Becca Scott

[SuperHappyTime]

2 hours ago, Pariah said:

And while I agree with blueshirtman about old world armies for the most part, we are dealing with a setting that has so much potential, and there is no reason why human factions is AoS should have to match historical ones.  keep freeguild the same, but GW could release a new, creative take, which allows for better representation.

I'd like Freeguild to get a little love before we move on to new things. Not to say they aren't a big company that can walk and chew gum, but I'd like for armies to never go the way of Tomb Kings and Bretonnia.

4 hours ago, Paladin of Khorne said:

The fact that this thread is over 8 pages long and counting makes me really uncomfortable, and after the first couple posts on page 1 I refuse to read anything in here. 

Ms Scott is a professional, and she presents the material in a fantastic manner. I love watching the ‘how to’ videos and can’t wait for more. 

If you find yourself questioning her ability to teach people how to play AoS because she’s a girl or she’s not nerd enough (?), then nothing you say should ever be taken seriously again. 

Yea, the OP topic wasn't about Ms Scott though, but representation of women. Topic name should probably be changed. The whole video has a very corporate designed feel to it though, much like the Corvus Belli / Beasts of War / Intro to Infinity videos. Also, it needs the series to continue past the Intro, I'd like to know how to play She does a good job as a host/presenter/face.

And for future reference, saying the word "Warhammer" without following it up with "What's that?" pretty much punches your geek card.

As for the topic (making women mre attracted to Age of Sigmar): I tried with my wife, and next to nothing about the game appeals to her. She can recite every line of Lord of the Rings, but won't give the game a second glance. May need to try with LotR/Hobbit. Or turn the game into a crime drama (NCIS, CSI, or Criminal Minds) or a teen fantasy fiction book. Actually, books may be a way to go, just, I don't think the setting would appeal just yet.

With female visitors to the FLGS, it's usually the same hurdles regardless of gender (never played, not interested, too pricey, too much work, don't want to paint, etc)

[Bloodmaster]

4 hours ago, blueshirtman said:

no female viking warriors

NOPE, recent studies show that there were female combatants in viking raiding parties. Throughout human history you have repeatedly finds of individuals crossing traditional "gender lines". The strickt division of male and female domains is a fairly recent one as well as very depended on the socio-cultural framework. 

 

4 hours ago, blueshirtman said:

Unless WFB/AoS humans have a totally different bone and muscle structure, and all their weapons or at least the majority only look like weapons from our world, but are made in a different way from magical materials we have a problem.

elaborate! What do you want to express by this? 

[Still-young]

30 minutes ago, SuperHappyTime said:

Yea, the OP topic wasn't about Ms Scott though, but representation of women. Topic name should probably be changed. The whole video has a very corporate designed feel to it though, much like the Corvus Belli / Beasts of War / Intro to Infinity videos. Also, it needs the series to continue past the Intro, I'd like to know how to play She does a good job as a host/presenter/face.

All the videos are here (and on the warhammer tv YouTube I think): https://ageofsigmar.com/new-to-aos/play/

[RuneBrush]

11 hours ago, Riavan said:

Regardless where are the rest of the videos? I can only find like two of the site.

There's a playlist on the WarhammerTV YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc5ZWKyc224&list=PLEaPE4sLDA7vy4Y3-ODb0S-r7vXndHrti

 

6 hours ago, Paladin of Khorne said:

The fact that this thread is over 8 pages long and counting makes me really uncomfortable, and after the first couple posts on page 1 I refuse to read anything in here

You really need to read the rest of the conversation - although that was the starting point, the conversation has moved into discussing broader subjects now.  The topic would have been locked before now if it hadn't.

4 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Again going back to my GW sales days, we used to be told that they target GW customer was a 14 year old boy. When questioned about why they wouldn't go after girls also, the overlords told us "when we run out of 14 year old boys to sell to, then we'll see who else there is."

I think this statement is really representative of "Old GW" versus "New GW".  I'm fortunate in that I've been able to attend a number of GW events in the UK over the past few years and would say that the vast majority of people who attend are blokes in their late 20's / early 30's.  At some point somebody at GW HQ will have looked and gone "the target audience has changed, we need to adjust and look to the future generation".  Thankfully they're looking at the future generation now (and not 30 years ago) so want to make the hobby appealing to a cross-section of society.

