Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
That's not what I said. At all.
Grimtuff, are you male? Because if you are, then most media is already aimed towards you-and 40k is a big example of that. And part of that is that the flagship army is all men-no girls allowed.
I will also reiterate: Adding representation defangs bigots of at least one tool to try to exclude others. That's a good thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/14 20:14:10
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Keep this discussion on a respectable level, otherwise it’s going to get locked.
I'm going to be completely honest, I don't think this thread *can* survive properly - not when there's some folks who are very clearly and wilfully misinterpreting matters like "representation" and "exclusion".
Can't we just enjoy the Custodes? They're very cool.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/14 20:14:45
While true, I don't think it's wrong to say that the Custodes retcon has brought this thread on. Not that I disagree, but I don't see this thread going anywhere productive while we still have people claiming that representation means "if I'm not modelled on the table then representation isn't real", or "I identify as a nurgle daemon" comments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: We should add gender in 40K to the list of thread topics that won’t survive because people will inevitably ruin it
Unfortunately, if the mods aren't willing/able to properly police the thread, then, yes, I believe you're right.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/14 17:55:15
kodos wrote: I guess the setting itself is not very appealing to the masses and without a major change and retcon it won't be
I doubt that having female killers that tramble on civilians in their way to fight everyone who doubt the regime is right will attract more female players
The issue with this train of thought is that Marines aren't generally presented as horrific murder machines for a fascist empire.
This is the real problem.
The Imperium ARE NOT THE "GOOD GUYS"
In essence the 40k universe is full of factions competing for the title of whom can be the bigger donkey-cave.
When exterminatus is on the table....EVERYTHING'S on the table.
I asked my wife what she thought.
She thought the Custodes looked sillier than normal Warhammer models, especially their comically oversized weapons, but thought they looked appropriate for bodyguards of the Emperor.
She was much more interested in the Sisters of Silence, and thought their background was cooler and their models were also much cooler, although she preferred them with bald heads rather than topknots.
Overread wrote: I don't think it would make one bit of difference.
If a group of people wish to exclude another group of people then the parent firm of the game they like making a chance like female-marines would just be seen as "pandering" and the chud group would just ignore that "new lore" and stick to "traditional".
In the end GW could change the lore to happy carebears and it wouldn't matter. For that group the fact that marines are all male is simply an excuse; their actual reason is purely social exclusion.
That is a cop-out for refusing to combat poor behaviours in a community. "We can't stop the racists/sexists/homophobes cos they'll always be racists/sexists/homophobes". You can stop them from infesting your community and you can help to prevent them from dragging more people into their orbit by normalising the things they spew hate about.
You can claim it would make no difference but look at the likes of women's football in the UK. The attitude towards the sport is massively different and the support the England team got at the Women's 2022 Euros was huge.
Nobody here is expecting a change overnight but never trying because it might take time is a poor excuse not to try in the first place.
Plus, again, the models don't matter.
Nope, that is complete tosh. SoB got their huge redo and there were a bunch of stories of parents taking their girls into Warhammer shops and the girls getting interested because there were women models. When the White Scars supplement for 8th got released there was backlash because it had an awful rendition of "Asian Marine" that bordered on racism. When more diverse modeling options for faces came for both Marines and Stormcast, the various people they represented talked about how cool it was that GW had finally given the option to accurately represent the diversity of humanity on their models.
Representation works and matters to people.
there's a reason that the majority of people speaking up against this are cis, het, and white men. the more your demographics supported, the less you can understand why representation matters. even with queer characters in media becoming more and more common, i still get happy whenever i'm watching a movie and a tv and there's an incident lesbian couple in the background, or a main character happens to be a lesbian. if you've never had to struggle to see yourself in media, then you can't understand the joy in finally finding that media you can see yourself in, and frankly, at that point i don't think your opinion really matters to the discussion
While true, I don't think it's wrong to say that the Custodes retcon has brought this thread on. Not that I disagree, but I don't see this thread going anywhere productive while we still have people claiming that representation means "if I'm not modelled on the table then representation isn't real", or "I identify as a nurgle daemon" comments.
