As of this time in lore, there are no female Space Marines. There are a few Custodes as of recent lore, but I think unless GW drops a bomb and shows something cool, I think the devs are gonna tick to the script that GW has for them. 

There are no female Space Marines, nor female Custodes

​

Dezro wrote:
Are battle sister like space marines?

No, Battle Sisters wear power armour, but it’s a far lighter variant than Space Marines.  Sisters also are not enhanced like Space Marines.  There are female Custodes, but that’s a huge step up from Space Marines, so basically no middle ground.

​

Maelwolf wrote:

​

Dezro wrote:
Are battle sister like space marines?

No, Battle Sisters wear power armour, but it’s a far lighter variant than Space Marines.  Sisters also are not enhanced like Space Marines.  There are female Custodes, but that’s a huge step up from Space Marines, so basically no middle ground.

I do not acknowledge that ridiculous retcon, so no, female Adeptus Custodes do not exist.

​

Baklavah wrote:

​

Maelwolf wrote:

​

Dezro wrote:
Are battle sister like space marines?

No, Battle Sisters wear power armour, but it’s a far lighter variant than Space Marines.  Sisters also are not enhanced like Space Marines.  There are female Custodes, but that’s a huge step up from Space Marines, so basically no middle ground.

I do not acknowledge that ridiculous retcon, so no, female Adeptus Custodes do not exist.

I mean, 40K lore expands and changes with every edition and codex update, funny how this is what some draw the line at.

​

Baklavah wrote:

​

Maelwolf wrote:

​

Dezro wrote:
Are battle sister like space marines?

No, Battle Sisters wear power armour, but it’s a far lighter variant than Space Marines.  Sisters also are not enhanced like Space Marines.  There are female Custodes, but that’s a huge step up from Space Marines, so basically no middle ground.

I do not acknowledge that ridiculous retcon, so no, female Adeptus Custodes do not exist.

You just acknowledged that ridiculous "retcon". Just like you acknowledge every single other change that has ever been made to 40k over the years. Get over yourself.

​

Sister_Tazyn wrote:

​

Baklavah wrote:

​

Maelwolf wrote:

​

Dezro wrote:
Are battle sister like space marines?

No, Battle Sisters wear power armour, but it’s a far lighter variant than Space Marines.  Sisters also are not enhanced like Space Marines.  There are female Custodes, but that’s a huge step up from Space Marines, so basically no middle ground.

I do not acknowledge that ridiculous retcon, so no, female Adeptus Custodes do not exist.

You just acknowledged that ridiculous "retcon". Just like you acknowledge every single other change that has ever been made to 40k over the years. Get over yourself.

There are no female custodes, period. 

​

Selphic wrote:

​

Sister_Tazyn wrote:

​

Baklavah wrote:

​

Maelwolf wrote:

​

Dezro wrote:
Are battle sister like space marines?

No, Battle Sisters wear power armour, but it’s a far lighter variant than Space Marines.  Sisters also are not enhanced like Space Marines.  There are female Custodes, but that’s a huge step up from Space Marines, so basically no middle ground.

I do not acknowledge that ridiculous retcon, so no, female Adeptus Custodes do not exist.

You just acknowledged that ridiculous "retcon". Just like you acknowledge every single other change that has ever been made to 40k over the years. Get over yourself.

There are no female custodes, period. 

Latest official 40K animation ‘Tithes’ even stars a female Custodes, so I think you’re going to need to expand your comfort zone a bit.

