>>11299000>>11299064>>11299209>Bad faith argument>Lied to our faces>Blatantly lied toIf you can't understand from context that their statement that there have "always been female custodes" was a clarification of the change being retroactive and not an attempt to say that this was always what they meant in old codexes, you're a retard on a scale I truly can't fathom.
To anyone with a brain, the meaning was: "this change is retroactive. This is not the announcement of new female custodes, but a revision of the fluff to say that, per official canon, female custodes have existed since the Emperor first made the custodes."
Every iteration of 40k has introduced retcons like this, though usually people just say "cool model!" and move on. By your same retarded stance: how was it not a retcon when the Royal Dorn tank was introduced? The fluff wasn't that it's a new tank the imperium is rolling out, the fluff is written as though the Rogal Dorn tank has always existed as a part of the Imperial Guard's arsenal.
>>11299147>Longwinded personal blogsThe entire thread has been shit up by the "MAN I SURE HATE FEMALE MODELS" schizo blogging. One post saying 'hey, I'm clearly in the demographic you claim doesn't accept this, but I think it's fine" is far from blogging. But I know it's the favored tactic of /toy/'s biggest retards to write 4 paragraphs rambling about their schizophrenia, then accuse anyone who calls them a retard of caring too much.
>>11299126>Taking your Hobby's integrity seriouslyWhat integrity? Every edition of 40k has rewritten parts of the fluff that came before it. 40k is a product, whose canon is written by dozens of people as a framework to sell plastic toys. There's no single writer with a grand plan, and no integrity of vision to be violated by small changes to the details of the setting, and those changes have been made by every codex, every black library book, and every model release since the Rogue Trader days.
