Jump to content

Female model representation in Age of Sigmar


Enoby

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Mattrulesok said:

All you appear to be interested in is shouting down anyone who would like to see better representation in our games of battle barbies.  

I haven't shouted down anyone,   I've sincerely engaged with what people have said and explained my thoughts. You've been deliberately disingenuous and just copy-pasted text. It just injects meaningless empty noise into an otherwise interesting discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Lord Krungharr said:

Does lack of mammalian ****** and long hair alone suggest maleness?   

To a vast majority of humans, I would say yes it does. Not all but a considerable amout. 

Also has it been officially stated that AoS Orruks share the same genetic mushroom traits as their 40k brethren anywhere or is this still subject to speculation? 

Edited by Vasshpit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked my wife about her thoughts on this subject last night. She's spent a lot of time around the hobby and has been in gaming stores but only recently shown an interest in playing (40k initially but much more excited about AOS after seeing Nighthaunt models).

She said she didn't care much about seeing female models or characters in a game as far as attracting her interest, particularly with armies whose theme seemed weighted towards a certain gender ( she used space marines as an example of this).

She said she was most annoyed if the only female characters were proportioned like pinups or if there was a strong sense of "women are totally represented, here's the single 'girl' character/faction you should play". 

She did like the newer female Stormcast and elf models for looking like they fit in with their factions and could fight. She also felt Games Workshop was doing a good job of increasing representation (gender and otherwise) without feeling like it's pandering or patronising.

Her worst experience as far as feeling welcome in the hobby was at the first hobby shop she went to. She told me the people there stared at her when she came into the store and acted like she was an alien species. If that place was her only experience of warhammer it would have driven her away. We found a much better place half an hour away and she's felt welcome there and at other places.

She thought representation was good, but the way she's treated by players or store employees had the biggest impact on whether she felt included.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether women were warriors historically is actually more debatable than a lot of people think. It really depends on the era. There are some parts of history when they definitely weren't warriors so beyond people like Mulan, Joan of Arc and other similar stories, it would be odd to see a woman on the battle field. That trend continued right into the 20th century, so covers most of the most popular historical wargaming genres. 

It has also very much coloured the interpretations of historians and archaeologists. Graves of viking women have been found where they were buried with weapons. This was largely dismissed, as being their husband's weapons or some sort of ritual weapons. But that interpretation derived from the assumption that "women didn't fight, therefore there must be another explanation" . You then get a feed back loop, and the evidence is only now being reassessed. There are also graves where the sex of the deceased cannot be definitively determined from what remains of the body, but they had a sword so were determined to be male. As Archaeology has advanced we now have the technology to do genetic anaylsis, and question the assumptions of those victorian archaeologists whose perception of the evidence was coloured by their own cultures biases about the past.

So where there lady knights? Mostly not. But female vikings? quite possible. Celtic warriors? Boudicca fought in battles quite famously, and the Romans seem to suggest that there were groups where the women fought. The amazons of greek myth may have been inspired by the Scythians, so while we may never be certain its unwise to dismiss anything as unhistorcal. The past was often very different than we think!

Edited by EccentricCircle
  • Like 8
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Orsino said:

That's not true at all, AoS takes an enormous amount from historicals and historical combat and it's setting, like all fantasy borrows heavily from history. 

But that's sort of beside the point as I'm not suggesting historical reference points should preclude female miniatures, what I'm saying is the premise that the right level of representation should be 50-50 has no basis as it goes against all actual combat in history. That is to say, you can make it 50-50, but there's no particular reason it needs to be. 

The existence of things which *do not exist* in a Universe made up 95% of *things which do not and have never existed* not only goes against combat history, it goes against any history, ever. But again, that's apparently no problem until women get involved.

Military history has no bearing on AOS AOS besides the basic fact that there are armies, weapons, armour, archetypes etc which draw inspiration from it. Thats it.

If there were dragons at Plataeea or Agincourt the outcome would have been entirely different and all the methods and tactics applied substantially so because they were established in a reality in which people *did not need to consider how to deal with dragons on the battlefield*.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if that is something that we need to take in consideration @EccentricCircle.

I think that we are only talking about a company that sells plastic toy soldiers. They use Lore, background and rules as a form of  merchandising to sell more toy soldiers.

At that point, I think that this post is about the representacion that each gender has in our favorite drug. Rules will change, lore will evolve and both are there to help their main product (and enhance the whole IP). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Not sure if that is something that we need to take in consideration @EccentricCircle.

I think that we are only talking about a company that sells plastic toy soldiers. They use Lore, background and rules as a form of  merchandising to sell more toy soldiers.

At that point, I think that this post is about the representacion that each gender has in our favorite drug. Rules will change, lore will evolve and both are there to help their main product (and enhance the whole IP). 

