Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Enoby

Female model representation in Age of Sigmar

Recommended Posts

On 9/12/2020 at 12:35 PM, Nos said:

The best Businesses dont cater for what their audience already buys, they make a product that increases that audience or something so good that *everyone* wants to buy it.  

GW already overwhelmingly caters for its existing audience, but the very existence of AOS itself demonstrates that GW has the savvy to do more than simply keep existing customers happy, or even to upset some of them if the return from new customers is greater. 

It can only go one of two ways:

1) GW continues to increase gender and racial diversity and representation in its releases in line with a more globally, less Euro-centric orientated franchise. If you haven't realised it by now GW have been watching what Disney have done with Marvel liscenses and they have learned very, very well how to apply that accessible  "something for everyone" quality to their existing lines and new products, not just in terms of models but in the broader fiction and associated products. I am almost certain that their intention depending post Covid circumstances will be to have the IP be able to sustain itself without model sales in the next decade.

2) The remaining reactionary elements who didnt leave GW when the Old World blew up but maintain an essentially White Males only attitude to the hobby will bog the community down in a culture war which if they win will see GW's strongest emerging markets abandoning it and leave GW vastly less wealthy or going broke altogether.

Different brands/products cater to different audiences. For example at work I generally wear cufflinks (for shirts) and yes there is a market for cufflinks for women - but 99 percent of all cufflinks are worn by and designed for men. It would be a bad marketing/business decision for a company in the cufflink business to start making 50 percent of all their cufflinks to cater for women, especially if they are the biggest company in said market.

Yes most successful businesses do their best to attract new audiences (in GWs case women is a major opportunity) but you generally do so by introducing new lines (as in armies) that will attract said customers (for AoS this seems to be various Elven races), while maintaining you focus on the existing and most profitable segment (young males) for whom you create the majority of all models. Changing the existing brands to cater to a new audience is generally done very slowly/carefully or if the current audience is disappearing. 

  • Thanks 1
  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NJohansson said:

Different brands/products cater to different audiences. For example at work I generally wear cufflinks (for shirts) and yes there is a market for cufflinks for women - but 99 percent of all cufflinks are worn by and designed for men. It would be a bad marketing/business decision for a company in the cufflink business to start making 50 percent of all their cufflinks to cater for women, especially if they are the biggest company in said market.

Yes most successful businesses do their best to attract new audiences (in GWs case women is a major opportunity) but you generally do so by introducing new lines (as in armies) that will attract said customers (for AoS this seems to be various Elven races), while maintaining you focus on the existing and most profitable segment (young males) for whom you create the majority of all models. Changing the existing brands to cater to a new audience is generally done very slowly/carefully or if the current audience is disappearing. 

Look, using cufflinks as your example of a stable business model might not be the best idea when most cufflink brands are diversifying into other accessories and in particular women's accessories as the number of men buying cufflinks is decreasing year on year, largely because there are no new customers coming into the business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that now this topic don't generate new opinions and seems the beginning of a bucle.

I think that most of the players wants more diversity but the diffence is how do this. I view two different positions, the people like me that wants new armies with specifical tematics and the people that want put diversity in the majour of the armies that now exist. 

Edited by Sartxac
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question of how to quantify what the most significant barriers to entry are is a tricky one, but not necessarily intractable.

Certainly the people posting on warhammer forums are the ones already engaged with the hobby, so whatever we report is anecdotal at best. However we could ask the question of a wider audience. There are lots of hobbies which are adjacent to fantasy wargames in one way shape or form. Off the top of my head; RPGs, CCGs, board and card games, comic books, fantasy fiction and tv, historical wargames etc. The chances are that most of the potential audience for warhammer already has one of those interests already, and I bet many of us here are active in multiple communities.

So you could make a basic anonymous survey which collects basic demographic data, and asks what games yiu enjoy, which communities you are active in, and what your thoughts are about wargames ( and others) what the key barriers to entry are, whether better representative would help, and what could get you involved.

Between us I'm sure we could post it in a lot of places ranging from the other big geekery forums, to smaller gaming groups and more niche communities. How far it would spread, and how many respondents we'd be likely to get I don't know. I'm also not sure how you go about processing that sort of dataset in a useful manner (I'm a physical scientist, not a social scientist, so while I can run stats, collating that sort of data is outside my area of expertise).

Maybe something to consider though, if we really want tk know what is keeping people out of the hobby. 

I'd be willing to bet cost isa big factor.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said:

The question of how to quantify what the most significant barriers to entry are is a tricky one, but not necessarily intractable.

 

Between us I'm sure we could post it in a lot of places ranging from the other big geekery forums, to smaller gaming groups and more niche communities. How far it would spread, and how many respondents we'd be likely to get I don't know. I'm also not sure how you go about processing that sort of dataset in a useful manner (I'm a physical scientist, not a social scientist, so while I can run stats, collating that sort of data is outside my area of expertise).

