Calling All Women!

[Badlander86]

Its funny because all this seems to go back to perception. Let's take look at one  badass most kids didn't realize was woman : Samus Aran from Metroid. Let's frame it a little, look at all the old box art of Metroid, Samus in the power suit was not sexualized, the name was extremely space-future generic. Old timey Nintendo era graphics didn't really give much of an indication of Samus' gender.  Then came the ending and everyone's minds were blown and now Samus is STILL an important figure in vidya gaming to this day. And this was back in 1986!

Did it lead to a groundswell in female gamers? I dunno but Samus to me at least is a female character done right. She has had a few fan-service looks these days but the core of the character was never about her gender.

How does this translate to wargaming or hobby in general? I have a theory. Look at Hobby kit manufacturers like Tamiya, Kotobukiya, Italeri and so forth. They're main product is for the most part model kits of boats, tanks, ships, planes...so on and so forth. I would assume the subjects are gender neutral. And their main audience/demographic has always been men in general (not "privileged white males", just men/boys who like to work with their hands. Japanese, European, Chinese...etc, the hobby model scene is very vast). There are of course the outliers, very talented ladies with fine hobby skills but those are far an few in between. Maybe the issue isn't "the game" or "the image of the game", its simply the mechanics of "the hobby" that ladies/women don't gravitate to. In Japan, Bandai in particular has tried to reach out to the untapped female market by...making cute Bearguy model kits (look it up) and whether it has worked to attract a sizable female demographic, I can't even begin to guess but I have seen and met some ladies who enjoy model kit building up to Competition level. Again, far an few in between but those I have met are very passionate of their craft to be sure.

[Scops947]

7 hours ago, AlphaKennyThing said:

Out of interest, what sort of thing drew you in? Do you think - beyond making it clear via product lines and advertising including women - that there is something GW could do to bring more women in? @Enoby may have some interesting responses too.

I only ask this question in particular because if we take Warcraft and other MMOs as an example (as someone alluded to above), an overwhelming majority of women choose to play Elves or Humans, or generally feminine characters. Is there any substance behind the idea that if GW were to introduce an army that contained strong male and  female lead characters that are alive (i.e. not dead, rotting, blind or armed with tentacles), practically dressed and not oversexualised that it could serve as a good 'gateway' army to trying out other stuff? My wife feels it would - she'd only play WoW because of Blood Elves and Humans ? Obviously she is one voice amongst many, though.

Like a lot of people I was in the hobby as a kid and then got out of it and now back in again, but the thing that drew me back in was Shadespire - I was very attracted to the mechanics of the game, and it was a less intimidating initial investment in terms of cost and time than most GW games.

On the question of whether women are more likely to be attracted to specific armies/model ranges, I don't know to be honest - personally I'm  a bigger fan of dwarves than elves, and I suspect that women's taste in models probably varies just as much as men's does. So for me, it's more about having better representation overall than trying to appeal to women in specific ways. I'll be interested to see what others think about this though.

[AlphaKennyThing]

2 hours ago, Alley_Oop said:

@AlphaKennyThing

Another woman gamer here who lurked and made an account to make a reply.  

I choose Silvaneth for my army. I'm not even a huge fan of elves in other fantasy games/media. What I looked at a lot was the lore and strengths of the armies. I also like how the Silvaneth are just a bit more easy to personalize. Like Spring better? Pale green and bright buds everywhere. Winter? Frost and death! Also, who doesn't love Treebeard? Kidding about that last part.

Seriously though, this game involves super small, super detailed figurines, that take hours to paint. I wanted something I would enjoy painting. I also really was looking for an army I would be able to put on display when not in use and that I could put a bit of my personality into, gender aside.

I would be remiss if I left out that I do like to see at least a few female characters. Representation matters.  The Daughters of Khaine existence is what got me interested to begin with.  I loved their lore, and just thought they were bad***. If it wasn't for them I wouldn't be here now. No, I don't need an all female army, nor do I need a female in all armies. However, knowing that I can see a few or that I have the option is cool. Also makes me feel a bit more welcome in the community. 

