PDA

View Full Version : For those of you who collect Stormcast Eternals...



Bingo the Fun Monkey
19-12-2015, 03:20
What is the appeal? I think I exist in the group of people who kind of quit GW gaming after AoS was released; but are still in the orbit, so to speak, with nostalgia driven hope AoS will draw us back in. Somehow, someday. I've noticed that I cannot look at my current collections without feeling deep melancholy and a distinct lack of purpose and place for them in this new setting. Why would there be Phoenix Guard? Does Asuryan even exist? Who are my Orruks fighting, and are they further along the evolutionary chain of old beloved orcs? Will all the looted Bretonnian gear they're sporting make any sense? Also, if I did get into AoS I would want to use round bases as I agree the models look really cool on them (and similarly, I feel square bases look silly in loose formation). That all being said, were I to play AoS, it'd have to be a fresh start. Hence the original question.

Even if I have no intention of collecting Stormcast Eternals, as the setting is designed to revolve around them in a manner similar to how 40k revolves around the Astartes, I have to see some compelling element in their story, background, raison d'etre, and methods. How can they be relatable if they're revenants? How can they be customized if their personality fades due to their recycled soul immortality thing? Why does anything matter? What makes your Chapter yours? Or are there sub chapters with different doctrines that appeal to you? Is it just the models at this point?

Kenshinzo 7
19-12-2015, 04:01
While I loved all the old WHFB armies. I find that I love the high fantasy feel of the Stormcasts just as much. Perhaps it's the Romanish legion feel that they resonate. I also enjoy the concept they can stand toe to toe with Chaos and give as good as they get. In all the years of WHFB. I never liked the idea that Chaos was all powerful and that order was doomed. I felt there should be an equality. I have read all the novels and listened to the audio dramas and I find the Stormcasts just as interesting and relevant as any of GW's past offerings. You should maybe give those a try if you are interested.

Mage
19-12-2015, 06:32
The appeal of the Stormcast Eternals? It is always subjective, but here goes, with why I think they care cool. These guys are the cavalry (not actual cavalry). Humanity is tired of getting its head kicked in by the forces of Chaos. We are not going to take them anymore. Think of Thor 2: Ragnarok, at the start of the movie, where it shows Odin's Father, Bor, kicking butt with his armies. Something along those lines. These were once men, yes, but now they have the strength and power to have an even, fair fight, maybe even better against powerful Warriors or Champions of the Dark gods with their evil boons and blessings.

Research tbe background a little. There are nine realms, and there have been a few hundred years since this setting started in the timeline. Any culture of your own devising can exist anywhere in the realms, come up with your own background setting and anything you want can make sense. They could be left over remnants of cultures from the World-that-was, or hybrids or evolutions of them. Perhaps a Brettonian army from the realm of Death wherethe culutre advanced under veneration of the Green Knight as a god with a burning hatred of elves and forasking the Lady of the Lake? Wait a minute, thats a good idea, dont take it!

There is always a place for your models, you just need to find passion. If the setting for AoS just doesent get your motor running, try playing last ed, dragon rampart or kings of war. Why would their be Phoenix Guard? There would always be Phoenix guard, maybe part of Ultuan that sank appeared as some debris in one of the realms and some Phoenix Guard freed from Slaanesh found it on their journeys as nomads? Asuryan exists as long as people believe in him I guess, or in some shapre or form, as the Realm of Chaos exists.

Waaaagh! Orc don't need a reason ta fight stoopid humie, u thinkin' too much! Get clobberin'! We got this shiny gear the warband has ad for ages but is dead good. We miss all dem knights we killed, shoulda kept some alive to keep makin good stuff


Will all the looted Bretonnian gear they're sporting make any sense? Also, if I did get into AoS I would want to use round bases as I agree the models look really cool on them (and similarly, I feel square bases look silly in loose formation). That all being said, were I to play AoS, it'd have to be a fresh start. Hence the original question.

Even if I have no intention of collecting Stormcast Eternals, as the setting is designed to revolve around them in a manner similar to how 40k revolves around the Astartes, I have to see some compelling element in their story, background, raison d'etre, and methods. How can they be relatable if they're revenants? How can they be customized if their personality fades due to their recycled soul immortality thing? Why does anything matter? What makes your Chapter yours? Or are there sub chapters with different doctrines that appeal to you? Is it just the models at this point?

In all seriousness with the bases either keep them on what they were on or rip them off, but do whatever you feel is right, or start a new army if thats what you want and make em round.

I dont think the setting is designed to resolve around them but they are protagonists and only so many original releases for the new setting have come out. I mean with the starter your always going to need the goodies and baddies. Maybe borrowing some of the fiction from BL from an active friend and find out for yourself, or invent your own stormhost and convert it and make up your own background to taste. Maybe your guys keep remembering more of who they are. These things matter when you find your passion and create something. I mean, part of the appeal of marines in 40k is coming up with your own chapter, background and history.

Darth Alec
19-12-2015, 07:36
This one is going to be long, but I hope I can answer some of these questions for you :)


What is the appeal? I think I exist in the group of people who kind of quit GW gaming after AoS was released; but are still in the orbit, so to speak, with nostalgia driven hope AoS will draw us back in.

You aren't alone in that. You will probably need a bit of patience though, if none of the models released so far strike your fancy.


Somehow, someday. I've noticed that I cannot look at my current collections without feeling deep melancholy and a distinct lack of purpose and place for them in this new setting.

That's not all that strange. A lot of old factions don't have a specific place anymore. Elves, dwarfs and humans are a big unknown at the moment. They all exist in Azyr though, so there is some place for them. This is a new world, with new purpose and new stories. Not everything from the old world will make the transition I'm afraid. Melancholy is understandable, but there is a lot going for the story so far, IMO.


Why would there be Phoenix Guard? Does Asuryan even exist?

Are you familiar with the events of the End Times? The last spark of Asuryan was put into Malekith. Malekith himself either died during the End Times, or has become Malerion. The Phoenix Guard in themselves no longer exist, but a continued version of the Shadowflame guard might very well be a thing. Since the planet blew up, it's usually safe to assume that they things didn't survive unless mentioned in the mortal realms.


Who are my Orruks fighting, and are they further along the evolutionary chain of old beloved orcs? Will all the looted Bretonnian gear they're sporting make any sense?
Everyone, everywhere, anytime. They are acting just like Orcs always have. We don't know much about Orc technology, but we know they are at least as far along as the Old World orcs, as we have plenty of images of Black Orcs in full plate. Looted bretonnian gear could still be a thing. It won't be "bretonnian", as that kingdom died with the Old World. But there is no reason it couldn't be looted from the kingdom of Epona or another similarly feudal state. There is infinite room in AoS for your own fluff.


Also, if I did get into AoS I would want to use round bases as I agree the models look really cool on them (and similarly, I feel square bases look silly in loose formation). That all being said, were I to play AoS, it'd have to be a fresh start. Hence the original question.

And here's the crux. AoS is a fresh start. If you cling to all the trappings of the Old World, AoS will never be for you. If you let go of that well trodden world, you will see that the Mortal Realms can have everything you want. GW gave us rules for all our old models, and while that's great, they don't inhabit the new realms until we create fluff for them! My own army contains a lot of models that I believe will be phased out (tomb king constructs), but I have the rules from GW and have written the fluff for them myself. For me, they do exist. My old main army will forever remain in the Old World, but everything new from here on out will be a resident of the Mortal Realms, and I'm enjoying that so far. Start fresh, and you may very well see that the opportunities that AoS brings is both entertaining and inspiring.


Even if I have no intention of collecting Stormcast Eternals, as the setting is designed to revolve around them in a manner similar to how 40k revolves around the Astartes, I have to see some compelling element in their story, background, raison d'etre, and methods.

Stormcast Eternals are the weapons of vengeance and the weapons of hope. The Mortal Realms were defeated. Chaos had won. There was nothing left to truly resist the coming of the dark gods. Until the storm broke, and Sigmars chosen were unleashed. They represent the fighting chance everyone now has. Stormcast aren't the last bastion of hope for a dead regime in the way the Astartes are, but rather the opposite. The Stormcast aren't here just to defend the mortal realms and their people, but to reclaim them from chaos altogether. Only with the might of Sigmars legion can the last vestiges of life strike back against the end. Hope has been reborn in the lightning strikes and thunderclaps of the Stormcast Eternals.

That's my way of thinking of them.


How can they be relatable if they're revenants?

They are still humans. They have flesh and blood and emotions. During the search for Alarielle, some Stormcast even chose to kill themselves rather than fight through the horrors they faced. Though they are immortal, they very much feel their humanity when they fight for the realms. Vandus Hammerhand, the poster boy, privately questioned what he was fighting for when he returned to Aqshy. Seeing the blasted wastelands of his old home, he wondered if there was any point in fighting over ash and bones. When he saw Sigmars repopulation effort however, he felt that he is not fighting for the realm as it is, but rather for what it can become.

There is a lot of stuff if you read the actual fluff rather than internet summaries. It's not all brilliant literature, but I like several of the Stormcast characters so far.


How can they be customized if their personality fades due to their recycled soul immortality thing?

Their soul fades, or is drawn back into the realm of death, over deaths. With each death, the missing part is made up for by Sigmars magic. That means that some of the old memories and personalities fade, but others are magnified! Guys like the Celestial Vindicators, who were chosen for asking Sigmar to grant them revenge, are slowly becoming crazed, battlethirsty madmen clad in lightning. Thostos, a Lord-Celestant who has died several times, has gone from battle-loving to out-Khorning the followers of Khorne. It is likely that these differences between Stormhosts will become similar to Space Marine chapters in time.


Why does anything matter?

For the same reasons as they did in the Old World. GW just haven't been as good at showing us the little guys perspective so far. But the stakes are all there, and easy to see if you read the fluff.


What makes your Chapter yours? Or are there sub chapters with different doctrines that appeal to you?

Each member of the Stormhost was chosen for a specific reason or trait. The Celestial Vindicators were upraised because they asked for nothing but a chance for vengeance as they died. As such, they are a warloving, fighty fighty chapter who are slowly going mad as they die and are reborn. The Hallowed Knights, in contrast, were chosen because they died espewing the faith of Sigmar. Each one is a devout and righteous warrior with an implacable faith. They are often chosen for seemingly hopeless tasks where only their faith can sustain them.

Each Stormhost also has sub-factions called a Warrior Chamber. These are each lead by a different Lord-Celestant, and have different traits from each other.


Is it just the models at this point?

I do like the models, but it is more than that :p

Handmaiden
19-12-2015, 09:37
ach one is a devout and righteous warrior with an implacable faith. They are often chosen for seemingly hopeless tasks where only their faith can sustain them.

Each Stormhost also has sub-factions called a Warrior Chamber. These are each lead by a different Lord-Celestant, and have different traits from each other.

That sounds like Space Marines. Chapters, Companies and their Captains.

Darth Alec
19-12-2015, 10:22
That sounds like Space Marines. Chapters, Companies and their Captains.

Organizational, yes. It's no secret that a lot of Stormcast stuff is taken from the Space Marines, even if they are thematically very different.

Here's a chart of Stormhost organization. Looks very similar to the Chapter organization.

http://whfb.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/7/76/Stormhost_Command_Hierarchy.png

Dosiere
19-12-2015, 12:57
I'll be honest, I asked the exact same questions when AoS first came out. I bought the first sourcebook and most importantly the first novel with the express intention of having just these questions answered. Based just on those products, here goes:

1) The new world is simply not the old world. Your Empire, Bretonnian, old Dwarf and Elf models and fluff, etc... don't really have a place in it. If you like the new art, miniatures, fluff, etc... I think you'll like it. Like Darth Alec says, it really is meant to be kind of clean slate with the new stuff being the future and the old stuff staying in the past. If you don't like the Stormcast or Khorne stuff in the starter, I would wait rather than assume your old models with a similar fluff are going to be brought in to the setting.

2) There is nothing deep about the Stormcast, sorry, at least not yet. Their appeal starts and ends with your first look at their aesthetic. Don't believe that? Read the first novel, it doesn't go any deeper than that. In fact it actually pulls back every time I thought there was opening to really make this new setting something more. The book, just like the game, is just one big battle using exactly the same models in the game. Clearly written with a younger audience in mind.

3) It is cool that at least there isn't this "the good guys are DOOMED" thing GW seems to love. It was a good idea. It's nice to feel like there are good guys that are doing more than just waiting to be defeated by the endless hordes of much more powerful evil guys.

Soundwave
19-12-2015, 13:31
I struggle. I thought they where kinda interesting at first then the more I looked at them the more I loathed them. I find the asthetic so far behind in the modern age, big jacked guys full of sigmar juice fighting khorne and his khorne juiced gym buddies. It is just like the only thing that hasn't been on steroids are the fat one from the starter and the GAUNT summoner as I guess he has to be gaunt.
Like big steroid heroes where cool in the 80's when they kinda looked better (hail king Arnold) but now they look like massive big gutted freaks like the storm cast eternals. It is like who ever designed them has a crush on todays body builders.

Bingo the Fun Monkey
20-12-2015, 04:10
Thank you, guys, for the personal and thoughtful replies. I was already in a distant orbit during the End Times as the remnants of my old gaming group were deep into Warmahordes territory by that time (a game that I love but do not have time to stay up to date with on the meta to be competitive any more), so I missed out on a lot of the specifics of what transpired. Being worn out from the ultra-competitive scene (which is highly addictive) is sort of what made me give AoS a second glance (and the Varanguard). I like the idea of putting some bitchin' models on a table with fantastic landscape and battling it out (in a thoughtful manner, mind) without any egos on the line.

It's interesting to hear how the Stormcast are martially similar to Space Marines but represent a fundamentally different notion and authority. I suppose I will pick up one of the novels to see how it reads after the holidays.

I don't think my best friend and I will play Fantasy again (maybe a game of 5th or 6th on the odd Thanksgiving), as his poor Bretonnians never got an update he waited a dozen years for, and he's moved on to other gaming mediums. But I'm a hobbyist at heart, and am ready to cherish the good memories I had in the Old World while seeking a new one to battle across. I really hope one of the non-Chaos factions just yanks me in someday soon. I love what GW is doing with their plastics these days. As far as price goes, I do not think I am owed a bargain. If I don't think something is worth it, I won't buy it. On the other hand, I know too many people who have hundreds if not thousands of dollars of miniatures bought at bargain prices sitting on their sprues offering their owners no value.

Thanks again for the replies. I also hope more people weigh in to give more perspective.

Folomo
20-12-2015, 05:06
A shame 9th age didn't start earlier, you friend may have keep playing fantasy in that case :( .

Handmaiden
20-12-2015, 06:16
When choosing an army:

Novels are a supplement to model design, but the design comes first. GW are a model company so they say so if an idea isn't represented on the model with visual language, then what's said in a novel doesn't matter. Because by that logic, blobs of plastic could represent anything if a novel says it. As far as I'm, and other onlookers are concerned there's nothing remotely human about "Stormcast" because that's not represented on any of the models out of the box.

GrandmasterWang
20-12-2015, 07:35
I personally have only painted 1 Stormcast so far but found it very enjoyable. I personally don't enjoy painting standard power armor space marines so as a painting project i was positively surprised with the Stormcast.

I quite like the aesthetic of the Stormcast. They don't havr individual personality miniature feature wise but this adds to their appeal. I already have heaps of figures like Skarsnik with individual personality so i find the golem like aesthetics pleasing.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Shifte
20-12-2015, 12:34
When choosing an army:

Novels are a supplement to model design, but the design comes first. GW are a model company so they say so if an idea isn't represented on the model with visual language, then what's said in a novel doesn't matter. Because by that logic, blobs of plastic could represent anything if a novel says it. As far as I'm, and other onlookers are concerned there's nothing remotely human about "Stormcast" because that's not represented on any of the models out of the box.

Modeling and painting come third for me behind fluff and gaming. Of course I still need models, but I'm as happy with the old skeleton warriors as I am with the more modern, higher quality ones (for example).

In this case I think the Stormcast fail for me on both fluff and aesthetics. I don't like the game mechanics, either. So I'm pretty doomed! :P

Darth Alec
20-12-2015, 21:20
Thank you, guys, for the personal and thoughtful replies. I was already in a distant orbit during the End Times as the remnants of my old gaming group were deep into Warmahordes territory by that time (a game that I love but do not have time to stay up to date with on the meta to be competitive any more), so I missed out on a lot of the specifics of what transpired. Being worn out from the ultra-competitive scene (which is highly addictive) is sort of what made me give AoS a second glance (and the Varanguard). I like the idea of putting some bitchin' models on a table with fantastic landscape and battling it out (in a thoughtful manner, mind) without any egos on the line.

That last line really is what AoS is supposed to be about. People complain about a lot of things, but I feel that it's clear that your sentiment is exactly what GW is targeting.



It's interesting to hear how the Stormcast are martially similar to Space Marines but represent a fundamentally different notion and authority. I suppose I will pick up one of the novels to see how it reads after the holidays.

Ghal Maraz is probably the best of them if you want to just try. Keep in mind that AoS-novels is typical Black Library stuff, and not always their best. Though I find it entertaining.


I don't think my best friend and I will play Fantasy again (maybe a game of 5th or 6th on the odd Thanksgiving), as his poor Bretonnians never got an update he waited a dozen years for, and he's moved on to other gaming mediums. But I'm a hobbyist at heart, and am ready to cherish the good memories I had in the Old World while seeking a new one to battle across. I really hope one of the non-Chaos factions just yanks me in someday soon. I love what GW is doing with their plastics these days. As far as price goes, I do not think I am owed a bargain. If I don't think something is worth it, I won't buy it. On the other hand, I know too many people who have hundreds if not thousands of dollars of miniatures bought at bargain prices sitting on their sprues offering their owners no value.

Shame about your friend. Shame about the brettonians getting shafted for so long. We will probably see several non-chaos armies next year (starting with duardin). I am looking forward to it, as it is potentially very different from where the fluff has been so far.




Novels are a supplement to model design, but the design comes first. GW are a model company so they say so if an idea isn't represented on the model with visual language, then what's said in a novel doesn't matter. Because by that logic, blobs of plastic could represent anything if a novel says it. As far as I'm, and other onlookers are concerned there's nothing remotely human about "Stormcast" because that's not represented on any of the models out of the box.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I cannot agree with it though. Stormcast may not look like regular humans, but I feel that they very much have a humanity to them. They are bigger, better, stronger. They are golden effigies humanity, wrought to be the vengeance mortals cannot bring. If that isn't enough for you, check out this guy: http://imgur.com/gallery/q19nS/new

Plenty of conversion options for those who want individual Stormcast with more personality.

