How will Games Workshop push diversity in AoS?

[Icegoat]

28 minutes ago, MKsmash said:

Something I'm a bit confused about...

Why the need? 

The factions in Warhammer are armies. Fact is, armies are predominantly male. The U.S. army is only 14% female and the U.K. Army is only 11%. If we include more female models, this will not be like real armies. 

Now, I get that Warhammer is fantasy, not reality. "These aren't real armies, so there can be more representation than in real life!"  But in Warhammer, aren't these armies led by strong, beefy men going to be, essentially, protecting the women and children? 

They could be doing it out of chivalry, or a belief that women must be protected so that they can lead in the cities and empire themselves. Additionally, some armies simply cannot be imagined with a female counterpart. Can you imagine a female orc? I can't ( though this will certainly lead to someone finding a picture of a female orc).

However, I will agree that a lot of armies would benefit from more diversity in race.

I think you raise what is the most obvious point that gw has to ignore unfortunately to increase diversity. Stormcast and chaos warriors are blessed divine warriors of the gods. Aelves are immortal beings that have always been stronger than an average human and always fought as a mixture of both sexes but the divide between an average female human and an average Male is easily noted. And I'm saying average because obviously they are millions of women stronger than millions of men.

Freeguild peasant regiments made up of men and women I guess could be a thing but they ignore thousands of years actual human warfare up to and including our modern era. 

[Overread]

29 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

At least in Dark Heresy rpg, among the members of the Tyrantine Cabal (a group of high ranking inquisitors) several are women and one is dark-skinned. The Inquisition has different problems, it seems. 😎

This actually raises an important aspect regarding the visual diversification of a faction and how different gamers can end up with a different perception of an army's diversity. 

On the tabletop Imperial Guard have always been male models in uniform. It's not until more recent times that we've actually seen dedicated female models appearing in their line (and one of them is a "store birthday model" that isn't technically out yet - though does appear to be in the wild in the USA). Meanwhile their skintone and racial background in models, whilst often having a european lean, has historically been quite diverse. However when metal was phased out for plastic and then for finecast we lost a lot of the themed IG forces. So a good generation of gamers will have only seen general Cadians and Catachans. 

 

However if you read the lore of the game, esp in the Black Library novels, you get a very different picture. One that shows that the Guard are of infinite diversity. Hailing from worlds over the whole Imperium with a vast amount of diversity on offer. From legions that are decked out in golden armour and parade style uniforms through to hard bitten warriors that dress in full camo at all times. The diversity also extends into gender, with women being, if not common, at least decently represented within the ranks and there being no apparent barriers to rising through the ranks; ergo there's no inherent stigma against them. 

 

 

Therefor if GW started to add more female models one group might perceive this as a socially driven/forced change to a game they love; whilst others would see it as GW finally starting to respect and fit the model line in with the lore they've established, many of the stories of which were done decades ago. 

Personally I don't think GW is as led by the politics as people think. Even back in the Old World they had Arabian, Scottish, Eastern, Asian, American (folk and colonist) style inspired armies. Heck their Aztec inspired army is all giant lizards. Araby even got an army eventually through Warmaster. I think GW has always been VERY open to diversity. I think what has limited them is simply production and sculptor time and resources; as well as perhaps some bias in the skills and styles of their sculptors who perhaps are more used to sculpting certain styles of model than others. So more of an aspect as a result of other factors rather than a social desire to exclude certain aspects. Certainly if you read the Old World stories Nippon, Cathay, Araby are all well mentioned, I suspect they are only not more mentioned because they didn't get models and so were never a key focus. However even in GW's "touring duo" of Gotrek and Felix they visit some of those regions - suggesting that at the time there was great potential for GW to be working on those forces. 

[Icegoat]

I know this might sound rude but I consider tga the pre eminent aos forum on the internet.

It's a well moderated site with many welcoming people  and from what I can tell it seems to have never had a female poster or member. Please correct me if I'm wrong  but I've never seen a lady on here.

[Craze]

3 minutes ago, Icegoat said:

...and from what I can tell it seems to have never had a female poster or member. Please correct me if I'm wrong  but I've never seen a lady on here.

How do you know if someone is female?! Perhaps I am female!

This presumption that ladies offensively proclaim their femaledom in a forum is quite strange, or does every man tell you upfront that he is male?

[Aeryenn]

5 hours ago, BoneHeart said:

Can we not have these kind of topics here please? I feel that they are add no value to our hobby, nor to the discussions. Please do not bring real life politics into a hobby forum. Thanks 

GW is the one who brought up the topic.

