The history of Custodes Lore

[BitsHammer]

Lately I've seen a lot of "betrayal" claims involving the Custodes lore in how they are recruited, or if they're only men, etc, etc. So I went through every core rulebook reference from Rogue Trader to 7th Edition, their lore in Horus Heresy Book VII: Inferno (RIP Alan Bligh), to the modern lore and I got pictures!

 

So to kick off let's check out Rogue Trader:

Written before Rick Priestley even introduced transhumans into the setting, these are clearly normal mortals. "Men" remains vague in that it is used to mean either males, or people of either sex thanks to historical usage so I'm not going to weigh that either way. Basically to summarize: they're not even transhuman so does this even count?

 

Onto 2nd edition:

A combined effort of Andy Chambers and Rick Priestley brings us the information about the Companions, but no word about them being post human at this time. Notably not gendered either.

 

As of 3rd Rick took a backseat on being the primary author when it came to books so Andy Chambers was the lead on this edition with Rick assisting, but from here on it's not really Rick's baby anymore:

Once again we don't get much, in fact even less than before, but no gendered language is assigned to the Custodes but we can assume the *may* be transhumans at this point based on Blanche's depiction of the Golden Throne with a pair of Custodes clad in armor but they aren't exactly towering over the figures behind them either:

Spoiler

 

4th edition comes along next:

Once again we don't see gendered language for the Custodes, and with the same Blanche art their transhuman status isn't clear at this time.

 

5th edition brought us this crumb of lore: 

Yes, that's right, this is everything they got in the 5th ed core rulebook. Not even a clear depiction of their role on Terra, and of course no gendered language. Now this did come out 2 years after Horus Rising so my assumption is that they knew Custodes lore was changing but didn't have a solid direction in house for it at the time.

 

Which brings us our first clear retcon in 6th edition:

Now made the same way as Space Marines (yes seriously) this presents the first year they could possibly be locked to being male only despite not using gendered language. And with this comes the return of the Companions!

 

7th Edition follows this up with a second verse same as the first:

Yup, still "super Space Marines", still implied to be male only, still not using gendered language.

 

But Alan Bligh had different ideas in 2017:

RIP Super Astartes (2012-2017) and your implied restrictions to Custodes recruitment. Now clearly defined as a completely different thing than Astartes, and even Thunder Warriors, thanks to the gene-craft and alchemistry we are back into the realm of the Custodes being plausibly male or female. This lines up with ADB's Master of Mankind (2016) statements about wanting to put a female Custodes character in that book, but being shot down by a studio manager due to the Burning of Prospero box not having unhelmeted female heads since that and this book would have been in the pipeline around the time he was writing that book.

 

And finally we come to the "modern 40k" era with 8th edition (not shown because I hit the attached image cap but it's a relatively recent codex) where we get the lore that "it is known" that the Custodes are recruited from the Sons of Imperial Nobility, but to the average citizen the things that are "known" are largely propaganda, lies, and half-truths so I don't think it's something that should be taken at face value when the entire process is still spoken about in vague terms because what is "known" isn't much by design.

 

9th edition made it even more open for women by saying that the nobility give sons, but also saying that the Custodes also recruit by other means, and then 10th gave us named female Custodes in the codex followed by the Tithes animation.

 

In summary: we have a plausible "men" only in the pre-transhuman days of Rogue Trader, and a definite 5 years of being Super Astartes that Alan Bligh retconned and they are running with as being open to both sexes. I think this safely puts it to bed that the Custodes have a long history of being only men because what they have is a long history of barely being mentioned with 2017 being the first real time we saw substantial updates to their lore to fully flesh out who the Custodes are beyond the named characters in the Horus Heresy novels, who we barely know around 200 of at most counting 30k and 40k combined, leaving an easy 9,800 other Custodes we know nothing about who could have been anyone. 

 

Could they have done more sooner? Sure. But there is a lot of stuff in the game that the novels don't represent. Like the way the Deredeo Dreadnought just showed up one day on the tabletop but isn't something that exists in most, if any, of the novels despite being around the entire time according to the game. 