Handmaiden
20-12-2015, 22:54
I'm sorry you feel that way. I cannot agree with it though. Stormcast may not look like regular humans, but I feel that they very much have a humanity to them. They are bigger, better, stronger. They are golden effigies humanity, wrought to be the vengeance mortals cannot bring. If that isn't enough for you, check out this guy: http://imgur.com/gallery/q19nS/new

Plenty of conversion options for those who want individual Stormcast with more personality.

Not everyone has good conversion skills and for the purposes of considering what's offered by GW you can't count conversions because then you have to buy extra boxes for other components. That's adding non stormcast products in the mix, so isn't appropriate for a pure stormcast analysis.

-There are no bare human heads or flesh of any kind out of the box.
-There is no variation in body type, despite being drawn from different races, cultures, and sexes in the fluff. That's not represented on the models in any way out of the box.
-There's nothing in the way of customisation in what you get. Space Marines have bionics, pouches, scopes, crux terminatus medals and variant chest designs. There's remarkably little variation between each stormcast.
- They are golden effigies in a vaguely humanoid form. With their tiny heads and massively wide and bulky bodies.

And there's the added sting that the greatest heroes of other races (besides the ones that became gods) would have become Stormcast as per the fluff. Leaving the less impressive remainder for the other races. Which just makes them seem like a race of annoying Gary Stus.

Grimstonefire
20-12-2015, 23:11
The thing I don't understand with this (not having read any of their fluff), is that the org chart that someone put above, if you were a godlike being would you be "thinking" about stuff like that? Or more like an omnipresent-making-troops-appear-whenever-and-wherever arrangement?

I know that doesn't sell books or models so well.

Or is it more that the eternals themselves are organising themselves this way?

Dosiere
20-12-2015, 23:21
I really can't recommend enough getting the starter set and using the new minis to play through the scenarios in there. It's really the best way to play this game for about 90% of people out there, certainly the best way to be introduced to the gameplay. Resist the urge to play using your old minis with just the free portion of the rules, at least at first. So many issues with the game disappear.

lbecks
20-12-2015, 23:28
I like the guys with the two handed hammers that come in the starter box. But right now the Stormcast feel like the Thunder Warriors from 40k. There's potential to do a lot of fun stuff with them if GW progresses the story. But the sampler platter I got from the starter set is enough for me right now.

Darth Alec
21-12-2015, 00:06
Not everyone has good conversion skills and for the purposes of considering what's offered by GW you can't count conversions because then you have to buy extra boxes for other components. That's adding non stormcast products in the mix, so isn't appropriate for a pure stormcast analysis.

Which is why I used them as an example after I explained a human interpretation of the Stormcast. You don't need to agree with it, but it's not an impossibility.


-There are no bare human heads or flesh of any kind out of the box.

Aesthetic choice with some fluff justification. The Knight-Heraldor does have an exposed mouth though, despite the GW painting team managing to paint the mouth gold as well.


-There is no variation in body type, despite being drawn from different races, cultures, and sexes in the fluff. That's not represented on the models in any way out of the box.

Seeing as none of them have their "original" body at all, that makes sense. They have been reformed in a process even greater than the Space Marine genetic engineering. Plenty of Fluff justification there. I don't know if there are any female Stormcast though, do you have the story where we see one? GW could have gone a different direction, but it seems they have chosen to give Stormcast a single standard body shape (just like marines).


-There's nothing in the way of customisation in what you get. Space Marines have bionics, pouches, scopes, crux terminatus medals and variant chest designs. There's remarkably little variation between each stormcast.

Out of the box, true. You can get official shoulder and shield variants though.


- They are golden effigies in a vaguely humanoid form. With their tiny heads and massively wide and bulky bodies.

I'm not saying you have to love it. It's GWs new design aesthetic. It isn't for everyone. It's not like wide bodies and tiny heads is an unpopular look :p


And there's the added sting that the greatest heroes of other races (besides the ones that became gods) would have become Stormcast as per the fluff. Leaving the less impressive remainder for the other races. Which just makes them seem like a race of annoying Gary Stus.

What? As far as I know, only humans have become Stormcast. I've not read any indication that there might be Aelf or Duardin Eternals. We don't know what the fighting forces of the other races look like (beyond a few images), but there is plenty of room for cool new stuff.



It's fine to not like the Stormcast. But to say that they have no humanity is your opinion, and one which I disagree with. I see plenty of humanity in them. It's not the meak humanity of Emperial soldiers, the noble bretonnians or the cannon-fodder of the Imperial Guard, but rather the very physical übermench. Beyond human. Not moral or mental übermench (very much not moral übermench, in fact). They are everything that the normal human is not. Stronger than their foes, shining even in the darkest hour. Their giant, golden forms encapsulates and represents their humanity, by being greater than what a normal human could ever be.



The thing I don't understand with this (not having read any of their fluff), is that the org chart that someone put above, if you were a godlike being would you be "thinking" about stuff like that? Or more like an omnipresent-making-troops-appear-whenever-and-wherever arrangement?

I know that doesn't sell books or models so well.

Or is it more that the eternals themselves are organising themselves this way?

Sigmar is neither Omnipresent nor Omnipotent. Unlike the Slann he cannot simply "think" troops into existence. He has to marshal them, train them, and organize them like any other army would need to. Sure, he can lightning-strike them wherever he wants, but that is a limited ability (which is why opening the gates to Azyr was such an important part of the fluff). He may be able to send limited troops wherever he wants, but he can't send an entire army, nor can he do it often.

As humans, they still need all the organizatorial fluff that any army needs. A Lord-Celestant to act as a general, other Lord-ranks to fill the needs, various specialised troop formations, and a strict command hierarchy unified by decades or centuries of training. They are also immensely proud of their various heraldry. The Knight-ranks (banner and trumpet dudes), earn their posts through right of conquest, for example. Having lightning bolts and the sigmarabulum everywhere is good for morale. Which is actually a concern, despite what people think.

So the organization is given by Sigmar, with a few chances for special honours. No doubt we'll see more stuff eventually.

Handmaiden
21-12-2015, 00:22
It's fine to not like the Stormcast. But to say that they have no humanity is your opinion, and one which I disagree with.

There are no visible indicators on the model that separate these super humans from animated suits of armour forged in vaguely humanoid form. Theres that mouth, but they painted it gold. So even the painter couldn't see it. Oh snap.

If there are no female stormcast, than GW is sexist.
If there are then GW has reforged their bodies to look hyper male for no reason. Again sexist.

Should I provide every onlooker or opponent the novels with the relevant passages highlighted so they get the fluff that's not represented on the model? Should I use post it notes? GW are a model company. If it's not represented on the model, it's useless trivia. You're left with the idea of "just use your imagination". For the premium prices being charged, how about no.

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Stormcast_Eternals

Curiously enough, Eternals can be both male and female and not necessarily human, although the only named characters presented so far were originally male humans and a single male undead skeleton.

According to Josh Reynolds the Eternals were not all human men, and were forged out of all mortals Sigmar found. Under the armor could be a woman, an Aelf, an Orruk(ok maybe not, but it would cool though!), anything not aligned to Chaos or a Daemon.

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer:_Age_of_Sigmar#Stormcast_Eternals

Darth Alec
21-12-2015, 01:09
There are no visible indicators on the model that separate these super humans from animated suits of armour forged in vaguely humanoid form. Theres that mouth, but they painted it gold. So even the painter couldn't see it. Oh snap.

If your first impression of an armourclad humanoid is "golem", then the issue may not be with the models. If a person is clad entirely in armour, he doesn't look particularly human. It doesn't help that they are 7 foot tall, but that ties into the theme behind them. No, they don't look like normal humans, that is a crucial part of the point. They are more than human. And that is pretty clear.


If there are no female stormcast, than GW is sexist.
If there are then GW has reforged their bodies to look hyper male for no reason. Again sexist.

I've never made any claims to whether or not GW is sexist, nor is it very relevant to the argument. Don't try to move the goalposts.


Should I provide every onlooker or opponent the novels with the relevant passages highlighted so they get the fluff that's not represented on the model? Should I use post it notes?

If I rejected Space Marine bare-headedness, would you need a powerpoint presentation on why humans wear armour into battle? You could just say "These are humans, reforged by a god and wearing super armour over a flesh-and-blood body". That's a simple explanation that gets all the important points. Not all the at difficult.



GW are a model company. If it's not represented on the model, it's useless trivia. You're left with the idea of "just use your imagination". For the premium prices being charged, how about no.


You say that only the plastic counts, but I very much disagree. The fluff is crucial to understanding the model. Are the Blood Knight models anorexic guys with long canines? Are Space Marines suicidal for not wearing helmets? Are Blightkings terminally ill cancer patients with a LARP-hobby? There are a lot of cases like these. Context is everything. A lot of models make no sense whatsoever if you just look at them. Are dwarfs just vertically challenged humans? Dragons couldn't possibly fly with their tiny wingspans! This is a fantasy universe. Everything that isn't a feudal human needs context.


http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Stormcast_Eternals

Curiously enough, Eternals can be both male and female and not necessarily human, although the only named characters presented so far were originally male humans and a single male undead skeleton.

That article doesn't cite any page, so it might as well say that the Celestant-Prime is Aenerion reborn. Ionus Cryptborn is not undead. He is a mortal, who promised his soul to Nagash in return for the soul of another. Then Sigmar recruited him, so now he's stuck between being bound to his deal with Nagash and his oaths to Sigmar.


According to Josh Reynolds the Eternals were not all human men, and were forged out of all mortals Sigmar found. Under the armor could be a woman, an Aelf, an Orruk(ok maybe not, but it would cool though!), anything not aligned to Chaos or a Daemon.

Josh Reynolds is a good author and has a great ask.fm page. He does not however speak in an official capacity though. Until you show me a page where it states that the Stormcast may be drafted from other races and both genders, you don't really have an argument here. I'll also restate that there is ample fluff justification for the uniform body type of the Eternals.


http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer:_Age_of_Sigmar#Stormcast_Eternals

Again, not an official source. Nor is it verifiable.



I do find it a bit conspicuous that you haven't even tried to argue against my interpretation of the Stormcast. I gave you a view that answers issues, has thematic relevance and is supported by the fluff, and you didn't even quote it. Tear it to shreds if you can, but please address my arguments. Ignoring the entire post in favour of moving goalposts and repeating

Kahadras
21-12-2015, 01:58
What is the appeal?

Copy/paste Marines? GW have simply ported their best selling 40K line across into AoS in the hope to generate sales. The basic thinking is that 40K fans like Space Marines so AoS fans will like Sigmarines. If you like Marines then you'll like Stormcast. That's the appeal.

Dosiere
21-12-2015, 02:16
Meh, I find Stormcast are pretty boring, all things considered. What a wasted opportunity with their battletome to make them more interesting too. What would have helped, just a little, would have been to have some "regular" humans in the force. Maybe as priests of Sigmar or Wizards, artificers of magical and mundane devices (like engineers?), literally anything to break up the sea of sameness and lack of character that the force represents. I was actually shocked when the battletome release didn't have something new and different in it. I dunno, they should be cool, they seem cool at first, they are sculpted to be fantasy space marines, and even I think space marines are cool, but they're just... not. They need something mundane to be measured against I think.

Mage
21-12-2015, 10:02
@ Dosiere

Would you have preferred, and I am not being smart here or anything just having a genuine chat, if there was stuff like warrior priests, greatswords, war alters, brettonian men at arms and stuff in it?

aprilmanha
21-12-2015, 10:55
Since all main armies in AOS are immortal and everlasting (Dream Lizardmen, Undead, Respawning Chaos, and Immortal Stormcast) then there is no reason or impetus to care about the individual fights, since the war is never ending and will never change.

W40K nearly suffers from this, but at least has scope to move forward, and has plenty of examples of forces brought low or even sometimes wiped out.
WFB used Shenanigans to maintain the Status Quo (to its detriment I believe personally) and I feel might have been better if it had a real evolving timeline, which while not totally wiping a faction, used the plot to update them over and over.
AOS is infinite and full of armies that can reset through various ways, and so cannot have any interesting events happen, since any action taken will not change anything.

Kahadras
21-12-2015, 12:37
Meh, I find Stormcast are pretty boring, all things considered.

It's the lack of variety IMHO. You have Stormcast with hammer, Stormcast with double-handed weapon, flying Stormcast, Stormcast with ranged weapon and Stormcast who are in charge. Really only the Celestant Prime and the Lord Celestant on Dracolith break up the monotony and they are simply a more fancy Stormcast and a Stormcast riding something.

Mage
21-12-2015, 13:39
It's the lack of variety IMHO. You have Stormcast with hammer, Stormcast with double-handed weapon, flying Stormcast, Stormcast with ranged weapon and Stormcast who are in charge. Really only the Celestant Prime and the Lord Celestant on Dracolith break up the monotony and they are simply a more fancy Stormcast and a Stormcast riding something.

It is somewhat offputting. I mean, Khorne havent had as many released (be it boxes, variant builds, whatever) but they do seem more diverse.

It makes me cynically wonder where the business end of the model making and sprues start and a decent product with a unique identity end.

Dosiere
21-12-2015, 16:33
@ Dosiere

Would you have preferred, and I am not being smart here or anything just having a genuine chat, if there was stuff like warrior priests, greatswords, war alters, brettonian men at arms and stuff in it?

Hmm no the old stuff looks silly next to Sigmarines, which is the problem. My point was that GW should have added some of the current, regular humans to their forces. Whatever that would be. I think it would make sense to have priests or wizards as a start. Some regular humans celestial wizards would make alot of sense to be fighting alongside Stormcasts, right? It would also give us a human perspective on things.

The engineer thing came from some of the new stuff too, they've kind of got this weird technology but not really.. thing going on. Like the not bolt guns on the missile dudes. The real problem, I think, is that Sigmarines need regular humans to be compared to otherwise all their eliteness doesn't really mean anything. They've just got nothing going on besides being practically mindless fighting machines. Which is cool in a war game... just not when it's the ONLY thing you've got going on.

Handmaiden
21-12-2015, 20:35
Copy/paste Marines? GW have simply ported their best selling 40K line across into AoS in the hope to generate sales. The basic thinking is that 40K fans like Space Marines so AoS fans will like Sigmarines. If you like Marines then you'll like Stormcast. That's the appeal.

Yeah, no. I also play ULTRAMARINES and I don't like stormcast. Nor do I understand the appeal. Maybe because they look lazily designed and the motivations for their design, are extremely transparent and sales orientated. As opposed to art.


If your first impression of an armourclad humanoid is "golem", then the issue may not be with the models. If a person is clad entirely in armour, he doesn't look particularly human.

We're at crossed wires because you're talking about subjectively if the armour looks like it has humanity and talking about opinions and impressions. I'm not talking about any of that. I'm asking what is literally, objectively on there that separates them from a golem to the naive observer. Cos I've got nothing.


I've never made any claims to whether or not GW is sexist, nor is it very relevant to the argument. Don't try to move the goalposts.

I never said you claimed it. That's why I'M CLAIMING IT. We're discussing what's appealing about the stormcast remember? The fact that this following had to have happened:

- No female stormcast were presented. Either because there are no female stormcast or because there are and GW either didn't want to make it or they masculinized the female stormcast to look exactly like the male ones.

That's unappealing however you cut it. To argue otherwise is to argue for sexism being appealing. They couldn't even be bothered to add a single token female stormcast. And when you can't even be bothered to engage in tokenism, what's appealing about that?

If there were female sculpts that would be a point against the golem interpretation, as why would golems be sculpted in variant body types? There wouldn't be a practical reason.


You could just say "These are humans, reforged by a god and wearing super armour over a flesh-and-blood body". That's a simple explanation that gets all the important points. Not all the at difficult.

Firstly space marines have indicators of humanity and individualism that goes beyond the bare heads. Shall I repeat the list of customisation that Stormcast don't have anything analogous to? OK then.

Second of all, I'm not saying that to everyone who views my army. And thirdly, they're MODELS. They're visual art. (Well Stormcast might not be art) But you don't have someone explaining a painting to every viewer. If they have to, that painting has failed, sir.


You say that only the plastic counts, but I very much disagree. The fluff is crucial to understanding the model. Are the Blood Knight models anorexic guys with long canines?

They look like undead/zombie knights to the naive viewer. That complements their background. They don't look like encased suits of armour where you wouldn't be able to tell if they were undead or not by looking at them.


Are Space Marines suicidal for not wearing helmets?

Who cares? The first impression you get is futuristic human or superhuman soldiers. You get the right impression just from looks.


A lot of models make no sense whatsoever if you just look at them. Are dwarfs just vertically challenged humans? Dragons couldn't possibly fly with their tiny wingspans! This is a fantasy universe. Everything that isn't a feudal human needs context.

First, your examples are intentionally silly and full of hyperbole. Even someone fantasy naive can recognize a dwarf. You're using a false equivalence and false dichotomy where either a model is bang on realistic or it's comparable to Stormcast. You want to talk about anorexic humans? The comparable analogy would be if Necrons were in fact anorexic humans encased in suits of armour. That would be the equivalent to stormcast. Where there are NO objective visiual indicators on the model that there are anorexic humans in there. You have to go ENTIRELY to the fluff to get that. And if one is paying these prices, you shouldn't have to. Stormcast look the way they do, in one generic sculpt with minor variation to show different troop types, because it's designed by a sales department in an attempt to appeal to teens. But teens can't afford it. Kids can't either. So that leaves veteran gamers. Who mostly share my views. Which is why stormcast will commercially fail.

As for Josh Reynolds, I think you're splitting hairs. He's an official writer for black library, a subsidiary of GW. His word is trusted until retconned. Not that it matters because as I mentioned earlier, if there are no female stormcast, that's still sexist and unappealing.

mdauben
21-12-2015, 20:50
What is the appeal?
I actually liked the Sigmarines Stormcast Eternals when I first saw them. In no way would they fit into the Old World but as a separate creation I actually kind of liked them. That liking did cool somewhat with the endless streak of near identical releases for the faction (big armored guy with hammer, big armored guy with with wings, big armored guy with bow, big armored guy with crossbow, etc.). If I was somehow to get involved in AoS, I'd probably do a force of them.