As a general aside, I think it's important to remember that the average time it takes to produce a new model/unit is between 2 and 3 years.  Putting that into perspective, if the community suddenly went mad over wanting female Duardin and GW responded by tasking a sculptor to make some, we'd likely be looking between 2020 and 2021 before they landed in our laps!

[AlphaKennyThing]

6 hours ago, Paladin of Khorne said:

The fact that this thread is over 8 pages long and counting makes me really uncomfortable, and after the first couple posts on page 1 I refuse to read anything in here. 

Ms Scott is a professional, and she presents the material in a fantastic manner. I love watching the ‘how to’ videos and can’t wait for more. 

If you find yourself questioning her ability to teach people how to play AoS because she’s a girl or she’s not nerd enough (?), then nothing you say should ever be taken seriously again. 

I would have a read. I think you will be pleasantly surprised to find the world is not as bad a place as you may think! 

No-one has suggested anything like your latter statement, which suggests you're probably putting words in people's mouths. 

If you don't want to read the entire thread, the general consensus is:

1. Becca did a decent job, she's a presenter of similar material so has the experience. To some (including me at certain points) she perhaps felt a little detached from it, like someone who is hired in to sell a product and doesn't care much for it. This is most likely not the case, and is a presentation style thing, not a gender thing. The music was also a bit distracting. ?

2. It was a good marketing move by GW. They got a gaming group involved to make the videos, chose a decent presenter, and the fact she's a women is good: more girls and women in the hobby means more people in the hobby which is good for everyone. Having Becca present the videos reinforces the idea that AoS is a game for both sexes. I can't see anyone in the thread who disagreed with that notion.

The topic, as it naturally would (and should in my opinion) went on to talk about all sorts of diversity in the model ranges. Things covered ranged from:

- The idea of male vs female competitiveness, is there a difference and would it factor in to wargaming? I think the general consensus here was no, no it would not. Stick two competitive people opposite each other with a wargame between them and you'll have a serious battle regardless of gender. Only a small section of AoS is truly competitive, rendering much of the discussion moot either way.

Perhaps the most important undertone that has been touched on - and probably the one to take away (even for other companies, Disney et al) - is that appropriate implementation of diversity is key. No-one minds at all that several Blood Warriors had black skin on the box when it came out. Everyone, almost unanimously, thinks the new Stormcast females are fantastic models. Daughters of Khaine, an all female army, are hugely popular. People have not declared they won't be buying the Mortarch of Grief because the model is clearly a female ghost, people just thought the model was a bit bland.

People are being included subtly and without fanfare, just as in real life. I think this is a good way of doing things. The method of taking established characters that people have invested in, and suddenly reversing their gender, ethnicity, or sexuality, is the method that causes by far the most backlash. I don't even think it's much because of the gender or ethnicity said character has moved to, but because people see it as politics ruining all the stuff they've grown up with (though obviously there is a minority where it is a problem, who need to have a serious think about their attitudes).

Basically, keep doing what you're doing GW, and same for the mods here - having a chat about stuff is far from a bad thing.

@Paladin of Khorne if you don't put yourself into stretch every now and then, ye shall not grow!

[AlphaKennyThing]

7 hours ago, blueshirtman said:

But it is not a question of specific examples. There were no female landsknecht, no female viking warriors etc Not everything can be explained with "its our setting". Unless WFB/AoS humans have a totally different bone and muscle structure, and all their weapons or at least the majority only look like weapons from our world, but are made in a different way from magical materials we have a problem. SCE, chaos stuff, non humans races, I get. It is magic, is a the easy mode explanation, but free humans should at least work within some frame that makes it realistic within the setting.

I get where you're coming from mate, as there are obviously physical differences between men and women that means they don't lend themselves too well to brutal melee combat with blokes. As a member of the military, I frequently see those (purely physical) differences. Historically throughout human history there were few female warriors.

AoS, however, is not history. Some armies were based loosely on historical armies, but it doesn't mean they can't divert off that route without much explanation. It's a fantasy wargame, and you're right in that any army with any kind of magical/daemonic element can easily rule out physical differences. I'd argue that GW releasing a unit of freeguild handgunners that comprised 50/50 male and female models is far from a problem, though. Why would it be? Why, in Age of Sigmar, could a Freeguild militia not employ women as handgunners, or archers?