[hd3]

Well first, thanks for at least trying to get the evidence to back up you're position. That's a level of thoroughness we should all aim for. At the risk of being disagreeable, Im not sure this is a damning smoking gun. A lot of these claims seem like pretty huge extrapolations from very scant evidence. 

 

You found multiple references in multiple explicit editions across numerous years referring to men, sons, etc, multiple implied references to men, sons, and not a single one referring to daughters, sisters etc. 

 

While I grant you "it is known" is not the same as "it is definitively  and unequivocally true" it seems like a large leap to presume in the statement* "it is known the custodes are recruited from the sons of terran nobility but there are other sources"  that it refers to daughters as opposed to sons, over say, sons of less noble lineages.

 

As for the 9800 'unseen custodes' I'll  concede your point that every single custodes, named or simple in a scene was a man ever, prior to 2024. But one could also see that as a complete lack of evidence.

 

 

"Could they have done more sooner? Sure. But there is a lot of stuff in the game that the novels don't represent. Like the way the Deredeo Dreadnought just showed up one day on the tabletop but isn't something that exists in most, if any, of the novels despite being around the entire time according to the game. "

 

This is the part I don't understand. Do you really  see those two examples as comparable? "

 

"I don't understand why people object to the latest episode of the new Roman empire drama retconning Julius Caesar's bodyguards as all being 5'4 with  inexplicable overt texan accents when all the preceding onscreen episodes, history, comments from the writers, directors all showed, explicitly stated and implied  they were  Romans. I mean, the 2nd century xebec just sailed in one day despite never being seen before and nobody objected to it being retconned in. This is no different."

 

The size, scale and reasons for the retcon absolutely matter.

 

Img 1:

edition codex, page 14, paragraph 3:

 

Img 2: 

 

9th edition codex page 7, 3rd column, paragraph 1:

 

Img 3: 8th ed codex

 

 

Since you didn't post a a follow up post with 8th and 9th edition with the explicit male gendered language included, I've just worked off your summary here. And included a few posts for clarity.

 

 

Edited January 20 by hd3

[Brother Tyler]

On 1/20/2026 at 6:28 AM, BitsHammer said:

... I hit the attached image cap ... 

 

Note that the image cap only applies if you upload the images directly into your content (as you have done). If you use images hosted online (this tutorial provides information on options), there is no cap.

 

It's always nice to see well-researched articles that provide official information. One thing I see lacking in this otherwise well-researched post, however, is the visual portrayals, including both miniatures and images. Many members will rightly point to such official visual portrayals as another important element of the representation of the Legio/Adeptus Custodes. Of course, we can see the transition from the Rogue Trader era...

 

(I don't care how "super" you are, shirtless isn't the way to go dressed for war.)

 

...to the revisitation of the Legio Custodes for the Horus Heresy CCG...

 

(And this is pretty much what we have today.)

 

And there are plenty of other images that have appeared over the years. No doubt we'll see many more in the future, especially those necessary to represent the more recent lore changes.

 

As with all matters of Warhammer 40,000 setting lore, however, things are always subject to change (whether we like it or not).

 

Call me old-fashioned, but the only thing I really dislike about the modern rendition of the Adeptus Custodes is their presence in large numbers (i.e., armies) beyond Terra. I liked when they were mostly limited to guarding the Emperor. I would have preferred if they had been available only as a single squad in IMPERIUM armies (but I'm an iconoclast and feel the same way about the Grey Knights and the Deathwatch ). I guess leaving Custodes armies to the Age of Darkness wasn't profitable enough, however, so I can understand GW's decision to develop lore to justify large numbers of the Adeptus Custodes in the Era Indomitus. Besides, the models are pretty cool (I particularly like the Contemptors).

 

As with most other lore change issues over the years, everything (even the armies of Custodes thing that I whined about ) is tolerable.

[hd3]

8 minutes ago, Brother Tyler said:

 

Note that the image cap only applies if you upload the images directly into your content (as you have done). If you use images hosted online (this tutorial provides information on options), there is no cap.