I've noticed that I cannot look at my current collections without feeling deep melancholy and a distinct lack of purpose and place for them in this new setting.
I had three playable armies for WFB, Lizardmen, Wood Elves and Ogre Kingdons. The LM are probably my favorite army, but my LM are all "first generation" (5th edition) miniatures. Looking at the GW website and all the newer figures, I'd actually like to update them, but...! Even if I was interested in playing AoS do they have a future? They are written into the new fluff, but we were told by some reliable rumor mongers that the LM were never going to be updated again. I'm not going to invest hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours assembling and painting a new LM army, just to see them disappear from the game later. I've just got no confidence that my army has a long term future (of course I have no confidence that AoS has a long term future, either). :(

Darth Alec
21-12-2015, 22:26
Yeah, no. I also play ULTRAMARINES and I don't like stormcast. Nor do I understand the appeal. Maybe because they look lazily designed and the motivations for their design, are extremely transparent and sales orientated. As opposed to art.

There's nothing wrong in not liking the Stormcast Eternals. I don't care for the eldar, but that doesn't diminish them. I agree that the financial motivation behind them is transparant. But being an inherently commercial endevour doesn't make them inherently unappealing though. Most of the classical works of art were commission work. Being made to pay the bills doesn't make art more or less art. The Sistine Chapel was Michelangelo's day job for six years, is it any less incredible for that? Or the Mona Lisa, a simple portrait which was likely painted so Leonardo could get paid. I'm not saying that the Stormcast are as good as these, but being made so someone could get paid does not disqualify something from being art.

Where you see lazy design, I see a deliberate theme with significant asset-reuse. The models could have been more individual, but because they fit thematically, I don't mind. That may not appeal to you, but that is a personal preference. I find the idea of Sigmar creating a massive army with a shared iconography, look and armour style appealing. In my simple opinion, they look cool and the idea behind them is cool.


We're at crossed wires because you're talking about subjectively if the armour looks like it has humanity and talking about opinions and impressions. I'm not talking about any of that. I'm asking what is literally, objectively on there that separates them from a golem to the naive observer. Cos I've got nothing.

They have cloth in between their armour segments. I'd rather rephrase that issue though. Why would a Stormcast Eternal look like a golem to a naive observer? Because he is a large, humanoid being? There are plenty of visual indicators of what a Stormcast Eternal is. The issue isn't that he is large and clad in armour, but rather unfamiliarity with the idea of a Stormcast. The closest concept to a stormcast we have may very well be golems and space marines. So, a naive observer will fall back to a context he understands. The Eternals are a new concept to fantasy. So they are unfamiliar, and not immediately recognizable as what they are. This is a visual design challenge. No question there. But it is one that will be answered once the understanding of Stormcasts spread. It takes less than 10 seconds to add an understandable context to the models. It isn't difficult. Their symbolism, once understood, makes every Stormcast easily recognizable. Then you can easily see the übermensch ideals behind the model. That will appeal to some and not to others.



I never said you claimed it. That's why I'M CLAIMING IT. We're discussing what's appealing about the stormcast remember? The fact that this following had to have happened:

- No female stormcast were presented. Either because there are no female stormcast or because there are and GW either didn't want to make it or they masculinized the female stormcast to look exactly like the male ones.

That's unappealing however you cut it. To argue otherwise is to argue for sexism being appealing. They couldn't even be bothered to add a single token female stormcast. And when you can't even be bothered to engage in tokenism, what's appealing about that?

If there were female sculpts that would be a point against the golem interpretation, as why would golems be sculpted in variant body types? There wouldn't be a practical reason.

Some people will find the lack of female stormcast unappealing. That's fair. If there are female Stormcast that have been molded into a singular bodyform, then it's fair that some people find that unappealing as well. On the other hand, a lot of people don't care. Not because they are sexist and don't want icky girls in their manly man hobby, but because they feel that Stormcast are interesting regardless of gender stereotypes. It does not play in for them. If there aren't females, there aren't females, and it isn't about anything more than that. People aren't establishing the patriarchy through their plastic toy soldiers.

I find that there is a lot of potential in female Stormcast. And so far, I haven't seen any fluff justification for why there shouldn't be any. But if GW doesn't produce a female model, I'm not going to be discouraged by that, because my wargaming hobby isn't about gender equality. It's about painting models that appeal to me, reading their stories and playing with them. If you need more women in your hobby, then only you can make the decision to continue or not.



Firstly space marines have indicators of humanity and individualism that goes beyond the bare heads. Shall I repeat the list of customisation that Stormcast don't have anything analogous to? OK then.

The point was that we have a lot of context for Space Marines. We don't have a lot of context for Ground Marines. That, alongside the thematic (and no doubt commercial) choices GW made during modelling does make them less individual and less like regular humans. That doesn't mean they aren't human. You just need the context, which can be summed up in a single sentence.


Second of all, I'm not saying that to everyone who views my army. And thirdly, they're MODELS. They're visual art. (Well Stormcast might not be art) But you don't have someone explaining a painting to every viewer. If they have to, that painting has failed, sir.

Do you know why an upside-down urinal is considered a major work of art? Or why a painting of a soup can is a significant painting? Would you know just by looking at it? Of course not. They are great art because of their context, and meaningless without them. How many TV-shows have jokes about people not understanding modern art whatsoever? Art is never self-explanatory, because all art exists in context. If you knew nothing about the context of Ibsens "A Dollhouse", the significance of Nora leaving would be entirely lost on you, despite being written in black on white.

Context is everything. Even for miniatures. Stormcast Eternals work very well when you understand their context. They appeal to me because I understand their context and find the wider universe and their place in it entertaining.


They look like undead/zombie knights to the naive viewer. That complements their background. They don't look like encased suits of armour where you wouldn't be able to tell if they were undead or not by looking at them.

They look like zombies/undead because we know what undead/vampires are supposed to look like. That is ingrained into our cultural context. If you showed them to someone who knew nothing of modern undead fiction, they would have a different reaction.



Who cares? The first impression you get is futuristic human or superhuman soldiers. You get the right impression just from looks.

If that is something you are familiar with. We've had 30 years of space marines, and 70 with "futuristic space soldier". Stormcast are at the same time familiar through the well-established Space Marines, but also a fairly unknown concept because of unfamiliar symbolism and the relatively sparse focus in fantasy on actual larger-than-life humans. In being distinctly non-tolkien, GW has stepped outside our regular interpretations of fantasy. That is challenging, but they aren't so different that our first or second impression need be off the mark completely.



First, your examples are intentionally silly and full of hyperbole. Even someone fantasy naive can recognize a dwarf. You're using a false equivalence and false dichotomy where either a model is bang on realistic or it's comparable to Stormcast. You want to talk about anorexic humans? The comparable analogy would be if Necrons were in fact anorexic humans encased in suits of armour. That would be the equivalent to stormcast. Where there are NO objective visiual indicators on the model that there are anorexic humans in there. You have to go ENTIRELY to the fluff to get that. And if one is paying these prices, you shouldn't have to. Stormcast look the way they do, in one generic sculpt with minor variation to show different troop types, because it's designed by a sales department in an attempt to appeal to teens. But teens can't afford it. Kids can't either. So that leaves veteran gamers. Who mostly share my views. Which is why stormcast will commercially fail.

Of course its silly. That was the point. The context of regular fantasy tropes does not apply to Stormcast. If you stepped outside that context, a dwarf, or a jabberwocky, or a dragon would be equally difficult to understand. You don't have a readily available context for the Stormcast, but it is very easy to establish. I summed it up easily enough in my last post.

Your Necron example is a good showcase actually. For one, they have several indications that they aren't normal humans. Their joints are clearly mechanical in nature. They have joints connecting their necks to their head. Their spines are enlarged, and have what appears to be tubing on it. Their faces are severely elongated, and are attached to a perfectly round orb. Their arm and leg "bones" are two struts, rather than bone covered by flesh and skin. They have gaping holes in their chest. So the Necrons have a pretty clear visual language that they aren't regular humans at all. They might have a General Grievous thing going on, but they aren't close to normal humans.

Stormcast have none of these design points to indicate that they aren't human.


As for Josh Reynolds, I think you're splitting hairs. He's an official writer for black library, a subsidiary of GW. His word is trusted until retconned. Not that it matters because as I mentioned earlier, if there are no female stormcast, that's still sexist and unappealing.

No it isn't. Unless he speaks in an official capacity, it is hearsay. He is a freelance author for Black Library, who has explicitly stated that GW doesn't tell him any more than he needs to write his stories. He can certainly give some insight into the thoughtworks and potential of the universe, but he doesn't speak for GW unless writing for them.


Thanks for the exhaustive reply. I hope I have made my points clear and the appeal of the Stormcast to me understood. Liking or disliking is a personal preference.

daftpunkevo
22-12-2015, 07:46
I think people that like High fantasy like stormcast. What's cool about Stormcast is that they are basically true-scale Space Marines, in fantasy we have true-scale and 40K have marines genetically modified murdermachine blablabla just barely bigger than an imperial guard oh and with all those enhancement they mostly hit on 3+ at what supposed to be maybe 20 meter maximum. WoW... so much for an elite force of gods militarized for now 10k+ years.

If anything they are what Space-Marines are in the book, but represented as a model. While Tabletop Space-Marines are not even a random catachan of any book.
If people want a Badass Biblical Angel of Fury version of SpaceMarines in a high fantasy setting then Stormcast are perfect.

I don't like stormcast, but it's quite easy to understand why people like them. Badass Truescale version that put any space marines they like to shame. The only 40k player i know that were interested in starting AOS were marines players and Chaos/Khorne player that could then have the half of the Starter box for $30 max.

Add to that one of the HH writer said that Archaon could defeat Primarchs, and that both Chaos and Stormcast are of equal forces more or less you get an idea of their powerlevel quite easily.

"As well as your Archaon novels, you're also known amongst Black Library readers for your Horus Heresy fiction. But who would win in a fight between Archaon and a primarch?

Going to upset some folks either way on this one! I think it has to be Archaon. Think about it this way. All of the traitor primarchs were primarchs like their loyalist brothers before they turned to Chaos – and yet they still turned. They were the princes of the galaxy, the generals of colossal armies and the product of genetic engineering that bestowed upon them incredible gifts and abilities. Yet still about half of them turned to the Ruinous Powers. As the Everchosen of the Chaos gods, Archaon is ruin incarnate. He is chosen of all Chaos, not a single power like many of the favoured traitor primarchs."
+ source http://rob-sanders.blogspot.fr/2015/02/archaon-interview.html

tmod
22-12-2015, 14:58
I think people that like High fantasy like stormcast. What's cool about Stormcast is that they are basically true-scale Space Marines, in fantasy we have true-scale and 40K have marines genetically modified murdermachine blablabla just barely bigger than an imperial guard oh and with all those enhancement they mostly hit on 3+ at what supposed to be maybe 20 meter maximum. WoW... so much for an elite force of gods militarized for now 10k+ years.

If anything they are what Space-Marines are in the book, but represented as a model. While Tabletop Space-Marines are not even a random catachan of any book.
If people want a Badass Biblical Angel of Fury version of SpaceMarines in a high fantasy setting then Stormcast are perfect.

I don't like stormcast, but it's quite easy to understand why people like them. Badass Truescale version that put any space marines they like to shame. The only 40k player i know that were interested in starting AOS were marines players and Chaos/Khorne player that could then have the half of the Starter box for $30 max.

Add to that one of the HH writer said that Archaon could defeat Primarchs, and that both Chaos and Stormcast are of equal forces more or less you get an idea of their powerlevel quite easily.

"As well as your Archaon novels, you're also known amongst Black Library readers for your Horus Heresy fiction. But who would win in a fight between Archaon and a primarch?

Going to upset some folks either way on this one! I think it has to be Archaon. Think about it this way. All of the traitor primarchs were primarchs like their loyalist brothers before they turned to Chaos – and yet they still turned. They were the princes of the galaxy, the generals of colossal armies and the product of genetic engineering that bestowed upon them incredible gifts and abilities. Yet still about half of them turned to the Ruinous Powers. As the Everchosen of the Chaos gods, Archaon is ruin incarnate. He is chosen of all Chaos, not a single power like many of the favoured traitor primarchs."
+ source http://rob-sanders.blogspot.fr/2015/02/archaon-interview.html

I dunno, it's hard to get more high fantast than wizards and dragons... The dividing line is whether or not it's supernatural or not, don't know if Stormcasts are that much less realistic than Lizardmen...

Sent fra min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

Kyriakin
28-12-2015, 11:04
Aside from my initial introduction to GW in 1995 (genesteeler cult) I don't play 40K, due to not really being a sci-fi guy. However, space marines are interesting, as you have evil ones on the evil side, "tweener" renegade chapters, evil ones on the "good" side, uptight ones, those who care about the "little man" and those for whom the end always justifies the means. Some are stealthy, some are rapid, while others bring the heavy gear. There are chapters themed around the Mongols (WS), Vikings(SW), African tribes (CL) and classical Rome (U), with cursed chapters defined by their inherent bloodlust, depression and/or bad luck.

However, this evolution took decades. IIRC, when I started with GW, only space wolves had any unique character beyond just "being a different color". Space marines essentially grew with the company.

If Aos had decades, this might organically happen to the Stormcast Eternals too. However, with the size of the current GW, a lack of such time will mean that such stormhost customisation will feel contrived and forced - much like those laughable initial stormhost descriptions (http://i.imgur.com/5qTScCZ.jpg).

Darth Alec
28-12-2015, 11:26
We're already seeing a good deal of difference from the Celestial Vindicators and the Hallowed Knights. I believe it's GWs plan to "organically" grow the different Stormhosts into unique factions, based on the effect the reforging has on each stormhost. Probably for the reason you mentioned. Going out the gates with 5 different stormhosts would be infeasible from a production POW, and a poor business idea for multiple reasons.

Mage
28-12-2015, 20:02
We're already seeing a good deal of difference from the Celestial Vindicators and the Hallowed Knights. I believe it's GWs plan to "organically" grow the different Stormhosts into unique factions, based on the effect the reforging has on each stormhost. Probably for the reason you mentioned. Going out the gates with 5 different stormhosts would be infeasible from a production POW, and a poor business idea for multiple reasons.

I like this idea. Give them more character and such once they are established and a little organic natural growth in the narrative

mdauben
29-12-2015, 00:22
I think people that like High fantasy like stormcast.[/URL]
I see a lot of people throwing around the term "high fantasy" in discussions of AoS in ways that make me wonder if they really understand it. True, AoS could be classified as "high fantasy" but so can LOTR, Shannara, the Wheel of Time, and yes, WFB. They are all epic in scope and include themes of a grand struggle between good and evil.



From a Galaxy far, far away...

Mage
29-12-2015, 01:38
I think the modern Americanised interpretation of High Fantasy where mad stuff happens in D&D like swirling upper planes of crazy magic and floating crystal cities and junk.

mdauben
29-12-2015, 03:18
Shrug. I've never seen the term used that way EXCEPT by gamers. In literature LOTR is practically the definition of "high fantasy"

From a Galaxy far, far away...

Handmaiden
29-12-2015, 03:51
Where you see lazy design, I see a deliberate theme with significant asset-reuse. The models could have been more individual, but because they fit thematically, I don't mind.

Lacking individuality and with the price point of grey knight terminators, which are alot more detailed. So it's a rip off right there. Even by GW standards.


They have cloth in between their armour segments.

Someone couldn't put some cloth on a golem?


Why would a Stormcast Eternal look like a golem to a naive observer

- There are no flesh visible.
- They all use the same proportions.
- The anatomy is alien, with tiny heads for extremely large and wide bodies.
- They have no visible individuality.

" It takes less than 10 seconds to add an understandable context to the models."

I could add context to a lump of blu tack in 10 seconds. But then I wouldn't be paying premium prices for limited options . Unlike with Sigmarines.



I find that there is a lot of potential in female Stormcast. And so far, I haven't seen any fluff justification for why there shouldn't be any.

Stormcast are supposed to be the great heroes remade. Except GW hasn't depected a single female one despite having shown legions of them. Not in models, artwork, or fluff. Again, lack of options for a premium price point and a laziness of design. A single token female in an army that by the fluff should have at least ONE, isn't gender equality or dismantling patriarchy. It's the bare minimum one could expect from a major multinational western corporation in 2015. Especially one charging premium prices.


If you showed them to someone who knew nothing of modern undead fiction, they would have a different reaction.

All they'd have to do is know what a corpse looked like. How many people have zero idea wat a decayed corpse looks like?

"They might have a General Grievous thing going on"

Right. Can't tell that from the model though. With no options to showcase the being inside out of the box. Which would be a perfect analogy to stormcast.


Stormcast have none of these design points to indicate that they aren't human.

No, they have different ones. Including the disproportion between head and body, the massively wide chest. They're definitely not human. A mutation? A robot? A possessed armour suit? The model won't tell you and you have little to no out of the box options to express it. You might say that mouth that the official painter missed, which apparenty was hard to spot.


Do you know why an upside-down urinal is considered a major work of art? Or why a painting of a soup can is a significant painting? Would you know just by looking at it? Of course not.

Er yes I would. I'm studying a fine art degree so maybe you're asking the wrong person. But the upside down urinal explores the idea of art born of non functionality and the soup can represents a movement from the breathtaking subject to the mundane.


They are great art because of their context, and meaningless without them.

Stormcast's lack of options aren't comparable to a work of fine art. Stormcast SHOULD have the option to show flesh if you want, OR show just the sealed armour. Again, premium prices and GW couldn't be bothered at all! You know my Dark elf Witch Elves has options for sisters of slaughter, and my executioners has options for Black Guard, all in one box! And let me tell you something pandero, the detail of stormcast doesn't blow either of them out of the water. Yet GW can't be bothered to include a single bare head, or a token female sculpt. While charging £30 and no doubt raising the price soon. It's hilarious.


GW doesn't tell him any more than he needs to write his stories.

And I highly doubt they tell him things that are inconsistent with their official narrative. If Stormcast were only male humans, they would have told him. Why would they keep that from him anyway?