Maybe something to consider though, if we really want tk know what is keeping people out of the hobby. 

I'd be willing to bet cost isa big factor.

If you are physics as me, you have enough capacities for learn about multiple areas that use science. 

I only participate in this web. But in the comic-book the editors of american super-hero comic have the same problem of new readers (players in the case of this forum) and they thought that problem instead of the bad quality of the majority of theirs historys was the poor diversity of etnics in the main series. They try to change the sex or etnic of a lot of characters, or contract more people of a lot of countries. This strategies as you could imagine didn't works well, only works well the creation of new characters as Kamala Khan (sorry i say Kamala Harris in my first message 😅). Saddly other good new characters as the ultimates of Al Ewing didn't have good sells and was canceled with a hurried final. 

For example, in a lot of big cities of south american as Mexic the sells of the collectibles with good stories and good prices have more sells than in north america. And the same occurs with the manga, in  a lot of famous manga the characters are asiatics or caucasians but have a lot of good sells in south-america. Isn't a problem of inclusion, is a problem of quality.

In our hobby i know a lot of youtube mexican channels about AOS, but they say that are mexican with enormous salarys in compariosn of their citizens. In spain our middel salary is 1/2 of your salary, but for mexicans the middel salary is the 12%. Is imposible introduce this game in their country. GW only thinks in USA and UK.

PD: in usa i don't know for what but in the comic book a overrepresented % of the best writers are of UK. I don't want quotes of spanish, germanics, chinese, mexicans, etc. I want writers with the same quality.

Edited by Sartxac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sartxac said:

I think that now this topic don't generate new opinions and seems the beginning of a bucle.

I think that most of the players wants more diversity but the diffence is how do this. I view two different positions, the people like me that wants new armies with specifical tematics and the people that want put diversity in the majour of the armies that now exist. 

I think you are probably right, but, in an attempt to keep the conversation going, and moving it away from gender and race essentialism/appeals to tradition/etc and all of the other loops people appear to be falling into, I'm going to try and suggest some ways GW could start the process of increasing diversity and we can see what people think.

From a practicality point, it is pretty obvious that for most existing armies - even before taking the lore into account - there is no easy way GW can justify overhauling the entire range to 50/50, or 70/30, or anything else, because it would involve discontinuing huge swathes of functional molds and completely redesigning them. Obviously there are times they seem willing to do this, at least a little - Slaves to Darkness, as people have pointed out, now have female-presenting faces in the Warriors of Chaos kit - but the revamp of those classic kits was very much the exception rather than the rule.

For these armies then, one-off characters and side games appears to be the way to go, and it is clear that GW themselves agree. For example, Warhammer Underworlds (if memory serves?) gave us our first female Stormcast, first female Ghoul, and also a female Nurgle Sorcerer, both of which (particularly the Stormcast, who was just a line trooper not some special commander) set the precedent/imply that it is the done thing for women/Nb folx to be part of those armies. Whilst not perfect, this does show willing and gets the models out there without needing to revamp units or worry about model variety/compatibility.  

There are a large number of factions that would be ripe for these sorts of nods and units. For example, a Cities of Sigmar warband that has a female Freeguild/Valya Dwarf warrior accompanying other soldiers of the Cities, or a Devoted of Sigmar army where some of the flagellants are women - after all, of all the human factions, the doomcult of willing martyrs are almost certainly one of the least likely to turn away willing zealots over something as trivial as sex or gender.

The side games also allow GW to show the place that models of an unexpected gender can fit into a traditionally gendered army. The upcoming Khainite Shadowstalkers (?) for Warcry are a great example of this; the Daughters of Khaine are traditionally, and will continue to be, fiercely matriarchal and in many cases actively anti-male, and the main bulk of their army will continue to reflect this. However, the assassins and scouts of the Warcry warband are operatives that are explicitly a step removed from the Cult of Khaine and so men can join their ranks.

There is no reason to assume that other factions couldn't do something similar. The Fyreslayers, for instance, are the most traditional and patriarchal of the Duradain factions that we know about in Age of Sigmar, and if players/GW want that to remain a key part of their identity whilst the Kharadron and Dispossessed begin to get more new female models, I don't think that is a bad thing. But maybe a Warcry warband could include a single female Lodge member - either a rebel young woman eager to be a Fyreslayer or else a Hearthkeeper or some more traditionally matriarchal role. Both are figures you are unlikely to see in the order of battle as seen in AoS, but in the chaotic fringes of the Allspire? Well, maybe an expedition couldn't be without a priestess of the hearth, or else even if it's a bit strange this one band couldn't afford to turn away a willing axe as they march into Chaos held lands. In this way the armies where part of the appeal is "lithe female knife fighters", "burly manly men" and the like can keep that identity, and what that identity is can still be explored by looking at what it isn't and what it pushes to the fringes as much as by looking at what it embraces.

