAN SUN, WOMAN MOON. [...]

 

Of course the Ten Thousand are male.

 

How could a boy's toy soldiers be anything else?

@wecanhaveallthree - apologies, I had not connected the post above to you in my head!

I really liked your end line here about how could a boy's toy soldiers be anything else, but I fundamentally disagree. I don't think that the Custodes/SoS are a Sun/Moon explicit design choice (and also it isn't actually the case that sun-male, moon-female everywhere and all the time). I also don't think that - as I understand it - the Big E can be seen as always a man; he presents as such during the Unification Wars and later, but isn't it the case that, canonically (as of The End And The Death) he's also been a woman a lot of his life?

I think that the theme of the Custodes is a lot simpler than the almost phallic/yonic yin-yang dualism with the SoS that you posit, and that they draw much more from the Persian Immortals and the Praetorian Guard. Mind you I do appreciate your analysis - I just disagree with it!

Edited September 7 by The_Worker

[Evil Eye]

 

and fractionally less white and that's great!

See, I firmly disagree with this line of thinking. If I went to, say, Jamaica and stated "The local community has become fractionally less black and that's a good thing" I would (quite rightly) be raked over the coals for it. I therefore fail to see how Salute, an event located in England (a white majority country) being "less white" is any less cringeworthy or racist. You could have phrased it any other way; "I've seen more people from other cultures" or "Wargaming seems to be attracting more people" would have been fine. "Less white" suggests that whiteness is somehow a bad thing and that a community that is predominantly white is somehow inferior to a predominantly non-white one.

 

I've got nothing against anyone of any background getting into wargaming, for what it's worth. But acting like the reduction of a demographic in a community is somehow a good thing is a DEEPLY questionable thing to say.