  I wouldn't mind this statement if it was posted independently from american events we are all aware of. Diversity in miniatures is great. I'm always pleased if I don't have to paint an army of clones.

It disturbes me however. Everyone can have their opinion on BLM thing and if GW signs it with their name in a way, I'm afraid they may take an wrong route of mindlessly applying parities in their range. What could this mean in exaggeration? Each and every faction would have to include every skin tone and 50% of the models would have to be female. Or, even forced to include transgender characters. Is it wrong? You are obliged to have your own opinion. For me it's exactly the opposite of diversification. For me diversity is when I see a 100% male Kharadron Overlords army vs 100% female army of DoK and 100% army of hermaphrodite orks (right?) than seeing 50% of man and women across all of them.

6 hours ago, Mcprowlington said:

Lol abbey wasn't trans, and most people just don't like how her inclusion in the story was handled more than anything.

This situation is not so simple. I used to work out at a gym for 2 years 4 times a week while being on diet and with using nutrients for bodybuilders. Even though I'm male I wasn't as shoulders wide as Abby in TLoU2. I you think gender doesn't have an effect on muscle gain please read biological coursebooks or ask yourself a question why men and women don't compete together at Olympics. A women living in a post-apo environment, with food shortages is looking more muscular than any other male character in the game. Highly unbelievable without taking hormones by a woman.

13 hours ago, Chikout said:

As for the last of us thing. The last of us 2 is the best selling game of the year on the uk despite the full details of the controversy being known far ahead of the game's launch. The vocal minority clearly doesn't represent the majority opinion. 

Some people bought the game unaware of the controversy. I was one of them. Didn't read anything prior to premiere being afraid that it will spoil the story for me. Naughty Dog lost me as a client. Not because of Abby which in the end I like better than Ellie and they did a good job to tell her story and fit it well in TLoU2 setting. It's because of a "leftist lecturing" which I truly hate and believe it to be one of the most destructive practice nowadays. They implement "minority stuff" in a way that puts a player against the wall with obvious leftist liberal narration that turns out to be poorely executed propaganda. The gameplay is great on the other hand. If you don't mind being indoctrinated, try the game.

 

There is one more thing I would like to talk about. People here speak that they would like to see more female models. I'm okey with that. Just one point - do we treat AoS setting as a full high fantasy where everything is possible or we want it to be some kind of reflection of the real world? If the second is the case you all perfectly know that history of mankinds wars was written by men. it's not a sexist's opinion, that's a simple fact. Men were the soldiers (in 99,99% cases?) while women played equally important role of running the countries, households and keeping care of the children during war times. It was dictated by our biology which for me is a fact and should not offend anyone but I'm not forcing this on anyone. Be happy to have your own opinion and say it out loud. Men being stronger physically and more aggresive due to testosterone are more suited for swinging swords which was reflected during our history among all races and cultures. If we agree on this (no obligation on your side of course) should we really want 30-50% of women representation among AoS armies? It might be natural for specific armies (DoK being 90% female or any other you can think of that make sense to you) but should it be stretched across each and every army? It would me more natural in my opinion to have female archers or mages rather than warriors wieldieng two-handed swords on the frontline in a full plate armor. I was carefull not to offend anyone but still know this: I'm a guy who gladly painted I guess 80 dryads, Alarielle, Drycha and is happy to paint my female Idoneth models. I'm not sexist, racist or whatever. If you feel that I hurt your feeling, please tell me about, don't report or ban me mindlessly. I'm open for discussion. Have a nice day.

Edited July 8, 2020 by Aryann

[Beastmaster]

6 minutes ago, Icegoat said:

I know this might sound rude but I consider tga the pre eminent aos forum on the internet.

It's a well moderated site with many welcoming people  and from what I can tell it seems to have never had a female poster or member. Please correct me if I'm wrong  but I've never seen a lady on here.

Actually, I have no idea what gender anyone here is. Doesn’t interest me either. 

[zilberfrid]

1 hour ago, MKsmash said:

Something I'm a bit confused about...

Why the need? 

The factions in Warhammer are armies. Fact is, armies are predominantly male. The U.S. army is only 14% female and the U.K. Army is only 11%. If we include more female models, this will not be like real armies. 

Now, I get that Warhammer is fantasy, not reality. "These aren't real armies, so there can be more representation than in real life!"  But in Warhammer, aren't these armies led by strong, beefy men going to be, essentially, protecting the women and children? 

