How will Games Workshop push diversity in AoS?

[JPjr]

Trying to think of a way to reply to half of all this without getting permabanned and nope, after 4 attempts I just can't do it.

 

[zilberfrid]

1 hour ago, Aeryenn said:

They've announced their new diversification policy just recently. We have to wait with the judgment on how does it really affect our hobby.

@zilberfrid Great post. I, however, am (guess what) of conservative beliefs and in my opinion our biological differences (of men and women) determine our interests in this respect (to some pint of course). I can't call raising up boys and girls differently social engineering if it is not forced. I have two kids, two boys  actually. I didn't have to convince them to play with toy cars and transformers. They wanted them for themselves. If I had girl I wouldn't forbid her to play with the same toys of course if she really wanted two.

I'm saying that we might want to attract gropups of people into the hobby that don't want to be attracted. And that's wrong. We have to be welcoming for anyone but can't be changing the natural groups of interest.

I don't have children myself, but do have nieces and a nephew, as well as having been one, of course.

Kids mirror things from TV and people they know quite a bit, when my sister caught her son saying " See, there's only boys playing with that, you can't have it!", she changed to subscription only so there wouldn't be adds anymore and her kids would feel more free to do as they wished. Her daughters happily play with toy machinery, and her son with dolls, and the other way around. My other sister, on the other hand, has made toys for both genders available, but her daughters prefer the more classic girl's toys (though with a rising interest in sciency things for the younger).

My sisters were bullied at school because they scored high in strength bits at PE, which they could because they helped around on the farm and because they cared for their ponies. I am still baffled why being good at something warrants disdain.

When my brother (in the '80's) wanted to start ballet, he was told they wouldn't teach boys. When he spoke about it in school, even the application was used to bully him for years.

What I'm trying to say (except "kids are cruel") is that straying outside the norm is met with bullying, and it shapes kid's minds more than you might imagine.

[Kramer]

18 minutes ago, JPjr said:

Trying to think of a way to reply to half of all this without getting permabanned and nope, after 4 attempts I just can't do it.

 

Haha same. There are some wrongly worded phrases in here to say the least. 

[Overread]

4 hours ago, Aeryenn said:

Can you try to explain why men represent a vast majority of tabletop wargames?

Multiple reasons - some of which have already been identified:

1) Like attracts like. Any social group that displays a bias, be it gender, age, sexuality, colour, race, religion etc... can experience an issue that those they attract often come from the same background; even if the group has no barriers to those from other groups. Simply put people like to be with those of a like kind. If you've a club where most people are 60 years old or greater then you'll have a hard time getting those in their 20s to join up. It's not that no one in their 20s will join, just that it becomes trickier. 

This can be a huge barrier to overcome and often can only be overcome with a big investment in marketing/advertising but also in time. If you've one person in their 20s then its going to take time to attract more and get a population of them and increase the groups diversity in that aspect. You can't rush time, you can't make it happen next week. Sometimes it can prove near impossible for other social/economic reasons. Eg a group that is majority in their 60s and thus retired might well have trouble getting younger people if the group meeting time is 2pm on a Wednesday - ergo when most of the non-retired population is at work. 

 

2) Social ineptness and image. The elephant in the room is that geek hobbies have traditionally had a very socially inept consumerbase and fanbase. This is reinforced culturally with "geek" aspects. However its also born through in actual live clubs. Steadily other markets have branched out. Interestingly LARPING which was once one of the most geeky of geeky things, has really erupted as being popular. Computer games have also done likewise to the point where its a very normal thing now. Sure a "geek" is likely rocking 3 screens and more but the average person has played Call of Duty or at least knows of it. 

3) Social potential of the game. I think one reason things like LARP and RPG games have got ahead of wargames is because those games focus on social interaction at their core. They are far less about numbers and figures and far more about socially interacting with others. So they tend to, even within geek groups, attract and retain the more socially experienced. I think this removed some barriers, but also introduced other aspects of gaming - ergo playing roles and stories far more so than a numbers game. Heck you can play a 40K or AoS game and barely speak to your opponent if you want. In an RPG if you're not talking you're not doing anything. This is something GW can tap into through things like their new RPG Games coming out, something that in the past was a very fringe thing for GW, if they chose too they can push it forward more so. It won't replace DnD, but it might well at least stand on its own stronger. 