Granted, the idea of a regular human unit of greatswords being all female and going up against a unit of Blood Warriors is going to require some suspension of disbelief, but it's certainly not going to put me off buying them if they were to exist. 

On the same lines though, if GW released a new line of viking influenced Darkoath that included some shieldmaidens I don't think anyone would be bothered at all.

[CyderPirate]

1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:

As a general aside, I think it's important to remember that the average time it takes to produce a new model/unit is between 2 and 3 years.  Putting that into perspective, if the community suddenly went mad over wanting female Duardin and GW responded by tasking a sculptor to make some, we'd likely be looking between 2020 and 2021 before they landed in our laps!

So you're saying we should start the petition now? Let's get on it then folks! I want to see  an army of Cheery Littlebottoms in 2021! 

 

[RexHavoc]

8 hours ago, Paladin of Khorne said:

I refuse to read anything in here. 

...because she’s a girl

...then nothing you say should ever be taken seriously again. 

We should ignore comments like this completely, it's this kind of rubbish that starts problems in the first place. He's seen a girls name and is white knighting for no good reason. I don't think we have had a single complaint about Becca as a person, as someone that is now part of the community, or as her ability to do the AoS videos (Production faults and personal taste aside) through out the whole thread.

I think this mindset is just as dangerous as the people that outright want women kept out of the hobby.

If we can't discuss something as important as as this, without fear of being all but accused of being bigots, then there really will be an issue with this community.
I'm not saying that it's not caused more of a stir having Becca do the videos, over if say someone like Duncan (or any man) having done them- because clearly it is being talked about. But having to walk on egg shells when discussing something just because a woman is involved is going to make for a very awkward community and I'm sure that won't make it any more inviting to women.

I'd rather discuss something and find out I was holding the wrong opinion and be giving the chance to learn something new. But I won't be grouped as being a bigot because someone rode in to this thread and made assumptions, especially one that won't bother to read the thread (probably because they might actually find out that their behaviour is neither needed or called for). Holding a belief that a woman needs saving from the nasty mean warhammer men is more discriminative towards women than anyone has been in this thread so far.

I don't like the AoS how to play videos and even though I was well aware they are not made for me (as an audience) I'd still like to have enjoyed them. But I have been just as critical of Peachys videos, I've barely made it through a whole one since he all but replaced Duncan as the main painting man, and yet no one is making wild accusations of hating him just because he is a man.  Doing so because a woman is involved is discriminatory, especially when there has been no attack on Becca over her gender. (If there had, there is still no need for silly comments, as the mods would have been all over that)

Being critical of a product (involving a woman) doesn't make us bigots. But refusing to read threads because you believe you already know what is written does show a lack of character and common sense.


 

1 hour ago, AlphaKennyThing said:

People are being included subtly and without fanfare, just as in real life. I think this is a good way of doing things. The method of taking established characters that people have invested in, and suddenly reversing their gender, ethnicity, or sexuality, is the method that causes by far the most backlash

I think this is where GW have really hit the nail on the head and props to them, this might be their greatest achievement. They have introduced everything so naturally, that it's almost gone unnoticed at times- it's so subtle that I'm sure this is the reasons that people are still claiming that there are no female models in the ranges!
There has been no massive overhaul, no dreadful and awkward ret-con of established characters. There are two huge sci-fi franchises that have attempted similar changes recently and they have been as subtle as a using a sledgehammer to cut cake.

I do wonder if some of the reactions of having used Becca to host the videos comes from peoples assumptions of who they would get when they announced having a guest presentor. With people guessing they would have someone like Brian Blessed, it must have been a radical departure from what they had in their minds. (Similar to the theory crafters of the recent star wars films) I was certainly taken aback for a moment- they had excited the news up so I did expect someone famous or at least 'GW famous' (I had thought we might see someone like fat bloke make a return!) only to find someone that I had never even heard of in passing (and I wasn't the only one, there were quite a number of comments of 'who this' on the day)
And like the books/fluff, Becca was added to the video team without any 'shes a woman' fanfare, so she might not be my cup of tea, but I can totally see why GW went with her and they did so with far more grace than the other two franchises have done.