 

Obviously the easiest place to increase representation is in new factions, which can be designed either actively for diversity, or if people are worried about forced diversity, new factions can be looked at as passively including better representation: one of the best things about the Mortal Realms as a setting is its step away from the Tolkien tropes of high fantasy and the real-world analogues of the World that Was, which means that a designer can ask "how could this be done" rather than "how was this traditionally done".

 

As for the vague question of ratios and deadlines and the like, I don't have an exact plan, and from my point of view I don't know if me having an exact plan or expecting GW to have one would be very helpful. GW is doing better and seems to want to keep doing so, and I am happy to let them continue for the moment. In an ideal world I would like to see some factions quite heavily overhauled - particularly the Freeguild/Cities of Sigmar and the Flesh Eater Courts - although by happy coincidence those are also the two factions that I think design wise should play catch up to their lore and potential in AoS even without considering gender. Some factions, such as the Orruks and the Seraphon, I am personally quite happy saying need no gender overhaul in terms of models - neither reproduce in a recognisably mortal or mammalian way and as fungus yobs and star lizards I don't need their models to look gendered at all (maybe throwing a few non-he/him pronouns into the fluff in the Seraphon tome though, but that's very much a "it'd be nice" bonus point thing.)
With the other factions, I think the exact ratios can and should vary a little between factions - maybe the Slaves to Darkness have fewer female models to keep the Conan-esque flavour, whilst Cities have more to emphasise the "all in it together citizen soldier" mentality. Maybe in aelves its 50/50ish, but in Dispossessed, its 80/20. I don't know. But I think its worth considering.

 

TL;DR: I think GW is doing a decent job but needs to keep going. Introducing these ideas and characters is more important than waiting for/wasting money on immediate range overhauls, so they should continue to take advantage of new factions and the side games to show this commitment. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been a fun read with all its ups and downs.

Speaking from my personal experience with my transgender wife she isn’t very keen on the hobby but she tends to like the female models I have better than the male or daemonic.  When I first showed her Slaanesh and expected her to be offended by the way they focus so much on the hermaphrodite aspects of the daemons.  She didn’t like them at all but it was mostly to do with how the Daemonettes look.  After the released the hedonites battletome and the new keeper of secrets she picked it up at the GW and said she liked how it looked so go figure.  
What I guess I am getting at and what a lot of others have said is that we are an invested community to be posting about this stuff online in the first place and what initially will draw someone to a certain model or army isn’t really a gauge of them as people are constantly changing their perception of the hobby when they are not as invested as the folks who are 10+ years into the hobby or fantasy in general.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2020 at 3:46 PM, Kramer said:

I like that this tries to take an almost scientific look at it. but if I were to make a business decision on it, I would have serious questions about why the choices of parameter in the 'study' were made. Statistics are extremely malleable. Not to say there is intentional cherry picking going on, but I would ask some questions. Without making it a too long post, just some examples. 

First off, why taking all factions, but not looking at only armies produced for AoS? As a lot are left overs from a different game? Having both would tell a more realistic and current story.
Secondly, why ignore the models, with rules, that were published for other games but are playable? Most of those add extra female characters? Could be explained as cherry picking. 
Thirdly, which I can best explain with an example, why the coupling between books and named models? and not all protagonists?
Daughters of Khaine has only female characters, Kharadron overlords none*. Looking at the literature though, KO has only a male named character. So any story about him would be a male lead, vice versa for Morathi. But regarding characters without models. 2 out of 3 KO novels are about a female lead. So now it looks as if DoK is 100% female orientated while KO only 0% in Pebbles statistics. While in reality is 100% vs 66%. Just because of the choice of only looking at named Characters. 
* although in the literature it's often mentioned that the suits they wear are the same for both sexes so any character can be female. Except Brokk as he is described as male. But doesn't that at the same time make all non-named character models count for both?

And there are a couple of more questions like that but this should be a nice indication why I would have doubts about this 'statistics study'. 

TLDR: Statistics can basically say anything you want, and I have doubts at some of the core choices made. 

All that said, more female models are always good imo. Some of the best models have been female in the last to years. So always more of that. :D 

We really shouldn't blind ourselves to an uncomfortable past because of modern progress when the results and legacy of that past are still with us.

 

these models have gone no where, are still sold, and still form a core of representation in the game. The OP didn't include bretonnians and tomb kings, but is is willfully blinding yourself to try and ignore current model ranges just because they are old. They are still current

 

 

On 9/7/2020 at 9:31 AM, RuneBrush said:

Firstly, thanks for everyone keeping this post civil and largely on topic!