 

It's always nice to see well-researched articles that provide official information. One thing I see lacking in this otherwise well-researched post, however, is the visual portrayals, including both miniatures and images. Many members will rightly point to such official visual portrayals as another important element of the representation of the Legio/Adeptus Custodes. Of course, we can see the transition from the Rogue Trader era...

 

(I don't care how "super" you are, shirtless isn't the way to go dressed for war.)

 

...to the revisitation of the Legio Custodes for the Horus Heresy CCG...

 

(And this is pretty much what we have today.)

 

And there are plenty of other images that have appeared over the years. No doubt we'll see many more in the future, especially those necessary to represent the more recent lore changes.

 

As with all matters of Warhammer 40,000 setting lore, however, things are always subject to change (whether we like it or not).

 

Call me old-fashioned, but the thing that only thing I really dislike about the modern rendition of the Adeptus Custodes is their presence in large numbers (i.e., armies) beyond Terra. I liked when they were mostly limited to guarding the Emperor. I would have preferred if they had been available only as a single squad in IMPERIUM armies (but I'm an iconoclast and feel the same way about the Grey Knights and the Deathwatch ). I guess leaving Custodes armies to the Age of Darkness wasn't profitable enough, however, so I can understand GW's decision to develop lore to justify large numbers of the Adeptus Custodes in the Era Indomitus. Besides, the models are pretty cool (I particularly like the Contemptors).

 

As with most other lore change issues over the years, everything (even the armies of Custodes thing that I whined about ) is tolerable.

 

 

I can see that. Small squads  would've given the custodes narrative forward momentum, overcoming their sense if failure without tipping the scales so much as becoming a while army. Wish they'd done that instead.

 

Of course, I may be motivated by crushed by that universal 4+ ivs last weekend...

[BitsHammer]

13 minutes ago, hd3 said:

At the risk if being disagreeable, Im not sure this is a damning smoking gun.

 

A lot of these claims seem like pretty huge extrapolations from very scant evidence. 

If you go check my sources you'd find there was VERY scant evidence to work with.

 

13 minutes ago, hd3 said:

 

You found multiple references in multiple explicit editions across numerous years referring to men, sons, etc, multiple implied references to men, sons, and not a single one referring to daughters, sisters etc. 

Actually if you look at the words in the pictures you'd see that there were not "numerous years" referring to men, sons, etc. Most of Custodes history used "they/their" pronouns to describe them which are genderless.

 

13 minutes ago, hd3 said:

While I grant you "it is known" is not the same as "it is definitively  and unequivocally true" it seems like a large leap to presume in the statement* "it is known the custodes are recruited from the sons of terran nobility but there are other sources"  that it refers to daughters as opposed to sons, over say, sons of less noble lineages.

I never said it proved they had to include women, I was pointing out that nothing about it restricts women from being part of the Custodes. When you are talking about claims that the lore ONLY allowed men then pointing out that such a restriction didn't exist is enough to prove that point false. The possibility is all that is needed to counter that claim. 

 

13 minutes ago, hd3 said:

As for the 9800 'unseen custodes' I'll  concede your point that every single custodes, named or simple in a scene was a man ever, prior to 2024. But one could also see that as a complete lack of evidence.

 

 

"Could they have done more sooner? Sure. But there is a lot of stuff in the game that the novels don't represent. Like the way the Deredeo Dreadnought just showed up one day on the tabletop but isn't something that exists in most, if any, of the novels despite being around the entire time according to the game. "

 

This is the part I don't understand. Do you really  see those two examples as comparable? "

 

"I don't understand why people object to the latest episode of the new Roman empire drama retconning Julius Caesar's bodyguards as all being 5'4 with  inexplicable overt texan accents when all the preceding onscreen episodes, history, comments from the writers, directors all showed, explicitly stated and implied  they were  Romans. I mean, the 2nd century xebec just sailed in one day despite never being seen before and nobody objected to it being retconned in. This is no different."

 

The size, scale and reasons for the retcon absolutely matter.