[RuneBrush]

18 minutes ago, RexHavoc said:

I do wonder if some of the reactions of having used Becca to host the videos comes from peoples assumptions of who they would get when they announced having a guest presentor. With people guessing they would have someone like Brian Blessed

I think you're right here and likely compounded as there was quite a lot of people who had no idea who she was!

[Guest]

GW casts the fishing rod and the nerds swallowed the bait accordingly.

[RexHavoc]

3 minutes ago, BenOutTheDen said:

GW casts the fishing rod and the nerds swallowed the bait accordingly.

You think GW, a company that has strict deadlines, shareholders to pay out to, pensions to worry about and operating from a country with a very rocky economy, made a conscious decision to bait their main target audience. To what ends?

[blueshirtman]

2 hours ago, AlphaKennyThing said:

Historically throughout human history there were few female warriors.

yeah, but it was mostly stuff like WWI Russian when it was losing hard and needed any  type of recruit, WWII Russia again etc There were super rare expeptions, I mean James Bond is based partly on a life of a WWII spy... that happened to be female, but no less awesome because of it. But it is like the case of a 1,80 pygmy or a white lion. Happans, but it ultra rare. And history of medival XVII-XVIII century times does not know an example of female line units or line units with females in them. I have no problem with awesome back story female soldner, but a unit of 300 running around with flambergs, seems to break the immerssion.

 

2 hours ago, AlphaKennyThing said:

AoS, however, is not history. Some armies were based loosely on historical armies, but it doesn't mean they can't divert off that route without much explanation. It's a fantasy wargame, and you're right in that any army with any kind of magical/daemonic element can easily rule out physical differences. I'd argue that GW releasing a unit of freeguild handgunners that comprised 50/50 male and female models is far from a problem, though. Why would it be? Why, in Age of Sigmar, could a Freeguild militia not employ women as handgunners, or archers? 

The avarge weight of a armor+weapons+ammo from a civilised nation weighted the same in bronze times and today. So even if weapons or ammo were magiclly made lighter, and only look like the weapon of XVI century europe, the weight per soldier would still avarge out. And it has been a too great weight for female in combat situations or training. You have been in the military, so you have probablly seen guys having to carry extra stuff so the whole team finishs the course or help females up an obstcile, when guys do it alone. Again I have no problems with harpy soldiers using heavy metal armor and fly on wings that should snap. Female chaos warriors or stormcast carrying weapons the size of a small horse. It is the setting. I get it, I like it, It is cool. Female running around in a breast plate with hand gun or a pike, and expected is not.

And as bows go they are a horrible weapon for female warriors, the avarge war bow is too hard for the avarge man to use. Archers that use old style bows have back muscles, that  look as if they belonged on a gorrila.

33 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

I think you're right here and likely compounded as there was quite a lot of people who had no idea who she was! 

Yeah, shadespire people may have remembered her. 

[blueshirtman]

1 minute ago, RexHavoc said:

You think GW, a company that has strict deadlines, shareholders to pay out to, pensions to worry about and operating from a country with a very rocky economy, made a conscious decision to bait their main target audience. To what ends?

Well there is that famed quote from one of the people at marval, saying that making people angry rises their sales. Maybe it is that way of thinking. Plus I think the whole hobby works a lot like a micro transaction mobile game. It is very hard to drop, when you invest both time and money in to it. And you are always given the buy more option, or this maybe be fixed in next years GH etc Add to this the dopamine effect from winning, or completing a model the way you like it, and GW is more or less selling drugs in form of plastic. They even have that over focus on the visuals with their books and unit boxs,that most products that are ment for under 25y old have.

[Infeston]

6 hours ago, Bloodmaster said:

NOPE, recent studies show that there were female combatants in viking raiding parties. Throughout human history you have repeatedly finds of individuals crossing traditional "gender lines". The strickt division of male and female domains is a fairly recent one as well as very depended on the socio-cultural framework. 

I want to add something to this statement. And about the statement of historical roles of males and females. 

I read a book were it was mentioned that all of our information we have about our historical past is only derived from very few and very limited resources. There is especially this ongoing theory that in the Stone Age woman had to stay at home and protect the children and men had to hunt. 

