Yeah, there were a group of male supersoldiers (custodes) who were literally written originally to be a “brotherhood” in the early lore from the 90s, and always represented that way. They changed it in a lore shitty way, essentially saying there were women custodes all along and never addressing the original lore
Some folks were like “yo, write consistently, and if you wanna change something, just change it with new lore” and some folks were like “” ahhh fuck women! They could never hack it as my favorite character!!!"
it literally doesn’t matter because these supersoldiers are works of science fiction, so removed from reality that they are hand built by techno gene craft. There’s nothing about the setting that would make such fiction impossible
It is a bit more nuanced than that, AFAIK they added female versions of a specific subset of human military, which for all this time were explicitly male with various lore reasons supporting that fact.
I’m not involved in the hobby myself but went on the occasional lore reading spree on the wikis, as s disclaimer. But I can understand that fans are upset about retcons such as this, where there wasn’t much ambiguity in the lore to squeeze the change in, making it a pretty hard lore break
tell me it wouldn’t be the most 40k/Metal thing to just let women throw themselves at the training with zero prejudice and the 0.000001% that survive are just so much better than the men because the odds where so much worse. You could even hard retcon that in and no one would be mad because it’s plausible that it’s just never happened before so of course it’s never been in the lore.
it’s not like GW are bad at this sort of thing either, they got people to accept Primaris marines and that’s a much bigger load of horseshit from a lore perspective.
If memory serves, Custodes, unlike Space Marines, were not specified as being male-only, it was only implied (by never mentioning any female Custodes). As the process for making Custodes and Space Marines is vastly different, fan speculation on female Custodes has been around for a while.
I think a big part of the anger was about the fact that it was a hard retcon. It used to be official in the lore that “all space marines are male,” but Games Workshop changed it to “there have always been female space marines”.
Isn’t there a ton of “retconning*” in 40k lore, sort of on purpose? Like I always thought 40k lore was made up of bits and scraps from all different perspectives from different races and groups all throughout the 40k universe. It’s justifiable, even expected, to have inconsistencies when your history is being written by so many varied authors.
Did some searching and it seems like the pushback is because Games Workshop added female characters? Am I understanding that right?
Yeah, there were a group of male supersoldiers (custodes) who were literally written originally to be a “brotherhood” in the early lore from the 90s, and always represented that way. They changed it in a lore shitty way, essentially saying there were women custodes all along and never addressing the original lore
Some folks were like “yo, write consistently, and if you wanna change something, just change it with new lore” and some folks were like “” ahhh fuck women! They could never hack it as my favorite character!!!"
it literally doesn’t matter because these supersoldiers are works of science fiction, so removed from reality that they are hand built by techno gene craft. There’s nothing about the setting that would make such fiction impossible
It is a bit more nuanced than that, AFAIK they added female versions of a specific subset of human military, which for all this time were explicitly male with various lore reasons supporting that fact.
I’m not involved in the hobby myself but went on the occasional lore reading spree on the wikis, as s disclaimer. But I can understand that fans are upset about retcons such as this, where there wasn’t much ambiguity in the lore to squeeze the change in, making it a pretty hard lore break
it’s 100% because of the gaslighting.
tell me it wouldn’t be the most 40k/Metal thing to just let women throw themselves at the training with zero prejudice and the 0.000001% that survive are just so much better than the men because the odds where so much worse. You could even hard retcon that in and no one would be mad because it’s plausible that it’s just never happened before so of course it’s never been in the lore.
it’s not like GW are bad at this sort of thing either, they got people to accept Primaris marines and that’s a much bigger load of horseshit from a lore perspective.
Hmmm Custodes don’t ever get a choice about their training. They start being modified from infancy.
It’s constantly amusing to me how many lore purists get simple stuff wrong that is spelt out in the Codexes.
If memory serves, Custodes, unlike Space Marines, were not specified as being male-only, it was only implied (by never mentioning any female Custodes). As the process for making Custodes and Space Marines is vastly different, fan speculation on female Custodes has been around for a while.
I think a big part of the anger was about the fact that it was a hard retcon. It used to be official in the lore that “all space marines are male,” but Games Workshop changed it to “there have always been female space marines”.
There were female space marines in the original Rogue Trader. Male-only is already a retcon.
And marines were just normal people, the Primarchs just generals and orks used bolters
Isn’t there a ton of “retconning*” in 40k lore, sort of on purpose? Like I always thought 40k lore was made up of bits and scraps from all different perspectives from different races and groups all throughout the 40k universe. It’s justifiable, even expected, to have inconsistencies when your history is being written by so many varied authors.
Custodes aren’t Space Marines.
40k drama is always more complicated than that while being way dumber at the same time
Yes, pretty much.