My point is that there is a LOT of stuff added to the Heresy we never see in the novels, and acting like something not being mentioned in the novels means it can't be in the game is frankly asking for a double standard unless you apply it to every other time GW has done that very thing. No one is throwing even half the vitriol at Saturnine terminators that the female Custodes are getting for example.

 

How is adding the possibility of women bigger than changing legion structure, the units involved in key conflicts, or the way conflicts played out? It feels like another double standard where only female Custodes have to pass this high bar that nothing else does.

 

13 minutes ago, hd3 said:

 

 

Img 1:

edition codex, page 14, paragraph 3:

 

Img 2: 

 

9th edition codex page 7, 3rd column, paragraph 1:

 

Img 3: 8th ed codex

 

 

Since you didn't post a a follow up post with 8th and 9th edition with the explicit male gendered language included, I've just worked off your summary here. And included a few posts for clarity.

 

 

Appreciated, but you didn't share 9th ed's lore that mentions other sources. And you skipped 10th as well. Only 8th says "it is known" so you just reposted that multiple times.

[BitsHammer]

18 minutes ago, Brother Tyler said:

 

Note that the image cap only applies if you upload the images directly into your content (as you have done). If you use images hosted online (this tutorial provides information on options), there is no cap.

 

It's always nice to see well-researched articles that provide official information. One thing I see lacking in this otherwise well-researched post, however, is the visual portrayals, including both miniatures and images. Many members will rightly point to such official visual portrayals as another important element of the representation of the Legio/Adeptus Custodes. Of course, we can see the transition from the Rogue Trader era...

 

(I don't care how "super" you are, shirtless isn't the way to go dressed for war.)

 

...to the revisitation of the Legio Custodes for the Horus Heresy CCG...

 

(And this is pretty much what we have today.)

 

And there are plenty of other images that have appeared over the years. No doubt we'll see many more in the future, especially those necessary to represent the more recent lore changes.

Oh visual depictions definitely vary from when they were human in Rogue Trader, to 3rd when it's debatable if they were transhuman since they seem to be the same size as two non-Custodes, to the Adrian Smith art and beyond. 

 

And yes, I could have hosted the images on another site and then linked them in manually but I will be honest: I just didn't want to spend another hour on this more than the couple I already did flipping through old rulebooks for what breadcumbs the writers left scattered among the books.

 

As for small Squads I'm kind of hoping the refresh takes them down to a 3-6 unit size and buffs their power to their footprint being smaller.

Edited January 20 by BitsHammer

[Robbienw]

Do you have any art from before the 2024 retcon showing Custodians depicted as explicitly female?

 

Also any models from before, any female heads from the Custodes kits?

Edited January 20 by Robbienw

[Scribe]

Men, sons, and word of God that when requested, the answer was 'no they are not female'.

 

Dont try and get yourselves confused by modern language, the intent of which is to obfuscate.

 

Its simple, they were all male.

[Crimson Longinus]

 

Thank you @BitsHammer this is very thorough. Historically there is very little reason to assume that they were exclusively male. They were depicted as male and sometimes referred to with such terms, but historically this is just common way to depict soldiers. I think depictions of IG over the game's history are overwhelmingly men too, yet nobody (well, barely nobody) argues that there cannot be female IG soldiers. 

 

But I don't think citing the actual lore will convince the opposition, as this not actually about the fidelity to the lore. 

[Robbienw]

Citing the actual lore (and the models, and the art) is what convinced us they were exclusively blokes up until the retcon 

[Scribe]

19 minutes ago, Robbienw said:

Citing the actual lore (and the models, and the art) is what convinced us they were exclusively blokes up until the retcon 

 

The only reading that makes any kind of sense.

 

42 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

But I don't think citing the actual lore will convince the opposition, as this not actually about the fidelity to the lore. 

 

Men?

Sons?

Models are only Male?

"There are no Female Custodes." Word of God?

 

What reading do you have that in ANY sense tied to reality says anything but "Custodes were prior to the retcon, male."

 

The lore, the history, the art, none of it supports you in any way.

[Crimson Longinus]

5 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Men?