But after more and more findings the people found out that woman were also fighters and hunters and not only men. And there are many things coming out that throughout history most of roles of female and male weren't that stereotypical. 

The image of the stay-at-home mom and the working dad is a relatively late concept in history. 

I can't find the book anymore. But maybe there is someone knowing this study?

 

Back to Warhammer and TLDR: I don't think that portraying only male fighters is historically accurate, because there are many examples thorughout history that the gender roles were indeed diverse before.

[Paladin of Khorne]

Yeah, sorry I’ve been reading too many negative topics related to social issues in war gaming lately, and this was one more I didn’t want to see any part of.

I’m glad to be informed (rather harshly at times) that the conversation didn’t devolve into what I (perhaps unfairly) expected it to. 

I apologize to anyone in the forums who read my earlier post and were insulted or felt attacked by it. That was not my intention. What was, and will always remain my stance, which perhaps may have been better stated more broadly than the presenters ability alone, is that all genders, races, and beliefs have a place in the hobby, the game, and the lore. 

[CyderPirate]

5 minutes ago, Infeston said:

I read a book were it was mentioned that all of our information we have about our historical past is only derived from very few and very limited resources. There is especially this ongoing theory that in the Stone Age woman had to stay at home and protect the children and men had to hunt. 

The image of the stay-at-home mom and the working dad is a relatively late concept in history. 

I can't find the book anymore. But maybe there is someone knowing this study?

I don't the study, but I can cast some light on the subject? 

Its not that the "stay-at-home mom/working dad" thing is new to history, its a relatively recent phenomenon that has been retroactively applied by the general public to history. 

Women have had to work, alongside men and children, for most people for the majority of humanity's  history. Aside from the small caste of wealthy people, most families had everyone doing some kind of work out of necessity.  It was only really the industrial revolution that up-ended that, and then a new paradigm was established post-war when women began plugging the gaps in the labour market. The reason that the picture of a family being a home-keeper, breadwinnner plus children is largely the fault of TV/films, as that was the default for most programmes for the better part of the last 60 years.  When we try and picture the past, we typically use our own, modern, frames of reference and assumptions. If we see families being depicted as "stay-at-home mom/working dad" everywhere, we naturally assume that that's the way things have always been.

On the sources thing: as a general rule of thumb, the further back you go, the worse/fewer sources we have. The more varied sources we have available, the closer we can get to being reliably accurate. We can get a broader collection of perspectives, and that helps us identify and take into consideration biases, whilst also giving us the opportunity to verify events across multiple sources. Prior to around the 16C, the ability to write was concentrated in the hands of only a few people, so we only really have their perspectives. As such, subjects that don't interest them tend to get excluded. On top of that, if you go further back, there's the issue that a lot of material has simply not survived to come down to us.

For example, we've got vast quantities of data from cold-war and later, with sources varying from government reports, censuses, newspapers, personal diaries, private photo collections etc etc etc. But if you want to study Celtic history there are 0 accounts written by the Celts themselves, and most of the sources we do have are from their enemies. 

[AlphaKennyThing]

1 hour ago, blueshirtman said:

The avarge weight of a armor+weapons+ammo from a civilised nation weighted the same in bronze times and today. So even if weapons or ammo were magiclly made lighter, and only look like the weapon of XVI century europe, the weight per soldier would still avarge out. And it has been a too great weight for female in combat situations or training. You have been in the military, so you have probablly seen guys having to carry extra stuff so the whole team finishs the course or help females up an obstcile, when guys do it alone. Again I have no problems with harpy soldiers using heavy metal armor and fly on wings that should snap. Female chaos warriors or stormcast carrying weapons the size of a small horse. It is the setting. I get it, I like it, It is cool. Female running around in a breast plate with hand gun or a pike, and expected is not.

And as bows go they are a horrible weapon for female warriors, the avarge war bow is too hard for the avarge man to use. Archers that use old style bows have back muscles, that  look as if they belonged on a gorrila.