​A strong argument against the inclusion of female Custodes based on the established lore of Warhammer 40K could be grounded in the idea of consistency and respect for the original world-building. Warhammer 40K's universe is rich with a long history that defines its characters, factions, and overall tone. The lore surrounding the Adeptus Custodes specifically has always presented them as genetically engineered male warriors, created through precise modifications to serve as the Emperor's elite protectors. Introducing female Custodes would significantly alter a core aspect of the Custodes’ identity and would risk disrupting the cohesiveness of the lore that fans have grown to appreciate over decades. While it’s true that Warhammer 40K expands and evolves with each edition and updated codex, there is a meaningful difference between evolving the universe and retroactively changing fundamental aspects of it. The former involves building upon existing lore to introduce new conflicts, characters, or advancements in the story, while the latter risks undermining the integrity of the world by disregarding established canon for external social or political pressures. Many long-time fans feel alienated when established characters or lore are modified to satisfy contemporary demands for diversity or inclusion, especially when those changes seem superficial or disconnected from the larger narrative. While diversity and representation are important in storytelling, forcing them into places where they don't organically fit often appears disingenuous and panders to a small subset of players rather than the broader community. In the case of the Custodes, their entire creation myth and function within the Imperium were designed with certain characteristics in mind, and altering those characteristics would dilute their significance. Furthermore, Warhammer 40K is set in a dystopian future that reflects grim and often brutal realities. The inclusion of diverse characters, in the sense of race, gender, or sexuality, isn't central to the universe because the focus is on the overwhelming and oppressive nature of the Imperium. The lack of diversity in certain factions isn't necessarily a flaw but a reflection of the totalitarian regime and extreme societal control that governs the world. Changing the Custodes or other characters for the sake of inclusion misses the point of the grimdark setting, which intentionally avoids modern-day social norms to create a distinct, oppressive universe. Instead of changing established factions like the Custodes, the universe would be better served by creating new characters, factions, or sub-factions that organically introduce diversity where it makes sense within the lore. By doing so, the Warhammer 40K universe could expand without alienating fans who value the consistency of the lore or undermining the narrative integrity that has defined the game for decades.

​

Baklavah wrote:

​

Maelwolf wrote:

​

Dezro wrote:
Are battle sister like space marines?

No, Battle Sisters wear power armour, but it’s a far lighter variant than Space Marines.  Sisters also are not enhanced like Space Marines.  There are female Custodes, but that’s a huge step up from Space Marines, so basically no middle ground.

I do not acknowledge that ridiculous retcon, so no, female Adeptus Custodes do not exist.

ty

​

Megas_XLT wrote:

​A strong argument against the inclusion of female Custodes based on the established lore of Warhammer 40K could be grounded in the idea of consistency and respect for the original world-building. Warhammer 40K's universe is rich with a long history that defines its characters, factions, and overall tone. The lore surrounding the Adeptus Custodes specifically has always presented them as genetically engineered male warriors, created through precise modifications to serve as the Emperor's elite protectors. Introducing female Custodes would significantly alter a core aspect of the Custodes’ identity and would risk disrupting the cohesiveness of the lore that fans have grown to appreciate over decades. While it’s true that Warhammer 40K expands and evolves with each edition and updated codex, there is a meaningful difference between evolving the universe and retroactively changing fundamental aspects of it. The former involves building upon existing lore to introduce new conflicts, characters, or advancements in the story, while the latter risks undermining the integrity of the world by disregarding established canon for external social or political pressures. Many long-time fans feel alienated when established characters or lore are modified to satisfy contemporary demands for diversity or inclusion, especially when those changes seem superficial or disconnected from the larger narrative. While diversity and representation are important in storytelling, forcing them into places where they don't organically fit often appears disingenuous and panders to a small subset of players rather than the broader community. In the case of the Custodes, their entire creation myth and function within the Imperium were designed with certain characteristics in mind, and altering those characteristics would dilute their significance. Furthermore, Warhammer 40K is set in a dystopian future that reflects grim and often brutal realities. The inclusion of diverse characters, in the sense of race, gender, or sexuality, isn't central to the universe because the focus is on the overwhelming and oppressive nature of the Imperium. The lack of diversity in certain factions isn't necessarily a flaw but a reflection of the totalitarian regime and extreme societal control that governs the world. Changing the Custodes or other characters for the sake of inclusion misses the point of the grimdark setting, which intentionally avoids modern-day social norms to create a distinct, oppressive universe. Instead of changing established factions like the Custodes, the universe would be better served by creating new characters, factions, or sub-factions that organically introduce diversity where it makes sense within the lore. By doing so, the Warhammer 40K universe could expand without alienating fans who value the consistency of the lore or undermining the narrative integrity that has defined the game for decades.

this is the key:

there is a meaningful difference between evolving the universe and retroactively changing fundamental aspects of it. The former involves building upon existing lore to introduce new conflicts, characters, or advancements in the story, while the latter risks undermining the integrity of the world by disregarding established canon for external social or political pressures.