gotta love people repeating the same joke from 2014 over and over again and pretending like it's social critique. oooh, maybe next they'll tell me that thing about facts and feelings
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/14 18:20:36
she/her
i have played games of the current edition
There's a reason that the majority of people speaking up against this are cis, het, and white men. the more your demographics supported, the less you can understand why representation matters. even with queer characters in media becoming more and more common, i still get happy whenever i'm watching a movie and a tv and there's an incident lesbian couple in the background, or a main character happens to be a lesbian. if you've never had to struggle to see yourself in media, then you can't understand the joy in finally finding that media you can see yourself in, and frankly, at that point i don't think your opinion really matters to the discussion
Being called a cishet white man is not an insult. People who fit that category (myself included) have a TON of privilege, but that doesn't mean we're bad or anything of the sort. Just that we have advantages people who don't fit into those categories lack.
I mean when the implication is, "you're a straight white, cis male, your opinions don't matter" like some posters have stated, it is fundamentally a way to "other" people (ironic given the liberal stances of most posters that are pro-female Custodes) and shut them up by saying they should be ashamed for even having a different opinion from anything other than complete agreement with retcons that functionally add little to no value to the faction nor had any real precedent prior to this fluff blurb.
The privilege thing is even dumber when this is about toy models, LUXURY toy models at that. GW isn't something like groceries, if you can afford to be part of this hobby, you get a say regardless since you have the money and status to even waste time arguing about it. GW doesn't care where the cash flows. You don't get a discount for being white while playing this, I don't get some passive racial buff for being Asian while playing with other people, and frankly anyone who thinks about race constantly when playing with toy soldiers has a bigger chip on their shoulder that goes beyond notions of representation.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2024/04/14 21:10:48
Grimskul wrote: retcons that functionally add little to no value to the faction
To you.
The privilege thing is even dumber when this is about toy models
You're right. It *is* dumb when people get offended that their toys can now represent women. It *is* dumb that people are offended that the story behind those toys changed so that one group of toys now has women in it.
Take a moment and reflect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimskul wrote: If you have to bend yourself backwards to try and force a faction to be female to enjoy it, maybe the problem lies with you?
The faction isn't female. It's mixed gender. If you can't enjoy it when it's mixed gender, maybe the problem lies with you?
It would be like heckling and crying that Mario is male and that the only way you can enjoy playing Mario games is for MARIO specifically to be female and that you won't accept playing Toadette or Peach as viable alternatives and that until Nintendo affirms that Mario was really a woman all along you can have fun.
That doesn't make sense. You're playing AS Mario. The whole deal is that you play *as* him. You're not playing as "YOUR" Mario. With the Custodes, you're not playing as a single Custodian - you're collecting YOUR army of them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/14 19:13:25
Grimskul wrote: retcons that functionally add little to no value to the faction
To you.
The privilege thing is even dumber when this is about toy models
You're right. It *is* dumb when people get offended that their toys can now represent women. It *is* dumb that people are offended that the story behind those toys changed so that one group of toys now has women in it.
Take a moment and reflect.
I'd love for you to explain how much is actually added by Custodes including women in their ranks in-universe besides saying "whoa Imperium is so badz, they make even wimminz genetic monsters (already done by things like Callidus Assassins)! Woo!"
You're right. It *is* dumb when people get offended that some of their toys only represent one group. It *is* dumb that people are offended that the story behind those toys stays the same so that one group of toys doesn't include all groups.
Also, by that logic you agree that Misters of Silence is totally acceptable and should be implemented as soon as possible.
Grimskul wrote: retcons that functionally add little to no value to the faction
To you.
The privilege thing is even dumber when this is about toy models
You're right. It *is* dumb when people get offended that their toys can now represent women. It *is* dumb that people are offended that the story behind those toys changed so that one group of toys now has women in it.
Take a moment and reflect.
I'd love for you to explain how much is actually added by Custodes including women in their ranks in-universe besides saying "whoa Imperium is so badz, they make even wimminz genetic monsters (already done by things like Callidus Assassins)! Woo!"