They could be doing it out of chivalry, or a belief that women must be protected so that they can lead in the cities and empire themselves. Additionally, some armies simply cannot be imagined with a female counterpart. Can you imagine a female orc? I can't ( though this will certainly lead to someone finding a picture of a female orc).

However, I will agree that a lot of armies would benefit from more diversity in race.

At the moment, I can't do even a 1 in 7 (current US army) female inclusion in my units, because there aren't any GW options. If they start with half and half, I'll have to buy a new one for every two sets I now have to get close.

Also, while females historically were kept out of wars between different humans, that's not a luxury your civilisation has in Warhammer. An invading army will erase your clan/tribe/city from existence, not levy some taxes and call it done. Training everyone to be able to defend themselves is neccessary.

I don't think it's neccessary, logical or interesting to adhere to our collective memory of chivalric codes in model design.

Bonus points, if you don't want female models of a new set, just put them on ebay, there'll be many people that will want to buy them (looking at availability of the female warband models on bits sites).

[hughwyeth]

1 hour ago, MKsmash said:

Something I'm a bit confused about...

Why the need? 

The factions in Warhammer are armies. Fact is, armies are predominantly male. The U.S. army is only 14% female and the U.K. Army is only 11%. If we include more female models, this will not be like real armies. 

Now, I get that Warhammer is fantasy, not reality. "These aren't real armies, so there can be more representation than in real life!"  But in Warhammer, aren't these armies led by strong, beefy men going to be, essentially, protecting the women and children? 

They could be doing it out of chivalry, or a belief that women must be protected so that they can lead in the cities and empire themselves. Additionally, some armies simply cannot be imagined with a female counterpart. Can you imagine a female orc? I can't ( though this will certainly lead to someone finding a picture of a female orc).

However, I will agree that a lot of armies would benefit from more diversity in race.

I think the strength in AoS is it can leave behind a lot of these fantasy tropes. To see how angry people were that GW dared give elves hammers was disappointing for me. It's fantasy, why do we need to maintain 70 year old tropes? Every single other wargame system maintains the tropes, if you want high elves, chose literally any other company. Thank god GW is daring to do something different. A fantasy world where a huge mix of genders and races fight together in one unit is actually pretty refreshing, entirely seperate from any representation agenda. Give me a unit of katana wielding female dwarves!! Give me a unit of bearded, muscly, hammer wielding elves! 

[dekay]

7 minutes ago, Icegoat said:

I know this might sound rude but I consider tga the pre eminent aos forum on the internet.

It's a well moderated site with many welcoming people  and from what I can tell it seems to have never had a female poster or member. Please correct me if I'm wrong  but I've never seen a lady on here.

a] I have literally no idea what gender anyone here is and don't really care.

b] forums are for grognards ; ). A lot more women are interested in warhams now than before, but you'll have better success looking for them in social media based communities. Forums in general are pretty niche in this day and age and seem to mostly cater to folks who grew up in previous generation of the internet.

7 minutes ago, Aryann said:

Just one point - do we treat AoS setting as a full high fantasy where everything is possible

Yes. It has absolutely no basis in reality in any discernible way. It has skeleton catapults walking on hands, magic airships and immortal teleporting demigod crusaders. And it takes place in a setting where hills try to eat you, water is on fire and souls of the damned roam freely.

 

10 minutes ago, Aryann said:

What could this mean in exaggeration? Each and every faction would have to include every skin tone and 50% of the models would have to be female. Or, even forced to include transgender characters.

No one is asking for this, it's only a strawman. By the way, 40k included trans related stuff in Eldar faction for ages now, them changing their identity, gender included, to fit on their chosen path it was an interesting piece of lore. Also, they can be included without being forced.

 

12 minutes ago, Aryann said:

For me diversity is when I see a 100% male Kharadron Overlords army vs 100% female army of DoK

DoK have some males, despite their name and I'd very much like to see female KO because their are in the books and their design sounds interesting. 

15 minutes ago, Aryann said:

This situation is not so simple.

It is, honestly. Nothing about her being trans shows up in the game itself. Also, let's not drag TLoU2 here any more, it's not really relevant. And the game is bad anyway.

[Vasshpit]

1 hour ago, dekay said:

Absolutely, and not in a comedic caricatural way. It would be fun to see them represented, especially that fighting females would hammer the point 'all that they do is fight' even more. Entire society does that, there's no civilians (also, reproducing through spores is very 40k and would be nice to move away from it in AoS)

+1 to this sooo hard!!!