Its a perfect opportunity to expand and write some new stuff. I dont understand why people would want to just trash something thats been established for well over 30 years rather than just build something new and in exactly their image... crazy to me, its such a great opportunity wasted.

The argument that 40K’s lore has been set in stone and simply evolved rather than constantly and dramatically changed is some supreme revisionist history to justify some pretty obvious double standards about why some fans have reacted so poorly to a relatively small element of inclusion.

​

Dezro wrote:
Does anyone know lore wise how they can add PVP female class without changing the lore? I am not a big Warhammer fan but am currently learning this game is giving me a big excitement for something that looking cool.

Space Marines can't be female. That's pretty much hard set. One of the more infamous heretic Astartes (Fabious Biles) made a comment about how he felt the Emperor made quiet the error when he selected men for the role of Space Marines. Anyways, if they expand the universe and factions anything from Sisters of Battle, Sisters of Silence or from the Officio Assassinorum would be fun additions to the game on the side of the Imperium for PVP.
Just remember, the Imperium of man is not the good side. It's xenophobic in its very core and kills any and all that are considered mutants.

Kill the mutant, burn the heretic, purge the unclean.

It'd be awesome to see Battle Sisters added

​

Nosh_Feratu wrote:

​

Megas_XLT wrote:

​A strong argument against the inclusion of female Custodes based on the established lore of Warhammer 40K could be grounded in the idea of consistency and respect for the original world-building. Warhammer 40K's universe is rich with a long history that defines its characters, factions, and overall tone. The lore surrounding the Adeptus Custodes specifically has always presented them as genetically engineered male warriors, created through precise modifications to serve as the Emperor's elite protectors. Introducing female Custodes would significantly alter a core aspect of the Custodes’ identity and would risk disrupting the cohesiveness of the lore that fans have grown to appreciate over decades. While it’s true that Warhammer 40K expands and evolves with each edition and updated codex, there is a meaningful difference between evolving the universe and retroactively changing fundamental aspects of it. The former involves building upon existing lore to introduce new conflicts, characters, or advancements in the story, while the latter risks undermining the integrity of the world by disregarding established canon for external social or political pressures. Many long-time fans feel alienated when established characters or lore are modified to satisfy contemporary demands for diversity or inclusion, especially when those changes seem superficial or disconnected from the larger narrative. While diversity and representation are important in storytelling, forcing them into places where they don't organically fit often appears disingenuous and panders to a small subset of players rather than the broader community. In the case of the Custodes, their entire creation myth and function within the Imperium were designed with certain characteristics in mind, and altering those characteristics would dilute their significance. Furthermore, Warhammer 40K is set in a dystopian future that reflects grim and often brutal realities. The inclusion of diverse characters, in the sense of race, gender, or sexuality, isn't central to the universe because the focus is on the overwhelming and oppressive nature of the Imperium. The lack of diversity in certain factions isn't necessarily a flaw but a reflection of the totalitarian regime and extreme societal control that governs the world. Changing the Custodes or other characters for the sake of inclusion misses the point of the grimdark setting, which intentionally avoids modern-day social norms to create a distinct, oppressive universe. Instead of changing established factions like the Custodes, the universe would be better served by creating new characters, factions, or sub-factions that organically introduce diversity where it makes sense within the lore. By doing so, the Warhammer 40K universe could expand without alienating fans who value the consistency of the lore or undermining the narrative integrity that has defined the game for decades.

this is the key:

there is a meaningful difference between evolving the universe and retroactively changing fundamental aspects of it. The former involves building upon existing lore to introduce new conflicts, characters, or advancements in the story, while the latter risks undermining the integrity of the world by disregarding established canon for external social or political pressures.

Its a perfect opportunity to expand and write some new stuff. I dont understand why people would want to just trash something thats been established for well over 30 years rather than just build something new and in exactly their image... crazy to me, its such a great opportunity wasted.

@maelwolf: This^ 

It's revisionist non canon lore.