Mage
29-12-2015, 05:27
Not that Im trying to invalidate either argument here, but is there any point to the argument/debate?

Kahadras
29-12-2015, 08:44
I think the modern Americanised interpretation of High Fantasy where mad stuff happens in D&D like swirling upper planes of crazy magic and floating crystal cities and junk.

AoS would fit in with that. I'd venture to say that there is another tier beyond high fantasy (epic fantasy) which does away with the mundane almost all together. A world (or plane) where celestial lizards made out of star stuff fight burning Dwarves from the realm of fire. There's nothing mundane at all in the world. Everything is floating, on fire, is magical or is sentient (sometimes all four). It's a tier of fantasy that turns everything up to 11 and leaves it there.

GrandmasterWang
29-12-2015, 09:04
Lacking individuality and with the price point of grey knight terminators, which are alot more detailed. So it's a rip off right there. Even by GW standards.



Someone couldn't put some cloth on a golem?


- There are no flesh visible.
- They all use the same proportions.
- The anatomy is alien, with tiny heads for extremely large and wide bodies.
- They have no visible individuality.

" It takes less than 10 seconds to add an understandable context to the models."

I could add context to a lump of blu tack in 10 seconds. But then I wouldn't be paying premium prices for limited options . Unlike with Sigmarines.




Stormcast are supposed to be the great heroes remade. Except GW hasn't depected a single female one despite having shown legions of them. Not in models, artwork, or fluff. Again, lack of options for a premium price point and a laziness of design. A single token female in an army that by the fluff should have at least ONE, isn't gender equality or dismantling patriarchy. It's the bare minimum one could expect from a major multinational western corporation in 2015. Especially one charging premium prices.


I agree with you that Stormcast are a ripoff. I also agree with you that they can be seen as Golems (of Sigmar).

Imo Sigmar has crafted them in his rough likeness hence the broad chests and muscular nature of them. Further to your point about female heroes....... while in 2015 'equality' and 'political correctness' is all the rage... remember that Sigmar was the leader of the Empire... how many great female leaders/warriors can you remember fighting for the Empire? I can't recall a single one. How many 'Epic female hero' figurines have Games Workshop released for Warhammer Fantasy that fought for good? Seriously. Espleth Von Draken by Forgeworld is the only female Empire figurine i can remember and with her being a death wizard lord she is hardly a suitable candidate for a Sigmar reforging due to her lack of martial prowess. If you can tell me a whole slew of suitable female heroes from the 'World that was' which Sigmar should have Stormcastified I'll take your point about 'there should be female Stormcast models' a bit more seriously but for now i just see it as you nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

I completely disagree with you on the small heads and alien anatomy. To me the anatomy is distinctly humanoid and the heads are a propotionate size to the body. If the heads were larger like you want them then imo they would look weird and bobble heady......also it's not like you wouldn't complain if the heads were larger anyway.

I personally quite like the Stormcast aesthetic due to how different it is from the standard Warhammer fantasy armies. I can understand people not liking them of course but to each there own.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Tyranno1
29-12-2015, 09:53
Imo Sigmar has crafted them in his rough likeness hence the broad chests and muscular nature of them. Further to your point about female heroes....... while in 2015 'equality' and 'political correctness' is all the rage... remember that Sigmar was the leader of the Empire... how many great female leaders/warriors can you remember fighting for the Empire? I can't recall a single one. How many 'Epic female hero' figurines have Games Workshop released for Warhammer Fantasy that fought for good? Seriously. Espleth Von Draken by Forgeworld is the only female Empire figurine i can remember and with her being a death wizard lord she is hardly a suitable candidate for a Sigmar reforging due to her lack of martial prowess. If you can tell me a whole slew of suitable female heroes from the 'World that was' which Sigmar should have Stormcastified I'll take your point about 'there should be female Stormcast models' a bit more seriously but for now i just see it as you nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

Would the Sisters of Sigmar be a good choice? Incredible faith in Sigmar and plenty of combat prowess. Hell they already whirl hammers around like no tomorrow.
Hell, they could just have made some up if there were none (I am not massively knowledgeable of Empire lore, so I would not be able to name any character outside of Karl Franz from that army).

I personally do not see complaining about the lack of female representation with the Sigmarines as nitpicking, as frankly they are GW's gender inequality with a big red highlight running through it.
GW always lacked female representation, which is a shot in their own foot (putting off potential customers). But making a problem even worse when they had the option to solve it with a big reset, not a good idea.

Seriously, there are no women whatsoever in Age of Sigmar's model line. It is quite weird.

Zywus
29-12-2015, 10:02
At least the old setting kinda had the excuse that it was often based on real-world historical cultures where women seldom had prominent military positions.

If anything AoS has doubled down on making the game even more of a boys club with among other things rules about beards on the player giving bonuses in-game (creating the implication that no women play the game anyway).

I don't think that Sigmarines especially, needed to have female aestetic, but it's a missed opportunity (among so, soo many) to not have female representation in the human faction at all. Especially in such a nonsensical über-epic fantasy setting where you don't need to worry about any real-word medieval military sensibilities anyway.

Flipmode
29-12-2015, 10:28
The lack of female models is a matter for most games. AoS is so far continuing this trend.

Personally, I would prefer for there to be no female models, than to have the typical large breasted women in bra and pants that some systems have as their offering.

I would say this is a wider debate than SE though. If we take the WFB range as being the pool from which they have been reincarnated, that was overwhelmingly male.

There could/should be more female models in the range, but not sure that SE is the correct faction for this.

Tokamak
29-12-2015, 10:58
6th ed Dark Elf regiment were quite tastefully mixed gender. Female dark elves had different armour and helmets. Feminine but not overtly objectifying.

Tyranno1
29-12-2015, 11:01
6th ed Dark Elf regiment were quite tastefully mixed gender. Female dark elves had different armour and helmets. Feminine but not overtly objectifying.

Dark Eldar are a fantastic example of this done well. With kits previously exclusive to 1 gender being opened up to both, and kits having female/male torso options that work with the same helmets/legs/weapons.

Flipmode
29-12-2015, 12:16
Yup, and then they chuck in the witch elves too

I suppose there is some reasoning for them going onto a battlefield in a bikini, but it is pretty thin.

Apologies, meandering off topic. I have the starter set SE, but have had no inclination to expand on this with more of the same. I am interested in all responses to the original question from those that have responded, and hope that SE become more interesting/varied.

Handmaiden
29-12-2015, 14:34
how many great female leaders/warriors can you remember fighting for the Empire? I can't recall a single one.

Oh but I can.

http://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Katarin_the_Ice_Queen

Not a single female stormcast depicted anywhere.

What's your excuse now? Martial prowess? The powers of the Stormcast are divine in nature. Magical. The idea that he, a fantasy god, had to use burly brawlers to turn into stormcast is nonsense.

Col. Tartleton
29-12-2015, 14:45
There's nothing wrong with scantily clad women as long as there are scantily clad men. Throughout most societies and cultures men will wear less clothing at the same level of modesty.

http://daarken.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/DE_Sorcerer_Sorceress_T1_Daarken.jpg

While Daarken's vision of kinky bondage Elrond didn't make it into game, we saw the same idea get implemented with the Doomfire Warlocks showing a lot of skin.

GrandmasterWang
29-12-2015, 15:25
Oh but I can.

http://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Katarin_the_Ice_Queen

Not a single female stormcast depicted anywhere.

What's your excuse now? Martial prowess? The powers of the Stormcast are divine in nature. Magical. The idea that he, a fantasy god, had to use burly brawlers to turn into stormcast is nonsense.
How could i forget about the Ice Queen!!

Damn i even have the Kislev book!

That said she isn't an Empire leader but a Kislev one (Kislev is an ally of the Empire) and like Espleth can't fight well and doesn't worship Sigmar so she isn't a viable candidate at all lol. Remember the Stormcast Eternals are made from mighty warriors and have no magic spells in their reincarnation so the Ice Queen wouldn't fit the bill. She was/is a very capable leader for Kislev but would make a poor Eternal. If i recall she was weaponskill 3 with 1 attack...... hardly Stormcast material. Got anyone else?

That said I can't believe I completely forgot about her when thinking of human female models that GW has released. I couldn't think of any by GW proper.

The Sisters of Sigmar may be better candidates as someone mentioned. I don't know much about them, i can vaguely remember a Mordheim warband by that name?

Not disputing GW has a problem with gender equality but imo Stormcast are hardly the faction to rectify it. Empire especially (Sigmars faction) is very male centric. Thankfully the elf ranges have more diversity.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Handmaiden
29-12-2015, 16:56
That said she isn't an Empire leader but a Kislev one (Kislev is an ally of the Empire) and like Espleth can't fight well and doesn't worship Sigmar so she isn't a viable candidate at all lol.

From games workshop's website.

"A glorious vision of golden celestial light, a living embodiment of the God-King’s might, the Stormcast Eternals are messengers of vengeance armed with the might of stars. Once-mortal champions of Order forged by Sigmar into an astonishing fighting force"

Where does it say that they had to be made out of only Sigmar's worshippers, because it says they were made out of mortal Champions of Order, which isn't the same thing.


Remember the Stormcast Eternals are made from mighty warriors

Prove it had to be warriors. Again, this is a fantasy god who remade the world into realms, giving these people celestial divine powers yet can't make a fighter/stormcast out of a mage hero? Is that your argument?

http://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Katarin_the_Ice_Queen

Besides: When she does go forth, she devastates all who stand before her, and the Ungol people to the north of Kislev believe and fear her to be one of the ancient warrior witches from their past.

In game stats don't mean anything when it comes to judging fluff.


Thankfully the elf ranges have more diversity.

Firstly, you don't know that about the upcoming range. And secondly, that's way off topic.

GrandmasterWang
30-12-2015, 03:07
From games workshop's website.

"A glorious vision of golden celestial light, a living embodiment of the God-King’s might, the Stormcast Eternals are messengers of vengeance armed with the might of stars. Once-mortal champions of Order forged by Sigmar into an astonishing fighting force"

Where does it say that they had to be made out of only Sigmar's worshippers, because it says they were made out of mortal Champions of Order, which isn't the same thing.



Prove it had to be warriors. Again, this is a fantasy god who remade the world into realms, giving these people celestial divine powers yet can't make a fighter/stormcast out of a mage hero? Is that your argument?

http://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Katarin_the_Ice_Queen

Besides: When she does go forth, she devastates all who stand before her, and the Ungol people to the north of Kislev believe and fear her to be one of the ancient warrior witches from their past.

In game stats don't mean anything when it comes to judging fluff.



Firstly, you don't know that about the upcoming range. And secondly, that's way off topic.

I asked you to name me female Empire warriors/leaders (with models) and you haven't been able to do so period. So far you have given me one name who isn't even of the Empire faction lol. I'm not saying there are 'none at all' but the pool of male heroes is obviously much much much larger.

When i mentioned elves i was obviously talking about their existing range as like yourself i have no idea what is in the pipeline. Females GW miniatures are much more prevalent in the Elven factions than human was all I've been saying.

In game stats obviously do mean 'something' when judging fluff or else Archaon and Grimgor etc could be weaponskill 3 etc. The whole point of the statline is an attempt by GW to bring the fluff to life on the tabletop. I'm not saying GW gets it right all the time but saying a hero/character statline 'don't mean anything' with regards to their background/fluff is an incredibly foolish argument to make.

I never said said it had to be Sigmar worshipers however in the AOS fluff Sigmar seems pretty full of himself (see Sigmar names) so I'd wager when given the choice of turning a worshiper or non-worshiper he would give preference to those who actually worship him. Regarding them being 'warriors' the 96 page book from the box set talks about Stormcast Eternals being 'mortal warriors' (before being Stormcastified) so that's where i got it from. I'm a fan of the Ice Queen but without her magic/items whe would be out fought by a plain old Empire captain let alone an Empire general....

Funnily enough GW have never to my knowledge released a female Empire captain or general model and all the special characters in the Empire book are male.

Sigmar has made the Stormcast an old boys club for better or for worse.

If someone really wanted to there is nothing preventing them from saying that their Stormcast are all reforged 'female' warriors/heroes anyway....

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Flipmode
30-12-2015, 07:35
The winged SE could easily have been stylised as Valkyries. Retaining the armour theme but adding some diversity to the range.

Valkyria the Bloody is a good example for me of a model which is clearly female, but dressed for war.

This is getting to the point of needing it's own thread though.

Æon
30-12-2015, 08:17
The lack of female models is a matter for most games. AoS is so far continuing this trend.

Personally, I would prefer for there to be no female models, than to have the typical large breasted women in bra and pants that some systems have as their offering.

Thankfully, these are not the only options. Privateer Press does roughly a 50-50 split of male and female hero characters, and the female characters are as interesting and well written as the male ones. GW are decades behind PP in this regard, and AoS has so far done nothing to rectify this, instead opting for a hyper-masculine model range to promote the game.

Flipmode
30-12-2015, 08:19
Fully agree Aeon, was just thinking the same this morning. PP are a great example of this done well.

MagicAngle
30-12-2015, 09:30
If i recall she was weaponskill 3 with 1 attack...... hardly Stormcast material. Got anyone else?

Nope. WS4. Decent in close combat, wielding Fearfrost.

GrandmasterWang
30-12-2015, 09:43
The winged SE could easily have been stylised as Valkyries. Retaining the armour theme but adding some diversity to the range.

Valkyria the Bloody is a good example for me of a model which is clearly female, but dressed for war.

This is getting to the point of needing it's own thread though.

Indeed.

Valkyria is a great model and great representative of a fearsome female warrior that even the men have to respect lest she take their head for Khorne. Great model too. I remember thinking the finecast model was well overpriced when it came out ($41 aud vs plastic characters at $22) however compare to the monopose characters for $55 aud she is a steal. Her pose, slaupnir, horns and shield are all great. Sigmar should take some lessons from Khorne on equal opportunity :)

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

GrandmasterWang
30-12-2015, 09:57
Nope. WS4. Decent in close combat, wielding Fearfrost.
Thanks for correcting me on her weaponskill. I couldn't remember if it was 3 or 4. Shame about her 1 attack though but i guess that befits her Wizard status. I still remember years ago though in a fluke she landed her 1 killing blow attack (from Fearfrost) on a vampire after it flubbed all its attacks :) was a great moment. She is only initiative 3 unfortunately like her father Tzar Boris (now that's a great model!). I always wondered why the Kislevites were so slow on the draw. Their Gryphon legion were the quickest with initiative 4.

If I was in charge of GW I'd have brought Kislev and the Dogs of War back (End times book 3?) with plastic kits soon after End Times Nagash brought so much interest and goodwill back to Warhammer Fantasy. ... now I've really gone off topic....

I always liked that Kislev had a strong female leader in the male dominated Warhammer world. I liked that she was a real character and not just a caricature like some of their other female characters (looking at you seductress/gold digger/poisoner Belladonna).

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Handmaiden
30-12-2015, 14:13
"I asked you to name me female Empire warriors/leaders (with models)
and you haven't been able to do so period. "


She qualifies as a "champion of order", which is the requirement for becoming a stormcast by GW's own words. Saying she must be an "Empire leader" and that she'd be outfought by a common soldier,are lies you made up, son.


In game stats obviously do mean 'something' when judging fluff or else Archaon and Grimgor etc could be weaponskill 3 etc. The whole point of the statline is an attempt by GW to bring the fluff to life on the tabletop. I'm not saying GW gets it right all the time but saying a hero/character statline 'don't mean anything' with regards to their background/fluff is an incredibly foolish argument to make.

Firstly, as you were corrected above, she wasn't Ws3. And for the sake of game balance it's rare for a spellcaster - any spellcaster - much less a human one, to have above average close combat stats. That's something that goes back to 6th edition, a direction Gavin Thorpe told me in person GW was going in to cut down on the herohammer of 5th. Balance mechanics don't always translate to fluff.

She's a leader. In the Empire book, has fought for the Empire, is a champion of order, is a fierce warrior and the best human ice wizard in fluff, and yet you say she's not qualified to be a stormcast cos..."Sigmar has an ego".

Yeah, he sure does. Too egotistical to let girls on his team apparently.

Again. There's not a single female stormcast represented anywhere. Where have I disputed that the pool of males is larger? If you've been paying the slightest attention, you'd know how irrelevant that point was to my argument.

"If someone really wanted to there is nothing preventing them from saying that their Stormcast are all reforged 'female' warriors/heroes anyway...."

Which I already addressed as even more sexist. Remaking the female form of every female stormcast candidate into that of big burly men is worse than having no women at all. Seeing how it's forced sex changes and all.

StealthKnightSteg
30-12-2015, 18:07
Then again it's totally nonsense to point at any character from the Empire as Sigmar pulled hero's from the new realms not the World that was..

Also if people are so hung up on gender equality.. fine.. then do it for all races. Bring them on those Ogre females with all the blubber fat hanging everywhere, scary Orc and Goblin females and Dwarf woman with beards!! :D

Tyranno1
30-12-2015, 18:55
Then again it's totally nonsense to point at any character from the Empire as Sigmar pulled hero's from the new realms not the World that was..

Also if people are so hung up on gender equality.. fine.. then do it for all races. Bring them on those Ogre females with all the blubber fat hanging everywhere, scary Orc and Goblin females and Dwarf woman with beards!! :D

Fine. Lets go dig up the Bloodbowl models shall we?

akai
30-12-2015, 19:30
I do plan to collect Stormcast Eternals themed around the paladins and prosecutors. I would focus more on their celestial aspect rather than their human aspect and used them as an allied force to the mortal armies. Playing with the idea similar to the Times of War rules that they are the exact opposite of the chaos daemons...a small elite celestial angels sent to reinforce the mortal armies fighting for their survival.


Then again it's totally nonsense to point at any character from the Empire as Sigmar pulled hero's from the new realms not the World that was..

Also if people are so hung up on gender equality.. fine.. then do it for all races. Bring them on those Ogre females with all the blubber fat hanging everywhere, scary Orc and Goblin females and Dwarf woman with beards!! :D

I really liked the female maneater ogre with fake beard, lots of character to it :D. I think the Female Maneater Ogre also represents a common theme about armies and war in the Warhammer fantasy setting (a common theme in real life and in other fantasy settings). With the exception of Elves, I think most Warhammer factions/societies would look down at women participation in battle. The female maneater ogre had to pretend to be a male in order to "fit in" with adventurers and ogre armies. I assumed that there will be many factions/societies in the Age of Sigmar setting to follow a similar view of women's role in war.

