How will Games Workshop push diversity in AoS?

[Souleater]

Witch Aelves are Berzerkers, who historically accurate or not, are generally portrayed as not wearing armour.

 

And given that their faith in Khaine occasionally turns aside anything.g from sharp sticks to dragon breath, they may have a point...😄

[Beastmaster]

You mean historically crazy snake elf women went to war in armor?

[zilberfrid]

29 minutes ago, Aphotic said:

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.

I'd say many Celts disagreed. Fighting naked is well recorded.

Now they did bring big shields, of course.

[Souleater]

24 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

You mean historically crazy snake elf women went to war in armor?

Well, those aren't Witch Aelves.

 

But WE do have some roots in the mythology of berzerkers.  That was my point.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Souleater

[Fairbanks]

1 hour ago, Gaz Taylor said:

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

 

Sure.

How will GW push diversity in AoS?

Probably make more Space Marines. I mean way more Stormcast. Yea, more than anyone actually wants. Those always sell and everyone loves them.

If the goal here is to get a more diverse player base, here’s the real answers:

1. Don’t push diversity. This one is reverse psychology, but when you say “We want to be a more diverse group of people” you also say “we don’t like the people we have right now, so we want y’all gone”

2. Bring balance to armies, or as close as you can. There’s that one person who got drawn in by BoC. He never has a chance to win and he’s going to quit after the third or fourth game. Give them a chance to win.

3. Make this game easier to get into. Having the Warhammer store move into the area multiplied the number of games of AoS I got in last year tenfold. And that’s with an FLGS that got frequented (Nobody actually liked hanging out there due to the smells and Magic players). Having lower prices so people can get into the hobby ($90 for a start collecting/start here set OR $50 for five dudes are ridiculous prices and it doesn’t even cover everything). Contrast paints and push to fit models have been wonderful for this. 

Too bad this whole post is so deep in the thread that no one will notice.

[amysrevenge]

I am not aiming this at any specific person...

 

If someone is pushed out of the hobby by the manufacturer's mandate to increase diversity, I will be glad to see them gone.  They can't leave soon enough.  I would rather they leave now, forever, than to stick around and moan about it.

Edited July 9, 2020 by amysrevenge

[EccentricCircle]

3 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

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.

True, for the time it was an attempt at inclusivity. I think in hindsight it was a somewhat clumsy way to doing it, but that's the Edwardians for you!

On an unrelated note, on the last few pages I've seen a couple of people comment that things have run their course, because its clear that everyone's positions are entrenched and we're not going to convince the "other side" to change their minds. That is likely true, but its worth remembering that the point of debate isn't to convince the people arguing the opposite position. The point is to convince anyone watching who hasn't made up their mind, or is in the process of reevaluating their opinions. From that point of view the more perspectives we can share the better.

[MaatithoftheBrand]

13 minutes ago, Fairbanks said:

Sure.

How will GW push diversity in AoS?

Probably make more Space Marines. I mean way more Stormcast. Yea, more than anyone actually wants. Those always sell and everyone loves them.

If the goal here is to get a more diverse player base, here’s the real answers:

1. Don’t push diversity. This one is reverse psychology, but when you say “We want to be a more diverse group of people” you also say “we don’t like the people we have right now, so we want y’all gone”

2. Bring balance to armies, or as close as you can. There’s that one person who got drawn in by BoC. He never has a chance to win and he’s going to quit after the third or fourth game. Give them a chance to win.

3. Make this game easier to get into. Having the Warhammer store move into the area multiplied the number of games of AoS I got in last year tenfold. And that’s with an FLGS that got frequented (Nobody actually liked hanging out there due to the smells and Magic players). Having lower prices so people can get into the hobby ($90 for a start collecting/start here set OR $50 for five dudes are ridiculous prices and it doesn’t even cover everything). Contrast paints and push to fit models have been wonderful for this. 

Too bad this whole post is so deep in the thread that no one will notice.