Thanks very much for the response! Also a very common theme for picking Sylvaneth, I've noticed - I'd not even thought about painting them with the variation of seasons. I bet some of those come out great.

Do you think that as AoS is quite a commitment to jump into (needing 1k to 2k points for example) that GW would do well to look at the success of Kill Team and perhaps push a similar game for AoS? Obviously we have Shadespire, but that is a different game entirely.

Would a fully supported game requiring a box of models with similar rules to AoS be a good idea for getting more women interested? We have Skirmish already, but I'd argue that's not particularly supported.

 

[Enoby]

19 minutes ago, AlphaKennyThing said:

Would a fully supported game requiring a box of models with similar rules to AoS be a good idea for getting more women interested? We have Skirmish already, but I'd argue that's not particularly supported.

I think a well supported Kill Team type thing for AoS would do wonders for getting new people in (not just men, but women and children too). Shadespire is close, but they have a limited range, so having access to small games using any army would be great. 

[JPjr]

13 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I think a well supported Kill Team type thing for AoS would do wonders for getting new people in

Absolutely +1 this again and again and again. I'd originally thought this was more what Shadespire/Underworlds was and was a little disappointed when I did get my head round it. Not that it's bad at all, it is exactly what it is, just not what I thought it was.

Hopefully next year as the new edition beds in they'll get round to that and revisit, maybe combine properly Skirmish/Path to Glory, give it more personality and really flesh it out as that kind of small unit game. Something where you don't have to commit to hundreds of models and so can have several completely different mini-armies on the go, where each model counts more so you can add more of a roleplaying element and build an interesting narrative campaign around them and where you don't need to lock off 3 hours plus just to have a single game. 

I think you're totally right, something along those lines would pull in a lot more new people. Plus when you're focusing on much smaller 'armies' you can completely freshen up ranges with just the addition of a handful of new models rather than needing a complete Nighthaunt style launch.

 

[Ollie Grimwood]

32 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I think a well supported Kill Team type thing for AoS would do wonders for getting new people in (not just men, but women and children too). Shadespire is close, but they have a limited range, so having access to small games using any army would be great. 

Hopefully Skirmish will get a Killteamesque  makeover 

[HollowHills]

Another thing I thought, which applies to men and women but perhaps more so to the latter.

I'm the most active admin on Facebook for my local community and having run quite a few tournament events in the not too distant past. As such when people have questions or come into the group they often come to me as a point of contact. I recently received a message from a new member requesting we switch the group from "open" to "closed", this was because they didn't want friends and family  to see their posts about "plastic toy soldiers". Naturally I wasn't inclined to change the group, my thinking being that it was important for as many people as possible to have access to and awareness of our local community.

However, this does indicate a belief or attitude that the individual in question was embarrassed or under pressure about their enjoyment of our hobby. Perhaps experiencing jokes or judgement from those outside for being a "nerd" or some such nonsense. My thought was that it would be a pretty rotten bunch who would be willing to mock or prejudice someone on the basis of what kind of hobby they enjoy.

Now, my thought was that women are potentially under more of this kind of pressure which prevents them from engaging with the hobby. Particularly if we assume that a formative interest often occurs between 10-20 which peer pressure and bullying can often be at their height. Obviously as the above example shows this does occur with men as well, but generally among men "nerdy" activities like gaming, liking comic books and so on is considered more acceptable than among women.

Having seen how other girls treated my younger sister through her time at her girl's school I can testify to the absurd pressure young women are put under by their own peers. The idea that a girl could be bullied for liking a "weird boys game" doesn't seem implausible.

 

[DinoTitanedition]

Quote

I don't think its that gaming caters to the toxic people at all - the socially less skilled yes, but that goes for the men and the women.