 

As a reference to armed body of the soldiers does not exclude possibility of some women. 

 

5 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Sons?

 

That is the only one that is valid. It only existed as the only source of them in one codex and was already changed in the next. Same than with knight pilots. Or Vostroyans. 

 

5 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Models are only Male?

 

They aren't now. Custodes have had very few models over the history. Previous generation of plastic Cadians were all male too, and IIRC so were the preceding metal Cadians, yet no on thinks all Cadians are men. It is literally the same thing. 

 

5 minutes ago, Scribe said:

"There are no Female Custodes." Word of God?

 

There is no such thing.  There was instruction to one author to not include female custodes as models for such did not exist at the moment.

 

5 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

What reading do you have that in ANY sense tied to reality says anything but "Custodes were prior to the retcon, male."

 

Very obvious reading of their gender being ambiguous but mostly depicted as men like most soldiers historically are depicted.

 

5 minutes ago, Scribe said:

The lore, the history, the art, none of it supports you in any way.

 

They very obviously do. The absolutely exclusivity you imagine simply is not in the text, except perhaps in one sentence of one codex. Using similar reading than you try to apply here, we could also claim that all Cadians (or most other IG regiments) are all male. But they aren't, and no one (hopefully) is trying to argue that they are. 

 

[Scribe]

4 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

As a reference to armed body of the soldiers does not exclude possibility of some women. 

 

Nah, it would then say 'the men and women' not just men.

 

5 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

They aren't now.

 

Right, post retcon.

 

5 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

There was instruction to one author to not include female custodes as models for such did not exist at the moment.

 

Correct, as all the models were male, because the faction was male.

 

6 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

but mostly depicted as men like most soldiers historically are depicted.

 

Nope, and this is the failure of your position. It was not MOSTLY. It was EXCLUSIVELY. There was no room whatsoever to think that female custodes existed prior to the retcon. Zero.

[Crimson Longinus]

15 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Nah, it would then say 'the men and women' not just men.

 

No it wouldn't, especially in archaic style GW goes for. A Krieg general talking about "men under my command" etc does not mean there could not be some women in that group.

 

15 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Right, post retcon.

 

So was it a retcon when they made female Cadian models with the range refresh?

 

15 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Correct, as all the models were male, because the faction was male.

 

So all Cadians were male previously then? Also, there were only handful of bare heads, most models had face covering helmets, and same with the art, so you cannot conclusively know they were men (unlike with the Cadians, who definitely all had male faces.)

 

15 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Nope, and this is the failure of your position. It was not MOSTLY. It was EXCLUSIVELY. There was no room whatsoever to think that female custodes existed prior to the retcon. Zero.

 

Except that is not in the text, only in your imagination. You are committing a literal logical fallacy. That you have only seen white swans or that a poet says "withe as a swan" does not mean black swans cannot exist. There is no text saying that there cannot be female Custodes, and apart the one "all begin as sons" that was already removed in the next codes there is no text saying they are all men. That's the facts. 

 

 

Edited January 20 by Crimson Longinus

[Scribe]

1 minute ago, Crimson Longinus said:

A Krieg general talking about "men under my command" etc does not mean there could be no some women in that group.

 

Are not the Krieg all cloned off of the same dude? :D

 

1 minute ago, Crimson Longinus said:

So was it a retcon when they made female Cadian models with the range refresh?

 

2 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

So all Cadians were male previously then? Also, there were only handful of bare heads, most models had face covering helmets, and same with the art, so you cannot conclusively know they were men (unlike with the Cadians, who definitely all had male faces.)

 

No, because...

 

 

The text, generated during the fleshing out of a near undefined (outside of some topless shots) faction, explicitly, clearly, and openly, stated that they are infant sons/generations of newborn sons.

 

Sons, are male.

 

The models were male, sons are male, men are male, and you have not a single thing to point to the existence of female custodes prior to the retcon.

 

Which I accept is a thing btw, you dont have to fail to convince me further. You already won, you got female custodes as a retcon. Its all good for you.

