The history of Custodes Lore

[BitsHammer]

4 minutes ago, Scribe said:

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.

I never said it wasn't a retcon. I'm just saying that this hard line in the sand being drawn and this act about it being some hard line that shouldn't have been crossed based on decades of lore just isn't as concrete as people are claiming. I'd say the Hosts was a much bigger change to the Custodes than who can be a Custodes but that's apparently not as rage inducing as the option to make some of your minis women for some reason.

[Scribe]

1 minute ago, BitsHammer said:

I never said it wasn't a retcon. I'm just saying that this hard line in the sand being drawn and this act about it being some hard line that shouldn't have been crossed based on decades of lore just isn't as concrete as people are claiming. I'd say the Hosts was a much bigger change to the Custodes than who can be a Custodes but that's apparently not as rage inducing as the option to make some of your minis women for some reason.

 

As was insinuated in the other thread for some reason, that there is some kind of rage going on here, there isnt. I find it much closer to laughable.

 

So we are all on board, its a retcon? OK then, my point is made, enjoy your new models.

[BitsHammer]

2 minutes ago, hd3 said:

 

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?

 

 

You keep saying "codexes" but we haven't seen that in 9th or 10th, and 8th was clearly presenting rumor. That leaves the 7th ed pamlette that came out around Prospero Burns but looking into it that's using the lore that Custodes were made like Astartes

 

and that lore got retconned the next year when Inferno was released but sure, this one doesn't use rumors or ambiguity and it is a codex so you have one codex that says the original Custodes were men.

 

And man if you hate them adding to women to the Custodes I can't wait for the thesis you'll write about them retconning the Custodes to form Shield Hosts and not all be clad in only gold since that was a major contradiction to every depiction of them through the Heresy and even contradicts their 30k lore Bligh wrote as he never made distinctions like that either.

[Brother Tyler]

And we're done here.