Funny, I actually believe gaming and the rules cater a lot to that. When I think about AoS nowadays immediately the Generals Handbook springs to my mind, and an extended set of basic rules in AoS' second iteration. The first iteration had no points, communication and social skills were a neccessity. I even believe having more people join the hobby due it`s more fun oriented nature, leaving the competitive note rahter aside.

Now, it`s not about "competition" versus "fun" (it can be both to some people), but about the rules being something very "nerdy", sometimes very strict thing, that require intense knowledge. It is a fictional skill that is good for nothing else but to excell in playing this one game.

 

Remember Warhammer Fantasy Battles? It was literally impossible to get a lady to join there. It was such a "nerd community" within closed boundaries of rules and reglementations...I believe that is simply not appealing. A while back I played AoS skirmish with a friend, his and my wife though. There were mostly five models per side, each of them being different in look and style. I noticed, that my wife was a lot more interested - there weren`t many rules, as we played AoS version 1 + the skirmish rules (which essentially just change the core rules slightly). I printed a "charactersheet" for every model, which made the game very atmospharic overall and I noticed that my wife could adapt to the smaller ruleset a lot quicker, and the individuality of the minis gave them character, which she likes.

 

Overall it felt more like a boardgame and didn`t exceed the amount of accessories a boardgame usually brings with it as well. That being said I simply want to make the following two statements: social skills and rules are well connected in our hobby. Complexity of rules are a barrier.

 

Quote

Most women when it comes to fantasy are usually drawn to elves I've found.

Doesn`t seem to be an extraordinary revelation from my point of view, as I see an absolute logic in it - when you dive into a setting like this, you always have a tendency towards things/traits you like. Elves are commonly characterized as beautiful beings and why should a woman not like to identify herself with that? Of course, this is a bit stereotyping, but look at the male range. Apart of a few exceptions, all male models are hulking muscular brutes. A "conditioning" that has sneaked into our subconsiousness through the media over time. Again, no suprise.

 

[Overread]

@DinoTitanedition but the whole thrust of this thread is that there are women nerds now and that its ok to be  nerd or geek ;). Also lets be honest that same argument of rules applies to magic the gathering and Dungeons and Dragons, both of which have women. It's just part and parcel of this whole hobby in the gaming side. 

[Nos]

Most subcultures would rather resist outsiders than change their practices and habits to suit newcomers. This is manifestly the case with this hobby.  I think in reflection of the culture wars and current political climate lot of discussion around issues of representation in the hobby are split between those who recognise GW's overwhelmingly left wing satire and sentiments that lay behind it's fiction, and those who are more invested in its lore at face value and want to treat it just as a game.

What's interesting though, sociologically speaking, is that cultures who resust changeveventually die. I went to my local wargaming convention a few weeks ago (historical wargames) and it was overwhelmingly middle aged men. Now I don't mean any judgement by that, it's not a criticism, but it did make me kind of sad because it made me realise that the future of the hobby is very fragile. Mini warhaming is at present a generation and a half old at best and there is no way of telling in the middle of that span whether it will continue to grow and exist, or simply be remembered as a historical past-time. 

From that perspective, GW is very much a bastion of that culture but it's has been growing with the times, engaging with social media and community models, increasing its attempts to represent ethnic diversity and in a manner which is culturally sensitive, and of course it's rather rapid growth in production of female models. Granted that's not been a mammoth task as there was very little there to begin with, and they're sorely lacking ethnic and female representation on the creative side of things, but there has been a happy net increase nonetheless.