You're right. It *is* dumb when people get offended that some of their toys only represent one group. It *is* dumb that people are offended that the story behind those toys stays the same so that one group of toys doesn't include all groups.
Also, by that logic you agree that Misters of Silence is totally acceptable and should be implemented as soon as possible.
Misters of Battle or Silence aren't as big a deal as female Marines, because Sisters of Battle aren't the flagship faction. And Sisters of Silence are a subfaction of an already small faction. Not to mention, men aren't in need of more representation-men have privileges over what women have.
But, here's the thing-if adding men to Sisters (of both kinds) is needed to add women to Marines... Sure. That's fine.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
I feel the greatest strength of AoS regarding male and female sculpts is that they are making more dedicated female bodies whereas 40K still goes with ‘female head that fits a generic body’ most of the time.
The Slaves to Darkness (think Conan true Barbarian) that is coming out next week not only has such bodies but they are a wider range of body types than I was expecting. I mean, they all look like they fight for a living.
Souleater wrote: I feel the greatest strength of AoS regarding male and female sculpts is that they are making more dedicated female bodies whereas 40K still goes with ‘female head that fits a generic body’ most of the time.
The Slaves to Darkness (think Conan true Barbarian) that is coming out next week not only has such bodies but they are a wider range of body types than I was expecting. I mean, they all look like they fight for a living.
I'm not a fan of AoS's rules, but I definitely applaud GW for that.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Grimskul wrote:I'd love for you to explain how much is actually added by Custodes including women in their ranks in-universe besides saying "whoa Imperium is so badz, they make even wimminz genetic monsters (already done by things like Callidus Assassins)! Woo!"
Simple. Women exist, and I don't need to "justify" them existing in my fictional worlds. They just do.
I don't know why you feel the need to "justify" having women showing up in the same places men do.
You're right. It *is* dumb when people get offended that some of their toys only represent one group. It *is* dumb that people are offended that the story behind those toys stays the same so that one group of toys doesn't include all groups.
Good job that those toys are probably all going to be mixed gender one day, and this won't be a factor any more.
But I applaud your effort to deflect from your own offence about plastic toys - especially given that you were the one to mention them first.
Also, by that logic you agree that Misters of Silence is totally acceptable and should be implemented as soon as possible.
Yup. I do. Anything else?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2024/04/14 19:37:01
Souleater wrote: I feel the greatest strength of AoS regarding male and female sculpts is that they are making more dedicated female bodies whereas 40K still goes with ‘female head that fits a generic body’ most of the time.
The Slaves to Darkness (think Conan true Barbarian) that is coming out next week not only has such bodies but they are a wider range of body types than I was expecting. I mean, they all look like they fight for a living.
Shame the same cannot be said for the heads. So what are they gonna do with the Bananas? Give them female heads? They're gonna look even manlier now
Okay, offending posts, off-topic posts, posts that contributed feth all to the topic and posts that replied to certain offending posts, have all been removed. If I have been overzealous in my pruning, my apologies, but I did not want certain posts to be regurgitated again and again a few pages down the line.
One and only warning: don't 💩post, don't drag this off-topic, just this once.. prove that you can be civil, level-headed, don't bait people with your gakky habits and stay on target. If you are incapable of contributing in a constructive way, do us all a favour and don't bother posting here at all. Next poster to cross the line gets a long vacation or a slap of the hammer.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/14 20:29:07
@Frozium: I have used either female Stormcast heads or Statuesque miniatures heads on my female Custodes. They are slightly smaller (I mean they’re probably a more realistic head-to-body scale than some of the current bare-headed Custodes heads.
In the far future, when they re-do the Custodes range to account for Primaris being the same height, I *hope* that GW will do female bodies as they did for female Stormcast.
I have been in this hobby for decades, and the fluff has always been in flux. Things have been changed, new things introduced, old things silently swept under the rug. I have not like all those changes, but that's normal. But change itself is not automatically bad. Your favourite part of the lore did not exist at some point, someone had to add it to the setting.