4) Social and awareness marketing. DnD has films, books, TV cartoons, it has a lot of mass media marketing and mass media suitable marketing. Couple that to a budget that's bigger and thus able to afford such things and you've a franchise that attracts more because more people take notice. GW has done some of those things in the past but they were more "in house"; meanwhile TV ads and such are beyond them in cost these days (they have done them in the past - long long in the past). 

The new warhammer TV shows and such that they are producing I think are, in part, a means toward this end. Just the same as they've used their PC game licences to also expose more people to the game and their market/franchise. In short the more your franchise and product is made aware to the population the more you encourage a variety of people to join in. Sure GW has good market exposure, but its not saturating that exposure. Right now its at the point, in the UK at least, where the majority of people have "heard of it" in passing but not really been exposed to it beyond "oh its that expensive game". So if you get RPG games out there; if you get TV shows; PC games; push the books harder (that's hard though); Tshirts and hoodies etc.... If you build into more markets and expose people more often you create more potential chance that people become exposed in multiple instances. 

 

 

Again I'd remind people that time and positive exposure are often greater things than presenting diversity within the product. If anything diversity within the "product" is often the quickest way to overtly appease the masses, but potentially has the least amount of impact. Do people think that changing the skin colour of drow will make more people accept them? Unlikely, but you can do it in an afternoon of changing content for an upcoming book. It's quick and simple. However more likely having better and wider reaching marketing; displaying people of different cultural groups in BOTH marketing and actual clubs etc... These latter things are much slower and can take more focused effort to achieve, however they are far more likely to have a much more powerful lasting influence. They are, in my view, where the actual change will take place far more so than anywhere else. 

 

Heck in wargames we can see this very readily if we look toward historical based games. A market which is traditionally marketed far less than sci-fi or fantasy games; which often have a much older age bracket playing them and an even more male dominated setting. You can't change the SAS in the Axis army to be multi-cultural multi-gender. However you could put more money into marketing the games; you could aim to push and diversify groups - even just getting more younger people into them would be a major starting point. 

Again its my view that product diversification in representation is a lesser issue than its often made out. I'm not denying it as an influencing aspect, however I'd say that great story, lore, background and quality of product are greater influences. Instead I'd argue that outreach, improving social aspects of the game or of side supporting games; improving the presented diversification - will in the end bare the greater fruits of change. However time is also a big factor - we can't change these things overnight. Indeed we can't change them in a year or two - they will take longer, but provided that the change is happening and continues to happen then it will steadily shift and likely gain acceleration on its own 

[Aeryenn]

@Overread

Some good points there. 👍

I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again. If you've read my previous replies you already know my position on certain matters.

1 hour ago, Overread said:

You can't change the SAS in the Axis army to be multi-cultural multi-gender.

Oh you know that's not true. Some malice people falsify history either by casting in a role of Caesar or any other historical character People of Color or they attack for example game developers who create a title set in medieval Eastern Europe that it lacks POC. They are either completely uneducated or they are frenzied fanatics of political correctness. I keep hearing this kind of falsification all the time. But leave this topic as it is.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Aeryenn

[Icegoat]

Truthfully if GW went back to doing no mixed boxes of new releases I think it would make absolutely no difference to those boxes sales. Having a mix of men and women in a box pleases no one. I cant make a full unit of male lumineth spearman or a unit of female lumineth it just means constant disparity within units. 

If you think about all the steps needed before someone even sees a mixed unit of stormcast and goes oh wow representation I must buy that you realise it's almost not worth GW bothering. It's never going to attract NEW people in on it's own. There are so many other barriers to entry in this hobby. 

[dekay]

1 minute ago, Icegoat said:

Having a mix of men and women in a box pleases no one.

It seems to please most people posting in this thread. Many factions have been doing it for close to 30 years now (Eldar, Dark Elves) and most people seem to like it. It's arguably a better way of doing it than making gender segregated units (especially production wise, few torsos and heads on a sprue is much smaller investment than whole separate kit).

[zilberfrid]

Just now, dekay said:

It seems to please most people posting in this thread. Many factions have been doing it for close to 30 years now (Eldar, Dark Elves) and most people seem to like it. It's arguably a better way of doing it than making gender segregated units (especially production wise, few torsos and heads on a sprue is much smaller investment than whole separate kit).

I would consider myself one that would be quite happy with that.

And if you do want segregation, just ebay off the models you don't like, or trade them out. Of the Warcry bodies, the females were sold out on bits sites when I was looking for them, so there is a market.

[Souleater]

1 minute ago, Icegoat said:

Truthfully if GW went back to doing no mixed boxes of new releases I think it would make absolutely no difference to those boxes sales. Having a mix of men and women in a box pleases no one. 

