Male and female representation in GW models

[Aeryenn]

@dekay I understand your example. It's fine. It's just I get the impression that usually successor is usually made with little to no effort at all of the original. It's poor, lazy, done only to appease to certain social groups. It doesn't have to be the case all time of course.

Regarding tournaments and events and their representativeness. I must confess I haven't been to any GB or US Warhammer event of any sort but from what I can tell from the pictures that are published for example at w-c.com there are close to none people different from white males (with beards and glassess ). Isn't it a bit overkill to look so much after people that don't fit the description above? Should GW really stroke for that 5% (number made up, just guessing) of players and now starting to release 33% of asian/black/female/left-handed audience? It IS clearly a white guys domain here. I'm not offensive. Just asking. You know, after all a company needs to seek for their target audience in the first place.

However it might be true that if 50% of models where female then more women would enter the hobby as they would feel more welcome.

I'd say that now GW has found it's golden mean. There is enough of everything in their minis. I'd just bring more asianpeople minis as there are really few. Can't name one in AoS.

[Veles]

36 minutes ago, Satyrical Sophist said:

Have you considered that part of the reason for that may well be that they don't feel welcome. I don't know the statistics for AoS/40k but for magic the gathering the hobby is 62% male, 38% female. That is very much not what you see in large events or tournaments.

I do not have to consider it. It is a hobby with set parameters and you either come and join it or not. You either feel comfortable or not… believe me, some old grumpy (or socially inept) guys can make anybody feel uncomfortable. And that is okay… just do not join them. Find a group that is welcoming or create you own. Just do not try and impose “be female welcoming” rule on everybody…

Every group I ever joined was very welcoming to females and respectful. I personally would not tolerate rude behavior towards woman or anybody else for that matter. That being said, I found that some women that joined the hobby are less tolerant towards other people’s opinion and often lead towards fracturing of the group…

38 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

If you use a term to disparage someone, it's an insult. This as true in the first reply to the topic, as it is in later replies. And yes, the other side of the fence has also done this. I have also asked them to be civil.

Both should just be adults and speak like them.

I might have missed your representation towards “the other side of the fence”. All I saw was an attempt of using the name of the president to insult someone and no one reacted to this. To me it is unacceptable.

30 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

My ex has received quite a few pictures of male genitalia when she joined Warhammer WhatsApp groups. She thinks these men are just clumsy in dealing with women. I think at least some want to scare her off. And yes, there were multiple different sets of genitalia.

Sorry to hear that. My recommendation to everybody is to stay out of social media platforms as much as possible. Forums like this are much “safer” in this regard.

[zilberfrid]

32 minutes ago, Veles said:

I might have missed your representation towards “the other side of the fence”. All I saw was an attempt of using the name of the president to insult someone and no one reacted to this. To me it is unacceptable.

Sorry to hear that. My recommendation to everybody is to stay out of social media platforms as much as possible. Forums like this are much “safer” in this regard.

For the first. I have missed the reference in this thread, I am sorry for that, but this is a working day so I can't see everything. I did try and correct the reply starting with the clown car reference (which was in total worse than a few SJW comments, I grant you that). EDIT: The president thing was from another thread. I think the Rumour thread. The discussion not being as civil as I would like it to be was the express purpose of lifting it from there to its own thread. I do feel a bit responsible for this one, but hardly even read every comment in the rumour thread, let alone try feel responsible for it.

I like social media platforms, they give an easy option to talk in a quicker manner, more akin to a face-to-face discussions, and to continue a thread with a smaller subset, or with a single person. I have yet to encounter unwanted genitalia in these conversations, that is an experience more limited to females.

Edited November 21, 2019 by zilberfrid

[Pariah]

Just thought I'd put my thoughts out there as a "zoomer". If Games Workshop plans on being sustainable, they need new and younger players who will continue to enjoy the hobby for many years to come. They are competing with a lot of other hobbies and such, especially video games. Most people I know, male and female, play video games at the very least casually. If GW wants new players, they are going to have to reach out to as many people as possible. Of course, that is just from a business perspective. 

Personally, I would love to see more representation, even though it probably wouldn't affect my armies much, as I play gloomspite gitz as my main force now. However, I really enjoy the variety of characters in warcry, as it added to the feeling that each was a warrior who had earned their keep. I would love to see the new people at the local store, new players are always good. I really don't think that it is too much to ask of GW to include close to an equal amount of male and female characters given how much more inclusive many video games have become, with Apex Legends including LGBTQ characters in their game (I think). 