Hell, I'm a grognard, in a sense that I think over the years the fluff has overall gotten worse. (Primarchs were a mistake, bring back penal legion marines!) But some bits of it have gotten better, and one of the good bits is the increased diversity of the people depicted in it. So increasing that further is definitely the sort of change I can get behind.
I don't understand the hostility this has caused. Does it matter what gender they're depicted as? They're not real! They are plastic or resin toys used in a made up universe. There is no wrong or right they belong to whoever bought or was gifted them.
Far too much hostility in this section of wargaming. I've never encountered anything like it even in historical gaming in which at least you attempt to build a force that is historically accurate. This is a hobby that is there to bring you fun and enjoyment, and it's not real. You can use your models to represent what you want and nobody has the right to tell you otherwise. I know there are rules etc for competitive play hence why I avoid that.
There's enough stress and trouble in everyday life without getting worked up about toys. There's enough real discrimination in the world without dragging gaming into it. If you're not happy with the miniatures then find some you are happy with and have fun, that after all is surely why we're all involved in wargaming rather than actually being involved in war. Have fun, enjoy your hobby how you want and be happy doing it.
I mean when the implication is, "you're a straight white, cis male, your opinions don't matter" like some posters have stated, it is fundamentally a way to "other" people (ironic given the liberal stances of most posters that are pro-female Custodes) and shut them up by saying they should be ashamed for even having a different opinion from anything other than complete agreement with retcons that functionally add little to no value to the faction nor had any real precedent prior to this fluff blurb.
The statement about an opinion not mattering was far more specific than you're paraphrasing it to be: it ran something along the lines of "someone who has never experienced exclusion can't understand how important inclusion is to those who are regularly excluded." Personally, I have a tremendous respect for the power of empathy, so I think there may be some folks out there who do understand (and I'd like to think I'm one of them)... But even then, there is a difference between intellectual understanding and visceral understanding. The latter does tend to come from lived experience- like the difference between intelligence and wisdom.
And while some people may respond as if they want people to feel shame after a triggering exchange in which both parties experience a state of emotional escalation, that isn't really what most people advocating for inclusion are hoping to achieve. Making those who disagree with you experience shame will do nothing to alleviate the exclusionary status quo.
I do think that there is room for disagreement with the Custodes retcon- someone earlier mentioned that SoS were already included in the Talons faction and that expanding their options might have been a better way to be inclusive, and of course many (you included) mention the lack of lore precedent. I'm not sure that lore argument stands up, but I certainly would rather have seen two new SoS units in the dex than fluff that says Custodes can be women- not because I object to female Custodes (I don't), but because I really, really like SoS and ALWAYS thought they were more interesting than Custodes.
The privilege thing is even dumber when this is about toy models, LUXURY toy models at that. GW isn't something like groceries, if you can afford to be part of this hobby, you get a say regardless since you have the money and status to even waste time arguing about it. GW doesn't care where the cash flows. You don't get a discount for being white while playing this, I don't get some passive racial buff for being Asian while playing with other people, and frankly anyone who thinks about race constantly when playing with toy soldiers has a bigger chip on their shoulder that goes beyond notions of representation.
Privilege isn't always "a discount."
It sounds like you're assuming that if people have an interest in 40k, they have achieved a degree of financial security that would imply they do not suffer much from being marginalized. I may be misinterpreting, but I think that's what you're trying to indicate here. If that's not the case, sorry to have misinterpreted.
The trouble here though is that merely being financially secure does not necessarily imply that one is not marginalized. Certainly, it does mean there are others who are marginalized more. But if you're a Person of Colour, even if you're wealthy, you've probably had to have the conversation with your kids about why they have to be more conscious of their interactions and potential interactions with police than their Caucasian friends- even those who are lower on the socioeconomic scale, or more poorly behaved.
Consuming media that you can imagine is about you IS a form of privilege, and it is one that is really hard to see and understand if you don't live it. It isn't as obvious as some of the other forms of privilege vs. exclusion, which is why it can be tempting to tell people to "just get over it." But it's very real when you're in it.