What's interesting to me, away from the issue of identity, is that GW, a notoriously thrifty and savvy Buisness, obviously see a future which is far more inclusive and equal in its treatment of these issues than it has been. So GW itself is in the process of pupation into something entirely new; not the old satirical left wing subculture, or the more straight faced "serious" approach, but something akin to most modern 21st century businesses in which appeals to women and BME and fully inclusive communities are paramount. Granted, often for cynical profit making reasons, but better representation is better representation. Add to that the fact that most of those behind the scenes will as time goes by likewise reflect the broad multicultural and liberal values of the past generation meaning there will be less taboos around issues relating to race, gender and sexuality, and the fact that GW will have corporate interests in presenting itself as fully inclusive in all of its practices. I've already seen quite a few more female staff members in GW's than I ever did a decade ago. It's great. 

Meaning that, rather wonderfully, it's more likely that those desperate to hoard the hobby as a male only space are going to be the ones left out in the future because GW is starting to aim it's product elsewhere. They're going to have to learn how to deal with people who aren't like them or they're going to find that the people who want to play with them and make toys for them are fewer and far between as they get older.

Which I wouldn't be sad about. By the same logic that men should be entitled to their space to play with men, I should be entitled to a space to play with men who don't consider women exotic, a threat, a mystery or an opportunity.

[Ollie Grimwood]

I’ve not seen very many (if all people) resistant to women taking up the hobby, the resistance and or concern seems to be towards the notion the game/range/narrative needs to changed to facilitate or encourage this.  

[Nos]

11 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

I’ve not seen very many (if all people) resistant to women taking up the hobby, the resistance and or concern seems to be towards the notion the game/range/narrative needs to changed to facilitate or encourage this.  

Which is the same thing, because women and plenty others are saying it does need to change because at present it isn't inclusive enough.

There are very very few female voices saying everything as it stands is fine and not an issue, but many many men.

As per my post it's sort of moot though. GW obviously want more women involved and are taking their own steps to ensure that. 

[DinoTitanedition]

Quote

Also lets be honest that same argument of rules applies to magic the gathering and Dungeons and Dragons, both of which have women.

But you don`t have to build and paint miniatures there, which is an essential part of this hobby. Don`t compare melons to apples.

[Nos]

2 hours ago, DinoTitanedition said:

Funny, I actually believe gaming and the rules cater a lot to that. When I think about AoS nowadays immediately the Generals Handbook springs to my mind, and an extended set of basic rules in AoS' second iteration. The first iteration had no points, communication and social skills were a neccessity. I even believe having more people join the hobby due it`s more fun oriented nature, leaving the competitive note rahter aside.

Now, it`s not about "competition" versus "fun" (it can be both to some people), but about the rules being something very "nerdy", sometimes very strict thing, that require intense knowledge. It is a fictional skill that is good for nothing else but to excell in playing this one game.

 

Remember Warhammer Fantasy Battles? It was literally impossible to get a lady to join there. It was such a "nerd community" within closed boundaries of rules and reglementations...I believe that is simply not appealing. A while back I played AoS skirmish with a friend, his and my wife though. There were mostly five models per side, each of them being different in look and style. I noticed, that my wife was a lot more interested - there weren`t many rules, as we played AoS version 1 + the skirmish rules (which essentially just change the core rules slightly). I printed a "charactersheet" for every model, which made the game very atmospharic overall and I noticed that my wife could adapt to the smaller ruleset a lot quicker, and the individuality of the minis gave them character, which she likes.

 

Overall it felt more like a boardgame and didn`t exceed the amount of accessories a boardgame usually brings with it as well. That being said I simply want to make the following two statements: social skills and rules are well connected in our hobby. Complexity of rules are a barrier.

 

Doesn`t seem to be an extraordinary revelation from my point of view, as I see an absolute logic in it - when you dive into a setting like this, you always have a tendency towards things/traits you like. Elves are commonly characterized as beautiful beings and why should a woman not like to identify herself with that? Of course, this is a bit stereotyping, but look at the male range. Apart of a few exceptions, all male models are hulking muscular brutes. A "conditioning" that has sneaked into our subconsiousness through the media over time. Again, no suprise.

 

I think AOS would appeal to many many more people of all descriptions if the rules were clearer certainly! 