The average load of a soldier has fluctuated substantially over the years. Sure, Knights in full armour weighed in similar to a soldier now, but they rode on horseback. The average footman was considerably lighter, and after the advent of rudimentary firearms even lighter still. The weight stayed pretty constant from 1750 through to WW1, where the dawn of the light machine gun increased the fighting load for the average infantry 'squad' by some way. WW2 saw things stay vaguely similar, and then fast forward to modern conflicts where the combat weight is exponential. For example, a typical load for me:

Body Armour/Helmet: 17kg

Personal Weapon and Ammunition: 8kg

Water/Misc Kit: 5kg

That's a bare minimum load of 30kg. I've seen women running around carrying that kit with no issues. On top of that you'd have a rucksack with extra belts of 7.62 for the MG, radio batteries, personal kit, food, electronic countermeasure kit, and a light antitank weapon and before you know it you've added another 15-30kg taking the patrol load to 45-60kg. That's two thirds of my bodyweight. For an average height female weighing in at 60kg, she feels it a lot more, I can tell you! That is a problem, for sure. 

However, travelling light, combat effectiveness is markedly less reduced. Yes the Russians used women to great effect on the frontline out of necessity, but that's a matter of breaking traditional societal roles more than it is an issue of female ability. The Viet Cong, for example, used females on the frontline as a matter of course, much to the surprise of many American GIs. You can read some fascinating memoirs from Vietnam where patrols engaged the enemy to find one or more female combatants amongst the dead.

By the time firearms were invented the justfication for not having females fight went from physical to societal. It wasn't that women couldn't wear a breastplate and fire a musket - far from it - it was that society dictated that was not what women were supposed to do. There's nothing particularly wrong with that in the context of the time, it's just the way things were, but it's important not to confuse ability with the rules of society in the period you're talking about. As for bows, well yes you had to practice with them to build up the requisite strength, but there are (and were) plenty of females capable of attaining that ability, and yet they were still not allowed to do so. My old school was built on the site of an old archery training ground used in the 1500s, when longbow practice was compulsory by law for all males in the village. All males.

This is all a very long way of saying that there is no need to represent the historical roles of the sexes quite as stringently in the context of Age of Sigmar. Female handgunners or archers could fire in massed ranks along side their male counterparts without any lack of ability quite believably, and without detracting from the immersion. Having served alongside a female target rifle shooter who routinely scored 49/49 on her Annual Combat Marksmanship Test with iron sights whilst blokes packing SUSAT/ACOG sights failed abysmally, I can confirm ladies can be pretty potent with a rifle when they want to be!

[AlphaKennyThing]

49 minutes ago, Paladin of Khorne said:

Yeah, sorry I’ve been reading too many negative topics related to social issues in war gaming lately, and this was one more I didn’t want to see any part of.

I’m glad to be informed (rather harshly at times) that the conversation didn’t devolve into what I (perhaps unfairly) expected it to. 

I apologize to anyone in the forums who read my earlier post and were insulted or felt attacked by it. That was not my intention. What was, and will always remain my stance, which perhaps may have been better stated more broadly than the presenters ability alone, is that all genders, races, and beliefs have a place in the hobby, the game, and the lore. 

It's alright mate, it's a total minefield out there at the moment on these subjects. I whole heartedly agree, I just hope that such things aren't implemented in a way that isn't a simultaneous backhand to everyone else. So far that has absolutely not been the case, and long may it continue!

[Infeston]

@CyderPirate Big thanks to you for this explanation. It is such an interesting topic. And at the end I always find myself questioning if everything that I think is true about human history or human nature is really true. 

I really have to read a lot more about history.

I mean most of the info we have about the Stone Age comes from two or three skeletons and tools which were found. This is like in 2000 years people might find my room and conclude on the information they found that all humans in our time played with wargaming miniatures and painted them. 

For me it was just important to point out that many information (for example on gender roles) that we think to be historical is more than often fiction or stories which are interpreted through the eyes of people living in another time than the information they are looking at. I think it is important to understand that we never know what really happened in history and only know the stories which we are told.

[muggins]

5 hours ago, AlphaKennyThing said:

Perhaps the most important undertone that has been touched on - and probably the one to take away (even for other companies, Disney et al) - is that appropriate implementation of diversity is key. No-one minds at all that several Blood Warriors had black skin on the box when it came out. Everyone, almost unanimously, thinks the new Stormcast females are fantastic models. Daughters of Khaine, an all female army, are hugely popular. People have not declared they won't be buying the Mortarch of Grief because the model is clearly a female ghost, people just thought the model was a bit bland.

