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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Nos last won the day on July 19

Nos had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,205 Celestant-Prime

About Nos

  • Rank
    Lord Castellant

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yeah same, though I'm not holding my breath. Warhammer and AOS are the only wargaming or mini systems I've played where I feel as though the real challenge is the rules themselves as opposed to my enemy. Compared to other systems like Saga, LOTR, Kings of War etc they are like some form of Da Daist experiment.
  2. Yeah this. SC are very clearly designed to be beginner friendly-big, chunky, multiple but small flat surfaces and otherwise lots of relief scultping for washes, no fiddly bits, hardly any faces- they're the archetype of how to paint something quick with GW's paint system. Also, they're human so the ideal entry point for people new to the Universe in terms of explaining what everything else is. They arent anything like Space Marines in terms of their ubiquity or centrality to their Universe, but they're obviously designed with a similar purpose commercially speaking
  3. 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.
  4. Thank you for your considered response and for sharing your personal experiences, I I recognise and respect what you're saying although would never claim to be able to understand or speak into them. I'm glad that the hobby has brought you so much joy and value and my wish is that you and anyone of any gender, race or whatever who needs or could benefit from the hobby in that sense is able to get that.
  5. I'm sorry to hear of your experiences, they sound awful. I would simply offer by way of reply though that I have had white people do terrible things to me and as a care worker I know dozens of people who have been abused, beaten, stabbed and had lives likewise ruined by the actions of white people. I would suggest that in all of these respective instances including your own that the nature of the persons race was merely a representation of the wider population demographic in the areas in which it occured. If working in social care has told me nothing else it is that the world is populated both by wonderful people and awful people and that both can and do come from any background, culture, race, gender etc and therefore that one should be wary of generalisations or Blanket statements about the same. People are complicated. Another reason why AOS would be richer for a greater representation of all of us.
  6. Speaking as someone married to a black wife and into a black family, its weird to see a black person asserting a trope that most black literature and culture identifies as problematic and racist. Or to see a black person referring to 'black people" in explicit racial discussion as a monolithic other. Your perspective on these issues within the hobby is profoundly different to those of the people of colour or black people I know of within the hobby or who are outside of it but who I have talked with about these issues and asked their opinion on it. Obviously people have different opinions and I'm not disputing that you are entitled to it, but in a discussion around representation of under represented audiences my own experience of how black people consider these issues is very different. The issue for example of how Bone Splittas are presented fits into a colonial stereotype and media discussion far far bigger than the hobby which has been central to racial depictions of Black Africans and those of African descent. My wife pointed out when i showed her some savage orks years ago that she is all too familiar with monstrous depictions of beasts with bones in their hair and war paint etc in multiple formays which are meant to look like her, or her ancestors and cultural touchstones. While I'm not saying of course that GW had any intention whatever of perpetrating that notion when they designed that faction, they were nonetheless borrowing from popularised depictions which come from a deeply racist source which still echoes in various forms to this day. It's a far far more complex topic than you make it out to be. It was more problematic in warhammer mind you when the good dudes were the ones who were closest to White Europeans. By far one of the best things AOS has done is remove the notion of Classical Europe as being the essential moral compass of the world. Great to see the influences of Bhudddist and ancient Chinese culture in the new Lumineth for example. And the change from Sigmar as being an essentially benevolent Good God of White People to a whiny, capricious dysfunctional hammer chucking Moron.
  7. Just as an aside I had a wry grin when this was announced 9th Ed Reveal: Keep your Old Codexes! They're coming too! Codex Preview: New Codex for everything! I mean I knew it was coming but two months seems a bit indecent
  8. I think they were designed to ensure the essential integrity and character of armies on the table ie ensure that Skaven are recognisably a chattering rat swarm and not an elite army of 10 models. Also following the outcry over the initial hobbyist "anything goes" AOS release probably a sop to the crowd who wanted that more traditional battle "structure". As with anything GW, I think the best and worst aspects of the concept Is that they are clearly not particularly considered in any one criteria. They're certainly not picked on the grounds of pure gaming balance, or pure fluff on the other hand. They're a concept designed to sell the flavour of the army which in the best cases works both on and off the tabletop- DOK, BR, Ogres- but in the worst cases does only one, or neither-Liberators. Then you have your left field cases. I love Tree Revenants mainly for how they look but also they're very powerful on the table *except in combat* which seems to be in direct contradiction of their lore. Regardless they are to me almost the definition of elites, basically ninjas, but they are battle line nonetheless. As I said I love them so I'm not complaining but there is very obviously to me a confusion there in what they are supposed to be and what purpose they serve both on and off the table.