In conclusion, anything which gets new people in the hobby is pretty great, after all, it just means we get to play more games. 

[Televiper11]

1 hour ago, Veles said:

I read enough to see the agenda behind the topic...

 

But you have an unspoken hidden agenda too, which is to keep Warhammer homogeneous and unwelcoming. AoS will die if it doesn't draw in the next generation of gamers and that generation wants a more inclusive game.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Televiper11

[Scurvydog]

GW was well ahead of the times with wonderfully diverse models like this:

Forgeworld also supports the strong and independant woman:

That is a joke btw, but GW saw an opening in recent years with Stormcasts and have been pushing more diverse models a lot. But it does become sort of silly pushing all these real world diversity themes  into this fantasy world, as the concept of genders and cultures and races are entirely based on that particular fantasy setting.

There are no "female" orcs, they are refered to as male and has no traditional female features as we know them from humans, but they reproduce as fungus, who knows, it makes no sense to force ****** on them when they are not mammals, even if they do have nipples which does not make any sense either.

How about humanoids? Do we really need more asian looking dwarfs? Is it only for human factions we need this? Are we at a place where all races need to reflect features taken from real world human race types? Like ginger chaos dwarfs? Fyreslayers with asian features?  Is it important to push for African features on deepkin models? Do we adhere to the fantasy setting or do we push for 100% diversity in everything?

Personally I enjoy diversity in forms that make sense for the setting and feels relevant and fitting for the world. Sylvaneth is well handled in that regard, they are spirits but do possess male and female traits and everything just fits together nicely. There is however no clear emphasis to push that this and that spirit looks a bit more asian, caucasian or african etc than another, Allarielle might as well have african features, although she is after all based on an existing character from the old high elves, so changing that just for the sake of changing serves no real purpose.

We also have DoK with only warlocks as sort of male slaves in that faction, they also have Morathi as another beautiful centerpice model created for AoS as well as Allarielle. There are many more examples, AoS has just in a few years alreayd introduced a lot more diversity, especially in regard to male and female models, whereever it makes any sense to do. Also Slaanesh and especially the KoS is already is the most 2019 thing you can find anywhere.

GW will most likely keep going in this direction, so I would not worry too much, as they seem very much aware and have done a lot in just a few years. I suspect it will not be an issue in a couple of years when my daughter is old enough to get addicted to plastic crack, if I can manage that feat

[zilberfrid]

10 minutes ago, Pariah said:

Just thought I'd put my thoughts out there as a "zoomer". If Games Workshop plans on being sustainable, they need new and younger players who will continue to enjoy the hobby for many years to come. They are competing with a lot of other hobbies and such, especially video games. Most people I know, male and female, play video games at the very least casually. If GW wants new players, they are going to have to reach out to as many people as possible. Of course, that is just from a business perspective. 

Personally, I would love to see more representation, even though it probably wouldn't affect my armies much, as I play gloomspite gitz as my main force now. However, I really enjoy the variety of characters in warcry, as it added to the feeling that each was a warrior who had earned their keep. I would love to see the new people at the local store, new players are always good. I really don't think that it is too much to ask of GW to include close to an equal amount of male and female characters given how much more inclusive many video games have become, with Apex Legends including LGBTQ characters in their game (I think). 

In conclusion, anything which gets new people in the hobby is pretty great, after all, it just means we get to play more games. 

Northstar has even labeled their second soldiers box just Frostgrave Soldiers 2. No mention that they are all female, that's apparent from the box art. They are just soldiers that happen to be female.

I think it would have made sense to at least make it clear, just because people want to use it for the lack of females (or females that are equipped for the job) in other lines.

[Veles]

9 minutes ago, Televiper11 said:

But you have an unspoken hidden agenda too, which is to keep Warhammer homogeneous and unwelcoming. AoS will die if it doesn't draw in the next generation of gamers and that generation wants a more inclusive game.

I honestly have no agenda… I want community to be inclusive and welcoming, but it is not the same as changing the models/hobby to “represent” for the sake of representation. For example – I really enjoy new DoK faction in AoS. It is predominantly female army with one of my favorite female characters from the Old World. Objectively there is no need for female orks, dwarfs etc... aside from “hidden agendas”.       

[Murder Pancake]

I always dread topics like these. On one hand it's an issue that I have strong feelings about. On the other hand, it really puts it into perspective how lucky I am to have the gaming group that I do, because a lot of the sentiments here aren't very encouraging.  

