Jump to content

The Rumour Thread


Recommended Posts

In other news did anyone notice the back page of this month's white dwarf? The hint for next month is flesh tearers and ghosts, and the back page is a photo of a black coach. 

With gw making it clear in their latest faq that white dwarf rules are matched play legal, maybe Nighthaunt will be getting the boost they need. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HollowHills said:

My issue is that GW has sort of started forcing "diversity" into both 40k and AoS in the last few years. To me it doesn't feel like it's been handled in a natural and realistic way. It can come across as their being a quota. In particular the fact that the majority of the stormcast exclusive models have been named female characters. It seems like they really want to show off their diversity. 

It feels like Warhammer, rather than being the sort of harder fantasy world, has beant it's own rules to ensure a certain level of gender representation. 

With all the culture wars stuff going on sometimes you just want fantasy to be fantasy in the traditional vein. 

It honestly isn't a big thing or something I think about much. It's just another thing to sort of roll my eyes about when I see these exclusive stormcast models. 

I have absolutely no issue with women, I love my partner, the women in my family and I respect my female colleagues. But warhammer has always been a "boys and their toys" space and it doesn't need to be liberalised or diversified. 

I hope you can see where I'm coming from even if you don't agree.

Anyway didn't mean to go so off topic. To end I would have preferred a cool and gender neutral exclusive nighthaunt model. 

I've tried typing this a few times and am trying really hard to not sound harsh. You mention that this isn't a big thing for you, but it really seems to be a signature issue for you. I doubt I'll change your mind on this, but figured it was worth a shot. Why did you include diversity in quotation marks?  They seem to genuinely be making an effort to increase it, make more people feel welcome. It seems to be working. It's anecdotal, but Sylvaneth, Slaanesh and wanderers seem to be the most popular armies with the female gamers I know.  I'd include stormcast on that list, but they are kind of the poster boy for AoS, so seems unfair. That said, the female sequitor in the easy build is a glorious model and one of my favourites.

People like to be seen. It makes them feel invested. I think that's a thing that people miss out on when everything is tailored to them. If you are used to 100% focus then dropping down to, what, 80%? focus seems like a big deal. What really bothers you about having more female models in the game? If it makes some people happy then I really think you should reevaluate why you object. 

I really am not meaning to be accusative, but it's an issue I feel strongly about.

 

on the topic of mortal realms magazine, it's weird to hear people talk about it now. I picked some up about 6 months ago. Turns out I was in the test area of the UK for it. 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 13
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, HollowHills said:

My issue is that GW has sort of started forcing "diversity" into both 40k and AoS in the last few years. To me it doesn't feel like it's been handled in a natural and realistic way. It can come across as their being a quota. In particular the fact that the majority of the stormcast exclusive models have been named female characters. It seems like they really want to show off their diversity. 

It feels like Warhammer, rather than being the sort of harder fantasy world, has beant it's own rules to ensure a certain level of gender representation. 

With all the culture wars stuff going on sometimes you just want fantasy to be fantasy in the traditional vein. 

I agree with this.

It does seem like there is a sort of quota, like oh we need X amount of female Stormcast and they need to be 'badass' women with shaved heads and butch faces.

For what it's worth my girlfriend dislikes how GW sculpt their female models. She much prefers the Raging Heroes models that aren't afraid to exaggerate feminine features.

At the end of the day though you can just not buy what you don't like, except when they are automatically included in box sets...

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, HollowHills said:

My issue is that GW has sort of started forcing "diversity" into both 40k and AoS in the last few years. To me it doesn't feel like it's been handled in a natural and realistic way. It can come across as their being a quota. In particular the fact that the majority of the stormcast exclusive models have been named female characters. It seems like they really want to show off their diversity. 

It feels like Warhammer, rather than being the sort of harder fantasy world, has beant it's own rules to ensure a certain level of gender representation. 

With all the culture wars stuff going on sometimes you just want fantasy to be fantasy in the traditional vein. 