And before I wrap up this post, I want to share one more thought: whenever a work of art is modified, and those modifications make the work more accessible to marginalized communities, people often assume that this is the sole reason the modifications are being made. They don't even think to ask the artists whether or not they did it because they thought it made the story more interesting. And in a lot of cases, the stories actually ARE more interesting as a result of their inclusiveness. The male soldier has been represented in fiction and film so often that there is very little new ground to be discover... But female soldiers haven't really been explored as much, nor have gay and trans soldiers. Any story that they find themselves in is more likely to be interesting just by virtue of its relative scarcity.
Aliens was as cool as it was at least in part because of Ripley and the novelty of the female action hero. If her character had been a dude, the movie would scarcely be remembered 30 years later. In a recent CBC interview with Denis Villeneuve, he spoke about how much more interesting the female protagonist is to write than the male. And that's coming from a guy who just finished a movie about Paul Atreides. My best example, though it's more racial than gender-based is Jordan Peele's version of Twilight Zone and Lovecraft Country. A gender-based powerhouse franchise would be Handmaid's Tale- which will soon spinoff into the Testaments- not that it's a remake like the Peele stuff, but it's a dystopian world that is very much driven by a strong female protagonist with plenty of equally strong female antagonists.
Margaret Atwood's pioneering feminism makes me proud to be a Canadian, though these days I'm concerned she's a bit TERFy... So I'm cautious.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/14 21:05:07
I mean when the implication is, "you're a straight white, cis male, your opinions don't matter" like some posters have stated, it is fundamentally a way to "other" people (ironic given the liberal stances of most posters that are pro-female Custodes) and shut them up by saying they should be ashamed for even having a different opinion from anything other than complete agreement with retcons that functionally add little to no value to the faction nor had any real precedent prior to this fluff blurb.
The statement about an opinion not mattering was far more specific than you're paraphrasing it to be: it ran something along the lines of "someone who has never experienced exclusion can't understand how important inclusion is to those who are regularly excluded." Personally, I have a tremendous respect for the power of empathy, so I think there may be some folks out there who do understand (and I'd like to think I'm one of them)... But even then, there is a difference between intellectual understanding and visceral understanding. The latter does tend to come from lived experience- like the difference between intelligence and wisdom.
And while some people may respond as if they want people to feel shame after a triggering exchange in which both parties experience a state of emotional escalation, that isn't really what most people advocating for inclusion are hoping to achieve. Making those who disagree with you experience shame will do nothing to alleviate the exclusionary status quo.
I do think that there is room for disagreement with the Custodes retcon- someone earlier mentioned that SoS were already included in the Talons faction and that expanding their options might have been a better way to be inclusive, and of course many (you included) mention the lack of lore precedent. I'm not sure that lore argument stands up, but I certainly would rather have seen two new SoS units in the dex than fluff that says Custodes can be women- not because I object to female Custodes (I don't), but because I really, really like SoS and ALWAYS thought they were more interesting than Custodes.
The privilege thing is even dumber when this is about toy models, LUXURY toy models at that. GW isn't something like groceries, if you can afford to be part of this hobby, you get a say regardless since you have the money and status to even waste time arguing about it. GW doesn't care where the cash flows. You don't get a discount for being white while playing this, I don't get some passive racial buff for being Asian while playing with other people, and frankly anyone who thinks about race constantly when playing with toy soldiers has a bigger chip on their shoulder that goes beyond notions of representation.
Privilege isn't always "a discount."
It sounds like you're assuming that if people have an interest in 40k, they have achieved a degree of financial security that would imply they do not suffer much from being marginalized. I may be misinterpreting, but I think that's what you're trying to indicate here. If that's not the case, sorry to have misinterpreted.
The trouble here though is that merely being financially secure does not necessarily imply that one is not marginalized. Certainly, it does mean there are others who are marginalized more. But if you're a Person of Colour, even if you're wealthy, you've probably had to have the conversation with your kids about why they have to be more conscious of their interactions and potential interactions with police than their Caucasian friends- even those who are lower on the socioeconomic scale, or more poorly behaved.