6 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

that was already removed in the next codes there is no text saying they are all men.

 

Hence, the retcon.

[Crimson Longinus]

4 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Are not the Krieg all cloned off of the same dude? :D

 

No, but also besides the point.

 

4 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

 

No, because...

 

 

The text, generated during the fleshing out of a near undefined (outside of some topless shots) faction, explicitly, clearly, and openly, stated that they are infant sons/generations of newborn sons.

 

Sons, are male.

 

The models were male, sons are male, men are male, and you have not a single thing to point to the existence of female custodes prior to the retcon.

 

Which I accept is a thing btw, you dont have to fail to convince me further. You already won, you got female custodes as a retcon. Its all good for you.

 

Hence, the retcon.

 

Yes, there is this one quote which I have acknowledged. And it is relatively recent, from 2018, and was already changed in the very next codex. Before it, ambiguous. So there is not some decades of lore being overwritten like people claim. What is being overwritten, is one sentence from 2018, and that was already changed years ago. Again, same than with the Imperial Knights, same as Vostryans (both once referred as "sons.") Are those retcons too, are you up in arms against them too?

 

 

[Scribe]

10 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

 

No, but also besides the point.

 

 

Yes, there is this one quote which I have acknowledged. And it is relatively recent, from 2018, and was already changed in the very next codex. Before it, ambiguous. So there is not some decades of lore being overwritten like people claim. What is being overwritten, is one sentence from 2018, and that was already changed years ago. Again, same than with the Imperial Knights, same as Vostryans (both once referred as "sons.") Are those retcons too, are you up in arms against them too?

 

 

 

I don't know Vosttyans, I assume since the Guard are humanity, and any human can pick up a rifle, and the guard is millions of people with a very short time to live once battle is joined...anyone will do.

 

Knights, I don't actually remember where I saw it, but my first read was that it was both men or women? Black books? Codex? I don't know.

 

Regardless.

 

You accept it said sons, and sons are male.

 

I accept that the retcon happened, and now it's both sexes.

 

No problem. 

[Crimson Longinus]

1 hour ago, Scribe said:

 

I don't know Vosttyans, I assume since the Guard are humanity, and any human can pick up a rifle, and the guard is millions of people with a very short time to live once battle is joined...anyone will do.

 

They're the Vostroyan Firstboen, and first it was specifically firstborn sons. But not any more.

 

1 hour ago, Scribe said:

Knights, I don't actually remember where I saw it, but my first read was that it was both men or women? Black books? Codex? I don't know.

 

But in their first codex it was said that the pilots were sons of the noble houses. Same than the first Custodes codex with the "sons" verbiage, and both were changed in their next codex. 

 

1 hour ago, Scribe said:

Regardless.

 

You accept it said sons, and sons are male.

 

I accept that the retcon happened, and now it's both sexes.

 

Retcon or elaboration of inaccurately poetic language. And 40K is absolutely full stuff like this. Like I have shown you, there even are numerous examples regarding this specific word, "sons" being broadened in the lore. 

 

1 hour ago, Scribe said:

No problem. 

 

Glad to hear it. 

 

 

Edited January 21 by Crimson Longinus

[Scribe]

Just now, Crimson Longinus said:

Retcon or elaboration of inaccurately poetic language.

 

Obvious retcon, the text, art, novel text, and models all reinforced that it was a male faction.

 

Nothing was ambiguous unless one had an ulterior motive, like wanting female Space Marines.

[Brother Tyler]

The inclusion of females among the Adeptus/Legiones Custodes is a clear retcon, as is the inclusion of females among the nobles who pilot Imperial Knights*. No amount of sophistry will ever change the fact that these (and other things) are retcons. Both of these are a done deal and there's no use in either (a) complaining about the changes or those who are in favor of them, or (b) complaining about those who don't like the changes. Really, we all need to get over this change that is in the grand scheme of things of no real significance; and we need to stop sniping at each other simply because we have different views about it. This is a game about little toy soldiers. If the change affects you in some way, whether good or bad, that's only because you want it to.

