Talk:Adeptus Custodes

Aren't the spears called Guardian Spears?

I only read this up from one source - the global wiki. So I haven't yet confirmed with another.

Unknown to me, there isn't a lot of sources on the custodes, even though they are pretty cool. I'm not sure of their weapons... it must have been mentioned somewhere other than wikipedia.

Well, the wiki is where I get a lot of my sources from, but I don't know what the rules are on duplicating info from there, so until there are other sources backing up what I'm saying, I won't be making any changes to the article.--Vindicta 03:51, 19 February 2006 (CET)

Sources abuot ther weaponry in the Horus Heresy – Volume I and a lot of circumstantial evidence can be gleaned from the portrayal in the card but I would be loathe to use that,

The recent edits don't appear to have any source. Keep or revert?

If it is kept, I feel that the page would need a massive clean up. It seems a bit too informal for an encyclopedia article. But I agree about the sourcing, I think a lot of it could be theory; especially their recruiting and origins. --Dark Angel 2020 13:54, 10 December 2006 (CET)

I have a copy of the Codex Imperiallis. Should I copy all the information from this and dump it in the article?? --Nikzbitz 14:12, 27 March 2007 (CEST)

No copying. Write it in your own words :) --Inquisitor S. 16:52, 27 March 2007 (CEST)

German Article on Adeptus Custodes

You guys should consider taking a look off the German article for this... it's pretty nice.

However not nearly finished/ complete. --Inquisitor S. 12:28, 20 February 2007 (CET)

Historical Addition

This is my first major addition to the Lexicanum. I added a piece involving the Custodes involvement during the Age of Apostasy. If anyone has advice, I'm happy to receive it. --Lygris 18:11, 5 September 2008 (CEST)

Armor

So I understand after the heresy the Custodes changed from gold to black armor, do we have any full bodie pictures of them in the new armor cuz we only have one picture of them wearing it.--User:Nozah 3:50 PM, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Materials to be added upon template completion

Noted Elements of the Adeptus Custodes

Vessels

• Aratan - Capitol Ship
• Malcador's Observer - Capitol Ship

Noteable Members

Heresy Era

• Constantin Valdor - Chief Custodian to the Emperor
• Sagittarus - Dreadnought
• Mikaelor Cobernus - Shield Captain

-Sergeants of the Adeptus Custodes-

• Ascetum - Terminator Squad

Diocleton - Command Squad

Herculanus - Guard Squad

Praetoron - Guard Squad

Vespason - Command Squad

Agricolus - Guard Squad

Argonus - Terminator Squad

Centuron - Tactical Squad

Trajanar - Bike Squad

Post-Heresy

References will be included upon editing

Question

How did the Adeptus Custodes replenish their numbers after the heresy ? and are the rest 10000 years old now ??

It's unknown how exactly new Custodes are made. The process is older than Thunderwarriors, Primarchs and Space Marines. It's only known that the process doesn't involve geneseed and isn't some sort of "mass-production" (like with the Space Marines), but more of a "crafting". --DetlefK (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2016 (MDT)

Thanks for the answer, older than Thunderwarriors that is news to me. May I ask what resource do you have for this? I really hope BL gonna make a book about 'em Eissa 13:24, 8 August 2016 (MDT)

The War of the Beast series has a scene with the Custodians. Some of the terms change, and there are quite a few. There aren't any names that seem to be previously used. They seem to respect the Inquisition. Midnight Sun (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2016 (MDT)

There are more arts of Custodes than background recovering their secrets ;) As I understand the BL and GW want to remain them more mysterious as possible.--Darkelf77 (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2016 (MDT)

Female Custodes

"[Conflicting Sources] As of Codex: Adeptus Custodes (10th Edition) Custodes are unisex, making the term "brotherhood" or any similar descriptor inaccurate."

The part about "female Custodes" should be edited out now until we get a proof in the BL books that there are indeed female babies who are being transformed into Custodes. From the current Custodex Codex (10 Ed) we know only about one individual Custodes who identifies as "she" without knowing if that person ever was a woman before and kept all the female parts intact after the transformation process. The message posted on X "Since the first of the Ten Thousand were created, there have always been female Custodians." is not considered an official lore and can't be referenced. The addition of the "female Custodes" by GW is done for political reasons, not to add something meaningful to the WH40K universe and therefore should be handled carefully.

The fact that it's not meaningful and only to placate media and ideologues is not to be directed at us, only at GW. We add a bunch of meaningless fluff, the only consideration is whether the copyright checks out, and it does, since it's an official GW stand. Lexicanum as far as I am aware isn't affiliated with GW in any way, and even if I'm quite certain it has no decisive power, only the obligation of objectively adhering to its policies. PS: Sign responses with "~~~~" --Brownpandanotgrizzly (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

First: Please sign your (user) talk page contributions by typing --~~~~ which will be automatically transformed into a time stamped signature.

Second: Every attempt by which side whatever to turn the Lexicanum into a culture war battlefield will be mercilessly suppressed. There are clear rules concerning accepted sources and if something was posted on an official company channel then that is official. The question why something is written does not concern us whatsoever, we document. And we are certainly not getting into hairsplitting arguments what criteria somebody has to fulfil to be considered a she, he, it, Xenos or whatever. As long as the editor in question adheres to citation rules and sticks to what the sources say all is in the green. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for jumping into this discussion three months later. The Trivia section of the article is incorrect; a second female Custodian, Shield-Captain Bayezara, is included in the Codex on page 38. In addition, bolding the terms "sons," "Brotherhood," and "men". These things give the Trivia section the appearance of being a culture war "artifact"; with the physical codex being available for months and culture warriors focusing on other issues, perhaps it is time to eliminate the unnecessary bold formatting and correct the statement of more than one named female character. I would make the change myself, but the page is understandably locked due to what others have done. --Solon.isonomia (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue of female custodes is dealt with in the notes/canon conflict area and has for many months now. Harriticus (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, but that doesn't address what I pointed out about the factual mistake and the commentary via formatting in the current version of the article. Also, I do not see a notes/canon conflict area in any of the recent edits. --Solon.isonomia (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

https://lex.124811.xyz/wiki/Adeptus_Custodes#Notes this link covers it. I'll add this apparent 2nd woman custodes when I confirm it for myself Harriticus (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

As stated above, the information is found on page 38 of the 10th Edition Codex (I am looking at my physical copy as I write this). It was also leaked not long after the first female Custodian leak and subsequent conflict happened. Also, I still find the bold formatting of the terms "sons," "Brotherhood," and "men" in the Notes section to be an artifact of the culture war Inquisitor S. referred to above. Bold formatting of three terms mid-sentence is not necessary to document information provided by GW; instead, it draws attention in a way to comment implicitly on the value or validity of said information. --Solon.isonomia (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Organisation

A lot of the entries in the list here are in the past tense. I assume these should be in present tense? RedInq (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC) RedInq (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

maybe heresy era information in past, present era in present tense Harriticus (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

If that's the case, it should explicitly say so. RedInq (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The tense discussion has never been conducted. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)