The information collated together is really interesting as a cross-section across the available armies somebody could collect for AoS.  I do think it would be an interesting exercise to see the comparison of new male & female miniatures released specifically within the lifetime of AoS - I would hope that there's a general incline.  I do think topics like this help because it shows a maturity in the community which wasn't as prevalent going back.

I do think the topic of the gender split within AoS is one that will always come up and always have a pretty complicated mix of opinions, because it will depend upon your own views and the views of people around you.  There has been a definite increase in diversity within gaming over the past years now that the "stigma" that used to be associated with being a wargamer has started to vanish.  Oddly, within my own circle of geekery, I've at least three friends who aren't fans of GW miniatures due to the proliferation of unnecessary skulls and models that are have permanent dour angry faces.  I've also a number of friends who just don't enjoy PvP gaming and the choice of co-op games available is pretty limited.  I'm fairly positive that other people and their friends may feel differently though.

The mix of opinions often comes from a pretty dark place though, and trying to treat all opinions as valid can fall into the paradox of tolerance, which is not a good thing and just cedes the ground to bad faith and hate.

 

On 9/7/2020 at 9:44 AM, Azamar said:

It always seems that elf kits lead the way for gender balance, as the older dark elf infantry kits had a similar mix, and elder guardians too going back 10+ years. Its also true of newer kits like eternal guard and the lumineth (it’s really subtle in the latter case but there are female torsos in the warden kit). 
 

why only elves and not humans and dwarfs is odd though. How many female Order hero models  in AOS aren’t aelves? 

I suspect it's because.... dwarves can't be classically beautiful. The ideal female form as presented in the media just doesn't and can't fit the dwarf body type.

 

GW has only recently, and only haltingly, made female models that don't fall into 1 of two catagories. Hollywood beautiful, or obviously comedic. And even then, a dwarf body type is more divergent from the hollywood ideal than anything GW has ever produced for a non comedic female model.

 

 

On 9/8/2020 at 8:24 AM, Overread said:

I would expect to see Khadorans adopt female warriors and leaders more readily than Fyreslayers and Dispossessed. 

The way I'd see it in the lore (yes yes yes lore isn't real but that doesn't mean it doesn't have established themes and concepts), the Khadorans are more forward and modern in their thinking. Yes they are still dwarves who hold grudges for generations; live for hundreds of years and generally have a grumpy attitude, but they aren't as steadfast in all the old ways.

Fyreslayers seem to be far more traditional, indeed I'd wager they wouldn't have female warriors or if they did they'd be a "Mulan" or rare leader born to the role. They'd aim for that more traditional dwarvish approach. Now the lore might well help here in so much as the game only shows war; only battle. It ignores art, religion (where it is not warrior groups); mining; production; farming; crafting; basically anything of culture. Indeed for races on the march they have a powerful need of a strong infrastructure at "home". Indeed I think we in part almost have to be careful that our desire for models doesn't result in our glorification of war to the point that all else in the race, lore and background is irrelevant. How demeaning to consider that war is the only important thing within the Mortal Realms. 

 

Dispossessed might fall half way between the two. One part wanting to cling to the old ways; another part forced to adapt and change through both losing their holds and mines and also through association in the Free Cities steadily eroding some of their old ways. 

 

We could even connect that as Gotrek appeared closest to the Fyreslayers of all dwarvish races, that perhaps they have the greatest connection to the Old Ways and Old Dwarves. Even though they are vastly changed, they still aim to stick to those old themes.

I would like to note that kharadrons are, in large part, a spoof on ultra capitalism, specifically of the type typified by victorian magnates. And the victorians were one of history's most sexually regressive peoples.

 

 

On 9/10/2020 at 2:20 PM, EccentricCircle said:

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again. The introduction of Primaris Space Marines was the perfect opportunity for GW to introduce canon female space marines.

You have the situation where they were already committed to making a big change to the model range, and justifying it with new canon. At that point why not say, In addition to making new, even more awesome space marines, we also decided that no talented space warrior should be exempt from potentially becoming a space marine, so there are ladies now. I'm sure it would have annoyed some people, but they are the people I tend not to mind annoying, so I see it as a missed opportunity.

Remember, Black Library authors wanted to introduce female Custodes, and the GW bigwigs told them they could not. 

 

 

On 9/10/2020 at 6:16 PM, Kramer said:

You can make any argument sound stupid if you take it to extremes. 

Nobody, in this thread at least nor have I seen it anywhere else, has argued that women are cruelly excluded. That's miles from the argument that more female inclusion in the models could lead to more female inclusion in the community. (and i'll happily follow that up with my favourite emoji ;))

 💁‍♀️ #hairflip

I mean women are often excluded, at times cruelly. In my local store, no ladies. Why? I suspect it's mostly to do with thirsty nerds swarming them when they come in. Or they come in on a particularly unlucky day and we have the local incel well into a rant about women in media in the corner.