[HollowHills]

I like that they have females in elf armies because I don't think they are dependent on physical strength in the same way as humans. I imagine they fight using skill and speed rather than brute strength. So while a male wrestler might beat a female wrestler most of the time, it wouldn't be the same if a male and female fencer fought.

I find it a bit strange with chaos though. I mean in the old world Archaon was the product of rape. They were all barbarians who valued strength and, with only a few exceptions, didn't respect women.

Now I find it hard to believe they would all jump on the pc train.

As for orcs, dwarfs etc. I don't see it as a big deal to add females. Wow and dnd have had female orcs and dwarfs for years and no one really cares.

[dekay]

4 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

They were all barbarians who valued strength and, with only a few exceptions, didn't respect women.

It used to be true in Old World, but it's not very relevant anymore. Funnily enough, Slaves to Darkness have probably most interesting and diverse female cast among all the AoS factions, both with warcry cultists and new chaos warriors. Warcry warbands actually demonstrate quite well that compared to old world northern barbarians, AoS chaos is an extremely varied spectrum of crazy murderers where everyone is welcome. As long as they're crazy murderer.

[Scurvydog]

GW is doing fine, the problem lies in the headline "pushing" they should not "push" they should make cool stuff, fun armies and I think they are. They are digging into all kinds of stuff. 

Some of the most impressive models in the game are female, like Allarielle and Morathi as counterparts to Nagash and soon Teclis as the original pantheon "gods" we got models for. Sylvaneth is largely either female looking or androgynous besides some of their revenants, which are already mixed. Allerielle, Drycha, Arch Revenants, all new models made for AoS and female in form.

Same goes for DoK, besides the old doomfire warlocks all models are very purposefully female, which is cool and fits, this is even established from old lore and mixed neatly into the new, no pushing needed.

Even the nighthaunt got all kinds of female ghosts and their Mortarch is also a new character, which is very cool and makes sense and does not push any agenda, despite her husband being completely silenced it sounds more fun and interesting than forced narrative (although some hardcore feminists should really love Olynder!).

Stormcast, especially after 2.0 are completely a mixed bag, their stories really drives home how different they all are, like the realmslayer stories for example or just look at the new models and coverart from novels. They are certainly no longer a "white dudes" army.

Flesh eaters' new warband got female ghouls! FW made some female blood bowl ogors!  Daemons are Daemons, would bloodletters with a more feminine form make sense? I think that would be forcing it, it serves no purpose for them to even consider. Slaanesh it makes sense for, but they go both ways in more than one sense

I really do think GW is doing a great job just making cool stuff and all in all hitting a lot of different areas, amalgamations of real world and fantasy cultures all in one big pot and something for everyone, I just don't think GW should worry too much about including 75 heads in their liberator kit 2.0 to account for everything in 1 faction for example. 

It is OK factions are different, just like people really, they don't need to all be the same or all be a completely balanced mix of real world related demographics,

[Overread]

17 minutes ago, dekay said:

It used to be true in Old World, but it's not very relevant anymore. Funnily enough, Slaves to Darkness have probably most interesting and diverse female cast among all the AoS factions, both with warcry cultists and new chaos warriors. Warcry warbands actually demonstrate quite well that compared to old world northern barbarians, AoS chaos is an extremely varied spectrum of crazy murderers where everyone is welcome. As long as they're crazy murderer.

Agreed. Old World Chaos was very much akin to the "Barbarian" tribes that threatened the Roman empire (as seen and depicted by the Romans). They were wild people generally devoid of most civilised living. They played to the very macho barbarian style and cultural aspects. 

That is still very much a part of Chaos in Age of Sigmar. However GW has also expanded it vastly; covering the whole of the diversity of the realms in chaos means that now we've so many more factions and groups. From cultists who prey in the dark places of high buildings; through to organised and very cultured nations that worship the dark powers. It's still got that brutal barbarian warrior edge, but we are seeing far more of the diversity come through in the models now. This links into the Chaos Demons really well too as they are very much no gender specific - Slaanesh has never had any gender bias; Tzeentch, Khorne and Nurgle likely don't care one bit either. Heck Nurgle would be very appropriate for more female mutated monsters - caring brood-like mothers tending to their leech babies and puss filled children whilst slobbering bile dribbling hounds of chaos guard the homestead. 

[EccentricCircle]

Slaanesh really is the faction for anyone who wants complete gender parity in their armies. Every single soldier is half male and half female!

I've lost the post that mentioned it, as I've just read a dozen more before going back to quote, which probably should warn me that this is off topic. However...