It pleases me. I like the variety.  I was disappointed that the new plastic Drukhari Incubi are are all male. The original Incubi had a couple of female models in there. 

@HollowHills I don't know why GW have added more cloth onto some of the Dok models. As I said, it could be that the concept artist was just bored of bare skin and wanted to up rhe textures. Or maybe they wanted the models to look a bit more 'special' as they're for Underworlds. Or they are going back to the OG witch elves, who did wear armour. All or none of the above. I don't know, or care. It looks cool and makes the model more interesting for me to work on and play with.

 

I didn't say - nor do I even know - that female stormcast would encourage more women to play. Again, it's just more interesting for me as a painter and gamer to have what I consider to be well designed female models in amongst the 'dudes'. 

 

If it encourages more people into the hobby, I don't see the harm. It could well be a positive- diversity of thought and experience has historically improved humankind.  I think it could help our game of little plastic toys, too. 😄

 

As to the new DOK they're hardly dressed like ladies of the Victorian era (see pic)  

[Kramer]

33 minutes ago, Icegoat said:

If you think about all the steps needed before someone even sees a mixed unit of stormcast and goes oh wow representation I must buy that you realise it's almost not worth GW bothering. It's never going to attract NEW people in on it's own. There are so many other barriers to entry in this hobby. 

Not in its own but it could be part of it so why not do so? 

again I don’t understand the reluctance to do the bare minimum. Of course its not going to solve it.  but at least improve it. 
 as to the ‘nobody wants mixed units’ argument.... you know that’s not true if you read the responses. Even if it might be true for you locally, it’s definitely not true on average. 

[Sputnik]

14 hours ago, HollowHills said:

To me explicitly stating a desire to push for diversity is a left wing position. An anti racist position would just be ensuring no one actively blocks diverse characters. 

Its the difference between equal rights for all versus giving extra rights to minority groups.

I genuinely don't know how you are interpreting that from the recent GW statement. No one is getting any 'extra rights', GW has just pushed back against people who want to keep the hobby white and male, and people who moan about black space marines or female Stormcast. 

In the essentially infinite universes of 40K and AOS it is weird and unimaginative that so many human/humanoid characters are white and male. Actively trying to redress this imbalance is just good design and good marketing, and is absolutely not forcing politics into the hobby. 

[Mattrulesok]

6 hours ago, Aeryenn said:

Can you try to explain why men represent a vast majority of tabletop wargames?

Male dominated is not the same as masculine, tabletop gaming and painting little models is not a masculine pursuit, not by traditional standards. 

 

As to why the hobby is male dominated? The same reason  that most nerd culture is male dominated, historical and sociatal pressures that have made women feel uncomfortable in these niche spaces. 

 

Its worth noting that representation is much better for business. For all the scaremongering from sad little nerds the video game industry is making more and more money every year and increasing representation at the same time, the highest grossing films of the last few years have bucket loads of representation (black panther, avengers, any fast and furious movie) 

[MaatithoftheBrand]

So it seems as if no one appears to be willing to be convinced of the "other side" of this discussion and the posters on this forum generally fall into a few broad camps.

1) Diversity and variety is a good and welcome thing and we want to see more of it, because its cool to have different models to assemble and paint and different types of story told within this particular fantasy setting. If this also makes it more appealing to more diverse players even better, but that is not necessary for us to enjoy the continued commitment to diversity and inclusivity (and this is, let's be clear, a continuation, not a new crusade launched in light of the events of 2020).
 

2) We don't have a problem with the direction GW are going per se, but are worried about them handling it tactlessly or overly simplistically. The majority of these worries seem to stem from seeing the likes of Marvel (who, rather than being the norm or a good model, have for a number of years focused more on headline grabbing ideas rather than good writing - Ironheart being perhaps the worst example where they basically raked in the media hype for having a teen woman of colour Iron-Man and then... failed to deliver narratively) or Wizards of the Coast (who have swung wildly from making good points but expressed them too briefly to properly explain them, and actively being tokenist and unwilling to change, both have which have at the very least made them look... clumsy). And I can certainly understand this concern and stance - I don't think any of us want to see GW go headline chasing at the expense of their actual product. (I personally think we are unlikely to see GW make this move however, but that does not make the concern any less valid to my mind).