It honestly isn't a big thing or something I think about much. It's just another thing to sort of roll my eyes about when I see these exclusive stormcast models. 

I have absolutely no issue with women, I love my partner, the women in my family and I respect my female colleagues. But warhammer has always been a "boys and their toys" space and it doesn't need to be liberalised or diversified. 

I hope you can see where I'm coming from even if you don't agree.

Anyway didn't mean to go so off topic. To end I would have preferred a cool and gender neutral exclusive nighthaunt model. 

Having a problem with overly tailored/marketed models is one thing, but suggesting that the hobby in general should continue to be haven for men and doesn't need more diversity is ridiculous.

  • Like 12
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nighthaunt Noob said:

Having a problem with overly tailored/marketed models is one thing, but suggesting that the hobby in general should continue to be haven for men and doesn't need more diversity is ridiculous.

Does anyone think GW are afraid of portraying feminine women in their models lately?

Compare the Sisters of Battle to anything that Raging Heroes put out for example.

The feedback I hear from my partner is that the GW models are seriously missing the mark. Women don't want ugly models.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the SoB artwork but i really dislike the models faces. They look manly to me. I would rather get Raging Heroes myself. 

I assembled a Shadow Warriors box and i made half man/ half woman unit and had a blast "converting". I love the multiple assemblies you can do with older models.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 123lac said:

Does anyone think GW are afraid of portraying feminine women in their models lately?

Compare the Sisters of Battle to anything that Raging Heroes put out for example.

The feedback I hear from my partner is that the GW models are seriously missing the mark. Women don't want ugly models.

One woman that you know of doesn’t want ugly models. She doesn’t speak for all women, or all people. The Raging Heroes stuff is available, if that’s what she prefers, and I think the uproar from the people who missed out on the sisters box on Saturday proves that they haven’t missed the mark there. They aren’t even ugly, they’re just practical, have scars from battle, practical hair, relatively appropriate armour etc. Exactly what you would expect from a fighting force. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Still-young said:

One woman that you know of doesn’t want ugly models. She doesn’t speak for all women, or all people. The Raging Heroes stuff is available, if that’s what she prefers, and I think the uproar from the people who missed out on the sisters box on Saturday proves that they haven’t missed the mark there. They aren’t even ugly, they’re just practical, have scars from battle, practical hair, relatively appropriate armour etc. Exactly what you would expect from a fighting force. 

Practical and masculine.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, HollowHills said:

My issue is that GW has sort of started forcing "diversity" into both 40k and AoS in the last few years. To me it doesn't feel like it's been handled in a natural and realistic way. It can come across as their being a quota. In particular the fact that the majority of the stormcast exclusive models have been named female characters. It seems like they really want to show off their diversity. 

It feels like Warhammer, rather than being the sort of harder fantasy world, has beant it's own rules to ensure a certain level of gender representation. 

With all the culture wars stuff going on sometimes you just want fantasy to be fantasy in the traditional vein. 

It honestly isn't a big thing or something I think about much. It's just another thing to sort of roll my eyes about when I see these exclusive stormcast models. 

I have absolutely no issue with women, I love my partner, the women in my family and I respect my female colleagues. But warhammer has always been a "boys and their toys" space and it doesn't need to be liberalised or diversified. 

I hope you can see where I'm coming from even if you don't agree.

Anyway didn't mean to go so off topic. To end I would have preferred a cool and gender neutral exclusive nighthaunt model. 

It’s been handled about as naturally as it can be. Where female versions of something are possible and appropriate (Stormcast, nothing has ever said otherwise and there’s no reason why women can’t be made into Stormcast), some of the models they release for them have been women. That’s all. There’s no ‘quota’, and I really don’t know how they would do it so that you didn’t see it as there being one. It’s not even the majority are female, as pointed out. 
 

As for the ‘boys and their toys’ rubbish, it’s a anyone who enjoys the hobby and their toys space. As it should be. 