1. It depends on what you mean by "push", but as a general rule including more people when there is no limited resource does not push anyone out of the same space. Saying "I want more diverse people playing AoS" means all the same cis het white guys buy a box of Liberators, and so does a new POC or trans individual. There is not only X amount of space for AoS fans

That said, I think tokenism like we have seen from Marvel Comics and Disney and the like is a "push" that isn't useful

2. Totally agree, although/and I think a lot could be done by GW not only making armies more traditionally balanced but also making different ways to win and to play more prominent in stores/online/at events - the secondary objectives and stuff from 9th Ed. 40k seem like a step in the right direction here

3. Totally agree here too

[Naem]

To be fair concerning the balance - it is SO incredible hard to balance a game with so many different armies, factions and units. I would almost say that it's impossible, you can only hope to achieve something nearly balanced. Look at Starcraft for example, it sticks out to this day because it is one of the few games that ever were able to create 3 different and unique races to play and still keep them balanced in competitive matches. Now imagine doing something similar for 5x the amount of armies. Sure, balancing a RTS is something different than a Tabletop but still I think the argument stands. So I wouldn't put to much hope into seeing a "balanced" game anytime, there can only be varying degrees of imbalance.  The alternative would be a game where a lot of units are very similar, like AoE2 for example. But that would also take the fun out of it for a Tabletop. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Naem

[zilberfrid]

3 minutes ago, Naem said:

To be fair concerning the balance - it is SO incredible hard to balance a game with so many different armies, factions and units. I would almost say that it's impossible, you can only hope to achieve something nearly balanced. Look at Starcraft for example, it sticks out to this day because it is one of the few games that ever were able to create 3 different and unique races to play and still keep them balanced in competitive matches. Now imagine doing something similar for 5x the amount of armies. Sure, balancing a RTS is something different than a Tabletop but still I think the argument stands. So I wouldn't put to much hope into seeing a "balanced" game anytime, there can only be varying degrees of imbalance.  The alternative would be a game where a lot of units are very similar, like AoE2 for example. But that would also take the fun out of it for a Tabletop. 

Is this comment in the right thread? Having diverse models will not change the rules at all.

21 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said:

True, for the time it was an attempt at inclusivity. I think in hindsight it was a somewhat clumsy way to doing it, but that's the Edwardians for you!

On an unrelated note, on the last few pages I've seen a couple of people comment that things have run their course, because its clear that everyone's positions are entrenched and we're not going to convince the "other side" to change their minds. That is likely true, but its worth remembering that the point of debate isn't to convince the people arguing the opposite position. The point is to convince anyone watching who hasn't made up their mind, or is in the process of reevaluating their opinions. From that point of view the more perspectives we can share the better.

Yeah, I should change my post to saying that I have said about what I have on my mind (naked celts excluding at that time). Excluding new people from the discussion is the opposite of what I want.

[Aeryenn]

46 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

I am not aiming this at any specific person...

 

If someone is pushed out of the hobby by the manufacturer's mandate to increase diversity, I will be glad to see them gone.  They can't leave soon enough.  I would rather they leave now, forever, than to stick around and moan about it.

Probably people you mention would like to get rid of you as well. Hatred is not the answer.

[MaatithoftheBrand]

8 minutes ago, Aeryenn said:

Probably people you mention would like to get rid of you as well. Hatred is not the answer.

Calling out bigotry is not bigotry though

[Aeryenn]

13 minutes ago, MaatithoftheBrand said:

Calling out bigotry is not bigotry though

Definitions of '-ism' change over time. It's easy to be perceived as intolerant in such a divided world. My understanding of discrimination is different than of some other forum users which is clear after reading this thread. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Aeryenn

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, Fairbanks said:

Don’t push diversity. This one is reverse psychology, but when you say “We want to be a more diverse group of people” you also say “we don’t like the people we have right now, so we want y’all gone”

No. No you don’t say that. 

i can say I want a more diverse clientele. Without saying I want my old clientele gone.