 

3) We don't want any more diversity than we already have because we are worried we will lose a lot of the tone or models or styles that we about the hobby. (I don't have a lot to say about this position and I think it bleeds into groups 2 and 4 a fair amount)

 

4) We are worried that this is indicative of an agenda. This group appears to be using a lot of what I would consider to be strawman arguments, and generally arguing in bad faith.  There appears to be a lot of assumptions that white men cannot possibly want to paint a black woman in magical plate armour, or that the idea of people wanting AoS to have varied characters means that they are pushing an agenda, without acknowledging that the statement "I don't do politics" is inherently a political statement. I like the TGA and generally feel that its users engage with each other in good faith, so I am going to assume that no one on here is using the lack of political discussion on this forum as a smokescreen to try and shut down inclusivity and diversity by calling them "political acts", but I would encourage everyone to just... think about what you consider to be a political act, because living never is. 

I don't expect, if seven pages of discussion didn't change anyones' mind, for them to be changed now. But just a reminder that GW is coming for your big buff Chaos warriors and Stormcast, and there being women aelves does not mean you aren't allowed to enjoy aelven men. There's space for everyone.

Edit to add: I am trying to keep my tone civil, treat everyone's ideas fairly and not misrepresent them, and avoid venturing too far into "political" or abstract debates that would take us off topic, and I hope people find that I have generally succeeded at that. If anyone wants to send me a personal message asking me to clarify anything or defend a stance because they feel that doing so here may take us off topic for this thread or this forum, feel free. I will do my best to engage with any who do.

Edited July 9, 2020 by MaatithoftheBrand

[Chikout]

I'll tell you right now if gw produced a range of freeguild units with a mix of male, female, human, elf and duardin all designed to the same standard as the warcry range, I would buy that army in a flash. 

I really do worry that we've been conditioned to be selective in our criticism latching onto things that support a narrative. The dok warband is an example of this. Two of the figures are as scantily clad as ever. With the underworlds warbands the designers often take the opportunity to add a bit of variety to the design. There's not much you can do to add variety to a witch elf unit except adding clothes. 

I gave two real life examples of women I know who have been drawn into the hobby by the presence of female Stormcast sculpts but that small data point seems to have been ignored by a couple of people. 

[Koala]

Although everything hast obviously been said already and this ist mostly people pushing their external ( political) Agenda: 

I really like what GW has clearly been doing for several years now.

Slowly but without pathos expanding the range, but not forcing anything. So some magically reforged Hero Souls are Female. So that one Sigmar priest happens to be black ( in the promo picture). So the new Sorrorita repentiae do look more muscular, like warriors in rags.  New Sc SlavesToDarkness has male and female head options.

Noone looses anything ( except maybe their mind ).

We even got dark skin colour... but i can also choose to paint everything kislev flesh so it stays in the aesthetics.

 

Way to Go, GW!

[zilberfrid]

I would agree that at least I have said everything that needed saying about the model line. I like the direction they are taking in facial features and gender. I have a few favourite directions I'd like them to take, and I have criticisms about faction design as a whole, but if GW decides to continue this variety with Disposessed, Ironweld Arsenal, Valaya dwarves/Root Kings, Fyreslayers, Freeguild or Wanderers/Kurnothi, I'd be thrilled.

I have no bone on the lore, so I won't talk about that (though teasing female Kharadron with female Ancestor Masks and female Fyreslayers and not sculpting them is cruel and unusual punishment).

I don't have sufficient knowledge about hiring practices, but do think that a more diverse team has an advantage to come with a more diverse model line.

 

One thing that did surprise me, was the relatively, for the time, neutral tone of Wells. 

In "Floor Games" the text (afaik on the first page) is "The jolliest indoor games for boys and girls demand a floor."

"Little Wars: a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty and for that more intelligent sort of girl who likes boys' games and books", doesn't sound all that neutral to our ears, but it's a time when women in the US, Britain, Germany, France and much of the rest of the world were not even allowed to vote.

For me, the explicit inclusion of girls in both books, with it even being in the title of the book, screams that wargames, since their inception, were not just a hobby for males.

Edited July 9, 2020 by zilberfrid

[Galas]

I'm the whitest of whites (Really I cannot be more white even if for many people for being from Spain I'm a latino lol ) and male. And I have always loved playing female characters since I was a boy. And I just enjoy brown and black skins, I find them fun to paint and aesthetically pleasing. Most of my miniatures are painted with brown skins (My dark angels) or dark and black skins (My khorne barbarians and warriors for AoS). And I love things like buffed females in proper armor like the For Honor ladies.

I assume someone could come and tell me is some sort of  fetishization or something? But is not something like that. I just like how it looks.