 

 

On 9/10/2020 at 8:32 PM, Orsino said:

 

Stop trolling, act like you're an adult, and then we can have a meaningful discussion.

I highly doubt such

 

 

 

On 9/11/2020 at 2:47 AM, 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!

 

This is also a SUPER contentious topic in history that has prompted innumerable debates that only ever gets worse when lay people weigh in with their "expertise" and "biotruths"

 

On 9/11/2020 at 4:37 AM, Khadral said:

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.

 

But how much of a minority? It's hard to say when the idea of warrior women is so inherently contrary to a couple centuries of concerted propaganda that's only really been challenged for less than half. The thing about archaeology especially is that it is very easy to interpret things based on preconceptions you already have, shaped by centuries of social norms.

 

 

 

On 9/11/2020 at 7:44 AM, Orsino said:

The reason the vast majority of fighting in history has been done by men is not because people in the past were irrational, prior to modern weaponry/vehicles/aircraft which reduce the importance of physical capabilities and prior to improvements in infant mortality which reduce the need for people to have lots of babies ot made sense to have all male armies. Which isn't to say all their reasons were pragmatic of course. 

Also the people of the past were deeply irrational.

I mean, have you read what educated victorian men though about women's intelligence? They literally invented whole fake sciences to justify their views on race. This is not the act of rational men. This is the act of men wanting to couch their deeply held (very awful) beliefs in a veneer of rationality. And this very much still goes on today.

 

 

On 9/11/2020 at 11:17 AM, JPjr said:

this thread is starting to give off some big Ben Shapiro energy. 😬

So, let us say, that it stands to reason, logically, let us say, it stands to reason, no let us say, that I am always correct. So, going from that, then is stands to reason, logically, that it stands to reason, everything I argue is true.

 

 

 

On 9/12/2020 at 5:55 AM, Sartxac said:

I agree only when you say that part of this is cultural. Other little part is biologically. Never you will have gender parity in all the aspects of the society and this isn't a problem.

I'm aware of my bad english, i'm spanish and i write fastly without checking my sentences. Sorry 😅.

For example, in my city in our group three womens play (idoneth, fire slayers and daugthers of kaine). But for other womans that i show this game thinks that have a lot of rules and is boring. In % the males are more competitive and for this is more easy that they like this game (due to the effect of our hormones in our brain).

 

Biotruths by non biologists always lead us astray

 

On 9/12/2020 at 11:51 AM, Sartxac said:

No, the real problem is demand black, asiatic soldiers or womens in every army that have the aesthetics of some real armies like cities of sigmar (the empire has tecnology and little steam punk appareance similar to the occidental armies of Europe in S.XVI). If you want more representation i think that is better make new armies like armies of mercenaries with a lot of strong womans, pirates of any nations workings together (i think that ogors have some mongols aesthetics), etc.

I repeat, for the aesthetic of stormcast i think that is better and more realistic make a army of black soldiers (black people of north africa have better hipertrofic conditions for wear stormcast armours). Is impossible for white mans make a army where every soldier have a big bodybuilding whitout take stereoids or magic potions.

For other band, i think that slaves to darkness must be white mans with viking aesthetic in their soldiers .

AOS is fantasy but i want armies that are based in phantasy versions of real and identificable armies. For example, the savage orks with their tattos for me are versions of the humans tribes and ancient tribes like the native americans of Apocalypto (movie of 2006).

 

I mean, yikes man. Yiiiiiiikes. Yikes.

 

 

On 9/12/2020 at 12:49 PM, shinros said:

Why does the status quo doesn't change because many black people believe they can't be succesful. Because most live in broken enviroments, surrounded by crime and violence. Which leads to criminal records and dead careers. Also writers and designers should not be forced to inlcude anything if they don't want to.

Where black people live and the conditions they live in is not an accident or a mere quirk of history, but a result of literal centuries of concerted effort at all levels of governance and society. Through exclusion and expulsion and through deliberately targeted aid and benefits to white people. This is why historic amnesia is a mistake. You can't address the issue without rebalancing, in some comparatively small part, the deliberate imbalances of the past. It's a cruel thing to tell a man with no boots to pull himself up by his bootstraps.

 

On 9/12/2020 at 4:53 PM, shinros said:

Be clear, what are you trying to say here? Because I can tell you I have been around people both black and white people stating they can't do x because of xyz. They've also tried to put me down as well.

Anyway, lets hope you never have the courtesy to be threatened at knifepoint by two fellow black people. They wanted me to steal a woman's purse in order to be let go. Yes that happened to me thankfully another black person saved me, who is also a community worker in said community who wants to combat these issues.