Hell, it’s what I’ve been doing the last three months. 80% of my clients were theatres and theatrical shows. All planned  work gone in one press meeting. Now I want a more diverse clientele. Makes me less vulnerable. 

[Indecisive]

They sell grey plastic, you can paint the skin however you please so I don't see where you change anything there.
A robust set of guides for painting a variety of skin schemes would be great, plus mixing up skin tones on box art and book art. Of course this only applies to anthropomorphic races, and is a bit of a wash if you prefer helmets, ghosts, goblins, or trees and the like.

[HollowHills]

2 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

I am not aiming this at any specific person...

 

If someone is pushed out of the hobby by the manufacturer's mandate to increase diversity, I will be glad to see them gone.  They can't leave soon enough.  I would rather they leave now, forever, than to stick around and moan about it.

Interesting that it's always those arguing in favor of diversity / social justice that are the first to throw stones.

I don't want anyone in the hobby to leave because it changes to something that doesn't resonate with them anymore. When Marvel made Iron Man into a black woman that was basically a middle finger to their existing fans. 

If women or minorities wish to get involved, great. Everyone is welcome. But that needs to be done without pushing the core away.

Regardless,  thus far I think GW have been fairly OK with striking a balance. Hopefully if we do see increased diversity that will be cool stuff like getting 20 heads on a sprue rather than 11.

[MaatithoftheBrand]

8 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

Interesting that it's always those arguing in favor of diversity / social justice that are the first to throw stones.

I don't want anyone in the hobby to leave because it changes to something that doesn't resonate with them anymore. When Marvel made Iron Man into a black woman that was basically a middle finger to their existing fans. 

If women or minorities wish to get involved, great. Everyone is welcome. But that needs to be done without pushing the core away.

Regardless,  thus far I think GW have been fairly OK with striking a balance. Hopefully if we do see increased diversity that will be cool stuff like getting 20 heads on a sprue rather than 11.

Okay a few people are saying this so I will ask explicitly - what is it about seeing more types of "human" in Age of Sigmar that would push you away?

Let's go with baseline humans - let's say, tomorrow, GW put out a brand new Freeguild Soldiery box
Let's say 1 in 3 of the bodies/heads are in some way a minority (female, sculpted with non-European features, etc) - what about that would push people away? What about that erases or pushes away the identity of the core?

[Gaz Taylor]

+++ Mod Hat On +++
 

Ok this thread is nearing the end as I can sense people are starting to grate on each other. Again, I’ll remind you about being nice to each other and just think about what you are saying before you say it.
 

Here’s a reminder of the rules of TGA and check out the offensive content section. Whilst we want everybody to enjoy this forum, we will not tolerate people who break the rules.

https://www.tga.community/site-rules
 

 

[Indecisive]

15 minutes ago, MaatithoftheBrand said:

Okay a few people are saying this so I will ask explicitly - what is it about seeing more types of "human" in Age of Sigmar that would push you away?

Let's go with baseline humans - let's say, tomorrow, GW put out a brand new Freeguild Soldiery box
Let's say 1 in 3 of the bodies/heads are in some way a minority (female, sculpted with non-European features, etc) - what about that would push people away? What about that erases or pushes away the identity of the core?

At a small scale it is hard to represent facial features.
Trying to model "non-european" features at that size sounds like a recipe for comical faces that look more stereotyping than representative.

[MaatithoftheBrand]

Just now, Indecisive said:

At a small scale it is hard to represent facial features.
Trying to model "non-european" features at that size sounds like a recipe for comical faces that look more stereotyping than representative.

Fair enough, that is a risk. Not an insurmountable one, I think, with the right sculptor but one to err on the side of caution with. Good point - not all of the models in a human-sized mass infantry unit are going to be of a quality were we might want to risk that yet.
1 in 3 women/wearing a non-Azyrite, real-world inspired cultural token/similar then.