Just to be pedantic, the trope of female archers, vs male melee fighters is actually a bit of a myth. It actually takes an insane amount of upper body strength to shoot medieval war bows, and you need a life times worth of practice, training and body building to become a combat archer. Conversely competitive sword fighting sports frequently demonstrate that the sword equalises a lot of the difference in strength between the average man and woman. There are a lot of mixed sword fighting tournaments. Once you have trained to use a long sword, even a weaker combatant can defeat a stronger one, so long as they have the right skill. I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't have female archers, just that we should dismiss female melee fighters as being somehow unrealistic. I think the whole idea of ladies fighting at range is very much coloured by our experience of guns in the last hundred years or two, rather than archery.

[Icegoat]

I think maybe Aos just isn't as brutal and as dark as 40k or warhammer fantasy and that is quite a shame. Chaos as a culture and society would be absolutely brutal to live in. If followed through to it's natural end it could go to some very dark places indeed but instead it seems all the different tribes people come together and they all hug each other round the camp fire after killing the bad sigmarines and orcs it is slightly odd. Surely in reality they would all be mega racist misogynistic madmen who chop up anyone they meet. And yet get a guy on horse to lead them and they all living in a nice tribe.  And these are the evil guys.

[Fairbanks]

1 minute ago, EccentricCircle said:

Just to be pedantic, the trope of female archers, vs male melee fighters is actually a bit of a myth. It actually takes an insane amount of upper body strength to shoot medieval war bows, and you need a life times worth of practice, training and body building to become a combat archer. Conversely competitive sword fighting sports frequently demonstrate that the sword equalises a lot of the difference in strength between the average man and woman. There are a lot of mixed sword fighting tournaments. Once you have trained to use a long sword, even a weaker combatant can defeat a stronger one, so long as they have the right skill. I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't have female archers, just that we should dismiss female melee fighters as being somehow unrealistic. I think the whole idea of ladies fighting at range is very much coloured by our experience of guns in the last hundred years or two, rather than archery.

Guns are amazing neutralizer of gender disparity. I know plenty of women twice my size who I could still beat in a fistfight, but could easily hit the mark on targets twice as far as I can.

[dekay]

8 minutes ago, Icegoat said:

Chaos as a culture and society would be absolutely brutal to live in.

Let's be real here, it would be utterly impossible to live in. It wouldn't survive more than a generation. Chaos is about as close to real world cultures as KO or Stormcast are to historical warfare. So let's leave the 'realism' argument in peace, AoS doesn't even stand in general vicinity of realism...

8 minutes ago, Icegoat said:

Surely in reality they would all be mega racist misogynistic madmen who chop up anyone they meet. 

Why? They're all united by their goal and religion, why would they be racist or misogynistic? As long as you want to destroy the world with them, you are welcome. If you're strong, the path to promotion is open, too. Nothing about them says they should be intolerant of anything apart from 'hurr durr mature fantasy so bad guys rape everyone'.  Hell, some of them skin *their own faces* to show they allegiance and you think they're nice and friendly because they don't seem to hate women while, i can't stress that enough *skinning their own faces*?

22 minutes ago, Overread said:

Heck Nurgle would be very appropriate for more female mutated monsters - caring brood-like mothers tending to their leech babies and puss filled children whilst slobbering bile dribbling hounds of chaos guard the homestead. 

Underworld have us a proper nurgle woman and she looks just like she should. And I agree, we need more motherly monstrosities caring for their children while eating actual children ; )

Edited July 8, 2020 by dekay

[zilberfrid]

9 minutes ago, dekay said:

Let's be real here, it would be utterly impossible to live in. It wouldn't survive more than a generation. Chaos is about as close to real world cultures as KO or Stormcast are to historical warfare. So let's leave the 'realism' argument in peace, AoS doesn't even stand in general vicinity of realism...

Why? They're all united by their goal and religion, why would they be racist or misogynistic? As long as you want to destroy the world with them, you are welcome. If you're strong, the path to promotion is open, too. Nothing about them says they should be intolerant of anything apart from 'hurr durr mature fantasy so bad guys rape everyone'.  Hell, some of them skin *their own faces* to show they allegiance and you think they're nice and friendly because they don't seem to hate women while, i can't stress that enough *skinning their own faces*?

Underworld have us a proper nurgle woman and she looks just like she should. And I agree, we need more motherly monstrosities caring for their children while eating actual children ; )

Yeah, AoS makes no logistical sense. What do people eat? Who's farming, how do prey animals replenish, etc?