Unfortunately met them again they punched me in the face and ran off.

Also be thankful, that it seems you are part of a wonderful family instead of growing up with a single mother who had to raise three children by herself and had to deal with a brain tumour.

Also count yourself lucky that you don't have a family member beaten half to death with a pipe and hammer by other black people.

Hell I got lucky in hindsight, the rest of my old friends have done prison and shot their lives into the ground.

Edit:In my eyes painting a model black won't change this. But if they had an affordable hobby to get young people off the streets? That would do wonders.

I mean, warhammer is not going to fix racism, no.

 

Fixing racism will allow more black people, and other ethnicities, to enjoy the hobby though. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goliaths, the Necromunda steroid gang, also got a few female figures now:

I'm considering getting these to convert to Kharadron (which I will then use in Necromunda as Orlock).

 

 

games-workshop-goliath-stimmers-forgeborn.jpg

Edited by zilberfrid
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, stratigo said:

The mix of opinions often comes from a pretty dark place though, and trying to treat all opinions as valid can fall into the paradox of tolerance, which is not a good thing and just cedes the ground to bad faith and hate.

Can't beat a good philosophical paradox 😉  I think the key is to remember within a forum such as this, is that everybody believes their own opinion to be valid.  What I've found interesting is that many (though not all I hasten to add) of us in this topic do have in our opinion that we're not against seeing GW sculpt more female miniatures.  The way that gets done is where our opinion diverges.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, stratigo said:

I suspect it's because.... dwarves can't be classically beautiful. The ideal female form as presented in the media just doesn't and can't fit the dwarf body type.

Objection! 🙂

Some sculptors can make some really nice female dwarf warrior.

Hasslefree

HFD027web.jpg

Atlantis miniature

atlantis-miniatures-dwarf-female-unit-50

Plenty at reaper but their photos are so bad

 

And while I am at it, Northstar, that is quite smaller than GW have been able to allow resources to create a female version of their existing soldier and mage kit.

I know that Frostgrave is not the same scope that AoS, and it is only 2 kits (/10ish). But think like this: They are not a special unit/troop/army (as sister of thorn to wanderer), they have duplicated existing kits to allow female representation as mere human foot trooper. I don't know it success compare to other kit apart that it was out of stock (as other Frostgrave kit) when I wanted to purchase it.

But if Northstar can take the "risk", so could GW for some of their units.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, stratigo said:

I mean, yikes man. Yiiiiiiikes. Yikes.

Without enter in arguments of authority as you does, I think that in this forum all the commentaries have been respectful. Maybe i misunderstand your commentary because i don't know english coloquial expressions.

For other band, I think that the tolerance paradox is about people that wants impose their ideas violently.

 

Edited by Sartxac
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gorthor21 said:

She didn’t like them at all but it was mostly to do with how the Daemonettes look.  After the released the hedonites battletome and the new keeper of secrets she picked it up at the GW and said she liked how it looked so go figure.  

I think this also highlights something important which is that whilst first impressions make a big difference, there's something to be said for the fact that sometimes one's initial dislike of something new can just be a kneejerk reaction. That its not so much a hard or major barrier,  but something which is simply presented wrong or just so new and different that a person hasn't just wrapped their head around it. It's all too new and different all at once so they latch onto a single "issue" and highlight it as a barrier. When in fact the barrier is simply more of "newness" and it being so different from anything else they might do. 

 

As a result it again highlights the issues of ascribing too much important to modest barriers or things which might not even be barriers. 

 

Another one I bet we've all seen more than once is someone disliking the idea of spending money on something that they then have to put together and paint. That it doesn't come all complete in one box ready done. Something that pre-painted series like Starwars do provide and which can clearly attract a lot of casual market customers (or at least it would if they could keep those games and products in-stock ;)). And yet many of those who do hang around, perhaps being tempted by artwork, stories (books) or even just a friend showing them more than once; can often come to love the fact that building is a rewarding skill; that they can paint however they imagine and then play with them too on the tabletop. Indeed the whole build and paint side can build an association with your own models outside of any formal lore or stories. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, NJohansson said:

Different brands/products cater to different audiences. For example at work I generally wear cufflinks (for shirts) and yes there is a market for cufflinks for women - but 99 percent of all cufflinks are worn by and designed for men. It would be a bad marketing/business decision for a company in the cufflink business to start making 50 percent of all their cufflinks to cater for women, especially if they are the biggest company in said market.

Yes most successful businesses do their best to attract new audiences (in GWs case women is a major opportunity) but you generally do so by introducing new lines (as in armies) that will attract said customers (for AoS this seems to be various Elven races), while maintaining you focus on the existing and most profitable segment (young males) for whom you create the majority of all models. Changing the existing brands to cater to a new audience is generally done very slowly/carefully or if the current audience is disappearing. 