GrandmasterWang
31-12-2015, 02:21
Handmaiden stop failing to argue. Calling me "son" is just sad and immature. I think you may be getting a bit too emotionally involved or something here ho ho ho. I'll take that as a concession of your failure to name an female Empire model/hero grating with you.


"I asked you to name me female Empire warriors/leaders (with models)
and you haven't been able to do so period. "


She qualifies as a "champion of order", which is the requirement for becoming a stormcast by GW's own words. Saying she must be an "Empire leader" and that she'd be outfought by a common soldier,are lies you made up, son.



I never said Stormcast were required to be an "Empire leader." Stop misrepresenting what i'm saying. I also never said she'd be outfought by a common soldier. Name calling and making things up are 2 big no-no's if you are trying to have a 'grown-up' debate. I guess they don't teach that in art school haha. I said she would be outfought by a 'captain' which she would be based on the statline. I never said 'common solder' so stop making things up! You have your panties in a twist regarding Stormcast having no female model representation. I merely pointed out to you that Sigmar's faction (The Empire formerly) has ALWAYS had very poor female model representation (never said agree with this btw before you make something else up and try to label me sexist lol) and challenged you to name some great female leader/warrior models which fought for Sigmar's former faction (the Empire)which you have failed to do. Accusing me of making up "lies" when you are the only one to have done so is just poor form although I guess I shouldn't expect more from one who resorts to calling me "son". I merely stated that it was more likely that female AOS models would come with factions that historically had more female representation (like elves).

She is a Kislev leader, not an Empire one! That is another mistake you have made. She may be human and may be an ally of the empire but that does NOT make her a warrior for that faction. She fought for Kislev, not the Empire. The King Louen is likewise not an Empire leader despite having fought with them in the past he fought for Bretonnia. Kislev was split off as a separate faction over 15 years ago and given their own identity in the same way Tomb Kings were. The fact that you have been unable to name a single female Empire model released since then is telling when it comes to Sigmar's faction having no female representation. Sigmar's faction has been the sexist one for a long time! Did you likewise make these "where are all the female models?" complaints levelled at the Empire?




In game stats don't mean anything when it comes to judging fluff.




The other talk of in game stats i mentioned was countering your above statement. Like i said "The whole point of the statline is an attempt by GW to bring the fluff to life on the tabletop. I'm not saying GW gets it right all the time but saying a hero/character statline 'don't mean anything' with regards to their background/fluff is an incredibly foolish argument to make."

When given the choice between turning a male Empire Captain or the Ice Queen, Sigmar would probably immortalify the Captain every time despite the Ice Queen's strength of spirit.


Anyway I have said my piece and Sigmar is still sexist even in the AOS haha.

Dosiere
31-12-2015, 02:54
I find it amusing that there are so many childish digs in a post repeatedly calling for "mature" discussion. Also I really don't know what is being argued at this point, since the point seems to change with every post. There was a female Middenlander if that somehow makes a difference. I use her for the sergeant in my free company and it's a nice model. I think she went away with the transition to resin.

Stormcasts aren't actually human, in any way, and their flesh isn't even their old bodies anyway. They could all have been female in their previous lives, or all male even if all the models had boobs. None of this changes the fact that the faction as it exists now is very boring though. Maybe a few more prominent chests would have helped.

Spiney Norman
31-12-2015, 12:19
Didn't Sigmar manufacture the stormcast eternals' bodies himself out of Sigmarite in his own image (hence why they all look the same). I think we're taking the sexism angle a little too far aren't we? I mean the human factions in wfb had virtually no female models at all - a few characters (Joan D'Arc, Elspeth von draken & the Kislev queen) but no troopers or Knights. Elves have consistently been the only warhammer armies who have even approached the idea of gender equality in WFB (and even then often in gender-segregated unit types), I'm not sure why anyone thinks that is likely to change with AoS.

Zywus
31-12-2015, 12:40
Elves have consistently been the only warhammer armies who have even approached the idea of gender equality in WFB (and even then often in gender-segregated unit types), I'm not sure why anyone thinks that is likely to change with AoS.
I think the point is more that AoS was an opportunity to make that change. "Unburdened" as the setting is by any connections to real-world cultures and historical societies.

Having a substantial number of female troopers, mixed state troops regiments etc, in WHFB would have felt forced and unnatural (at least IMO) since the Empire faction were heavily inspired by real world armies who didn't employ women as front line infantry at all. However; if AoS were supposed to start a clean slate and create a broader setting, more gender diversity (or rather inclusivity) is precisely one of the things that should have been considered and where leaving the old setting behind would actually have been a benefit in some way.

Spiney Norman
31-12-2015, 13:18
I think the point is more that AoS was an opportunity to make that change. "Unburdened" as the setting is by any connections to real-world cultures and historical societies.

Having a substantial number of female troopers, mixed state troops regiments etc, in WHFB would have felt forced and unnatural (at least IMO) since the Empire faction were heavily inspired by real world armies who didn't employ women as front line infantry at all. However; if AoS were supposed to start a clean slate and create a broader setting, more gender diversity (or rather inclusivity) is precisely one of the things that should have been considered and where leaving the old setting behind would actually have been a benefit in some way.

Except that is not what AoS is, it was never a clean slate, it is tied inextricably to the warhammer world through its background, Sigmar is still the God of the empire, just fast-forwarded on a bit, is there a reason why he would have changed his position on gender equality post-end times from when his arch electors conspired to prohibit the female Marienburg elector from taking the imperial throne on the grounds she was a woman?

We don't yet have much on basic humans in AoS, but when we do I somehow doubt they'll be based on post 19th century humanity.

Zywus
31-12-2015, 13:40
Except that is not what AoS is, it was never a clean slate, it is tied inextricably to the warhammer world through its background, Sigmar is still the God of the empire, just fast-forwarded on a bit, is there a reason why he would have changed his position on gender equality post-end times from when his arch electors conspired to prohibit the female Marienburg elector from taking the imperial throne on the grounds she was a woman?

We don't yet have much on basic humans in AoS, but when we do I somehow doubt they'll be based on post 19th century humanity.

I'd say AoS is very much a clean slate from GW's perspective.

People have tried to claim that the old world was too mapped out and restricted gamers and developers in what they could create (I disagree, but that's not relevant here).
Some characters have remained and the old world is a part of the ancient history of AoS but nothing in the history of the old world is a hinder for the creation of anything in AoS. Hundreds (or is it thousands) of years have passed.

GW is in no way bound to any previous position on equality Sigmar may have expressed in the past (I don't even think he has done that anyway). We all know that there was never anyone in GW that considered adding women but decided not to because it would somehow be inconsistent with the character of Sigmar.

A reasonable assumption is that no one at GW ever considered the questions of equality and inclusion of women at all. The line about stormcasts being forged from women is just a throwaway line from a ask.fm discussion and hardly representative of any previously planned storyline.

Spiney Norman
31-12-2015, 15:57
GW is in no way bound to any previous position on equality Sigmar may have expressed in the past (I don't even think he has done that anyway). We all know that there was never anyone in GW that considered adding women but decided not to because it would somehow be inconsistent with the character of Sigmar.

I guess that's true, but on the other hand I somehow doubt the suits at GW viewed AoS as a vehicle for making a political/feminist statement (though elves have kind of been doing that forever). And since we know virtually nothing about the background of the humans that inhabit the mortal realms it's possibly a bit early to start criticising their in-universe appreciation of gender issues.

I mean who knows, they might be planning to bring back amazons at some point ;)

Ayin
31-12-2015, 21:35
Except that is not what AoS is, it was never a clean slate, it is tied inextricably to the warhammer world through its background, Sigmar is still the God of the empire, just fast-forwarded on a bit, is there a reason why he would have changed his position on gender equality post-end times from when his arch electors conspired to prohibit the female Marienburg elector from taking the imperial throne on the grounds she was a woman?

We don't yet have much on basic humans in AoS, but when we do I somehow doubt they'll be based on post 19th century humanity.

They could be I suppose. But there's no reason to. Sigmar is NOT "still the God of the empire", and he isn't presented that way in AoS. The "past" of Age of Sigmar is not the past represented by the Warhammer world. The timeline of the game was moved significantly forward to post-that, to where a new golden age and history for the Age of Sigmar universe existed so that such a setting could be used AS the destroyed past. AoS is a post-post-apocalypse game in regards to Fantasy, and nearly all of it's throwback lore is self contained.

If, for instance, you can find an AoS reference to the Arch-Lectors post-Sigmar, Imperial politics involving their election, or Marienburg in their printed material, I would LOVE to see it, or any other reference in AoS printed material to Fantasy.


Then again it's totally nonsense to point at any character from the Empire as Sigmar pulled hero's from the new realms not the World that was..

Also if people are so hung up on gender equality.. fine.. then do it for all races. Bring them on those Ogre females with all the blubber fat hanging everywhere, scary Orc and Goblin females and Dwarf woman with beards!! :D




I actually came into this thread because I recently decided to pick up the art and history book for Diablo III and got back into playing it (as well as got my hands on the old D&D versions of Diablo and Diable II, in THAC0 and 3.0 D20 respectively), as well as watched the Warcraft trailer, which got me looking at the pics and vids I'd taken from NYCC from Weta developement on the film, and realized that THOSE are where the AoS concept should have been used.

The Diablo aesthetic of the armoured angels, the cloaked and faceless look, the heroic individuals and the regiments of nearly identical troops that they lead (against the hordes of the Hells) is exactly where the Stormcast look (but of course changed from the Metropolis/Empire Metal Wizard look) would have been a great fit.

Similarly, the Warcraft aesthetic, the hulking troops and battles between large or small groups of skirmishing forces would have been perfect.

Æon
01-01-2016, 02:52
I guess that's true, but on the other hand I somehow doubt the suits at GW viewed AoS as a vehicle for making a political/feminist statement
Including non-sexualized women in your game is not a political statement.

Spiney Norman
01-01-2016, 09:08
Including non-sexualized women in your game is not a political statement.

Warhammer always has (though it has included highly sexualised females as well). I wouldn't exactly describe the female wood elf glade guard/riders or high elf females as 'sexualised' would you? Or what about the sisters of Sigmar? Including female human warriors portrayed as co-equal with males in a pseudo-historical human society certainly would be out of place, our contemporary human society still struggles with full gender equality, reflecting a gender-blind position into a game like warhammer is, at best anachronistic and unrealistic, at worst it's making a political point, and a wargame should be neither.

Besides which the stormcast as they are are presented are sort of gender neutral, certainly the appearance of their armour is male, but only because it is made in the image of a male god (Sigmar). It's also part of their faction identity, personally I think the connection is massively overplayed on Warseer but it's clear that the stormcast were at least in-part inspired by the space marines of 40k and space marines are exclusively male.

In addition the background of AoS is very much under construction, there is plenty of space for female inclusive or even female-dominated societies as the game develops, I'd be pretty surprised if the AoS Aelfs lost their gender-inclusive vibe when they get done and looking at 40k and the number of old minor factions that have been resurrected we could even see something like the Amazons or sisters of Sigmar return in the long run.

Tyranno1
01-01-2016, 11:41
Besides which the stormcast as they are are presented are sort of gender neutral, certainly the appearance of their armour is male, but only because it is made in the image of a male god (Sigmar). It's also part of their faction identity, personally I think the connection is massively overplayed on Warseer but it's clear that the stormcast were at least in-part inspired by the space marines of 40k and space marines are exclusively male.
How is gender-neutral = male?
The point of the word seems to be neither gender, or both.

Ayin
02-01-2016, 08:57
. It's also part of their faction identity, personally I think the connection is massively overplayed on Warseer but it's clear that the stormcast were at least in-part inspired by the space marines of 40k and space marines are exclusively male.

At least partly inspired.

Overplayed.

Gold.

Spiney Norman
02-01-2016, 10:27
How is gender-neutral = male?
The point of the word seems to be neither gender, or both.

It means that the appearance of their armour in no way indicates the gender of the wearer. Stormcast eternals have their metal bodies forged in the image of Sigmar and since Sigmar is not Slaanesh his physical appearance is only indicative of the male gender.

Think of it like taking twenty people, some male and some female and sealing them all up inside identical wooden boxes, now bring someone into the room who did not witness the 'boxing' and ask them to guess which occupants are male and which are female by looking at the boxes alone. Whatever the gender of a stormcast eternal they still get an identical Suit of armour to wear, made in the image of their patron god.

BattleofLund
02-01-2016, 11:18
It means that the appearance of their armour in no way indicates the gender of the wearer. Stormcast eternals have their metal bodies forged in the image of Sigmar and since Sigmar is not Slaanesh his physical appearance is only indicative of the male gender.

Think of it like taking twenty people, some male and some female and sealing them all up inside identical wooden boxes, now bring someone into the room who did not witness the 'boxing' and ask them to guess which occupants are male and which are female by looking at the boxes alone. Whatever the gender of a stormcast eternal they still get an identical Suit of armour to wear, made in the image of their patron god.

If you asked the question open-ended, 'what gender do you think this person is?', how many would answer 'wood'?

Zywus
02-01-2016, 11:19
You're reaching quite a bit there Spiney.

Background wise supposedly anyone can be forged into a stormcast armour but you have to know the background to know that. And even then, it's never specifically stated anywhere that the heroes can be anything else than human males there just isn't anything preventing that from being the case. The possibility of other races and genders is just a reasonable inference by Josh Reynolds isn't it? There is no example of it anywhere in the background?

To expand on your example of people in boxes. If you show people a bunch of sigmarines and ask what gender the occupants of the suits are, how many will say that they assume that they are male?

Spiney Norman
02-01-2016, 13:25
If you asked the question open-ended, 'what gender do you think this person is?', how many would answer 'wood'?

Probably not all that many since 'wood' is not a viable answ to the question at hand, or are you perhaps suggesting that all stormcast eternals have the race and gender 'Sigmar'? Or perhaps 'Sigmarite' if we are sticking with the material theme...


You're reaching quite a bit there Spiney.

Background wise supposedly anyone can be forged into a stormcast armour but you have to know the background to know that. And even then, it's never specifically stated anywhere that the heroes can be anything else than human males there just isn't anything preventing that from being the case. The possibility of other races and genders is just a reasonable inference by Josh Reynolds isn't it? There is no example of it anywhere in the background?

That's arguing from absence, you can't categorically state that all stormcast are human males, just as I cannot state they are 52.1% human females or 87.4% androgynous lizardmen. The fact is under their armour your stormcast eternals can be whatever you want them to be, according to one of the authors the fluff supports that as you indicated, it's your army after all.

I mean are people really that upset that they didn't sculpt any of the stormcast with breasts? That seems an incredibly trifling thing to argue about in the grand scheme of things.

BattleofLund
02-01-2016, 13:44
Probably not all that many since 'wood' is not a viable answ to the question at hand, or are you perhaps suggesting that all stormcast eternals have the race and gender 'Sigmar'? Or perhaps 'Sigmarite' if we are sticking with the material theme...

But why is it not a viable answer? If you show someone a Stormcast Eternal, would you expect them to call their gender 'wood'? Probably not. 'Female'? Very unlikely. Male? In all probability yes.

In other words, the appearance of the armour indicates the wearer's gender. For most people. Most people would not call Stormcast Eternal models 'gender-neutral'.

Zywus
02-01-2016, 13:44
The thing is that they don't look gender neutral, so people will not perceive them as such.

I'm not really arguing for there to be female looking sigmarines or that they should have been desiged to appear genderless. AoS was a opportunity for GW to have some more female inclusivity and they didn't take it. They didn't need to make female sigmarines especially, but they could have had female representation in the factions through the inclusion of other models, or even artwork or background.

I'm not claiming that all sigmarines are male backgroundwise, since there is apparently the theoretical possibility that some of the souls inhabiting their armour might be female (not a singe such character has been described in the background so far but I guess we can trot out the old "but the setting is just X months/years old" line, for a few more years still). However, not one new player looking at a sigmarine force will think anything other than; that is a bunch of burly dudes in gold armour.

akai
02-01-2016, 14:06
Brienne in Games of Throne...Eowyn in Lords of the Ring wore armor that I think majority would say is catered toward armor for men. Brienne is bigger than many men. Its not hard to imagine a few of the Stormcast Eternals being big women underneath those bulky armor. Aesthetically, I think I prefer to have armor not "genderized" or "sexualized."

Dosiere
02-01-2016, 14:09
Are we actually arguing over whether Stormcast Eternals look like males or females or neither?? They're dudes, dudes.

Ayin
02-01-2016, 23:33
Are we actually arguing over whether Stormcast Eternals look like males or females or neither?? They're dudes, dudes.

Well, that's the surface argument, but it's really an expansion of "should GW have tried to make their product more accessible to a wider demographic?" and the general answer (from those who feel that all is well with the world as it is), is 'no'.

It takes very little understanding of marketing to know that people are less likely to invest in media or product that they do not feel they are represented in. There is (and I am just going to assume this) absolutely no reference in printed material to a Stormcast being referred to as anything other than "he", and likely no art depicting humans (as well as their Stormcast and Chaos reflections) as anything other than white. The game is targeted towards white (straight) men, the company producing it had a chance, with the launch of it's new product line and re-imagined IP to expand outwards in it's representation, but chose not to and simply played it safe, which is not surprising, as the radical new concept they introduced into this new line is a modern-fantasy version of their best selling property from their better selling game line.

Spiney Norman
03-01-2016, 06:12
AoS was a opportunity for GW to have some more female inclusivity and they didn't take it.

With respect they have only put out four factions for AoS (and one of them is completely genderless), there is still plenty of opportunity for that further down the line, perhaps for even entire female-dominated factions. Complaining that the 'space marines of fantasy' aren't female-looking does look a bit like you're hunting for something to complain about.


It takes very little understanding of marketing to know that people are less likely to invest in media or product that they do not feel they are represented in. There is (and I am just going to assume this) absolutely no reference in printed material to a Stormcast being referred to as anything other than "he", and likely no art depicting humans (as well as their Stormcast and Chaos reflections) as anything other than white. The game is targeted towards white (straight) men, the company producing it had a chance, with the launch of it's new product line and re-imagined IP to expand outwards in it's representation, but chose not to and simply played it safe, which is not surprising, as the radical new concept they introduced into this new line is a modern-fantasy version of their best selling property from their better selling game line.