I can say from personal preference that I play things like Tyranids because gender ambiguous monsters in space that just want to eat all living matter is a lot more appealing than most of our other options. (Some of them are also really cute; I'm a huge fan of Zoanthropes/Neurothropes, but we can't have that in our grimdark space operas). I'm not the only one with this opinion either. Some of us actively avoid the GSC because we're not a fan of the need to include mind control in that particular segment of their ingrained lore. There's a big difference between mindless beasts engineered to collect biomass and forcing acts and servile behavior afterward. 

For AOS I Play Tzeentch, Beasts of Chaos, and have a sizeable chunk of Slaves to Darkness for roughly the same reasons. Cute gribblies, excellent sculpts, and lots of monsters. While I may lack a lot of representative models, I can spend my time eating the patriarchy. With Looncurse and selling off most of my 40k, I picked up Sylvaneth because they're visually appealing while fitting my playstyle. It's undeniably nice to have some form of representation on the table, and with The Living City I got at least one more reason to pick up models like the Sisters of the Watch. 

Sisters of Battle don't appeal to me for lore aspects, but having seen what they can do with the revamped models, you can bet your buns that I would love to see them expanded on for Cities of Sigmar. What upsets me about the way they introduce a lot of the female sculpts is how limited they are. I don't particularly care for Stormcast and the notion of having to either live in an area where a subscription service is available, or shelling out 100+ for an exclusive sculpt is genuinely frustrating. 

I really don't get this whole complaining about forced diversity in plastic soldiers. AoS is a massive blank slate that allows GW to do just about anything they want. If you want something representative of the real world, there are Historical options available. In the interest of bringing in new players I can't see why they wouldn't continue to expand with additional gendered troops. 2-3 models out of every box of 10 is not the end of the world, and while I'd love to see more, I'll take anything I can get.  
 

[Televiper11]

Just now, Veles said:

I honestly have no agenda… I want community to be inclusive and welcoming, but it is not the same as changing the models/hobby to “represent” for the sake of representation. For example – I really enjoy new DoK faction in AoS. It is predominantly female army with one of my favorite female characters from the Old World. Objectively there is no need for female orks, dwarfs etc... aside from “hidden agendas”.       

Your response makes no sense. If you think GW has an agenda with the representation of their models and you oppose that agenda, well, by default, you have an agenda of your own. Otherwise, you wouldn't draw attention to your opposition. Lack of representation is unwelcoming, full-stop. There have been many psychology studies that bear that out. 

Objectively speaking, there is a need for female dwarfs as they've existed in the lore from the get-go.

[Televiper11]

I find it interesting too that the Excelsior Warpriest was a squatted model for Cities.

[Pariah]

2 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

Northstar has even labeled their second soldiers box just Frostgrave Soldiers 2. No mention that they are all female, that's apparent from the box art. They are just soldiers that happen to be female.

I think it would have made sense to at least make it clear, just because people want to use it for the lack of females (or females that are equipped for the job) in other lines.

I really like that box. Granted, I think GW has done a great/maybe even better job when you look at the way warcry was done. About half and half male and female, and male and female leaders too. One thing I do have a problem with is the way certain games add female characters as leaders and commanders (looking at warmachine and hordes). That does mess with immersion, as it makes it seem like the only women allowed in the army are prodigies and makes it feel unbalanced and makes them less relatable. Maybe it's just me but often I end up giving certain rank and file troops the most backstory. I really want an even spread for most armies between infantry and heroes.  

[Lightbox]

58 minutes ago, Veles said:

Just do not try and impose “be female welcoming” rule on everybody…

But It's okay for you to claim we should impose "this must remain a male dominated hobby" on everyone? Because that's the general vibe I'm getting from your posts. Saying it will always be male dominated is a really silly statement because: Why should it be? And even if it does why does that mean we shouldn't be able to discuss representation like adults? Every time someone throws out 'sjw' as if it's a meaningful thing I have to roll my eyes a bit because It's literally only ever used for people to boo and hiss at equality (god forbid we all feel equally comfortable in a hobby huh?) The hobby is changing as It has been since the 80's in various ways and as it will continue to. Noone is forcing you to accept people into your group or to use female models or whatever but that should be no reasons to decide no one else can have them.

2 hours ago, passtheKhorneplease said:

Also I am a proud social justice warrior.  Look at that term.