[DinoTitanedition]

A bit for entertainment: I just asked my wife, why she isn`t really into our hobby. This is what she said:

1) If you only ask, you get flooded with "know-how" from people already into it.

2) Entry and ruley have to be simple. She doesn't want to sit down and learn the rules a long while before she can start. She prefers to be active and explained that, when she saw "the male" folks in the hobby, they seem to be rather brooding and tend to give lenghty answers to simple questions.

3) She likes to be communicative. While playing the game does offer that, the preperation for minis, fields and so on ar a rather introverted activity.

4) A combination of the points mentioned before was that she mentioned, that the community appears to be a "closed society".

 

Out of interes I asked her what she thought she saw me the first time following my hobby. She said that she actually thought it to be interesting, but that I seemed to be shy to tell of it, like it would be a bit embarassing to me.

 

Quote

I think AOS would appeal to many many more people of all descriptions if the rules were clearer certainly! 

It`s a good thing we are all allowed to have different opinions.

[Ollie Grimwood]

1 hour ago, Nos said:

Which is the same thing, because women and plenty others are saying it does need to change because at present it isn't inclusive enough.

There are very very few female voices saying everything as it stands is fine and not an issue, but many many men.

As per my post it's sort of moot though. GW obviously want more women involved and are taking their own steps to ensure that. 

I’m not sure your first two statements are necessarily entirely accurate, even in this thread.

I don’t think it is a moot point as managing any change is part of the process, understanding people’s objections or fears and alaying them will make everything easier. This doesn’t need to be the drama some  on both sides of the arguement seem to be intent on making it.  

 

[Nos]

31 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

I’m not sure your first two statements are necessarily entirely accurate, even in this thread.

I don’t think it is a moot point as managing any change is part of the process, understanding people’s objections or fears and alaying them will make everything easier. This doesn’t need to be the drama some  on both sides of the arguement seem to be intent on making it.  

 

People are raising their fears and objections already, including on here, but you're arguing they aren't, or that they are being dramatic.  You can't allay people's fears if you don't listen to what they're saying. 

But again, it's kind of academic because GW are obviously on their own direction of travel here. And if that leaves some people out or behind, well, it's already been established that the hobby does that with others at present anyway so it would be a bit rich for those people advocating for it's exclusivity to suddenly call foul just because they're not the ones benefitting from it anymore. 

[Ollie Grimwood]

59 minutes ago, Nos said:

People are raising their fears and objections already, including on here, but you're arguing they aren't, or that they are being dramatic.  

No I’m not, I was suggesting your claims weren’t necessarily being borne out by the discussion. In short I have been listening and it seems not just a case of female miniatures.   

I’m also saying that if handled correctly there’s need be no need for any drama to occur. The release of female Stormcast being a fine example.  No one needs to be left behind. 

[Nos]

38 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

No I’m not, I was suggesting your claims weren’t necessarily being borne out by the discussion. In short I have been listening and it seems not just a case of female miniatures.   

I’m also saying that if handled correctly there’s need be no need for any drama to occur. The release of female Stormcast being a fine example.  No one needs to be left behind. 

Yes, more equal gender representation in the model range is only one of the issues that needs to be/is being improved on

[Zamik]

On 9/25/2018 at 5:08 AM, JPjr said:

Likewise racial diversity. Obviously you can paint your plastic any colour you want but that's a fudge and everyone knows it. Seriously if someone at GW isn't frantically creating a fairly lightly disguised Wakandan army they're leaving money on the table. Just think... armoured battle rhinos, dora milaje style ass kicking bald warrior women, etc etc etc. That's just money being left on the table (and a lot of good will and press too)*.

Oh my God, I just watched Black Panther this weekend and CRAVED some Dora Milaje-ish units!

I for one would like to see more female Bloodbound. I mean, Khorne cares not, right?

[michu]

Definitely and we really need new plastic Valkia miniature. Current one is too small for the Gorequeen.