Edited by Still-young
  • Like 16
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, HollowHills said:

And another stormcast exclusive model that happens be a "badass female" trope. 

Oh well at least we can all try and get loads of cheap chainrasps. 

I actually like the badass female trope. But in this case, I don't see it.

They are armoured and equipped like their male counterparts, and posed very similarely because they have the same job. No overcompensation in sight. Their armour is about as functional as the male counterpart (boob plates compensated by less egrarious shoulderplates).

What I don't like, is that Stormcast females wear heels. Which isn't advisable in armour to say the least.

Also, I don't like Stormcast, but that's another story.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Satyrical Sophist said:

I've tried typing this a few times and am trying really hard to not sound harsh. You mention that this isn't a big thing for you, but it really seems to be a signature issue for you. I doubt I'll change your mind on this, but figured it was worth a shot. Why did you include diversity in quotation marks?  They seem to genuinely be making an effort to increase it, make more people feel welcome. It seems to be working. It's anecdotal, but Sylvaneth, Slaanesh and wanderers seem to be the most popular armies with the female gamers I know.  I'd include stormcast on that list, but they are kind of the poster boy for AoS, so seems unfair. That said, the female sequitor in the easy build is a glorious model and one of my favourites.

People like to be seen. It makes them feel invested. I think that's a thing that people miss out on when everything is tailored to them. If you are used to 100% focus then dropping down to, what, 80%? focus seems like a big deal. What really bothers you about having more female models in the game? If it makes some people happy then I really think you should reevaluate why you object. 

I really am not meaning to be accusative, but it's an issue I feel strongly about.

on the topic of mortal realms magazine, it's weird to hear people talk about it now. I picked some up about 6 months ago. Turns out I was in the test area of the UK for it. 

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I want diversity in my Cities, and there are exactly 0 order human females. Not counting Stormcast as humans, obviously.

I think I calculated the cheapest females at some 10€ per model in the Corvus Cabal and Godsworn hunt.

There are also 0 dwarven females, and 0 goblin females, and 0 beastmen females.

Of the new sets, there is a female minority. Not majority or equality, distinct minority. I don't think there is a single Stormcast warscroll you can't fill with all males, but there are many you can't fill with all females.

The Knight Incantor is has a male counerpart in the start to play set, so I don't see

I would really like GW to make a few sets with ONLY human females, to compensate 30 years of not making any (or hardly any). Order or chaos, I don't care, I'll convert the rest anyway, but faces and bodies are hard.

If not, good chance I am going to say "sod it" to GW's rules and get more Frostgrave Soldiers 2 sets, because Northstar does get it.

I certainly hope the hobby isn't going to stay in the '80's. It wasn't as nice a place as rosy glasses make it seem to be. No need to continue accepting sexism, and while "boys and their toys rhymes" well, maybe we should mature a bit and say "people playing with miniatures".

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, FFJump said:

In this thread a few pages back. He said consider a complete revamp of the Aleguzzler Gargants as a faction similar to Imperial Knights. Then when the rumor pic of the hammer looking thing came out, someone said a Chaos Gargant and he said not necessarily Chaos. Then finally in response to this:
 

He posted this:

 

Tho that wasn't Whitefang who answered "no" to the Chaos possibility. 

(Not saying that other responding poster doesn't know something either ;) ) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Still-young said:

It’s been handled about as naturally as it can be. Where female versions of something are possible and appropriate (Stormcast, nothing has ever said otherwise and there’s no reason why women can’t be made into Stormcast), some of the models they release for them have been women. That’s all. There’s no ‘quota’, and I really don’t know how they would do it so that you didn’t see it as there being one. It’s not even the majority are female, as pointed out. 
 

As for the ‘boys and their toys’ rubbish, it’s a anyone who enjoys the hobby and their toys space. As it should be. 