Social: A group of people

Justice:  Fairness and right behavior

Warrior:  A fighter

What is wrong with wanting my hobby to be something my daughters can engage in a way that makes them feel as equal to the men that play it.  I know arguing online solves very little, but it is hard to hear people get so bent out of shape because might have to share.

I really like this response, everyone throws around SJW as a filthy thing because the internet has tried it's best to make pushes for equality look like a terrible man-hating shove into some matriarchy, same with the term 'feminist' which any real feminist will tell you is just a push for equality for both women and men (regardless of what word you choose to use for such) It's something that really irritates me because It's just people spewing misinformed bile and I hate that it's had to rear its head onto this thread (which otherwise has been quite a civil discussion for the most part)

But yeah I digress. I like this response because I think wanting the hobby to be somewhere safe and comfortable for your daughters is a really noble goal and definitely kudos to you buddy.

 

EDIT:

Back onto topic of female miniatures I think armour wise the sisters of the thorn are a good example, pretty feminine in appearance but no massive silly boobplate. Also I love the long wild hair they & wild riders get. The sisters of the watch kit also have really nice light armour and as someone pointed out earlier are a great kit you can mix and match the bodies with (with a bit of work)

 

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by Lightbox

[Leksika]

I hope GW does push some gender parity for humans/etc. so as to get more interesting armies and more interested people into the hobby. At least give people the choice. A minis building and painting hobby with options doesn't take anything away. Don't we want more customisation options?

I'm hoping any CoS revisions we get will give Humans, Duardin and Aelves some some female variants, and that we can get a Coven Sorceress who is less of a tiddy witch, Teclis save us from 90s Dark Elf Sorceress' Madonna bra!! 

[Overread]

3 minutes ago, Leksika said:

I'm hoping any CoS revisions we get will give Humans, Duardin and Aelves some some female variants, and that we can get a Coven Sorceress who is less of a tiddy witch, Teclis save us from 90s Dark Elf Sorceress' Madonna bra!! 

For me one of the key considerations is do we all want GW to make "all armies" inclusive of all concepts or do we want niches. 

For example you can easily argue that Daughters of Khaine overly sexualises women because they are all super skimpy lithe elf women dancing around. Do you force DoK to also adopt female models of multiple different displays of femininity or do you instead say. "ok that's the skimpy elf army; now here's a heavy set "sisters of battle" style army somewhere else in the AoS lineup. Perhaps with their own unique story and background.

 

Another angle is instead of putting female dwarves into traditional dwarven armies, instead create a subset of the dwarf faction that might embody a greater gender display. So instead of female Fyreslayers or Dispossessed you instead make the "Durdin Alliance Force" which represents dwarves right out in the sticks far beyond the shining Cities of Sigmar and such. Who are so hard pressed that traditional dwarven gender roles get broken down and women form are now forming part of their battlelines. 

 

Instead of forcing all factions to change and adopt the same polices you adopt them through the whole game range. This is far more releasing because it means that instead of warping and twisting the existing to fit you create new fresh ideas free of any shackles to past concepts and lore and instead present a fresh take. There's then the player choice to also convert their own army. If you want a beefy heavy set barbarian looking army that plays like Daughters of Khaine then - by all means - go for it; nothing stops you. Provided models are based right (for competitive games) then most people would be perfectly find with such options if you so desired to make them.

[Zappgrot]

6 hours ago, shinros said:

When I'm talking about sense, I mean the levels female Space Marines. My whole outlook is that companies don't give a flying monkies about representation, that's my stance and why I don't really care. Blizzard the company that cares so much about it seems to be okay with removing the witch doctor for China and banning a guy for campaigning for basic human rights. Wizard of coast are okay with changing a character's sexual orientation to appease china. To get money. 

Hence why I see it largely as a farce. 

This is true. Companies don't care about social change they care about money, But if we care  they will change to sell to our tastes. Gw might not care but if we all do they will still make more female models. 

[zilberfrid]

10 minutes ago, Pariah said:

I really like that box. Granted, I think GW has done a great/maybe even better job when you look at the way warcry was done. About half and half male and female, and male and female leaders too. One thing I do have a problem with is the way certain games add female characters as leaders and commanders (looking at warmachine and hordes). That does mess with immersion, as it makes it seem like the only women allowed in the army are prodigies and makes it feel unbalanced and makes them less relatable. Maybe it's just me but often I end up giving certain rank and file troops the most backstory. I really want an even spread for most armies between infantry and heroes.  