 

We collectively need to drop the back and forth about the addition of females to the ranks of the Adeptus/Legiones Custodes. All it does is lead to disruptive behaviors, the locking of topics, and [potentially] disciplinary action for members that choose to not get along well with others.

 

Getting back to the discussion at hand, what are other areas of the Adeptus/Legiones Custodes lore that has changed and evolved over the years? After all, all (sub)factions have been the subject of lore changes over the years, with diverse reactions to those changes from hobbyists.

 

 

 

* The 6th edition lore, via either the codex, the companion, or both, was explicit in that the nobles of the Imperial Knight households were only male. I would have to dig through some boxes in the attic to get proof if anyone demands it.  That would need to be taken up in the appropriate forum, however.

[Indy Techwisp]

21 minutes ago, Brother Tyler said:

Getting back to the discussion at hand, what are other areas of the Adeptus/Legiones Custodes lore that has changed and evolved over the years? After all, all (sub)factions have been the subject of lore changes over the years, with diverse reactions to those changes from hobbyists.

 

IMO the largest change in Custodes lore was the lore that they do just leave Terra sometimes.
Sure, it was made to make them function as a playable faction, but in one book they went from the sole guardians of Terra to a faction that could show up literally anywhere whenever they like, which is quite the difference.

[Crimson Longinus]

2 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

IMO the largest change in Custodes lore was the lore that they do just leave Terra sometimes.
Sure, it was made to make them function as a playable faction, but in one book they went from the sole guardians of Terra to a faction that could show up literally anywhere whenever they like, which is quite the difference.

 

Yeah, and it also made them way less cool. They were way more interesting as these rarely seen mystic guardians. But of course, this change needed to be made if one wanted them to be playable. It is a bit of a paradox. I think I would have preferred a compromise, where small numbers sometimes left Terra to guard super important Imperial causes, and thus you could ally a single unit into your Imperial army to represent that. 

 

It is the  same thing than with the Grey Knights, really. When these mystic orders of super beings are running around the galaxy in army scale, fighting every minor genestealer cult uprising or whatnot it diminishes them. 

[BitsHammer]

10 hours ago, Robbienw said:

Do you have any art from before the 2024 retcon showing Custodians depicted as explicitly female?

 

Also any models from before, any female heads from the Custodes kits?

Bud, pick any model with a helmet. That can be a female Custodes. That's like asking me to point out an explicitly female Necron Overlord despite the fact we have no named ones. The possibility is there even if GW isn't selling a model kit for it. The lore not preventing it is enough to make it plausible even if they don't sell a model for it.
 

10 hours ago, Scribe said:

Men, sons, and word of God that when requested, the answer was 'no they are not female'.

 

Dont try and get yourselves confused by modern language, the intent of which is to obfuscate.

 

Its simple, they were all male.

The use of "men" to mean people of both sexes is an older way of using the word, not a more modern one. The only obfuscation going on is how you pretend it's not a valid definition.

 

And I notice you hyperfixated on "sons" but ignored the "it is known" that is clearly signaling it isn't a fact, it's something people believe and is likely rumor at best. Even though you skipped right past the two editions that actually would have supported you when they were Astartes to latch onto the two who are the most open to interpretation.

 

And Word of God doesn't mean much when all of it is sourced via "trust me bro".

 

And I find it hilarious you fixate on gender when it's in your favor, such as using men to mean males only, but ignore the three editions that were around longer that used genderless language. If you want to be mad about the possibility of female Custodes existing blame 2nd Edition for opening the door on it because even if they didn't intend it at the time they opened that door and later creators ran with it.

 

  

1 hour ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

IMO the largest change in Custodes lore was the lore that they do just leave Terra sometimes.
Sure, it was made to make them function as a playable faction, but in one book they went from the sole guardians of Terra to a faction that could show up literally anywhere whenever they like, which is quite the difference.

Them having distinct hosts and not just all being colored gold was a pretty big retcon as well but no one fusses about that and I'd argue that was a bigger retcon that anything involving them allowing women in their ranks.