 

I'm saying this to give visibilization to a group that I believe is probably the biggest one, and the most silent one: A male dominated customer base that just enjoys other stuff and aesthetics, not only white buffed dudes or mega sexy ladies. Basically the 1º group described by @MaatithoftheBrand

Why in MMORPG theres nearly a 50/50 split between male and female characters, but then most female characters are played by male gamers? Because people enjoy things because they find them aesthetically pleasing. A more diverse range is a bonus on itself not because any kind of agenda or representation but just because it looks better.

 

As other poster said, Warhammer Online had things like female Sigmar Priest and Female Imperial Knights and nobody saw that as a bad thing because for a MMORPG that was expected. And even had some classes gender locked like Witch Elves or Chaos Barbarian/Chosen. But I can assure you, if with the Old World they make any kind of female imperial knight miniature a very vocal minority will lose their mind, when in 2009, in another market were that was expected, nobody saw anything wrong with it.

 

And thats the sad thing: Both extremes in this conversation work based in asumptions about what somebody likes or wants based in their race and gender. When Icegoats (Or Aeryenn,etc...)  says that warrior females are aisthorical, even being correct, he is assuming (Just as he accusses the other extreme  of assuming) that based on their race and gender, white males can't just want female warriors because they think they look cool without any kind of other implication or really caring about historicall plausibility in their fantasy setting.

[Riavan]

4 hours ago, HollowHills said:

That's part of what I worry about. For me part of fantasy, and warhammer,  is having female characters who show a lot of flesh. Have GW now decided that it isn't PC? 

Another thing I don't really buy is that we need female stormcast to get women into the hobby. In my view high elf princesses would have been far more successful at getting women and girls into the hobby than butch stormcast. 

My partner has never had an interest in warhammer despite me painting models and playing for years. Yet, her favourite video games are the witcher and rdr2. Two games where you have to play as a gruff bearded masculine character. In fact she likes the fact the sorceresses in the witcher are both sexy and powerful. Both she and I much prefer Yennefer to a butch character like Abby.

It's probably because 1) the game of warhammer and all the heavy duty nerd stuff doesn't interest her and 2) the video games are fun and interesting in themselves regardless. Note that neither game is trying to push a left wing agenda, they are just trying to be good games.

It's weird that armies don't just have female and male models in every unit. Board games and RPGs are popular with girls. I found it bizzare coming from a lot of board games a few years ago that sigmar had like barely any female models and people were still trying to say the one or two female armies existed when someone questioned why this was lol. Like saying "play dok if u want female models" is super stupid. It's just as bad as people saying play sisters in 40k lol. People shouldn't be limited to one army, gamestyle and aesthetic.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Riavan

[hughwyeth]

19 minutes ago, Riavan said:

It's weird that armies don't just have female and male models in every unit. Board games and RPGs are popular with girls. I found it bizzare coming from a lot of board games a few years ago that sigmar had like barely any female models and people were still trying to say the one or two female armies existed when someone questioned why this was lol. Like saying "play dok if u want female models" is super stupid. It's just as bad as people saying play sisters in 40k lol. People shouldn't be limited to one army, gamestyle and aesthetic.

You know- i half agree and half disagree. I really like diversity in armies just for the different aesthetics, totally separate from any social/political agenda. 

But at the same time, what makes 40k interesting is it is a riff on medieval christianity. GW have toned this down in Space Marines quite a lot, but it's still there in sisters and the inquisition. A super vicious, ignorance-encouraging, hyper-violent, other-hating religiously fervant group of soldiers, with a ludicrous hierarchy of men in silly hats. I mean penitent engines are something straight from the inquisitorial imagination of 16th century catholic spain. Part of this imitation is it's attitudes to "others" (xenos) and it's strict gender segregation. In that sense, a male-only army makes perfect sense in that lore and i don't think it needs to be made diverse, save for racial diversity perhaps. I don't want a racially and sexually diverse Imperial Inquisition. It's like saying WW2 wargames should have a racial and sexually diverse german army (for some reason the shorthand for nationalist socialist democratic party is censored on the forum?) .

Like I've said before, AoS is great because it leaves fantasy tropes behind and there's huge space to include diversity without going against the narrative of armies. After all, Khorne cares not from where the blood flows. I'm just not so sure the same can be said of 40k.

Edited July 9, 2020 by hughwyeth

[Galas]

6 minutes ago, hughwyeth said:

You know- i half agree and half disagree. I really like diversity in armies just for the different aesthetics, totally separate from any social/political agenda. 