Northstar made an excellent compensation box. I can compensate the lack of diversity with it. If I were to start now, I would buy some Frostgrave soldiers 1 and Frostgrave soldiers 2 kits, but I already have loads of males, so only need the females.

That said, my first box is getting plundered for d&d miniatures by people around me, so I'll need a second one anyway.

GW made some excellent females in Warcry, and I would like them to continue with the same quality. I don't think they'll make sets to augment older sets with just female bodies though, there is no reason for them to do so. Selling a 50/50 set will sell more, and be applicapble even when people have diversified their old monogender armies.

[Deepkin]

As long as it makes sense, I dont see why there shouldnt be more female models.

At the same time, I dont believe there is any moral obligation to make them. I also think that certain armies or factions can remain essentially mono-gender (Space Marines/Sisters of Battle, f'rex) with no issue. Not every faction (even the largest ones) needs to reflect modern demographics. 

Though in all fairness, I think Primaris marines ruined the aesthetic of 40k marines waaay more than female ones ever would, so at this point I wouldnt particularly care if Marneus Calgar wore a wig and heels. 

Stormcast being women is a nonissue. They arent humans anymore, they are lightning golems forged by a god. And not all of them were warriors. Gardus Steelsoul was a doctor in his past life, not a soldier. 

I do wish they would produce female dwarf models. No beards either, make them look like actual women.

Male elves would be nice too I guess, but why start making them now after 30 years i guess.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Deepkin

[Leksika]

4 minutes ago, Overread said:

For me one of the key considerations is do we all want GW to make "all armies" inclusive of all concepts or do we want niches. 

I don't think niches are helpful. Personally, I would rather 'generalist' units like Cities Humans, Dispossessed and Aelves should have parity through bits on sprue. Same goes for Stormcast, just give some female heads (as others have said, unisex armour is not an issue)

For example you can easily argue that Daughters of Khaine overly sexualises women because they are all super skimpy lithe elf women dancing around. Do you force DoK to also adopt female models of multiple different displays of femininity or do you instead say. "ok that's the skimpy elf army; now here's a heavy set "sisters of battle" style army somewhere else in the AoS lineup. Perhaps with their own unique story and background.

Personally I have never been a fan of DoK and Witch Elves before them for this exact reason. I don't think you need to scrap them. But I'd never want to play as them because they're super cynical design choices.

Instead of forcing all factions to change and adopt the same polices you adopt them through the whole game range. This is far more releasing because it means that instead of warping and twisting the existing to fit you create new fresh ideas free of any shackles to past concepts and lore and instead present a fresh take. There's then the player choice to also convert their own army. If you want a beefy heavy set barbarian looking army that plays like Daughters of Khaine then - by all means - go for it; nothing stops you. Provided models are based right (for competitive games) then most people would be perfectly find with such options if you so desired to make them.

I think some factions would be fine without: Non-humanoids, Demons, Beasts, Orruks etc. But I do think simply having clearly female options, which would normally extend to simply head swaps in many cases, would satisfy a lot of people. Cities Battletome had a female marine gunner in the fiction and I thought it was great! No big deal, just seemed natural that frontier cities would have much less strict gender roles in militaries that face annihilation on a regular basis.

Nobody is forced to adopt anything with such a change. 

 

[Zappgrot]

3 hours ago, Aryann said:

How about not take it literally? It's a metaphor. Trying to explain replacing is wrong no matter who is being replaced. Last mention, promise - I'd rather they killed a white male superhero and started a BRAND NEW ONE minority hero than to replace him with 90% same powers but different skin color/sex. That's lazy, unfair and bad taste. Be original. Everything they can come up with is black Spider-man, Spider-Women and Noir Spider-man? Groundschool kid would have performed better if asked to create a new hero... 

Edit:

There is one Captain America - Steve Rogers. Doesn't matter who was put in his shoes, white or black. You're done with ideas how to continue his story? Kill him and create sth new you lazy writers. 

Thing is lately there is a huge and visible shift to replacing whites whith blacks or women/minorities. Captain America, Hulk (Amadeus Cho), Spider-Man, Iron Man (Riri Williams), Thor (Jane Foster), etc...