  9. 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.
  10. Not one person has demanded anything in this thread. Not once.
  11. The fundamental issue I think is not what does or dosent need working on, I think in most instances it should (and will) continue to be an organic but overt evolutionary process. The issue rather is that some members of the community panic and sqwark and protest about it for no justifiable or discernible reason, making something which should actually be very simple,fun and not at all a big deal into this tortuous battleground subject.
  12. They were quoting a post of yours. They said that those things were subjective. Not "everything". Consistency and coherence tend to attest to themselves. They do not tend to be met with reiteration, contradiction, absence of support and the need for clarification or the rules of language. The existence of subjectivity does not preclude the existence of objectivity. That is an incredibly remedial understanding of the concept. Subjectivity is a means of explaining the importance of perception to collective human understanding and interaction and how our means of interacting with things is as much if not more fuelled by us as it is the thing itself. It does not suggest that nothing exists independently of it or that the basis for reality is opinion, which Is what you seem to be groping at. If you're out for whatever reason that's fine, I just didnt want it to go unchallenged that the reason for your doing so lies in you being above the conversation or because people are being disengenous in their responses to you. You're not and they arent.
  13. As a way of trying to ascertain people's opinions, let's try a hypothetical scenario: John Blanche as creative director says that he feels there is a narrative and creative shortfall in AOS as it exists due to the fiction being primarily formed and depicted from a male perspective. He says that as a means of creating a fuller, better realised and even more exciting universe the creative teams should focus a considerable amount of their time and resources into fleshing this out and creating more lore and models which reflect amd explore other parts of the Universe as other genders encounter it. It will not touch upon any of GWs scheduled flagship releases or other areas such as rules etc. It will simply provide more of everything to everything in AOS. More units, lore, models etc. There is no ratio determining this, some factions might end up 70/30 male, or 50/50, or 65/35 female, or non binary etc, but this ratio will be arrived upon as a result of the existing creative process, not a pre determined criteria of representation: If you think this would not be appropriate, *bearing in mind this instance is purely creative and will have guaranteed no bearing whatever on your ability to play and enjoy what you already enjoy in the hobby*, why is that?
  14. Nobody ever has any issue with narratives and stories with which they identify. The issue with the concept of "Modern Day Woman" and I suspect the reason that women asked hated it as they identified it is that its utter garbage to suggest that stereotypes and generalisations are representative of an entire gender and that any woman should see themselves as represented in an natural composite archetype. Ditto the notion of The Strong Woman. Creatives should focus on creating characters, with personalities. People are drawn to people and people are unique. Creatives who want to add a Strong Woman to a story without knowing who that person is or why are just ticking boxes. That is not an excuse to write poor female characters, or have none at all. It is a reason for the author to do their work and research and invest in learning how to perform their craft better. The prime place to find out more about how to better represent women is, unsurprisingly, women. If a creator sees accurate representation of whatever it is they are trying to portray as somehow an impediment to creativity or they're vision, they're either lazy or just not very creative. Knowing what I do about the GW creative team, I imagine most would be excited by the creative challenges of creating a Female Warrior et al, of the places where the need to research and educate a concept and play with it might take them, not intimidated or see it as a HR exercise requiring the addition of XYZ. The irony is that women and racial minorities are so poorly realised or considered in Western Media that the most basic attempt to thoughtfully create such a character Is almost universally loved by said audiences because a morsel is a banquet if you're starved. It's an open goal more or less. The bar is *low*.
  15. You argued that according to the reality of miltary history, women are over represented. This is an issue because you claim the inspiration of military history within AOS is significant. I have argued that is not true, and that further to that AOS is founded and even dependent on fantastical concepts to such a degree that the imposition of anything as "over represented" is likewise a nonsense because the basis on why things do or dont exist in AOS is not "representation" it is stylistic choice, preference and creative license. The argument is not that women should be more present in AOS "to be represented", as though it were some form of government census. The argument is that women should be more present because there is no reason for them not to be, and there isnt.
  • Create New...