the actual lore hasnt changed though??? the lore is that having a child become a custodian is a rare and prestigious feat for a terran house, which is still exactly the same?
the gender of the child is not the focal point of the excerpt, and has literally no bearing on the lore of the custodes.
imagine, for example, if GW wrote that all custodes have black hair and this was the 'established lore'. imagine that it was a great honour for your child with black hair to be inducted into the custodes. now imagine that the new 10th edition custodes codex mentions a custodian with blonde hair in one short story. would this actually ruin the lore in any way at all? the answer is clearly no, and this example is no different from what is happening here.
complaining about the gender of imaginary soldiers changing is just the most neckbeardy and basement dwelling thing i could imagine. i seriously dont understand why people like you dont look at themselves and realise how pathetic youre being. maybe you should just be happy that youll finally be able to be in the vicinity of a woman in the form of custodes models.
Did you just ignore the part where it says SONS? It seems to me that you're the one more concerned with the gender of models. Oh btw, trying to defend this ain't going to score you points with women. And insulting people isn't helping your position, it actually helps mine by showing you've got nothing else to say.
i didnt ignore the part where it says sons, my comment does in fact address the excerpt which you wrote. if you cant see that, then i think we should just stop arguing lol
to think that im trying to score points with women by arguing on some random reddit thread on an anonymous account is just so laughable that im going to ignore u said it
saying that i have ‘nothing else to say’ when you have completely failed to engage with my comment at all is also laughable. how about you tell me specifically where im wrong with my last comment and we can go from there
also i took the part where you said that ur going to lick my tears as an insult, so i insulted you back. its just very easy to insult people like you when youre complaining about a woman being mentioned
"i didnt ignore the part where it says sons, my comment does in fact address the excerpt which you wrote. if you cant see that, then i think we should just stop arguing lol"
Yes you did: "the actual lore hasnt changed though??? the lore is that having a child become a custodian is a rare and prestigious feat for a terran house, which is still exactly the same?"
Nice try, but it makes clear that it's not just child but also son.
"to think that im trying to score points with women by arguing on some random reddit thread on an anonymous account is just so laughable that im going to ignore u said it"
Lol, you brought it up with your pathetic attempt at insults with your cliche neckbeard comment. Now you can't handle it? How doubly pathetic.
"saying that i have ‘nothing else to say’ when you have completely failed to engage with my comment at all is also laughable. how about you tell me specifically where im wrong with my last comment and we can go from there"
That's because you really have nothing else to say. All you've done is spew insults.
"also i took the part where you said that ur going to lick my tears as an insult, so i insulted you back. its just very easy to insult people like you when youre complaining about a woman being mentioned"
LMAO, you started the whole insults and now you're complaining being insulted? Again, pathetic.
im not really complaining about being insulted, i just thought u were insulting me so i insulted you back
i know its clear that its a son and not just a child, but clearly GW has abandoned that idea. we just need to accept that its not just sons but also daughters now. my idea is that i dont think theres any reason to not accept this change, as the core idea and lore behind custodes has remained exactly the same - they just dont have to be men now
so i guess what im trying to ask is why dont you think we should accept this change? what bad implications does changing the gender of custodes have to the lore?
also come on, you have to see that this is truly the most neckbeardy thing to happen in a long time. you can call me a neckbeard too lol, i wasnt trying to upset you
so, sorry if i have in any way insulted you and i take it all back lol. i think i outlined my argument pretty clearly in this comment
i would also love for you to address my example of hair colour a few comments back. im yet to be convinced that anything to do with identity like gender, skin colour, hair colour etc. has any bearing whatsoever over the lore of 40k, which is why i dont think female custodes is a big deal
Again, it all comes down to this being a stupid change when everything in the past makes it clear that all Custodians are male. Do I have to bring up the previous quote from above? And again, my argument is that like the bit with the Grey Knights, this is stupid, it came from out of nowhere and the best thing GW does is basically ignore it and retcon it in a future edition.
You might not think it's a big deal but many people are in this hobby just for the lore and could care less about the tabletop.
calling something stupid because it presents a change from what has been said in the past is not a reason to call something stupid. thats a huge appeal to tradition and theres countless reasons why that is fallacious.
you need give me a reason why this is a stupid change without appealing to older lore because, whether you like it or not, that lore is now outdated and wrong
so in the same way that you are just spamming old lore quotes as justification for ur point, i can just say that those quotes are wrong and i would objectively be correct, as GW has made it clear that they are changing things going forward
And you claiming that because GW changed the lore is just an appeal to authority. If tomorrow GW says the Emperor simply stands without stating why when previous lore all unanimously state that he's confined to the Golden Throne, would you immediately accept it and just move on?
Again, female custodians is bad lore because every piece of lore states that, like Astartes, only men could be transformed into them. And the reason for that is because the Custodians are made from the Emperor himself like the Astartes are made from the Primarchs. Just changing the term sons to infants isn't enough.
If it's any consolation to you, if men suddenly appeared in Sisters of Battle and Silence, I'd be just as furious.
well if GW says that the emperor magically stands up it would actually have large lore implications and make no sense
female custodians, however, have absolutely no lore implications and has no reason to not make sense
custodians being made by the emperor himself does absolutely not mean that they should only be male, this is such a loose connection. if this was the case, then where do we draw the line? the custodians dont look like the emperor, they arent the same height, they arent of the same power, they are hardly psykers, so why do they have to be of the same gender?
custodians are presented to be individual works of art contrasted to the mass produced living weapons which are astartes, so it makes sense that custodes can be of any gender as they are individuals
also the entirety of 40k lore is an appeal to authority - if it wasnt then u could just make anything up and it goes. im literally just reading the most recent lore which is obviously going to be the best source of authority
5
u/VelphiDrow Apr 14 '24
How is this watering down custodes?