Note that I am not advocating for historical accuracy in warhammer. Rather that was a response to those trying to use historical precedent as an excuse to reject increased diversity. It is very much a high fantasy setting, where reality of any form has little to no bearing. I merely wanted to point out that our conception of what reality actually is, is often highly biased.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s a misconception that in Fantasy, anything goes. Actually, most of Fantasy, even in really-out-there-high-fantasy, is very much tied to what sounds plausible to the average fan of his time. We bring our feelings of plausibility with us wherever we go. And gender stereotypes may be among the strongest of those half-conscious plausibility heuristics.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EccentricCircle said:

Whether women were warriors historically is actually more debatable than a lot of people think. It really depends on the era. There are some parts of history when they definitely weren't warriors so beyond people like Mulan, Joan of Arc and other similar stories, it would be odd to see a woman on the battle field. That trend continued right into the 20th century, so covers most of the most popular historical wargaming genres. 

It has also very much coloured the interpretations of historians and archaeologists. Graves of viking women have been found where they were buried with weapons. This was largely dismissed, as being their husband's weapons or some sort of ritual weapons. But that interpretation derived from the assumption that "women didn't fight, therefore there must be another explanation" . You then get a feed back loop, and the evidence is only now being reassessed. There are also graves where the sex of the deceased cannot be definitively determined from what remains of the body, but they had a sword so were determined to be male. As Archaeology has advanced we now have the technology to do genetic anaylsis, and question the assumptions of those victorian archaeologists whose perception of the evidence was coloured by their own cultures biases about the past.

So where there lady knights? Mostly not. But female vikings? quite possible. Celtic warriors? Boudicca fought in battles quite famously, and the Romans seem to suggest that there were groups where the women fought. The amazons of greek myth may have been inspired by the Scythians, so while we may never be certain its unwise to dismiss anything as unhistorcal. The past was often very different than we think!

If we take in account only history, in some culture (celts, viking,,...) there were some woman warrior, but even there they were vastly a minority. And thats mainly a) most of past cultures were patriarcal and b)because biologically women are (in average) not as strong as men and thats a huge disvantage in melee fight. The second point is what make me be ok with space marine INFANTRY being only male (while pilots should in general be mostly or, if taken to an extreem only, women).

However, AoS is A fantasy setting, with species that are totally different from human biology. Stormcast are infused with holy power and thunder, human biology has basically no more meaning there. Elfs seem to be phisically equal in both gender, undead are powered by necromancy (most of them do not even have muscles anymore). There are so many species in the real world with larger (and then stronger) female that it sould be strange not to have almost one in a "realistic" fantasy setting, if we want to go the route of fantastic-that-has-roots-on-reality.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nos said:

The existence of things which *do not exist* in a Universe made up 95% of *things which do not and have never existed* not only goes against combat history, it goes against any history, ever. But again, that's apparently no problem until women get involved.

You seem determined to argue with a straw man of your own creation.  Again, my point is not that you can't have women in fantasy combat, my point is that you can't describe women as underrepresentated in AoS when they're statistically over-represented when compared to every real example of combat. So if you're not using reality as a reference how exactly have you decided what the "correct" ratio of male-female models should be in order to conclude that females are under-represented? 

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

19 minutes ago, Orsino said:

You seem determined to argue with a straw man of your own creation.  Again, my point is not that you can't have women in fantasy combat, my point is that you can't describe women as underrepresentated in AoS when they're statistically over-represented when compared to every real example of combat. So if you're not using reality as a reference how exactly have you decided what the "correct" ratio of male-female models should be in order to conclude that females are under-represented? 

Do you know what else in AOS is statistically over represented when compared to every real example of combat?

E V E R Y T H I N G

I am genuinley not and never have or will use reality as reference for AOS because it is *not based on reality*.

I have a Masters in History from one of the Top Universities in the World. I know history. I Iove history. I am obsessed with it. I can tell you at great length about why Hannibal won at Cannae. I can also tell you with utter certainty that the presence of Dragons or a Bloodthirster or Magic there would have rendered it all utterly irrelevant, because Hannibal won using the basics and laws of a corporeal universe which has no connection whatever  to a universe which is *literally fantastical*. Fantasy being - "the faculty or a activity of imagining improbable or impossible things".

The existence of physical objects and the  concept of warfare does not mean something is "based in history". 

To claim such is to do the same as clain reality as reference  for Super Mario because I have a moustache and also know that plumbers, pipes and mushrooms exist, therefore it must be based on reality right?

Recognising a thing's presence somewhere else does not mean it is  based on said thing. It just means it's there.

In AOS, the things which "from history" are there are eclipsed to the Nth degree by the things which aren't. 

For every thing you could name about how x faction is inspired by the Ancient Greeks or whatever I could name 20 things that arent, and just not related to the Ancient Greeks but not related to the functioning rules of the cosmos as we understand them. 

Yet in such a fictional Universe you choose the "over representation" of women as being somehow obtuse.

(As a general pointer, if you find as in this discussion that nobody seems to understand your point, the likliehood is either that you are not explaining yourself adequately, or alternatively that your view point is disagreeable within present company.)

Edited by Nos
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BrownDog said:

The real question is when are we gonna get a Brightheart model, still waiting GW.

After we get a model of the greatest hero of the Age of Sigmar - Archibald! 

Or at the same time, honestly the group are ideally suited to form an Underworld Warband

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nos said:

Do you know what else in AOS is statistically over represented when compared to every real example of combat?