[Alley_Oop]

19 hours ago, AlphaKennyThing said:

 Do you think that as AoS is quite a commitment to jump into (needing 1k to 2k points for example) that GW would do well to look at the success of Kill Team and perhaps push a similar game for AoS? Obviously we have Shadespire, but that is a different game entirely.

Would a fully supported game requiring a box of models with similar rules to AoS be a good idea for getting more women interested? We have Skirmish already, but I'd argue that's not particularly supported.

 

I'm doing a fall theme for mine. Bright oranges and reds and such.  I think it's going to turn out really nice. 

I was talking to someone the other day about this very thing! I do think it is quite a commitment. A kill team (if done properly) would be a great addition to AoS. Ideally, for me, it would just be smaller units of the same armies; staying as true to the rules as possible. The start collecting boxes could be easily done this way.  You have a hero and a single unit, you'd just need an extra page in the battletome to scale down everything. (Alot like skirmish now, but well supported.)

The kill teams would also alleviate the steep learning curve that this game has. No specific rule is that complicated, however there are several layers of rules. This can be overwhelming and a deterrent to new people. Kill teams would be a good way to mitigate that. AoS Light if you will. 

Also I, and probably others, would buy more of a variety of armies if I knew I didn't have to commit to a 2000pt army to play them. I'd have my big army for actual tournament style games, then a few kill team armies just for fun.

[Ravinsild]

5 minutes ago, Alley_Oop said:

I'm doing a fall theme for mine. Bright oranges and reds and such.  I think it's going to turn out really nice. 

I was talking to someone the other day about this very thing! I do think it is quite a commitment. A kill team (if done properly) would be a great addition to AoS. Ideally, for me, it would just be smaller units of the same armies; staying as true to the rules as possible. The start collecting boxes could be easily done this way.  You have a hero and a single unit, you'd just need an extra page in the battletome to scale down everything. (Alot like skirmish now, but well supported.)

The kill teams would also alleviate the steep learning curve that this game has. No specific rule is that complicated, however there are several layers of rules. This can be overwhelming and a deterrent to new people. Kill teams would be a good way to mitigate that. AoS Light if you will. 

Also I, and probably others, would buy more of a variety of armies if I knew I didn't have to commit to a 2000pt army to play them. I'd have my big army for actual tournament style games, then a few kill team armies just for fun.

Meanwhile I’m over here with 5,000+ points of Khorne 2,000+ of Ironjawz with 1000 of death looking to increase that to about 3,000 here tomorrow with plans of full Slaves to Darkness and Beastmen armies so I can play my Blood Bowl Team in real AoS... 

and I don’t play tournaments... I just play casually for fun :s 

[AGPO]

On 9/27/2018 at 1:10 AM, Enoby said:

Going mainstream isn't always a good idea, though, as more people means more 'That Guys' - this is especially a detriment in a social game. 

I've generally found that the ratio of That Guys  tends to go up the more niche a hobby is. A lot of folks with multiple interests quit the hobby because when they're short on time, dealing with the That Guys frequenting the only place to play locally becomes a deciding factor in what to give up. It becomes a self perpetuating problem. The more well adjusted people who quit the more likely it is the only game you'll find will be with a That Guy and the less likely you are to want to spend time on playing.

Mainstream hobbies dont have this issue so much because there's normally more than one avenue to explore them. The more mainstream D&D has become for example, the easier it's become to find a group of well adjusted people to play with. There are probably still plenty of That Guy heavy groups around but they're no longer the only option.

As a personal example, a few years back I went looking for a rugby club to train with after moving. The first one I tried was every negative stereotype about rugby players - mysoginist, homophobic English public (I.e. exclusive private) school boys with horrific initiations and levels of alcohol fuelled ****ish behaviour. Instead I went to another team with mixed training sessions and socials and a family atmosphere and loved it. If the first club had been the only option I'd have quit rugby entirely. That's the situation for the hobby right now in a lot of places.