Yea but  making a new hero means you missing out on the existing fan base. When the replace a hero they arn't doing it cause they are lazy. They do it cause they are a business in the process of making money.  And good storytelling does not equal profit  Franchise do, And while not changeing the chracter at all might be even more profitable in the long run they don't know that for sure. They are just trying to ride the public trend, they do however know for damm sure that dumping a character costs them money.  Look at AOS, aos repalced fantasy and that pissed a lot of ppl off but they kind of brought some elements back to hook the old fans.  If they hadn't done that  even more ppl would have quite.  And while i loved fantasy. It just wasn't a game whit a profitable system for gw before they went completely online  so from a company lvl it had to go.  Sad but true. 

[Lightbox]

2 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

Northstar made an excellent compensation box. I can compensate the lack of diversity with it. If I were to start now, I would buy some Frostgrave soldiers 1 and Frostgrave soldiers 2 kits, but I already have loads of males, so only need the females.

I do really like the way they've done it actually. I plan to get a box of each myself to then create loads of D&D and mordheim models out of. I think it would be a pretty good way to go if GW decided they wished to address gender disparity in older kits e.g. if they wanted female stormcast liberators they could do a kit of them instead of having to go through shadespire to get a sculpt etc. 

One thing I actually kinda dislike with the sprues that have 1 or 2 females on them is they're actually really difficult to swap parts around on. This is in part due to the way modern GW kits sacrifice poseability for dynamics but for females it's an issue because they're generally made with smaller sculpted limbs meaning that for example with my idoneth eels if I want a female squad leader or a male musician it ends up looking weird because of arm size. But on the other hand I much prefer having that issue than having no female models at all for my elves.

[Overread]

8 minutes ago, Leksika said:

Personally I have never been a fan of DoK and Witch Elves before them for this exact reason. I don't think you need to scrap them. But I'd never want to play as them because they're super cynical design choices.

And I think that's perfectly fine and good. We each have armies we do and don't like for all kinds of reasons. If GW offers niches and themes and concepts within different armies, then in theory we will all gravitate toward different armies. This results in variety which means far more interesting games rather than everyone being carbon copies. 

Personally I really like DoK; meanwhile I've never wanted to collect Orruks. Some people are the other way around.

Head Swaps could indeed be a thing. Plus Forgeworld could have stepped in to provide even more alternative heads and even torsos for some forces. Indeed its a shame that FW has thus far only made 12 heads for Stormcast (and the Chaos Dragon). It's a big missed opportunity in my view. 

[Aeryenn]

21 minutes ago, Lightbox said:

The hobby is changing as It has been since the 80's in various ways and as it will continue to. Noone is forcing you to accept people into your group or to use female models or whatever but that should be no reasons to decide no one else can have them.

And noone said that the future of AoS is 50-50 female-male ratio in minis. Why should it be? We, the Warhammer Community decide on this with what we buy, what we say on forums, at tournaments, events but also WHO we are. Some of you want GW to have representation in their minis of people who actually at the moment are not interested in the hobby.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

I've typed "tournament" on w-c.com and this is what I get. Pictures from 3 first results. Tell me, what do these events have in common?

Let me help you - white males. All of them but maybe 1-2 persons. Those are GW's customers. They are the people that want representation in Warhammer minis. You create a problem a problem for people who are almost don't exist. Deal with. It's a white men area. That's a fact. It may change over time but right it's just as we see it. I'm sure that if more women or people of color were interested in the hobby, then GW would produce more minis of sort.

[Still-young]

7 minutes ago, Aryann said:

And noone said that the future of AoS is 50-50 female-male ratio in minis. Why should it be? We, the Warhammer Community decide on this with what we buy, what we say on forums, at tournaments, events but also WHO we are. Some of you want GW to have representation in their minis of people who actually at the moment are not interested in the hobby.

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

  Reveal hidden contents

I've typed "tournament" on w-c.com and this is what I get. Pictures from 3 first results. Tell me, what do these events have in common?

Let me help you - white males. All of them but maybe 1-2 persons. Those are GW's customers. They are the people that want representation in Warhammer minis. You create a problem a problem for people who are almost don't exist. Deal with. It's a white men area. That's a fact. It may change over time but right it's just as we see it. I'm sure that if more women or people of color were interested in the hobby, then GW would produce more minis of sort.

On the flip side, as GW produce more of those minis, people who are interested but put off by their lack of representation until now might start playing. And if representation doesn’t matter, then it won’t matter to us white males if we get less, right? So what’s the downside? (Royal Us there, seeing as I don’t want to assume your gender or race). 

Edited November 21, 2019 by Still-young

[Whitefang]

Presenting pictures of tournaments held in the UK or US

”Hey there are only white males!”

 

You can’t be serious.