But at the same time, what makes 40k interesting is it is a riff on medieval christianity. GW have toned this down in Space Marines quite a lot, but it's still there in sisters and the inquisition. A super vicious, ignorance-encouraging, hyper-violent, other-hating religiously fervant group of soldiers, with a ludicrous hierarchy of men in silly hats. I mean penitent engines are something straight from the inquisitorial imagination of 16th century catholic spain. Part of this imitation is it's attitudes to "others" (xenos) and it's strict gender segregation. In that sense, a male-only army makes perfect sense in that lore and i don't think it needs to be made diverse, save for racial diversity perhaps. I don't want a racially and sexually diverse Imperial Inquisition. It's like saying WW2 wargames should have a racial and sexually diverse german army (for some reason the shorthand for nationalist socialist democratic party is censored on the forum?) .

Like I've said before, AoS is great because it leaves fantasy tropes behind and there's huge space to include diversity without going against the narrative of armies. After all, Khorne cares not from where the blood flows. I'm just not so sure the same can be said of 40k.

You have no idea about 40k lore if you think the Imperium has any kind of general racial or gender based policy. Actually the Inquisition is probably the most diverse of the empire's organization with a ton of female inquisitors since Rogue Trader, the same goes for his army the Imperial Guard, the navy, the Assasins Temples, etc.... The only gender-based organizations of the 40k Imperium are space marines and sisters of battle, Sisters of Silence and Adeptus Custodes.

The same goes about race. Why would a 40k human care about the colour of your skins when theres a thousand worlds with all kinds of people coming from everyone and you have actual aliens that want to kill you?

Edited July 9, 2020 by Galas

[hughwyeth]

1 minute ago, Galas said:

You have no idea about 40k lore if you think the Imperium has any kind of general racial or gender based policy. Actually the Inquisition is probably the most diverse of the empire's organization with a ton of female inquisitors since Rogue Trader, the same goes for his army the Imperial Guard, the navy, the Assasins Temples, etc.... The only gender-based organizations of the 40k Imperium are space marines and sisters of battle, Sisters of Silence and Adeptus Custodes.

The same goes about race. Why would a 40k human care about the colour of your skins when theres a thousand worlds with all kinds of people coming from everyone and you have actual aliens that want to kill you?

I'm not saying they have a gender policy. I'm saying the imperium is a straight rip-off, hierarchy, titles, beliefs and all, of medieval Christianity at it's most hate-filled and intolerant. Calling for greater diversity doesn't make any sense in that context. The gender segregation referred to sisters and marines, not the whole imperium. 

[Galas]

3 minutes ago, hughwyeth said:

I'm not saying they have a gender policy. I'm saying the imperium is a straight rip-off, hierarchy, titles, beliefs and all, of medieval Christianity at it's most hate-filled and intolerant. Calling for greater diversity doesn't make any sense in that context. The gender segregation referred to sisters and marines, not the whole imperium. 

Yeah the imperium is hate-filled and intolerant with every non-human, even slighly different humans like mutants, but not based on sex or human "race". 

Is the old saying of "When orcs and elfs exist, being brown, white or black became much less relevant"

 

It makes all of the sense to call for more diverse ranges for Imperial Guard and other imperial organizations because that has been their fluff since forever, but it is not represented in miniature form.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Galas

[MaatithoftheBrand]

This is not a 40k forum so I won't do a lengthy, in depth reply, but I think that as a general rule part of the horror and the oppression of the Imperium comes from the fact that it can be so diverse and that doesn't even matter.
 

Are you a woman? Non-straight? Trans? The Imperium doesn't care. Your individual homeworld might, but all the Imperium cares about is that you make 16 Leman Russ oil valves a day, or that you can hold a lasgun. With the exception of Space Marines and Sisters of Battle, who have "space magic science" and political reasons for being segregated the way they are, the Imperium is super tolerant of your individual choices*.

*You know, provided those choices don't impact the Tithe, or include seditious thought, or religious freedom, or...

Edited July 9, 2020 by MaatithoftheBrand

[Gaz Taylor]

+++ Mod Hat On +++
Can we get back on topic?

 

[Aphotic]

Half naked women running around in battle is illogical noise. Why would they go to war near naked? Hell, even real world religious lunatics went to war in armor.

 

I get that it's fantasy, I just don't see a reason for this illogical, unnecessary peculiar aspect of it. It makes no sense.

 

Christian soldiers wore armor, even if they claimed to believe god would shield them.