People are being included subtly and without fanfare, just as in real life. I think this is a good way of doing things. The method of taking established characters that people have invested in, and suddenly reversing their gender, ethnicity, or sexuality, is the method that causes by far the most backlash. I don't even think it's much because of the gender or ethnicity said character has moved to, but because people see it as politics ruining all the stuff they've grown up with (though obviously there is a minority where it is a problem, who need to have a serious think about their attitudes).

Basically, keep doing what you're doing GW, and same for the mods here - having a chat about stuff is far from a bad thing.

TBH, this smacks of concern trolling. 'Forced diversity' as ranted about previously in the thread is just diversity. Fans are still losing their minds over Warhammer Adventures, black female stormcast in the comics, and the ever-present specter of female space marines. GW might know that their fanbase is more easily upset about modern day representation but praising them for taking it slow to not upset the snowflakes seems... off.

When people blast their diapers about Marvel or Star Wars or Ghostbusters or Oceans 11 or any of the other outrage building machines (Warhammer Adventures) they absolutely are doing it because of race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual affiliation. Giving them cover and excusing their behavior only serves to empower them.

[Rogue Explorator]

50 minutes ago, blueshirtman said:

yeah, but it was mostly stuff like WWI Russian when it was losing hard and needed any  type of recruit, WWII Russia again etc There were super rare expeptions, I mean James Bond is based partly on a life of a WWII spy... that happened to be female, but no less awesome because of it. But it is like the case of a 1,80 pygmy or a white lion. Happans, but it ultra rare. And history of medival XVII-XVIII century times does not know an example of female line units or line units with females in them. I have no problem with awesome back story female soldner, but a unit of 300 running around with flambergs, seems to break the immerssion.

First of all, the human realms of the worlds of Warhammer are routinely in exactly the high military pressure situation you state as the estreme exceptions that would "justify" female warriors or soldiers. These are not, like most recorded rl history, times of all male human forces clashing with other all male human forces. These are people beset at all times by Beastmen from the Woods, Greenskins from everywhere and raids by eldritch horror worshipping barbarians in the more peaceful times. Add hordes of the living dead, hulking armor clad superhumans, ogres, hordes of chittering ratmen boiling out of the underground and even demons in the bad times.

A human society that actively keeps half its population from military service and combat training, as our ancestors did, would not stand up to that kind of pressure for long by my reconning.

 

Second, you are really overstating the physical difference between sexes. A woman capable of fullfilling the rigors of military life is not remotely as rare as your other examples. Men who can not stand up to these rigors are, particularly historically, quite common actually. Though these, among with the grossly underaged, where many times used in battle anyway, with the thirty year war being particularly egragious in the malnourished poor wretches deployed as "troops". Proving that as far as physical capability goes at times "anyone who can wave a pointy stick", would suffice in the eyes of medieval and early modern age commanders.

One look at the empire state line troops should suffice to tell you that they where build more on this malnourished sod kind of military (in fact, around the era and place of the thirty year war!). A well fed noble or merchant class woman (that exist in the Warhammer world as well) would actually have a more than good chance beating these one on one, provided some amount of physical exercise and a mentality that is not shaped by a long list of things women do not and can not do.

2 hours ago, blueshirtman said:

The avarge weight of a armor+weapons+ammo from a civilised nation weighted the same in bronze times and today. So even if weapons or ammo were magiclly made lighter, and only look like the weapon of XVI century europe, the weight per soldier would still avarge out. And it has been a too great weight for female in combat situations or training. You have been in the military, so you have probablly seen guys having to carry extra stuff so the whole team finishs the course or help females up an obstcile, when guys do it alone. Again I have no problems with harpy soldiers using heavy metal armor and fly on wings that should snap. Female chaos warriors or stormcast carrying weapons the size of a small horse. It is the setting. I get it, I like it, It is cool. Female running around in a breast plate with hand gun or a pike, and expected is not.

I have served in the military* and I have done so in a capacity concerned with gender equality to boot. It is not something I actively volunteered for, but I still am proud of having served in that particular capacity.