GW has  been doing the precise slow and careful changes you mention for 5 or 6 years now, but the momentum is picking up quarter on quarter at this point. I think you're in for a shock as to how many changes for new audiences are going to become more apparent year on year at this point.

GW is already an entirely different beast from what it was 5 years ago and that is only going to increase with Offical Animations, cooperation with AAA videogame production, Marvel publishing their new comic. If those prove successful enough to pique the interest of a Disney or WB as have other similar licenses the amount of money they will bring in will dwarf miniature sales, and consequently that audience and their views will prove far more valuable and important in how the liscense is shaped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2020 at 8:20 PM, EccentricCircle said:

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again. The introduction of Primaris Space Marines was the perfect opportunity for GW to introduce canon female space marines.

You have the situation where they were already committed to making a big change to the model range, and justifying it with new canon. At that point why not say, In addition to making new, even more awesome space marines, we also decided that no talented space warrior should be exempt from potentially becoming a space marine, so there are ladies now. I'm sure it would have annoyed some people, but they are the people I tend not to mind annoying, so I see it as a missed opportunity.

Read the lore before talking

there are female marines, and those are the adepta sororitas, and guess what?, they got a ton of new very cool models

 

it makes me really made when people talks about including and forcing something in a opera just because an agenda, specially if you dont know the lore you are talking about

 

Back in aos, the most interisting thing about a wargame is that you can make the whole army like you want, you want a full female SCE army? you can, you just have to know how to do it, hell you want black SCE? just paint them like that

Edited by Yondaime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sisters of Battle aren't true Space Marines, they are slightly similar but different. Visually on the tabletop though they are pretty much the same - power armour and such. Lore wise they are very different and don't get the whole gene-seed implants and such. But yeah visually speaking they are female marines. There's also (at least before primaris) a lot more of them than there are marines as the Sisters of Battle are not limited by geneseed implants; they can train up as many as they like. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Overread said:

The Sisters of Battle aren't true Space Marines, they are slightly similar but different. Visually on the tabletop though they are pretty much the same - power armour and such. Lore wise they are very different and don't get the whole gene-seed implants and such. But yeah visually speaking they are female marines. There's also (at least before primaris) a lot more of them than there are marines as the Sisters of Battle are not limited by geneseed implants; they can train up as many as they like. 

Yes but there is a reason if they dont get a gene seed implant.

Hell the sororitas even have one of the strongest psyker in the whole ****** galaxy

40k is such a wonderfull and diverse universe, there is no need to force female SM or male sororitas

You want to play a army of wonderfull female models? go sororitas

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Yondaime said:

Yes but there is a reason if they dont get a gene seed implant.

Hell the sororitas even have one of the strongest psyker in the whole ****** galaxy

40k is such a wonderfull and diverse universe, there is no need to force female SM or male sororitas

You want to play a army of wonderfull female models? go sororitas

 

 

While not an argument in favour of female marines (or male AS), I do find the two very different. 

Not only do marines get the lion's share of models, stories, and lore discussion, they are also individually much stronger than a sororitas. While the sororitas have recently got a large release, they're dwarfed by the sheer number of space marines.

But regardless of that, marines, custodes, and primarchs are the best of the  best humanity has to offer. They are stronger, smarter, quicker, and more durable than any unaugmented human, and they are all male exclusive. Sororitas are considerably better than the average soldier, and the sisters of silence are very powerful in their own niche, but they are just less powerful than their male counterparts in general. 

I mentioned it before in this thread, but when I was younger, I was really disheartened when I was told that if I wanted to play with female models in 40k, I'd have to play one of the (in lore) weaker factions. I do find it unfortunate that all of the strongest and smartest 'human' characters are male only.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye bit in 40K its important to realise that everyone is worse than a marine ;)

In the end though I think its also important to realise that strength isn't just linked to layers of muscle. The Sisters of Battle might not, in a one on one, fight be equal to a Marine. That's fine, a gaunt isn't equal to a Marine either. Instead a SoB has other strengths and one of them might well be that she's not alone; that she's standing there with a dozen others of her Battle Sisters right behind her ready to deal out holy fire and justice upon a marine (clearly a Chaos Marine who is corrupted etc...). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Enoby said:

While not an argument in favour of female marines (or male AS), I do find the two very different. 

Not only do marines get the lion's share of models, stories, and lore discussion, they are also individually much stronger than a sororitas. While the sororitas have recently got a large release, they're dwarfed by the sheer number of space marines.

But regardless of that, marines, custodes, and primarchs are the best of the  best humanity has to offer. They are stronger, smarter, quicker, and more durable than any unaugmented human, and they are all male exclusive. Sororitas are considerably better than the average soldier, and the sisters of silence are very powerful in their own niche, but they are just less powerful than their male counterparts in general. 