[HollowHills]

18 minutes ago, MaatithoftheBrand said:

Okay a few people are saying this so I will ask explicitly - what is it about seeing more types of "human" in Age of Sigmar that would push you away?

Let's go with baseline humans - let's say, tomorrow, GW put out a brand new Freeguild Soldiery box
Let's say 1 in 3 of the bodies/heads are in some way a minority (female, sculpted with non-European features, etc) - what about that would push people away? What about that erases or pushes away the identity of the core?

If they do it right I'm all for it. 

Say we got a Saracen style army or Maori ogors like the fire belly. I would be all for that and I'm sure the armies might interest me.

If they start making armies that were previously all white, male and European suddenly be 1 in 3 black or 1 in 3 female then to me that is randomly inserting diversity for political sake.

This will be my last post on the topic. All I can say is that if you're a player who respects the game, has a laugh and is generally a good opponent then I welcome you to the hobby. Regardless of gender, ethnicity or political creed.

[zilberfrid]

32 minutes ago, Indecisive said:

At a small scale it is hard to represent facial features.
Trying to model "non-european" features at that size sounds like a recipe for comical faces that look more stereotyping than representative.

That's a good point, but GW has proven they can, with the Warpriest and it's mockery of life in the Sigmarite Luitenant.

[shinros]

55 minutes ago, MaatithoftheBrand said:

Okay a few people are saying this so I will ask explicitly - what is it about seeing more types of "human" in Age of Sigmar that would push you away?

Let's go with baseline humans - let's say, tomorrow, GW put out a brand new Freeguild Soldiery box
Let's say 1 in 3 of the bodies/heads are in some way a minority (female, sculpted with non-European features, etc) - what about that would push people away? What about that erases or pushes away the identity of the core?

Right, I told myself I won't post again but certain posts on this very page is making me shake my head. Here is the reason why I think certain individuals in this thread are afraid or concerned about GW's statement. Soon as GW posted that statement do you know what happened on the AOS facebook fanpage? A post popped up stating if GW cares about the message they should fire all the white people in the company and replace them with minorities, or not hire white people at all and only hire minorities until they are at a sufficient standard. That post got as many likes as the actual statement, the replies were a hellhole. The post rightfully got locked, but the likes were concerning to me. GW is trying to mean well with the statement but at the same time they are going to attract another spectrum that is just as toxic as the supposed people they are trying to push away. 

I'm trying to be a writer, one day I might write from Black Library, that's the dream. But I don't want them to accept me just because I am a black man and they need more black people in the company. If they do such a thing it's an insult to the time I put in writing and those who may actually be better than me at the craft. I think such people are also toxic for the hobby and the fandom, that includes those who whinge at the sight of a minority playing the hobby. Both of them are problems. In my eyes BOTH are toxic. 

Let's not forget GW does business with China, a place where actual minorities are killed and oppressed for being who they are. That's why I personally don't care for  their statement. The individual workers in the company might care about certain issues, but the corporate entity itself doesn't care. It will never care. If they did they would lower the prices and and in turn lower the barrier of entry. I tried to say this on the 40klore reddit guess what happened? I was told that I hate myself, I'm not actually a black man but a white man trying to pretend. I also got down voted. 

Again I stress out of all the companies I have seen, GW are actually handling diversity the best. They are placing it in areas where it makes sense and they are not compromising the lore or factions, at least in my eyes. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by shinros

[Overread]

28 minutes ago, shinros said:

Let's not forget GW does business with China, a place where actual minorities are killed and oppressed for being who they are. That's why I personally don't care for  their statement. The individual workers in the company might care about certain issues, but the corporate entity itself doesn't care. It will never care. If they did they would lower the prices and and in turn lower the barrier of entry.