Military gear is heavy, to this day, especially when equipped for march. Having lugged that stuff around on marches I know that. But blanket saying that it is to much for women is, simply, not correct. I have seen guys carry extra equipment so the team finishes. They had to do it for other guys who could not have made it otherwhise.It was actually quite common among us, who did compulsory training. I myself had to accept help on a training parcour once.

Such tales are more often told about women in the military bevause of two reasons:

There is a lot of prejudice about women serving even in armies that had them for decades. Thus such tales are more likely retold around and with a focus on gender when they involve women.

And certain militaries have strikter physical application requirements for men than women, meaning women not qualified for the physical stress are more likely to make it into a uniform than men to whom the same apllies. This is being done since already far fewer women apply than men, to get a better gender ratio, and it is quite a contentious point, as it actually helps reinforce stereotypes.

 

 

 

*Full disclosure: I am no combat Veteran, nor did I see overseas deployement. I had a short 2 year service and most of it in an office. Not all soldiers are infantry, though I did see full basic training and regular additional infantry training.

[KHHaunts]

From what posts ive read this thread has takeb a deeper tone and u have read them all so in direct response to tge original post.

Yes she is an attractive lady. But as people have pointed out she isent just some random attractive lady. She has a background and interest in gaming and is good at what she does.

To me this is nothing like thise youtube vids you see of attractive girls sometimes in bikini's reviewing video games.

Its a good move i think and i have heard nothing but good feedback from others i know who have seen the videos abd not one of them has been about becxa or her appearance.

[Aeryenn]

Please, at least spare AoS from political correctness’ evil. It’s already all over the place and it would be nice to have at least one bastion of normality. Do we really, I mean REALLY want AoS to be influenced by politics ? It’s just a hobby. Very exclusive hobby in terms of who plays it. Will it make our hobby any better if from now on every single army had to contain a representative of every race, sex, orientation and religion? Do we need Ironjawz minis with long blond hair? Do we want transsexual Fyreslayers? How about every 1/3 of Idoneth Deepkin to be asian, every 1/3 to be black and every 1/3 to be white? Will it make the game better? How is that? For whom?

I’m ok (really) with making thematic armies that represent people from many backgrounds but when I hear that EVERY army should be opened to diversity I’m just sad. After all, it’s a fantasy miniatures game. Not a contest for which game has the most whites, asian, blacks, metro & homosexuals, man & women and so on.

Diversity is ok when it makes sense and is subtle. So far GW has made a tremendous work with balancing things mentioned. I’m not against any of those people described above. I love my angry white male Bloodbound army as much as I love my 45 dryads, Drycha, Alarielle (I wasn’t honest – I prefer my oaken chicks) and just started a Daughters of Khaine army last week with a Blood Coven box. If a GW makes an interesting asian/arabs/black people exclusive army with a great theme I’m interested and really happy too. But the day that each and every army will be a mix of every possible race/sex/orientation is probably the day I quit the hobby. I chose it to relax, not to be educated about political correctness. I meant no harm to any minority with this post.

 

Oh, and the Becca Scott's videos are great. It's a pleasure to watch them even if I already know the rules.

[Kirjava13]

3 minutes ago, Aryann said:

Will it make our hobby any better if from now on every single army had to contain a representative of every race, sex, orientation and religion? Do we need Ironjawz minis with long blond hair? Do we want transsexual Fyreslayers? How about every 1/3 of Idoneth Deepkin to be asian, every 1/3 to be black and every 1/3 to be white? Will it make the game better? How is that?

Have... Have you actually seen anyone saying this? Or did you decide that this was being called for and then go from there?

[Austin]

7 minutes ago, Kirjava13 said:

Have... Have you actually seen anyone saying this? Or did you decide that this was being called for and then go from there?

I didn’t read his post as calling anyone out, just posing a question. It may have been hyperbole but the basic question, what added value does this have, seems like he’s legitimately wondering. 

And truthfully can you say you don’t want something like this? Your posts in this thread lead me to believe you are a proponent of something close to what he’s asking. 

From my point of view there is value to diversity just so more people play the game. As I said earlier my daughter loves the girl models. So while I think it’s fine to have all-male armies if the lore makes it cool, why not just add female models to armies if there is no explicit reason not to? Show people they are welcome. Inquisitor Greyfax in 40k is perfect for that, Alarielle here in AoS also.