 

  

1 hour ago, Brother Tyler said:

The inclusion of females among the Adeptus/Legiones Custodes is a clear retcon, as is the inclusion of females among the nobles who pilot Imperial Knights*. No amount of sophistry will ever change the fact that these (and other things) are retcons. Both of these are a done deal and there's no use in either (a) complaining about the changes or those who are in favor of them, or (b) complaining about those who don't like the changes. Really, we all need to get over this change that is in the grand scheme of things of no real significance; and we need to stop sniping at each other simply because we have different views about it. This is a game about little toy soldiers. If the change affects you in some way, whether good or bad, that's only because you want it to.

 

We collectively need to drop the back and forth about the addition of females to the ranks of the Adeptus/Legiones Custodes. All it does is lead to disruptive behaviors, the locking of topics, and [potentially] disciplinary action for members that choose to not get along well with others.

 

Getting back to the discussion at hand, what are other areas of the Adeptus/Legiones Custodes lore that has changed and evolved over the years? After all, all (sub)factions have been the subject of lore changes over the years, with diverse reactions to those changes from hobbyists.

 

 

 

* The 6th edition lore, via either the codex, the companion, or both, was explicit in that the nobles of the Imperial Knight households were only male. I would have to dig through some boxes in the attic to get proof if anyone demands it.  That would need to be taken up in the appropriate forum, however.

The Custodes having a couple editions as Super Astartes is the most hilarious change over the years and a bigger one than any addition of women being added in.

 

Honestly I am not arguing that it isn't a retcon either, but rather that the idea that Custodes have had a constant depiction of only being men isn't being entirely true when the language used wasn't gendered in that manner and the possibility was open as far back as 2nd edition even if that wasn't a conscious idea the writers were employing at the time.

 

Plus I just get very tired of people pretending the lore is as set in stone as they like to pretend any time GW does something that they don't like for some reason. It's almost always trying to justify how they feel about the lore rather than what the lore explicitly says. I've been into 40k since 3rd and the number of changes we get all the time have long since shown the lore isn't sacred to GW, it's a tool for telling stories that sell models. It means more to us as a community but I never let myself forget that though because it makes it easier to roll with the changes than stress about if some sacred line has been crossed.

 

If we want to mention fun lore though, Alan Bligh answered if Custodes can have kids rather definitively:

Edited January 21 by BitsHammer

[Scribe]

I'm done with the discussion, if you all want to deceive yourselves thats fine. Brother Tyler said it better, and its the final word I need.

 

1 hour ago, Brother Tyler said:

The inclusion of females among the Adeptus/Legiones Custodes is a clear retcon, as is the inclusion of females among the nobles who pilot Imperial Knights*. No amount of sophistry will ever change the fact that these (and other things) are retcons.

 

[hd3]

3 hours ago, Crimson Longinus said:

 

No, but also besides the point.

 

 

Yes, there is this one quote which I have acknowledged. And it is relatively recent, from 2018, and was already changed in the very next codex. Before it, ambiguous. So there is not some decades of lore being overwritten like people claim. What is being overwritten, is one sentence from 2018, and that was already changed years ago. Again, same than with the Imperial Knights, same as Vostryans (both once referred as "sons.") Are those retcons too, are you up in arms against them too?

 

 

 

Because again, that is a willful misreading of the evidence at hand. First,: bits' citations , aside from simply leaving off the codexes where they are explicitly men showed a complete lack of female members prior to the retcon. Even calling the other codexes 'ambiguous' is a stretch but assuming we agree to that 'ambiguous' could just as easily be argued to be intended to 

 

As for the retcon, accepting or not objecting to a minor retcon does not logically obligate acceptance of a major contradiction, especially when the latter undermines core narrative logic or is driven by non-story motives. Small retcons are often tolerated because they preserve the story’s internal coherence; egregious contradictions break it. Treating these as equivalent commits a false equivalence and ignores the reasonable boundary between narrative flexibility and narrative betrayal. Consistency objections are contextual, not all-or-nothing. Especially so if the changes are made for non narrative reasons. Why do you think people complained about primaris for years?