I mentioned it before in this thread, but when I was younger, I was really disheartened when I was told that if I wanted to play with female models in 40k, I'd have to play one of the (in lore) weaker factions. I do find it unfortunate that all of the strongest and smartest 'human' characters are male only.

Dude, i'll say that again, making a female SM is such a gigantic plot hole in the 40k universe it would literally ruin the whole story, also what you mean by they are the smartest? thats complterly wrong

For the SM release you are totally right tho, it gets me mad, i am a eldar player and still play with models literally older than me, while SM get theyr montly realease

Edited by Yondaime
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Yondaime said:

Dude, i'll say that again, making a female SM is such a gigantic plot hole in the 40k universe it would literally ruin the whole story

For the SM release you are totally right tho, it gets me mad, i am a eldar player and still play with models literally older than me, while SM get theyr montly realease

At the same time Necrons are clearly getting the best release right now, even alongside marines. There's every chance Eldar will get some love "soon" considering that they are about the worst army right now for older and fine-cast models. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Yondaime said:

Dude, i'll say that again, making a female SM is such a gigantic plot hole in the 40k universe it would literally ruin the whole story

For the SM release you are totally right tho, it gets me mad, i am a eldar player and still play with models literally older than me, while SM get theyr montly realease

Like I said, this wasn't an argument for female space marines, just me saying I was disappointed that the best (strongest and smartest) humanity has is all male :) a lot of 40k, especially the superhuman part, is a power fantasy and I personally would like to feel more represented in it. That doesn't have to be through space marines - it could be through a new factions or tweaks to preexisting factions

I am genuinely curious why you think female space marines would ruin the entire setting, considering they used to exist but were retconned out due to financial reasons (as provided evidence for earlier on in the thread)? I want to assure you I'm asking  in good faith rather than to start an argument or something :) I understand it being against the current lore, but GW retcon a lot of stuff (e.g. Guilliman going from actually dead to only mostly dead and revivable; the primarchs being created partially by a woman called Erda; space marines being created by a woman called Amar Astarteso I'm not sure why this change (or development - like Primaris marines) would be lore breaking.

Though I do totally agree that there are far too many Space Marine releases, especially compared to eldar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, stratigo said:

 

In my opinion it's always going to exist, how are you going to truly stop it other than policing other people's thoughts? I already gave my opinion on how you can see more Black People in hobby. I would also have you know in my sphere, the elder black people who have seen the worst of racism tell me not talk to white people about our "issues" because they wouldn't "understand". I disagreed, since I feel how would we come to an understanding if we don't talk to one another? Others also tell me I have huge opportunities that exist now since western countries have made such great progress compared to other countries, which I agree with considering the number of successful black people, even in my own family. 

Anyway, painting a model a different colour is a skin deep gesture instead of making actual programs and giving said people means to actually do the hobby. Of course, GW aren't going to do that, they're a business after all. The same business who said warhammer is for everyone and fired a writer because he rocked the boat because he harmed their bottom line, proving GW is still an amoral business. 

Edited by shinros
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Yondaime said:

Dude, i'll say that again, making a female SM is such a gigantic plot hole in the 40k universe it would literally ruin the whole story

so what you're saying is that the single most important element, the one thing that literally defines the 30+ years of games, stories, and all the many terabytes of badly worded wikipedia-like entries about Warhammer 40K is that women can't be Space Marines.

change that one thing in this entirely fictional universe created by countless people to satisfy the marketing department of a toy company and you invalidate everything, and reduce the entire franchise to smouldering radioactive rubble from which no good will ever come again.

I mean I'm not even that fussed about female marines but if that's true then I'd suggest it's a franchise that doesn't deserve to live.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JPjr said:

so what you're saying is that the single most important element, the one thing that literally defines the 30+ years of games, stories, and all the many terabytes of badly worded wikipedia-like entries about Warhammer 40K is that women can't be Space Marines.

change that one thing in this entirely fictional universe created by countless people to satisfy the marketing department of a toy company and you invalidate everything, and reduce the entire franchise to smouldering radioactive rubble from which no good will ever come again.

I mean I'm not even that fussed about female marines but if that's true then I'd suggest it's a franchise that doesn't deserve to live.

It seems that you know nothing about 40k lore, so let me explain a bit

Yes, because the emperor, primarchs, the gene seeds and the whole horus heresy is the backbone of the WH40k lore

What you do?  there was a female primarch tha nobody knew about? the gene seeds that kills a MILLIONS man for incompatibily magicaly works on women? another reason they dont even try it (and there are already A LOT of reasons) is that they dont want SM procreate

do you see how forced is this? and just for the sake to have female SM while there is a whole ****** army of JUST FEMALES? dont you see how stupid is this?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...