Good luck playing the race card to complain about a faction where everyone wears fully enclosing armour and a helmet, it also might interest you to know that GW specifically did paint some of the blood reavers on their OLS and reaver box art with black skin. If you're going to invent hypothetical objections to a product because you dislike it for other reasons you might like to check your sources first.

csb
03-01-2016, 06:36
Why do people even begin to think that values of our present-day society, like "gender-equality", "racial equality" and so on, which rather are by-products of our technical advancement than they are social develepments, should be implied in medieval, ancient or high fantasy settings?

Zywus
03-01-2016, 07:40
With respect they have only put out four factions for AoS (and one of them is completely genderless), there is still plenty of opportunity for that further down the line, perhaps for even entire female-dominated factions. Complaining that the 'space marines of fantasy' aren't female-looking does look a bit like you're hunting for something to complain about.
If AoS has anything of that in the future; then we can consider the implication of such additions.

As I have said already; I don't say that there should necessarily have been female looking Sigmarines. It's just that females are by and large abscent from the AoS setting. If you want to fantizise about what may happen in the future, that's one thing. But they are not currently represented.

Zywus
03-01-2016, 08:44
Why do people even begin to think that values of our present-day society, like "gender-equality", "racial equality" and so on, which rather are by-products of our technical advancement than they are social develepments, should be implied in medieval, ancient or high fantasy settings?
I don't think that it necessarily should. Especially not in a historical setting. It would be pretty silly to demand napoleonic armies to feature a 50/50 split of females in the regiments when that wasn't the case at all in the actual historical setting. The same applies to various degrees to fantasy settings based on real life history, such as WHFB's Empire or Bretonnia.


However. In a made up super-high-epic setting such as AoS, where everything is magical and anything goes; excluding female representation is a missed opportunity to be more welcoming to female gamers. In no way am I suggesting that there need to be segregated male and female armies and players need to play armies composed of the same gender as themselves. Female gamers don't need to play female armies but I'd say it's a mistake to assume that lack of representation is not partially responsible for the fact that tabletop wargaming is still an extremely male dominated hobby.

It's also worth noting that you can absolutely have female representation, and interesting characters at that, in fictional societies that are not gender-equal at all. The societies of the Game of thrones universe is hardly paragons of gender-equality. Still the books contain several interesting depictions of woman characters. The tv-series seems to be quite a hit with the ladies as well as the male viewers and women buy merch and generate ad-revenue as well as men.

Ayin
03-01-2016, 09:05
Good luck playing the race card to complain about a faction where everyone wears fully enclosing armour and a helmet, it also might interest you to know that GW specifically did paint some of the blood reavers on their OLS and reaver box art with black skin. If you're going to invent hypothetical objections to a product because you dislike it for other reasons you might like to check your sources first.

Wasn't there recently an argument presented here that Stormcast are the way they are because they were directly modeled after Sigmar's Empire and their historical equivalent? If that's the case, what reason would there be to expect anyone who accepts that concept to think that any of the characters presented as an embodiment of it would not fully live up to it?

It's also worth noting that Brettonian Longbowmen prominently displayed a dark skinned man on their box art. I suppose that could be presented as evidence of the companies attempt to present their product to a wider market. Considering that it's a HILARIOUS outlier I'd say it was more evidence of exactly how hard they were trying.

And if you're wondering how hard a company SHOULD be trying to expand it's potential pool of customers? It's hard.



Why do people even begin to think that values of our present-day society, like "gender-equality", "racial equality" and so on, which rather are by-products of our technical advancement than they are social develepments, should be implied in medieval, ancient or high fantasy settings?

You're right. Societal moors are heavily influenced by both specifics of historical developement and biology.

Of course, not a single AoS faction is a representation of our historical societies, and the vast, VAST majority of them express wildly dissimilar biology's. Pre-AoS the entirety of the Warhammer world contained TWO playable factions which were based upon historical (or historical-mythical) societies.

There's actually absolutely no reason to think that the vast majority of factions in either environment WOULD have similar societal moors to either medieval or post-renaissance Europe, and with AoS, there was a significant chance to represent that in-product, which MAY still be the case. It's entirely possible that product developement takes note of a significantly expanded game and fantasy market and makes decisions accordingly.

It's ENTIRELY possible.

It's also very, very unlikely. I'd LOVE to be wrong, and if I am, feel free to bring this up in a two or three years when GW has presented AoS's expanded history and product line, but it's very doubtful I am.

doomspittle
03-01-2016, 09:14
Seriously I have never laughed so hard at a thread in all my life. Listen women are just not as interested in tt gaming as men and having huge breasted walking armour suits isn't going to change that. Because let's be honest how else would you differentiate pieces of armour, giant cod pieces for the male ones? Camel toes?

Ayin
03-01-2016, 09:25
Seriously I have never laughed so hard at a thread in all my life. Listen women are just not as interested in tt gaming as men and having huge breasted walking armour suits isn't going to change that. Because let's be honest how else would you differentiate pieces of armour, giant cod pieces for the male ones? Camel toes?

Indeed, when given a chance many companies horribly portray women in-product/media as you said above. So, a product does not represent a group, and when attempts ARE made to represent a group the bar is set so low it's nearly reasonable to expect the above quality to be put in, and that group doesn't make up an increasing number number of new customers.

Shocking. Simply Shocking.


On the other hand, many similar products/media have seen significant increases in purchases by females over the last decade, for various reasons. Intelligent companies realize that this new market can be capitalized on and then attempt to direct efforts towards that as Marvel Comics did in the last half decade, or as DC has done, specifically with the work of Amanda Connor. On the other hand, some companies are willing to torpedo successful products because of fears that those markets won't purchase products (because they haven't historicall, because they haven't been targeted with available media/product), as has been shown through various DC animated ventures.

The circular argument of "X doesn't play games/do Y (because X isn't marketed towards, because Y isn't made for them because X doesn't do Y)" is really the current height of terrible marketing arguments. Some places are NOTORIOUSLY more guilty than others. The main examples generally used? Toy Companies who are afraid to sell action figures to girls.

Fitting.

doomspittle
03-01-2016, 09:45
I've got 2 daughters while they take a passing interest in my hobby, they are just more interested in netball, that my wife coaches. I agree that a new valkyrie type unit would be amazing, where dark elder armour is quite lithe, stormcast armour just doesn't fit the female aesthetic.Anyways good luck getting offended by everything I'm off back in my cave.

Ayin
03-01-2016, 10:27
So...your daughters (who I assume are children) are more interested in playing than miniatures...and because of a combination of that and you not being able to figure out a way for Stormcast to include female models in the range (immediately after mentioning Valkyries...) you're going to leave while wishing me luck on being offended about...something.


Strong points. Good counter argument. I really like how you considered previous responses and composed a highly relevant post which touched upon many of the key points.

csb
03-01-2016, 10:52
I don't think that it necessarily should. Especially not in a historical setting. It would be pretty silly to demand napoleonic armies to feature a 50/50 split of females in the regiments when that wasn't the case at all in the actual historical setting. The same applies to various degrees to fantasy settings based on real life history, such as WHFB's Empire or Bretonnia.


However. In a made up super-high-epic setting such as AoS, where everything is magical and anything goes; excluding female representation is a missed opportunity to be more welcoming to female gamers. In no way am I suggesting that there need to be segregated male and female armies and players need to play armies composed of the same gender as themselves. Female gamers don't need to play female armies but I'd say it's a mistake to assume that lack of representation is not partially responsible for the fact that tabletop wargaming is still an extremely male dominated hobby.

It's also worth noting that you can absolutely have female representation, and interesting characters at that, in fictional societies that are not gender-equal at all. The societies of the Game of thrones universe is hardly paragons of gender-equality. Still the books contain several interesting depictions of woman characters. The tv-series seems to be quite a hit with the ladies as well as the male viewers and women buy merch and generate ad-revenue as well as men.

All very true. And I personally would have nothing against female characters, black armies, asian armies and even some kind of female fighting forces. But as doomspittle put it: Women will never be as interested in tabletop as guys. Not even if you put out an all-female setting. The result would rather be the opposite.

And even if we have black and asian and uigurian and whatnot armies in a decent tabletop, it is still silly to present an army that is racially mixed as the bloodreavers on the AoS-box. Of course this works in AoS, because in AoS everything works, but it could not work in any (technologically underdeveloped) setting anybody would have put some thought/shred of realism in. Racially and gender-mixed armies are something for sci-fi rather than any form of fantasy.

But then there is also the minority-lobbyism of recent years. Probably its much safer to present armies like that on a picture just to avoid anyone calling your company racist. This may well be the first reason why they do these pictures at all.

Ayin
03-01-2016, 11:02
Many forces in the middle ages contained significant mixes of different ethnic groups, from indentured light cavalry from conquered lands to entire armies of non-native born religious converts (who sometimes even became the ruling power of the nation due to their growth of military power).

As for "silly" armies, the Empire had possessed black powder for so long the fact that Plate Armoured Knights were still in existence is ludicrous (especially as the Empire was not a feudal kingdom and the vast majority of Orders were privately funded or lived off of their own personal wealth), and the Dogs of War presented Elves and Ogres arguing with human captains over who had to be downwind form whom because of their smell. The classic Warhammer world was always a ludicrous mix (just look at the theoretical mix of Chaos Warriors, coming from and including everything from blue eyed Norsemen to Mongol raiders).

The easiest way to tap into available markets is to make sure those markets are represented in your product, and the WORST way to try and do that is to make a product for "Them".

Zywus
03-01-2016, 11:08
All very true. And I personally would have nothing against female characters, black armies, asian armies and even some kind of female fighting forces. But as doomspittle put it: Women will never be as interested in tabletop as guys. Not even if you put out an all-female setting. The result would rather be the opposite.
Have you ever considered that lack of representation (and lack of taste when attempted) is a big reason for lack of females in the hobby? Surely you don't claim appreciation for tabletop games encoded on the Y-chromosome?

Not long ago videogames was a extremely male-dominated pastime. Less so now. How many women was into boardgames a few decades ago?
Various factors might prevent women from making up close to 50% of tabletop wargamers in the near or semi-distant future but don't tell me that we have reached a cap now with the frankly embarrassing ratio of male- to female gamers in our hobby.


And even if we have black and asian and uigurian and whatnot armies in a decent tabletop, it is still silly to present an army that is racially mixed as the bloodreavers on the AoS-box. Of course this works in AoS, because in AoS everything works, but it could not work in any (technologically underdeveloped) setting anybody would have put some thought/shred of realism in. Racially and gender-mixed armies are something for sci-fi rather than any form of fantasy.And that's the point. It would have worked in AoS but GW chose to not put any effort in trying to make that game appeal to a wider customer base apparently.

daftpunkevo
03-01-2016, 12:44
Have you ever considered that lack of representation (and lack of taste when attempted) is a big reason for lack of females in the hobby? Surely you don't claim appreciation for tabletop games encoded on the Y-chromosome?

Not long ago videogames was a extremely male-dominated pastime. Less so now. How many women was into boardgames a few decades ago?
Various factors might prevent women from making up close to 50% of tabletop wargamers in the near or semi-distant future but don't tell me that we have reached a cap now with the frankly embarrassing ratio of male- to female gamers in our hobby.

And that's the point. It would have worked in AoS but GW chose to not put any effort in trying to make that game appeal to a wider customer base apparently.

showed my wife (22) this whole thread. her answer ? : "Aren't those angels supposedly badass like the blue guys (she means space marines) ? Schwarzenegger will always be more badass than Uma Thurman as a soldier, I don't get why they want boobs on those plastic soldiers"
To her defense she don't play warhammer or know much about the universe, but having a few boobs won't make her go into the hobby either. most girls i know or i see play in Paris plays DWARFS! lol! beardy little guys full of muscles.
You should all show this thread your wife. You are arguing over gender equality when it shouldn't even be up to debate. also Captain Phasma don't have boobs armor http://images.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://static.srcdn.com/slir/w700-h400-q90-c700:400/wp-content/uploads/Star-Wars-7-Captain-Phasma-White-and-Chrome-Armors.jpg&imgrefurl=http://screenrant.com/star-wars-7-captain-phasma-gwendoline-christie-white-chrome-armor/&h=400&w=700&tbnid=KnIPjsHYI8nG7M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=158&docid=iRg54Ppq0JObAM&usg=__rvfx1S1an6vhFyJgIx7xtV5tX2w=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjy3tiq4o3KAhXEuRoKHX2PDk4Q9QEIMTAE , and having 6'3 golem with boobs will automatically imply them having 32 JJ+++ breast size. And for more "equality" then GW would have to put girls with bigger hips than other ? bigger and smaller asses ? smaller boobs than other ? Black girls ? latino girls ? smaller asian girls ? wow guys, go out, stop being touchy about this nonsense.

Zywus
03-01-2016, 12:53
No one is arguing that the Sigmarines should have boobs. Seriously, have you read the thread before posting?

csb
03-01-2016, 13:49
Surely you don't claim appreciation for tabletop games encoded on the Y-chromosome?

That's exactly what I claim.

And @Ayin I Agree. But all I said in my first post is that there were no such terms and "values" as "racial equality" or "gender-equality" in these times and these armies. And that a mixing of races and cultures on a big scale like we have it today, when we do have these terms and values, is only possible due to our mobility. That a fantasy setting in times before such mobility should not necessarily represent conditions of our present-day world. Neither in practical things nor in philosophy nor in political ideas. As for silly things in the old world: I'll agree on most of your statements, but the hordes of chaos including anything from blue eyed norsemen to mongols is absolutely ok considering that there is (or was) a big continent surrounding the chaoswastes. It said nowhere that the chaos-mongols and the chaos-norse fought together in the same army. But even if they did in times of a very massive invasion, that still is not silly, because, as you already said: "Many forces in the middle ages contained significant mixes of different ethnic groups, from indentured light cavalry from conquered lands to entire armies of non-native born religious converts (who sometimes even became the ruling power of the nation due to their growth of military power)."

Your marketing argument is valid, even if I may not see the markets you want to move Warhammer or what is left of it into.

Spiney Norman
03-01-2016, 14:03
showed my wife (22) this whole thread. her answer ? : "Aren't those angels supposedly badass like the blue guys (she means space marines) ? Schwarzenegger will always be more badass than Uma Thurman as a soldier, I don't get why they want boobs on those plastic soldiers"
To her defense she don't play warhammer or know much about the universe, but having a few boobs won't make her go into the hobby either. most girls i know or i see play in Paris plays DWARFS! lol! beardy little guys full of muscles.
You should all show this thread your wife. You are arguing over gender equality when it shouldn't even be up to debate. also Captain Phasma don't have boobs armor http://images.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://static.srcdn.com/slir/w700-h400-q90-c700:400/wp-content/uploads/Star-Wars-7-Captain-Phasma-White-and-Chrome-Armors.jpg&imgrefurl=http://screenrant.com/star-wars-7-captain-phasma-gwendoline-christie-white-chrome-armor/&h=400&w=700&tbnid=KnIPjsHYI8nG7M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=158&docid=iRg54Ppq0JObAM&usg=__rvfx1S1an6vhFyJgIx7xtV5tX2w=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjy3tiq4o3KAhXEuRoKHX2PDk4Q9QEIMTAE , and having 6'3 golem with boobs will automatically imply them having 32 JJ+++ breast size. And for more "equality" then GW would have to put girls with bigger hips than other ? bigger and smaller asses ? smaller boobs than other ? Black girls ? latino girls ? smaller asian girls ? wow guys, go out, stop being touchy about this nonsense.

From what I've gleaned from the thread so far the issue is not the fact that breasts are absent but rather the fact that pecs are present (not that this is a much more relevant point to make), clearly any responsible God-King should have ignored his own musculature when designing a suit of armour in his own image.

daftpunkevo
03-01-2016, 14:28
No one is arguing that the Sigmarines should have boobs. Seriously, have you read the thread before posting?

nice now what about countering the other arguments ?
Cherry picking is easier i guess
Bodybuilder women have only boobs because they get implant. Any warrior female would have to be largely muscular enough to look mostly like a female bodybuilder to survive in the old world being a soldier (or being worthy enough to be transformed as sigmarite). Most IRL female Bodybuilder probably have more pecs than most men on this forum so i don't see a problem if the armor of a mighty golem have pecs.

Zywus
03-01-2016, 14:29
That's exactly what I claim.Well sorry, but I believe that to be BS. I'm personally not discarding the possibility of there being some genetically difference in preferences between males and females when it comes to hobbies. It's ludicrous to think that alone would amount to the overwhelming overrpresentation of males in tabletop wargaming.

It's not much different to the videogame industries customers one time being overwhelmingly male but these days a lot of it is made up by women.

Zywus
03-01-2016, 14:47
nice now what about countering the other arguments ?
Cherry picking is easier i guess
Bodybuilder women have only boobs because they get implant. Any warrior female would have to be largely muscular enough to look mostly like a female bodybuilder to survive in the old world being a soldier (or being worthy enough to be transformed as sigmarite). Most IRL female Bodybuilder probably have more pecs than most men on this forum so i don't see a problem if the armor of a mighty golem have pecs.

I don't really see what you're arguing here. There is a vast difference between being a bodybuilder and a warrior. Bodybuilders train for visual muscles. Being a warrior is not about looking muscly. Especially if we're talking about armed combat.

Female wargame models can be done tastefully. The option is not necessarily cheesecake or notghing. For exemple, these viking women by Brother Vinny (who funnily enough also produce some of the most sexualized women models out there :shifty:) look to me like functionally equipped and reasonably dangerous warriors who might well catch the eye of Sigmar if they do something heroic while defending their village against a chaos attack or perform a raid on the floating islands of the shimmertarn:
224222
https://dpbfm6h358sh7.cloudfront.net/images/844103/312985904.jpg

To reiterate, I see no problem with there existing all-male sigmarines just as I'm fine with 40k having all-male Spacemarines. The AoS setting is completely devoid of women though, there are no humans with models apart from the aesended sigmarines and marauding chaos dudes. In the background I understand there are some civilians getting slaughtered in some of the novels, getting saved by sigmarines etc. Is there any named women character doing anything in AoS so far?.