I think the is issue hollow has is that many entertainment mediums, from movies, to shows etc take it too far alienating their customers. Leading them to bombing or destroying their ips or fandoms. But I recall GW makes the express point they don't want to do that. As I black person, I feel many companies these days are just using my skin colour to fill a quota. Just my opinion. Now GW aren't doing this, I feel they are doing this an organic way in my opinion. When I try to point this out, people say I'm not black, I'm a racist white boomer behind a keyboard, many people who do call me this are actually white themselves lol. 

To me his post feels like his fear talking, I can also see 123lac's point. I'm excited for sisters, but this made me roll eyes back into my head, going to use the top right head instead or even the bottom one. Talked with my mates in my GW store and they all agree wondering what the hell is this? The black's sister nose is freaking huge! It's clear what GW are shooting for, but they missed the mark in opinion. 

e10fa790.jpg 

Now everyone is jumping on him, I don't even entirely agree with him, but I do understand what he is trying to say. In my eyes that's his fear talking.

Edited by shinros
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

zilberfrid-'' No need to continue accepting sexism''

Got actual facts to back up that heavy statement ?

If I remember clearly back in the old days we had a more male centric products/models/style because they were  majority buyers+the cultural tendency back then,not that companies had in for the women costumers who usually come from the low pool of ''geek girls''(wich didn t increase much it only became louder).

''GW to make a few sets with ONLY human females, to compensate 30 years of not making any (or hardly any)''

I get what you wan t to say.Correct me if I m wrong or if I offend but sounds like you wan t Gw to ''morally compensate'' for the lack of female model diversity to absolve themselves of there ''sexist'' past.Wich makes me think that even you have a pair of ''rose tinted glasses'' with wich you see the 80.This is wat I assume from you're text,if I m wrong then then let Khaine be my judge.

 

Edited by The lord of murder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, shinros said:

I think the is issue hollow has is that many entertainment mediums, from movies, to shows etc take it too far alienating their customers. Leading them to bombing or destroying their ips or fandoms. But I recall GW makes the express point they don't want to do that. As I black person, I feel many companies these days are just using my skin colour to fill a quota. Just my opinion. Now GW aren't doing this, I feel they are doing this an organic way in my opinion. When I try to point this out, people say I'm not black, I'm a racist white boomer behind a keyboard, many people who do call me this are actually white themselves lol. 

To me his post feels like his fear talking, I can also see 123lac's point. I'm excited for sisters, but this made me roll eyes back into my head, going to use the top right head instead or even the bottom one. Talked with my mates in my GW store and they all agree wondering what the hell is this? 

e10fa790.jpg 

Now everyone is jumping on him, I don't even entirely agree with him, but I do understand what he is trying to say. In my eyes that's his fear talking.

Tbh the differences in race don't phase me at all. My only issue is how damn ugly they all are. Why can't GW sculpt attractive female faces?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 123lac said:

Tbh the differences in race don't phase me at all. My only issue is how damn ugly they all are. Why can't GW sculpt attractive female faces?

Could scream „Sexist!“ now, because why do women have to be beautiful?

But, then again, the sexy nun is a cliché and therefore good in Fantasy. So I wholeheartedly agree. 😁

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JPjr said:

out of interest what is it about the male faces GW sculpts that you find so sexy?

To be fair most of them are sculpted to be chiseled, good looking muscle men. I mean we know GW can do it, I think the female Magus for GSC is pretty good sculpt, better than some of the sister faces actually. 

Ironically in my store the females literally have no interest in the supposed female armies, they are doing nurgle, beastmen, tyranids and bonereapers. But, you know that's anecdotal, everyone is different. Read an interesting story on reddit where a father bought his little girl to a GW store and she picked out custodes. 

Edited by shinros
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kaleb Daark said:

Polite notice guys and gals - before the mods weigh in, just remember you're here to have fun and at the end of the day it's just pushing plastic toys around a table. :)

 

Yeah, anyway there is a separate topic for this. 

Edited by shinros
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...