The taking off their own skin bit would make for a really bad time, infections, abrasion directly on the muscle, extreme chance of torn arteries.

Compared to that kind of plot hole, there is no reason to make more diverse sets except the choice not to.

[Jefferson Skarsnik]

Nappy wearing dwarfs who burn magical gold into their own skin because they believe it to be the fragments of their shattered god: Yes. Good

Elves who refashion themselves into the peak of mental acuity and martial perfection by using crystals to drain out their negative emotions, while using a particular class of magic user to torpedo the leftover bad emotion slurry at their enemies: great. Go on. Keep em comin

Trans people: no

 

[Neverchosen]

If GW is taking the notion of diversity seriously it is something that they need to institute in hiring policies and creative decisions. The representation of BIPOC individuals in the games and narratives is important but it is important to have that reflected in the company as well. If they hire more diverse writers, designers and management it will likely be reflected in the game as a whole and encourage more people to enter into the hobby. 


I find it ridiculous that people are arguing that women in the military lack a historical precedent but are okay with magic, demons and trolls. Female soldiers have existed in history,  so it is a little embarrassing that slightly better representation than what has existed in history or contemporary society is where people's incredulity begins and ends. 😅

Edited July 8, 2020 by Neverchosen

[EccentricCircle]

23 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

Yeah, AoS makes no logistical sense. What do people eat? Who's farming, how do prey animals replenish, etc?

I was reading a black library novel, I forget which one, and there is a scene where one of the stormcast says something sounds like a millstone. All his stormcast buddies are perplexed that he knows what a millstone sounds like, and he's like "well, I wasn't always a warrior". It was supposed to be a nice character moment, but to me it rang really hollow, because really, how does anyone *not* know what a millstone sounds like? I mean I live in a society where its been over a century since anyone in my part of the world milled their own flour, and I know what a millstone sounds like! How can the AoS setting function if soldiers are so removed from the day to day necessities that its remarkable when one of them can understand the lives of the people they are supposed to protect? It just seemed really weird and forced. Still, maybe in Azyrheim, all flour is produced by the God Beast of Flour, which summons it into existence. Who knows?

Ahem... Back on topic! It doesn't surprise me at all that Chaos is quite good from an equal opportunities point of view. The chaos philosophy is all about the self, to the point that anyone who isn't you only really gets grudging respect if they can stand up to you in a fight. From that point of view trying to define in and out groups, and like or dislike people based on arbitrary characteristics is ludicrous.

[amysrevenge]

9 minutes ago, Jefferson Skarsnik said:

Nappy wearing dwarfs who burn magical gold into their own skin because they believe it to be the fragments of their shattered god: Yes. Good

Elves who refashion themselves into the peak of mental acuity and martial perfection by using crystals to drain out their negative emotions, while using a particular class of magic user to torpedo the leftover bad emotion slurry at their enemies: great. Go on. Keep em comin

Trans people: no

 

Ladies in the army: Heck no.

 

lol

 

Any analysis of Warhammer races, even humans, that includes the word "historical" or "real world" might as well be white text on a white background - I'm just not interested.

[HollowHills]

17 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

Ladies in the army: Heck no.

 

lol

 

Any analysis of Warhammer races, even humans, that includes the word "historical" or "real world" might as well be white text on a white background - I'm just not interested.

Except many in favour of pushing diversity in Warhammer do so on the basis it should be reflective of modern society. 

Arguing that warriors should be reflective of the fact men are stronger than women, or that men are historically more present in military units, is the same kind of appeal.

Neither is obviously superior. 

[Fairbanks]

18 hours ago, shinros said:

Oh here we go, as a black guy I will leave it at this. If GW wants to see more minorities  in the hobby they need to adjust the prices. That's it. Also I'm not going to identify with any character in 40k considering no one is a hero in that setting since the Imperium is a satirical take on the worst parts of humanity. I like the stories in the setting and characters, but I won't identify with them.

Also I play death in AOS. Why? Because I like their models and their narrative. Also out of all the companies I think GW are handling diversity the best, the pencil pushers in the office seem to know what they are doing save the price increase. But what do I know? When I said this apparently I hate myself. 

Also this topic is going to get locked. Fast. I do the hobby to get away from things like this. I hate politics, hate activists (either side) in this modern age. 

If I had a dollar for every time somebody walked into the Warhammer store, looked at everything in there, picked up a box or two, turned it over to see the price, put it back, and left, I'd be able to afford a Warlord Titan.

Here, everybody feel better and have a picture of puppies.

Edited July 8, 2020 by Fairbanks