In 40K, while there are some interesting characters depicted, women are represented mostly in the background and the novels. This, I argue, is a factor in why so there are so few women involved in our hobby.

Flipmode
03-01-2016, 15:37
There was one in one of the first AoS stories. She was on the run with her group (tribe) from a Khorne warband and saw the first coming of the SE to the Blighted Peninsula (I think). Think she killed some people too. The SE leader was impressed to see pure humanity surviving in the realm.

akai
03-01-2016, 16:10
As for what the original post was asking....I am quite sure those who collect Stormcast Eternal miniatures are not collecting them thinking about female representation :D.

As for the current discussion - I think Alarielle is consider a very important woman figure and that the dryads are aesthetically feminine. So not completely void of female representation. Any inclusion of female models into a war game is more likely being added to cater more toward the male audience rather than the female audience.

Tokamak
03-01-2016, 16:12
GW is just fine as far as it comes to female representation. GW doesn't shoehorn in women for the sake of diversity nor do they exploit them whenever they get the chance. GW makes women appear where they make sense.

Col. Tartleton
03-01-2016, 19:46
I think the reason we have so few women in our hobby is because its not terribly popular among men and even less popular among women. I think its more obvious to look at why we have so few people in our hobby. There are probably more barriers to entry for women then men but it comes down to gender preferences.

I don't think that making women more prominent in the setting will do anything. A few guys will be happy. A few guys will be upset. It will have no effect on whether or not women are playing. Games with more women in them don't necessarily have more female players. Warmachine is pretty 50-50 in terms of characters. Still mostly dudes playing. It won't make or break anything.

It might have an effect on book sales, its easier to get into the setting than the game. So you reduce your barriers to entry and then you can grab more people, women included. Women have pretty equal representation in mobile games and it decreases towards "hardcore" consoles and pc games.

ScruffMan
03-01-2016, 20:58
I've never gone into a GW with a woman who has not physically tensed up upon entering. Most guys would just laugh at it all but women seem genuinely uncomfortable. I suspect the reason for that may be the biggest barrier.

Sent from my Hudl 2 using Tapatalk

Guildenstern
03-01-2016, 22:26
I think the reason we have so few women in our hobby is because its not terribly popular among men and even less popular among women. I think its more obvious to look at why we have so few people in our hobby. There are probably more barriers to entry for women then men but it comes down to gender preferences.

I don't think that making women more prominent in the setting will do anything. A few guys will be happy. A few guys will be upset. It will have no effect on whether or not women are playing. Games with more women in them don't necessarily have more female players. Warmachine is pretty 50-50 in terms of characters. Still mostly dudes playing. It won't make or break anything.

It might have an effect on book sales, its easier to get into the setting than the game. So you reduce your barriers to entry and then you can grab more people, women included. Women have pretty equal representation in mobile games and it decreases towards "hardcore" consoles and pc games.

little off topic, sorry, but wanted to add my two cents here

I think most women involved in this hobby are involved in the miniature painting or games with more RPG elements like Malifaux. There are those who paint miniatures just for art (obviously plenty of men do this as well) and there are those who paint their miniatures for their RP games, like pathfinder and D&D.

Games like Warhammer and 40k, and the others are quite competitive. Most women aren't about the competitive aspect of games, winning or losing, but about the experience and the cooperative aspects which tends to lend itself more to games like RP ones. So, yeah you may not find a lot of women in a GW store or your LGS playing Warhammer/40k/AoS.

I really believe it's more this aspect of the game that is the reason for lower participation by women in a lot of things - look at magic the gathering for instance.

There's always exceptions of course ^_^ even though I'm much more competitive than most women I know, I still mainly play to just play. For the experience. Winning is nice, but not all that to me.

Back to the original topic, meh I don't care for the look of AoS 'angels'. I don't care if they have boobs or not. Whichever gender they make, I'd like to see original sculpts, less ornate junk on them. Right now they're just pretty similiar and not in a good way unfortunately. On the other hand, I do really like the bloodthirsters of Khorne I think they are. They have more variation while still looking like a unit.

Folomo
04-01-2016, 01:36
The only wargaming woman I personally know plays female dominated armies, which basically means only DE in Warhammer. There are far more other options for her in Warmachine/Hordes and Malifeaux, so you can guess which game she actually plays more.
Being able to identify with the models you play does help.

Malagor
04-01-2016, 02:00
The only wargaming woman I personally know plays female dominated armies, which basically means only DE in Warhammer. There are far more other options for her in Warmachine/Hordes and Malifeaux, so you can guess which game she actually plays more.
Being able to identify with the models you play does help.
Indeed, the females I know also play female-dominated factions(like DE) or gender neutral factions like Tau where you have no idea what is hiding under the armor since the armor is unisex. So one should never underestimate the pull of female units and GW could have done more in this area.
While it shouldn't be shoehorned in, in fantasy there was room for more of them.
Amazons is a nice faction for example, WoC could have had a female unit no problem(shield maidens ?), Empire could have had some as lords & heroes, warrior priests for example and witch hunters and of course mages. And let's not forget sisters of sigmar.
40k female cadians or other AM armies is open for GW since they are not picky on who fights, Tau is already mentioned as a good faction and of course the big one, Sisters of Battle.
I know quite alot of females that want to play Sisters of Battle but it's too expensive and that the models doesn't look very nice and yet there are rumours that SoB plastics are done and awaiting for release and GW does nothing.
Shame, it really is.

Ayin
04-01-2016, 04:53
No one is arguing that the Sigmarines should have boobs. Seriously, have you read the thread before posting?

That's a lot of work. What if posts are just made as summary judgements of topics that are only marginally understood by the reader? That would really save time and effort. No need to think things through, present counter arguments or even make sense. Just a quick "L-O-L U Guyz is dumb!" and out.




And @Ayin I Agree. But all I said in my first post is that there were no such terms and "values" as "racial equality" or "gender-equality" in these times and these armies.

Sure? As long as you accept that, with the exception of two previously existing factions and none so far in the current game, no factions are representitive of previously existing historical societies, and as such could have any values chosen by the writers as they never existed in "these" or other times. To take a different path, the Irish might not have liked the Scottish, but they both preferred not to be ruled over by the Germans. This concept (which is brilliantly demonstrated in Watchmen) is often used to great effect in dark humour and to create a sense of hopeless frustration in Fantasy settings, where two provinces in the Empire are more intent on fighting each other over their minor differences than the rampaging hordes of un-human invaders (who rarely have such social divisions, usually because their societies are assumed to function entirely on the need to destroy OTHER societies for vague "because smash!" reasons). It COULD however simply be noted and used in AoS as it is in 40k (in deeper fluff and concept, at least).



And that a mixing of races and cultures on a big scale like we have it today, when we do have these terms and values, is only possible due to our mobility. That a fantasy setting in times before such mobility should not necessarily represent conditions of our present-day world. Neither in practical things nor in philosophy nor in political ideas.

This seems somewhat silly when broadly applied to "fantasy" as opposed to historical, and specifically when applied to Warhammer. The mobility of armies/races/factions in Fantasy was greater than likely any time in the world pre-modern era. Forces from Mongolia were assumed to have traveled through Russia and be attacking France, while Germany hired Italian mercenaries to defend itself against raiders from North America, who had just finished pillaging through Mexico and who were likely to be set upon by the navies of Atlantis on their return. In addition, means of mobility, both physical and the mobility of ideas, are significantly more varied in the (Warhammer) Fantasy world, as were the variety of cultures interacting. Human students in German universities didn't just engineer fortifications for Humans in France, they were taught entire branches of the sciences by ELVES from Atlantis (a cultural intermingling that could possibly explain why female mages are so much more highly represented in Empire backstory and art?) and DWARVES from closer than many of their human allies territories.

The argument becomes even less solid in AoS.





It's not much different to the videogame industries customers one time being overwhelmingly male but these days a lot of it is made up by women.

No way man. Women aren't interested in video games, comic books, science fiction, professional wrestling, combat sports...until they are, and in high enough numbers that major corporations take notice. Some do a great job of noticing it and make a lot of money. Some notice their fellows doing so an hop on board. Some try but fail from being way off target, and some are still lagging woefully behind.

It is hilarious in the day and age where the fastest growing demographic for each of those above mentioned industries is women, for someone to actually, honestly argue that their hobby (which likely shares a significant cross section with the above examples), and their hobby uniquely unlike every other hobby, just isn't for girls.





In 40K, while there are some interesting characters depicted, women are represented mostly in the background and the novels. This, I argue, is a factor in why so there are so few women involved in our hobby.

That's a factor to why any group isn't interested in any product, from hobby to sport. Soccer promoters realized it about North America, Basketball about Europe. The UFC realized it about Canadians, the Irish and Women, the last occuring even with their President openly stating only a few years prior that they would never have women competing in their org. because it wouldn't draw viewership, discounting without realizing it the hugely untapped demographic they were missing out on.



The only wargaming woman I personally know plays female dominated armies, which basically means only DE in Warhammer. There are far more other options for her in Warmachine/Hordes and Malifeaux, so you can guess which game she actually plays more.
Being able to identify with the models you play does help.

Yep. The ones I know play, collect, or want to play Daemons (mostly) of Slaanesh, Wood Elves, or the other two Elves. Oh, and Dwarves. Ladies love the Dwarves.

Ayin
04-01-2016, 04:55
Games like Warhammer and 40k, and the others are quite competitive. Most women aren't about the competitive aspect of games, winning or losing, but about the experience and the cooperative aspects which tends to lend itself more to games like RP ones. So, yeah you may not find a lot of women in a GW store or your LGS playing Warhammer/40k/AoS.

But if that's the case, then Age of Sigmar should be EXACTLY the narrative driven, co-operative game for them! :)

DarkChaplain
04-01-2016, 10:21
In the background I understand there are some civilians getting slaughtered in some of the novels, getting saved by sigmarines etc. Is there any named women character doing anything in AoS so far?.

In 40K, while there are some interesting characters depicted, women are represented mostly in the background and the novels. This, I argue, is a factor in why so there are so few women involved in our hobby.

Yes. Celemnis, who created a whole bunch of awesome weaponry at Elixia, which was captured by Tzeentch dudes and turned into the "Eldritch Fortress". Celemnis herself was turned into a statue (by the way of being encased in molten metal) but appeared later to aid the stormcasts significantly as a banshee.

And then there is various female characters from the mortal realms throughout the short stories.
When Vandus Hammerhand meets the survivors in The Gates of Azyr (terrible novella), for example, he is surprised anybody yet lives. Incidentally, the person he speaks to, who was a PoV character, is female too.

In Godless, there is also a Slaanesh warband searching for their god. Multiple female characters there, including the protagonist (who seems to be gender-hopping though).
Really, you can't expect Khornate warbands to feature prominent female characters. Valkia was special for being Khorne's chosen bride, but the murder-making nature of Khorne worship lends itself far, far more naturally to men. Similar goes for Nurgle - not a very appealing thing for women to join. Tzeentch and Slaanesh are more their thing, and we haven't seen nearly as much about those.

The problem really comes down to all those stories being about Chaos warbands, usually Khorne dudes, or set in the past before the arrival of the stormcasts. By the time of the Realmgate Wars, the mortal realms are almost entirely destroyed and corrupted - there simply aren't many non-corrupted humans left to speak of.

And let's be realistic: We don't even really know how the hell those chaos warbands manage to keep recruiting new warriors when the realms are basically broken wastelands with nothing left uncorrupted or alive, and they don't settle down and barely even eat or sleep.

BattleofLund
04-01-2016, 10:49
Similar goes for Nurgle - not a very appealing thing for women to join.
I don't think anybody would want to join the nurglesque faith, really, not going on 'appeal'. They got a really compelling reason (a. religious calling, b. sick themselves, fear for a sick child/spouse/parent/relative, etc.), and then appearances don't matter anymore. And good old Papa Nurgle is an equal-opportunities god, no-one is turned away on grounds of gender, ethnicity, sexual preferences, hair colour (yes, even gingers are welcome!)...

Spiney Norman
04-01-2016, 10:58
I don't think anybody would want to join the nurglesque faith, really, not going on 'appeal'. They got a really compelling reason (a. religious calling, b. sick themselves, fear for a sick child/spouse/parent/relative, etc.), and then appearances don't matter anymore. And good old Papa Nurgle is an equal-opportunities god, no-one is turned away on grounds of gender, ethnicity, sexual preferences, hair colour (yes, even gingers are welcome!)...

I think the point is that by the time you're starting to advance in the ranks of the followers of nurgle, there probably aren't a whole lot of features left to distinguish your original gender, it might be interesting to see someone convert a unit of 'blight queens' though.

Ayin
04-01-2016, 13:23
And let's be realistic: We don't even really know how the hell those chaos warbands manage to keep recruiting new warriors when the realms are basically broken wastelands with nothing left uncorrupted or alive, and they don't settle down and barely even eat or sleep.

Asking questions leads to Heresy...


I don't think anybody would want to join the nurglesque faith, really, not going on 'appeal'. They got a really compelling reason (a. religious calling, b. sick themselves, fear for a sick child/spouse/parent/relative, etc.), and then appearances don't matter anymore. And good old Papa Nurgle is an equal-opportunities god, no-one is turned away on grounds of gender, ethnicity, sexual preferences, hair colour (yes, even gingers are welcome!)...

When considered with the idea that few jump straight from being "normal" to "Chosen of Nurgle" I would say the worship of Nurgle makes a huge amount of sense (as does the worship of any of The Four), which is WHY it is so dangerous. A God of the harvest, a god to hang amulets for the blessing of healthy births, for the keeping away of sickness of all types, is perhaps the most likely of all gods to be called upon by simple farming communities, and this has been shown very well in much of the old Warhammer material (especially novels).

Marauders who worship some incarnation of Nurgle pray for health and vitality, they pray for their food to remain unspoiled and their children to be healthy and grow strong. One could imagine such a minor thing as muttering a prayer to a simple god to keep away sea sickness.

That's what makes Chaos so dangerous to mortal man. It's neither obvious nor dangerous at first.

csb
04-01-2016, 13:37
Sure? As long as you accept that, with the exception of two previously existing factions and none so far in the current game, no factions are representitive of previously existing historical societies, and as such could have any values chosen by the writers as they never existed in "these" or other times. To take a different path, the Irish might not have liked the Scottish, but they both preferred not to be ruled over by the Germans. This concept (which is brilliantly demonstrated in Watchmen) is often used to great effect in dark humour and to create a sense of hopeless frustration in Fantasy settings, where two provinces in the Empire are more intent on fighting each other over their minor differences than the rampaging hordes of un-human invaders (who rarely have such social divisions, usually because their societies are assumed to function entirely on the need to destroy OTHER societies for vague "because smash!" reasons). It COULD however simply be noted and used in AoS as it is in 40k (in deeper fluff and concept, at least).


This seems somewhat silly when broadly applied to "fantasy" as opposed to historical, and specifically when applied to Warhammer. The mobility of armies/races/factions in Fantasy was greater than likely any time in the world pre-modern era. Forces from Mongolia were assumed to have traveled through Russia and be attacking France, while Germany hired Italian mercenaries to defend itself against raiders from North America, who had just finished pillaging through Mexico and who were likely to be set upon by the navies of Atlantis on their return. In addition, means of mobility, both physical and the mobility of ideas, are significantly more varied in the (Warhammer) Fantasy world, as were the variety of cultures interacting. Human students in German universities didn't just engineer fortifications for Humans in France, they were taught entire branches of the sciences by ELVES from Atlantis (a cultural intermingling that could possibly explain why female mages are so much more highly represented in Empire backstory and art?) and DWARVES from closer than many of their human allies territories.

The argument becomes even less solid in AoS.

Of course a fantasy setting is in no way obliged to feature even the slightest bit of realism. And yes, according to the stories set in the old world, these armies must have had an immense speed to them, no matter if on foot or by any other means. BUT it still did somehow try to have some form of "realistic" feel to it. In the big picture it completely failed at it but it tried and somehow that already was enough, thats all that was needed. Not realism but at least some form of imitation of life. While AoS seems like the imitation of a very strange dream at the most. So, the input of stuff that could be a part of these people featured in the warhammer-fluff, including line-of-sight (how do they think, how do they feel, trying to perceive their world from their perspective, not ours, thats when all of our modern-day-terms fall away) was important in making it what it was. And if I'm thinking up a horde of illiterate barbarians, then for sure these guys won't be debating women's rights or racial equality, stock-market-exchange or anything else that only is part of our present-day real-world even if some other guy thinks up the same barbarians doing exactly that, so that he can "attract girls to a niche-industry", and to the minor part in that niche at that.

IF a woman is interested in warhammer, she'll be interested in it as it is. There's no need to change anything. Just as you said: Theres women doing combat sports. Yes, and the form of combat doesn't need be changed to "make it more appealing to more women". If they want to take part in it, the women will pick it up as it is. And if they want to change something they will do this themselves. Still, I don't see this great wave of girls flocking to a freshly rebooted warhammer, no matter if it is genderbendered and equal-rights and all that.

After all, I (and probably not only I) consider warhammer as a wargame. I just don't see a politically correct WAR-game being attractive to any wargamer, no matter what gender they are. Or what ethnic backround they have. If you completely take out the elements of war, its no longer a wargame. And if you, for the sake of interesting girls, convert all minis to female, you'll only have more guys who want to play female-minis butchering each other. And thats no step forward, too. At least not to the future you're seeing.

In my opinion (and only in my opinion, I don't know or think of anybody else's in this) if the girls want to come to the hobby, they will come without anything having to be changed. Women have entered so many male-dominated activities. So, if they want to enter a nerd-dominated activity, they can do so and go unhindered whenever they want. I just don't see them wanting. Not in any relevant number in any time near. For biological reasons as well as for the whole thing being (and staying) a nerdy niche-thing, far away from their interests.

Please excuse my terrible english. I hope I was still able to make my point.

Zywus
04-01-2016, 13:53
When considered with the idea that few jump straight from being "normal" to "Chosen of Nurgle" I would say the worship of Nurgle makes a huge amount of sense (as does the worship of any of The Four), which is WHY it is so dangerous. A God of the harvest, a god to hang amulets for the blessing of healthy births, for the keeping away of sickness of all types, is perhaps the most likely of all gods to be called upon by simple farming communities, and this has been shown very well in much of the old Warhammer material (especially novels).