Consuming media that you can imagine is about you IS a form of privilege, and it is one that is really hard to see and understand if you don't live it. It isn't as obvious as some of the other forms of privilege vs. exclusion, which is why it can be tempting to tell people to "just get over it." But it's very real when you're in it.
And before I wrap up this post, I want to share one more thought: whenever a work of art is modified, and those modifications make the work more accessible to marginalized communities, people often assume that this is the sole reason the modifications are being made. They don't even think to ask the artists whether or not they did it because they thought it made the story more interesting. And in a lot of cases, the stories actually ARE more interesting as a result of their inclusiveness. The male soldier has been represented in fiction and film so often that there is very little new ground to be discover... But female soldiers haven't really been explored as much, nor have gay and trans soldiers. Any story that they find themselves in is more likely to be interesting just by virtue of its relative scarcity.
Aliens was as cool as it was at least in part because of Ripley and the novelty of the female action hero. If her character had been a dude, the movie would scarcely be remembered 30 years later. In a recent CBC interview with Denis Villeneuve, he spoke about how much more interesting the female protagonist is to write than the male. And that's coming from a guy who just finished a movie about Paul Atreides. My best example, though it's more racial than gender-based is Jordan Peele's version of Twilight Zone and Lovecraft Country. A gender-based powerhouse franchise would be Handmaid's Tale- which will soon spinoff into the Testaments- not that it's a remake like the Peele stuff, but it's a dystopian world that is very much driven by a strong female protagonist with plenty of equally strong female antagonists.
Margaret Atwood's pioneering feminism makes me proud to be a Canadian, though these days I'm concerned she's a bit TERFy... So I'm cautious.
speaking of Alien/Aliens, whenever GW gets around to making new catchan models, i hope we get some Ripleys in the new kit in addition to all the Arnold Schwarzeneggers. the regiment is the embodiment of 80s action movie, so she definitely deserves to make it in (female catachans already, but they deserve to be on the sprue in addition to being special characters or standalone movels)
she/her
i have played games of the current edition
I do think that there is room for disagreement with the Custodes retcon- someone earlier mentioned that SoS were already included in the Talons faction and that expanding their options might have been a better way to be inclusive, and of course many (you included) mention the lack of lore precedent. I'm not sure that lore argument stands up, but I certainly would rather have seen two new SoS units in the dex than fluff that says Custodes can be women- not because I object to female Custodes (I don't), but because I really, really like SoS and ALWAYS thought they were more interesting than Custodes.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. They could've fleshed out the SoS to actually be an interesting subfaction worth grabbing for some people like Kroot are. There was something actually cool there: an army of blanks.
What do we get instead? Space Marines 2: Bling Boogaloo NOW WITH WOMEN.
I don't even care about the stances people have at representation (and I gotta say, some of you are really praising GW too much for what just amounts to simple corporate stunt to sell more product), but this is just lazy to a complete extreme, Primaris Lieutenants be damned. We could've gotten something that was actually nice and welcomed by everyone, but noooo, let's just keep reskinning our existing troops (because that has worked so well for the new Squatstodes, right?).
Yeah, I'm salty. I don't even really care that much for Custards as is, but I really love Kroot and I wish more armies had minor subarmies within them, and SoS were a prime candidate. Guess I'll have to homebrew them...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/14 23:00:17
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
the reason we got a short story confirming female custodians and not a refreshed sisters of silence range is because the effort needed for these two things are not equivalent. one would take months or years of sculpting, mold making, etc. while the other has a far quicker turnaround time, for a much lower cost. custodes only got one model with the new codex, so this wouldn't have been the time to expand that part of the army either way. it's not an either or situation, it's not like creating this short story means they can't expand SoS later, but they likely didn't have the resources allocated to custodes to justify such a thing
when SoS get more models, it's probably going to be via heresy, not 40k, anyway
she/her
i have played games of the current edition