E V E R Y T H I N G

Actually there's a LOT missing or underrepresented from armies if we start to look at them individually. Many armies are missing artillery (both anti infantry and siege style weapons). Many are missing a lot of infantry roles (sappers and ranged units); many are missing more commanders. Many have only one or two infantry and/or cavalry options. The number of dragons is tragically small too. 

Also the nature of the game style means we miss the entire concept of the baggage and supply chain as well as the camps, camp followers, camp support. In theory we should have smiths, medics, hangers on, etc... loads of roles that are "missing" by the scale and focus of the game itself. Of course some armies might have more support and some less and some armies the support train would be the army too (yes I'm look at you flesheaters). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

She'd work with a Frostgrave African head, the one from Soldiers 2 is best. It would still be small, but the hair and face resemble her well enough.

Forge World actually has a good collection of female stormcast heads, prblem is it's forge world and the kits rather small.

99550218002_SCEHeadUpgradeSetTwo01.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Beliman said:

Is that a joke? 

It's actually quite a complex question. Basically the tread presents the premise that there is an "incorrect" balance of male and female models within the game. However in finding a solution toward that problem the question does become "what is the correct balance?" 

A few times I've nudged it with presenting the view of if we are looking for a balance within each army or within the game as a whole.

 

This is just another take on understanding what the balance "should be". Is 50-50 correct? 70-30 - 15-85.

Personally I don't think there is a numerical way to answer this question. It's more an element of feeling based on the design ethos of each individual army, which comes back to the lore elements (both fixed and malleable elements) and the visual design of each army. What visually is going to be cool; what's neat based on the source material of the army; what do the people in the design studio want to make; what sells; what's practical to sculpt and cast. 

This is before we even consider things like the stormcast female head options from FW whereby GW doesn't define the option, but presents it for the player and thus allows them to change the composition to their own desires. Something that isn't always going to be practical within every army. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Overread said:

Actually there's a LOT missing or underrepresented from armies if we start to look at them individually. Many armies are missing artillery (both anti infantry and siege style weapons). Many are missing a lot of infantry roles (sappers and ranged units); many are missing more commanders. Many have only one or two infantry and/or cavalry options. The number of dragons is tragically small too. 

Also the nature of the game style means we miss the entire concept of the baggage and supply chain as well as the camps, camp followers, camp support. In theory we should have smiths, medics, hangers on, etc... loads of roles that are "missing" by the scale and focus of the game itself. Of course some armies might have more support and some less and some armies the support train would be the army too (yes I'm look at you flesheaters). 

My point exactly. With the exception of the fact that there are wars, and the protagonists (sometimes) use weapons and armour to fight, military history has basically no representation in AOS at all. 

Military History is simply an extension of social history, it exists on account of the human inhabitants creating and solving different social problems among themselves. Different societies have prioritised and interpreted the role and importance of martial practice, custom, culture throughout the progress of human history as part of their wider existence. it has never occured within a vacuum.

The social history of the races of the Mortal Realms is rather different to the social history of Planet Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Orsino said:

You seem determined to argue with a straw man of your own creation.  Again, my point is not that you can't have women in fantasy combat, my point is that you can't describe women as underrepresentated in AoS when they're statistically over-represented when compared to every real example of combat. So if you're not using reality as a reference how exactly have you decided what the "correct" ratio of male-female models should be in order to conclude that females are under-represented? 

AoS is beyond your average high fantasy. If you were talking about WFB's Empire and Bretonnia, it would be a good thing to look up the representative cultures, but AoS isn't that. Even Cities is a lot wilder than what Fantasy for those factions was.

I've had more luck enticing new people into Wargaming with Frostgrave, partly because of the lower cost, but also because the models made for that line are diverse.

My asian friend could find a face with features that worked for her, and a body that was clearly female, but not too impractical to run around in a dangerous environment.

Though another one changed the head of a Escher body for the wizard, which is decidedly less modest or practical, and she used a few of her old d&d minis.

The two men already had enough models lying about, so they just grabbed some stuff and we wen

We spent some time making a warband and played a few games before lockdowns happened. I just got a picture of the painted warband from the first, and three of the five are running Rangers of Shadowdeep scenarios to have something before in-person wargames are a good idea again.

When presented with the opportunity, I noticed both women gravitated towards more female than male models, and men more male than female. Painted models also fit the skin of the player more often (though facial features are not often coöperating)..

It's a small sample, but I've heard similar stories from others.

Representation helps.

If we want people to feel welcome, representing them in models is a good start.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Orsino said:

Again, you haven't attempted to answer the question there, what is your yardstick for deciding that there aren't enough female models if not reality?

No, I very much have attempted to answer the question.

I've made a very convincing argument about why the military history of our planet is of vanishing significance as an inspiration and foundation to AOS and why therefore the participation or otherwise of women within that history is totally irrelevant in discussing their participation within a fantastical creation .

Within the wider and far more significant foundations which establishe the laws and structural  integrity of AOS there is no reason why there should not be much greater female representation. 

Edited by Nos
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...