23 hours ago, HollowHills said:

However, this does indicate a belief or attitude that the individual in question was embarrassed or under pressure about their enjoyment of our hobby. Perhaps experiencing jokes or judgement from those outside for being a "nerd" or some such nonsense. My thought was that it would be a pretty rotten bunch who would be willing to mock or prejudice someone on the basis of what kind of hobby they enjoy.

Interesting and important point. I'd say there's two factors often at play here. First up a lot of people (men and women) who have been bullied and/or ostracized during their youth for being a 'nerd' who carry hang ups into later life. They fear the same type of exclusion from their current social circle even if they know deep down their friends wouldn't care, and some take light hearted jokes between friends badly because it brings up memories of very real harassment.

Another factor is that there are a lot of stereotypes surrounding our hobby created by a certain type of hobbyist. People's social media often has a wider range of acquaintances and colleagues who don't actually know the person that well even though they interact quite regularly, and a lot of folks don't want to be tarred with that brush. Nobody wants the boss thinking of the manchild they met when their kid went into GW when they're considering you for promotion. It sucks but until miniature gaming can cast off this image in the same way that video gaming has, it's going to be a legitimate concern for many people.

[paul7926]

I've found this thread really interesting, especially the comments from the ladies who have added to the discussion directly or through their partner posting responses to questions they have been asked.

What I'm taking away from all of this is that the myriad of problems that can be encountered when trying to enter our hobby are pretty similar despite the gender of the new person.  I fully accept that the effect can be harsher for women than for men especially with certain problems however.

The problems seem to need to be addressed both by the community and GW as a company. 

Gender representation in the armies where it's appropriate is something GW can do and to be fair after a long wait I think they are moving in the right direction with Stormcast.  Whilst the aesthetic of something like Daughters of Khaine is off putting to some women others like it.  I think that just falls into the 'personal taste' category.  As long as we get away from the concept that a woman should like the 'all girl' army that was created 'especially for them' we are moving forward. 

The complexity of the rules, more due to them being scattered all over the place than actually being complicated, coupled with the barrier to entry that the cost of a full 2000+ points army with all the required supplements presents is gender neutral.  Everyone starting out has that problem and GW need to address that anyway.  

In my personal experience the female gamers I have met and played against have been more inclined towards either narrative play or thing like Blood Bowl which are less about mass slaughter or winning the tournament and more about the story or the game.  I don't know if this is a stereotype from a very small sample size or not.  To be honest it doesn't matter as there are many ways to enjoy the hobby and they are all just as valid.  Maybe GW could look into more things like Blood Bowl and Silver Tower which in turn might open op the hobby to people who are just not interested in mass battle.  The result might be that more women find a place in the hobby.  Again more players, whatever their gender, is good for GW and all us players.

The 'That Guy' problem is something that we as players need to address.  I have stopped playing in certain stores/clubs because they had members who, quite frankly, I didn't want to spend my free time with.  I can only imagine how that problem gets magnified when you add unwanted interest as a result of either social awkwardness around members of the opposite sex or even worse intentional advances that are simply not appropriate for a game club.  If we want to change this then it's up to us to make sure that we all speak up when we see this happening and make sure that bad behaviour is simply unacceptable.  Now don't get me wrong, I'm old and certainly not part of the 'snowflake generation' where nobody can say anything and everyone is a 'winner'.  I'm not saying that there can never be any jokes made at the table or opinions voiced.  I am however an advocate of standards.  We play a social game and enter into a social contract with our opponents.  To fix this all we have to do is hold ourselves and others accountable for their actions especially when those actions wouldn't be acceptable anywhere else in society.  

Well, that turned into a wall of text!  I guess the short version is simply this.  GW can only do so much.  IF we as players want attitudes to change then WE as players need to make that happen not rely on a company to fix it for us.