When you consider the world today the vast bulk of companies trade and work with China or companies run by them. GW is actually far less involved with China than many other larger miniatures producers, they produce the bulk of their product in-house and from what I gather they've even considered buying their own printing machines for paper product as well. I think the issue was that the costs are so great and whilst they have a high demand, its nothing like the output of the machines. Ergo it would sit quiet for a very long time so its just very hard for them to justify the long term costs of employees and skills staff to run a machine for what is ultimately small scale production. 

 

 

As for lowering the price of entry, Gw have been doing a lot of that. Yes the model prices have not got cheaper, but they have introduced multiple methods of play and interaction that are cheaper through their various games. If you want cheap you can grab one box of Warcry or Underworld models and get to gaming right out of that. All the brushes and glue you can get from 3rd parties for cheaper if you desire. Meanwhile yes if you want a 40K or AoS full army you are looking at hundreds of £s; however that's never been different. Even in the past you were looking at some big values to get involved. Those really keen can use the secondhand market and local clubs can also work to help people on lower budgets get into the hobby - gifting models, selling cheap secondhand armies on etc... Heck a VAST number of gamers have too many boxes to build, they can easily welcome others from less affluent communities if they want to help them. 

 

In the end lowering prices to get more customers isn't a simple thing; heck often as not you don't just magically get more customers with lower prices. You might well have to invest heavily into marketing to get enough people aware enough to want to be customers to make it work. This can lead to a trap where you end up, as a company, spending way more on marketing to drive the price down just to get enough market reach to maintain a larger casual market. That's a business approach that I don't think GW wants. 

[shinros]

12 minutes ago, Overread said:

When you consider the world today the vast bulk of companies trade and work with China or companies run by them. GW is actually far less involved with China than many other larger miniatures producers, they produce the bulk of their product in-house and from what I gather they've even considered buying their own printing machines for paper product as well. I think the issue was that the costs are so great and whilst they have a high demand, its nothing like the output of the machines. Ergo it would sit quiet for a very long time so its just very hard for them to justify the long term costs of employees and skills staff to run a machine for what is ultimately small scale production. 

 

 

As for lowering the price of entry, Gw have been doing a lot of that. Yes the model prices have not got cheaper, but they have introduced multiple methods of play and interaction that are cheaper through their various games. If you want cheap you can grab one box of Warcry or Underworld models and get to gaming right out of that. All the brushes and glue you can get from 3rd parties for cheaper if you desire. Meanwhile yes if you want a 40K or AoS full army you are looking at hundreds of £s; however that's never been different. Even in the past you were looking at some big values to get involved. Those really keen can use the secondhand market and local clubs can also work to help people on lower budgets get into the hobby - gifting models, selling cheap secondhand armies on etc... Heck a VAST number of gamers have too many boxes to build, they can easily welcome others from less affluent communities if they want to help them. 

 

In the end lowering prices to get more customers isn't a simple thing; heck often as not you don't just magically get more customers with lower prices. You might well have to invest heavily into marketing to get enough people aware enough to want to be customers to make it work. This can lead to a trap where you end up, as a company, spending way more on marketing to drive the price down just to get enough market reach to maintain a larger casual market. That's a business approach that I don't think GW wants. 

Well that's why I rather like GW because they do must of their production in-house. But when companies make statements like on the first page and still gladly do any sort of business with such a country in my eyes it's hypocritical. That's how I feel. 

And on the lowering of prices? Of course it's not simple, they're doing better but the fact they have increased the prices again across almost 400 lines shows they are still a business. It's their right to do business. 

But if their aim is to actually get more people into the hobby they have to look at their price points if they really mean what they say. Now this is anecdotal, but I've seen tons of minorities(even white people) enter the store, seem really interested to get started but walk out soon as they see the prices. Now I'm in a position where I can afford it thankfully, but there are huge swathe of people who can't. That's why the statement is just empty to me, I don't care. 

The person behind the message I'm sure means well, but it's just a marketing gimmick being used in a troublesome time. That's how I see it. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by shinros