Marauders who worship some incarnation of Nurgle pray for health and vitality, they pray for their food to remain unspoiled and their children to be healthy and grow strong. One could imagine such a minor thing as muttering a prayer to a simple god to keep away sea sickness.

That's what makes Chaos so dangerous to mortal man. It's neither obvious nor dangerous at first.

Yup. The slow descent into chaos worship is unfortunately not well explored in the more accessible material the whole Nurgle=Boils and Decease, Slaanesh=Boobs etc, flanderization (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flanderization) that is the chaos gods nowadays is most unfortunate. I suppose the sigmarines are victims of this too but in their case there isn't much more underlying the simplified outer shell.

Ayin
04-01-2016, 14:04
For biological reasons as well as for the whole thing being (and staying) a nerdy niche-thing, far away from their interests.

Please excuse my terrible english. I hope I was still able to make my point.

I think you could delete the vast majority of what you type and just put this. It perfectly sums up your argument and the reasoning you've used to reach that conclusion.

csb
04-01-2016, 14:16
I'll just quote you concerning your latest entry:


What if posts are just made as summary judgements of topics that are only marginally understood by the reader? That would really save time and effort. No need to think things through, present counter arguments or even make sense. Just a quick "L-O-L U Guyz is dumb!" and out.

Ayin
04-01-2016, 14:26
You could do that, but the mistake you're clearly making in attempting to turn my quote on me is that it assumes that I don't fully understand your point.

If you feel that way, that I'm not fully comprehending your argument that their are biological differences between men and women that make Wargaming in general and Warhammer specifically uniquely different than any other media or product (or many related medias/products with shared customer bases), then please, expand upon that and explain the specifics to me.

akai
04-01-2016, 14:33
You could do that, but the mistake you're clearly making in attempting to turn my quote on me is that it assumes that I don't fully understand your point.

If you feel that way, that I'm not fully comprehending your argument that their are biological differences between men and women that make Wargaming in general and Warhammer specifically uniquely different than any other media or product (or many related medias/products with shared customer bases), then please, expand upon that and explain the specifics to me.

I concur with CSB that you do not fully comprehend his post. Just reread his post again.

Ayin
04-01-2016, 16:50
I concur with CSB that you do not fully comprehend his post. Just reread his post again.

Sure.


Of course a fantasy setting is in no way obliged to feature even the slightest bit of realism.

That has nothing to do with what's being discussed. What's being discussed is what GW could do/could have done to potentially expand the interest in their product into currently under represented/untapped demographics, and whether this is possible in a Fantasy setting. Saying that female models being present in armies like Elves occurs because fantasy settings aren't obliged to be realistic is ridiculous, as Elves having or not having females in the line is just as realistic either way.



And yes, according to the stories set in the old world, these armies must have had an immense speed to them, no matter if on foot or by any other means.

That's not the point. The point was that you were making the argument that only in the modern age, partly defined through the ability for ideas, information and people to travel/spread, would concepts such as women being used in armed forces (which you are falsely implying requires equality of the genders throughout society) exist. This is clearly not the case in the Warhammer world, where evidence indicates that not only does this speed and distance of travel and the exposure of different cultures and ideas occur, it occurs at a significantly magnified level, due to the fact that the cultures involved vary vastly more than they historically did.




BUT it still did somehow try to have some form of "realistic" feel to it. In the big picture it completely failed at it but it tried and somehow that already was enough, thats all that was needed. Not realism but at least some form of imitation of life.

Sure? But the argument you are making in what you're referring to is the fact that two or three (possibly four if you stretch it) armies (the human ones) are based off of historical or historical-myth cultures, and that these armies rightly don't feature female characters prominently (though they do exist) or units, because of that inspiration. However, these armies DO feature non-historical units, and units of complete myth. If priests with magic powers and knights riding demi-grhyphons exist, other non-historical concepts could exist as well.

As well, that still leaves more than a half dozen other races. Among those, each of the three factions of Elves (one for each of the human based historical or historical-myth groups) do feature women, and the Daemon faction (in counter to the human Chaos faction which I said above could be stretched in) effectively does as well.

So you are arguing that, as Warhammer previously/currently exists, a number of factions exist, some of which exclude female models based on their historic/mythic inspiration, while others do not, and that is "realistic". That is entirely true and observable.

The point of this thread is that some of these armies could include MORE female representation without loss.



If I'm thinking up a horde of illiterate barbarians, then for sure these guys won't be debating women's rights or racial equality, stock-market-exchange or anything else that only is part of our present-day real-world

Again you're implying that the inclusion of female models/units/characters requires modern-day levels and views of sexual equality, when this is not the case (as shown by Elves). If your argument is going to be that such units simply wouldn't be viable on the battlefield (an argument you haven't made), that would be a different point, which would be even weaker, but I encourage you to try it.




even if some other guy thinks up the same barbarians doing exactly that, so that he can "attract girls to a niche-industry", and to the minor part in that niche at that.

(I cut this off of the above because it adds nothing to the argument)


IF a woman is interested in warhammer, she'll be interested in it as it is. There's no need to change anything. Just as you said: Theres women doing combat sports.

Indeed, and as women (or any demographic) are more represented in the medias surrounding an activity, a greater level of interest and higher numbers of that demographic will be drawn to it. Do you understand this point?



Yes, and the form of combat doesn't need be changed to "make it more appealing to more women".

Indeed, changing the system (or as I said several posts ago, creating a product/media for "them"), while often a midway step imposed by the main demographic represented in that system (as women's MMA was only a few years ago, with it's changed rules of striking and time limits) is inevitably going to fail, usually with the "for them" product simply merged into the original (as was the case with women's MMA and the Negro League of Baseball). Do you understand this point?



If they want to take part in it, the women will pick it up as it is.

And if you want more of a demographic to take part in it (or consume it, in the case of a product), that demo needs to be promoted in the product/media, as was the case in the combat sports example.



And if they want to change something they will do this themselves.

Customers are rarely expected to make changes to businesses so that the business will benefit by an increased customer base. That's ridiculous. Do you understand that?


Still, I don't see this great wave of girls flocking to a freshly rebooted warhammer,

Increased customer base through new demographic is usually an incremental step. Adding another unit of female elves (or more females to the Elf armies) is NOT going to cause an overnight huge uptick in women playing the game. It WILL slightly increase the chances of gaining new customers in the long term. Do you understand this?



no matter if it is genderbendered and equal-rights and all that.

This means and adds nothing.



After all, I (and probably not only I) consider warhammer as a wargame. I just don't see a politically correct WAR-game being attractive to any wargamer, no matter what gender they are. Or what ethnic backround they have.

This means nothing. No one is advocating a "poliically correct" anything, that's a term you've introduced (and likely defined) entirely on your own which has no bearing to the discussion.


If you completely take out the elements of war, its no longer a wargame.

This means nothing. There are no "elements of war" that are taken out because Dark Elves have Witch Elf units in their army or because Glade Guard have female and male models mixed together, any more than they are when Marauders fight Brettonians, or when Ogres exist. Or when Magic is a part of the game.



And if you, for the sake of interesting girls, convert all minis to female,

No one is arguing this. Stick to what is actually being talked about.



you'll only have more guys who want to play female-minis butchering each other.

Firstly, you're not going to be able to produce any evidence that this is ONLY what will happen. Secondly, this point is a point about nothing. No one was upset when two guys played SoB armies against each other in 2nd. You've likely got some kind of point to this that you think is relevant...



And thats no step forward, too. At least not to the future you're seeing.

And here it is. Unfortunately, this means nothing.


In my opinion (and only in my opinion, I don't know or think of anybody else's in this) if the girls want to come to the hobby, they will come without anything having to be changed. Women have entered so many male-dominated activities.

They will. However, they will come in smaller numbers, and retention will be lower. If expanding the customer base is important to a company, they will notice this under-represented demographic and target it. That's the entire point of this discussion.



So, if they want to enter a nerd-dominated activity, they can do so and go unhindered whenever they want.

Indeed they can and do, as they have in many industries, making up the fastest single growing demographic in the last decade, just like all of those listed above.



I just don't see them wanting. Not in any relevant number in any time near.

This is the entire POINT of this discussion. Do you understand this? People rarely want to consume product/media in which they are not represented.



For biological reasons as well as for the whole thing being (and staying) a nerdy niche-thing, far away from their interests.
[/QUOTE]

Explain the biological reasons that make Warhammer unique to any other product in existence in regards to women, including those listed above.




Explain to me what part of his argument *I* am not understanding.

akai
04-01-2016, 17:59
First - the point of this thread was "for those of you who collect Stormcast Eternals what is the appeal?" Many other points have been brought up that is not even related to that original point. So your "this means nothing" as it is not the point of this discussion is pretty ignorant or rude. CSB, me and, you have chosen to discuss other points.

As for your "which part of you do not understand or just wish to ignore (that is up to you) to focus on one or two sentences as being the summary of CSB's entire post? In my opinion, about 75% of CSB's post.

Ayin
04-01-2016, 18:13
First - the point of this thread was "for those of you who collect Stormcast Eternals what is the appeal?" Many other points have been brought up that is not even related to that original point.

That's true, but it has nothing to do with my understanding of CSB's post.


So your "this means nothing" as it is not the point of this discussion is pretty ignorant or rude.

Perhaps you or he could explain what the (few) sentences or sentence fragments I picked out as not needing to respond to mean and why they are of importance?



CSB, me and, you have chosen to discuss other points.

This is true. What does it have to do with me not understanding CSB's post?



So which part you do not understand or just wish to ignore (that is up to you) to focus on one or two sentences as being the summary of his entire post? In my opinion, 75% of CSB's post.

Show me the 75% of his post that I ignored. Show me how I focused on one or two sentences.


I said:


I think you could delete the vast majority of what you type and just put this. It perfectly sums up your argument and the reasoning you've used to reach that conclusion.

In response to:


For biological reasons as well as for the whole thing being (and staying) a nerdy niche-thing, far away from their interests.


Because I concluded that the crux of his argument is contained within that sentence. You were concerned that I didn't understand the larger argument and his listed points:


I concur with CSB that you do not fully comprehend his post. Just reread his post again.

So I did what you suggested and typed out a response based on the conclusions I had drawn from reading his post, which lead me to state that his main reasoning behind his position in the discussion was likely contained therein.


So, please, show me the either where I have ignored 75% of CSB's post, or point out which parts of my response to his post you either disagree with or feel I am not understanding.

Ayin
04-01-2016, 18:24
Some posts (or pages...) back I mentioned that, after playing through Diablo III again, as well as reading their art/history book I felt that the game/faction that really would have looked great in the Stormcast style would have been the Angels from Diablo. Well, I was also just made aware of this thread on Dakka, which does a very good job of capturing what I imagined:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/657078.page


Particularly these two:

http://s855.photobucket.com/user/TheTravelerofPaths/media/Tyrael_zpszuktopaa.png.html

http://s855.photobucket.com/user/TheTravelerofPaths/media/Auriel3_zpswamo1dg9.png.html

akai
04-01-2016, 18:57
So, please, show me the either where I have ignored 75% of CSB's post, or point out which parts of my response to his post you either disagree with or feel I am not understanding.

4 Paragraphs, 4 topics, summarized by you with CSB's "For biological reasons as well as for the whole thing being (and staying) a nerdy niche-thing, far away from their interests." So yeah, you show me that you can quote and read individual sentences, but still failed to comprehend the different points he made (or you just want to ignore those points, intentionally or unintentionally, to focus on YOUR point of discussion). PM me if you want to talk about how that one quote of CSB, in my opinion, is a poor representation of his entire post. No need to have this thread derailed further about reading comprehension. CSB did politely wrote his English is not great (neither is mine), so I could absolutely misunderstood his post intentions; but since he replied to you, I believe that he disagree that quote you took from his post is representative of everything he wrote.

Ayin
04-01-2016, 19:17
Nah, if you feel you can point out one point he made that I failed to comprehend despite addressing his entire post, you can feel free to do so here. I did what you asked, backed up my assertion and explained what I found to be wrong with claims that I did not understand.

ToLongDidntRead
05-01-2016, 14:10
Of course a fantasy setting is in no way obliged to feature even the slightest bit of realism. And yes, according to the stories set in the old world, these armies must have had an immense speed to them, no matter if on foot or by any other means. BUT it still did somehow try to have some form of "realistic" feel to it. In the big picture it completely failed at it but it tried and somehow that already was enough, thats all that was needed. Not realism but at least some form of imitation of life. While AoS seems like the imitation of a very strange dream at the most. So, the input of stuff that could be a part of these people featured in the warhammer-fluff, including line-of-sight (how do they think, how do they feel, trying to perceive their world from their perspective, not ours, thats when all of our modern-day-terms fall away) was important in making it what it was. And if I'm thinking up a horde of illiterate barbarians, then for sure these guys won't be debating women's rights or racial equality, stock-market-exchange or anything else that only is part of our present-day real-world even if some other guy thinks up the same barbarians doing exactly that, so that he can "attract girls to a niche-industry", and to the minor part in that niche at that.

IF a woman is interested in warhammer, she'll be interested in it as it is. There's no need to change anything. Just as you said: Theres women doing combat sports. Yes, and the form of combat doesn't need be changed to "make it more appealing to more women". If they want to take part in it, the women will pick it up as it is. And if they want to change something they will do this themselves. Still, I don't see this great wave of girls flocking to a freshly rebooted warhammer, no matter if it is genderbendered and equal-rights and all that.

After all, I (and probably not only I) consider warhammer as a wargame. I just don't see a politically correct WAR-game being attractive to any wargamer, no matter what gender they are. Or what ethnic backround they have. If you completely take out the elements of war, its no longer a wargame. And if you, for the sake of interesting girls, convert all minis to female, you'll only have more guys who want to play female-minis butchering each other. And thats no step forward, too. At least not to the future you're seeing.

In my opinion (and only in my opinion, I don't know or think of anybody else's in this) if the girls want to come to the hobby, they will come without anything having to be changed. Women have entered so many male-dominated activities. So, if they want to enter a nerd-dominated activity, they can do so and go unhindered whenever they want. I just don't see them wanting. Not in any relevant number in any time near. For biological reasons as well as for the whole thing being (and staying) a nerdy niche-thing, far away from their interests.

Please excuse my terrible english. I hope I was still able to make my point.

I think we can wrap this thread up here. Anyone who thinks making more female miniatures will get more women into the game is, to be quite frank, delusional.

They're are fundamental differences between men and women that stretches right down to a cellular basis, and no amount of PC hoohar is ever going to change that.

Girls and boys naturally develop different interests because they are fundamentally different. That's not to say girls should be discouraged if they do take an interest, but if the interest is there it's there. No amount of female miniatures is ever going to change that. They were already going to invest in the product regardless.

That's not to say I wouldn't mind seeing more female miniatures, but it needs to be done with a sense of subtlety and not a: "Omg I won't stormcast with bewbs because bewbs are awesome." And you'd be right they are.

To be quite frank I find it hilarious that the same people in this thread that are advocating a greater female presence in the game, are the same that are advocating for a, in your own PC terminology a "Sexualised representation of women." I guess that won't matter though, as the vocal minority that buy into PC BS generally never reflect on their own hypocrisy.

GW would do well to keep to keep PC scrap to a minimum in it's product line. If you want to see a true representation of what happens to those companies that try to change their face to fit this deal. Look at what happened to "American Apparel" in the past few years.

Zywus
05-01-2016, 14:32
I think we can wrap this thread up here. Anyone who thinks making more female miniatures will get more women into the game is, to be quite frank, delusional.

They're are fundamental differences between men and women that stretches right down to a cellular basis, and no amount of PC hoohar is ever going to change that.

Girls and boys naturally develop different interests because they are fundamentally different. That's not to say girls should be discouraged if they do take an interest, but if the interest is there it's there. No amount of female miniatures is ever going to change that. They were already going to invest in the product regardless.
And I suppose you would have probably said the same about video- and computergames few decades ago, when almost no girls were playing.

I'm frankly astounded that someone would claim that the massive disparity in the genders of tabletop gaming would be due biological cellular differences. It's simply absurd to think that such a niche hobby would be affected that profoundly, while lots of other traditionally male interests has seen massive upsurges in female interest without anyone's biology being changed..

Obviously a more inclusive line of miniatures wouldn't mean a great upsurge in female gamers over night. It's a long process and many little steps. Most of us got into tabletop gaming through a group of friends, probably composed exclusively of boys. The writers in White Dwarf were almost all male etc. Even if there is no one actively pushing away females, a totally male-dominated sphere with little to no female representation even in the models will have a hard time attracting women.

Even if they have a latent interest in tabletop gaming, most girls will never even consider it.

I'm not advocating forcing minature manufacturers to produce certain models, but the health of the businesses and the hobby would improve greatly if more steps were taken to make female gamers feel (even if it's mostly unconsciously) more included.


It appear as you may have misunderstood some of the posts here as no-one is advocating for "stormcast with bewbs". Including female models in the game with a sense of subtelty is exactly what people are advocating. Especially those of us who have not dismissed the possibility of there ever being more than 1 woman for every 100 males due to "cellular differences" in any case.

Col. Tartleton
05-01-2016, 15:58
Well as an example I'm in the process of getting my commercial driving license for semi trucks and the classes are maybe 1/20th female. It's not that they don't exist. It's that they aren't interested. The minority who are interested are the sorts of women who either don't mind or can put up with a male dominated environment. Some are masculine lesbians, others are former military, etc. So for intents and purposes we act like its a room full of guys. I don't think women are being kept out because of our attitudes, I think our attitudes are because they're staying out. When a secretary from the office comes in we're all gentlemen and when she leaves we go back to being boobs. :rolleyes:

Philhelm
05-01-2016, 16:17
I'm frankly astounded that someone would claim that the massive disparity in the genders of tabletop gaming would be due biological cellular differences. It's simply absurd to think that such a niche hobby would be affected that profoundly, while lots of other traditionally male interests has seen massive upsurges in female interest without anyone's biology being changed.

Autistic traits are more prevalent in males. :D

Honestly, I simply cannot envision a roughly 50% female participation in the hobby, regardless of any amount of marketing. Maybe, maybe if each box of Stormcast Eternal came with a muscular Latin lover (which they should, given the price) we would see an upswing in female participation.

Col. Tartleton
05-01-2016, 17:15
Yeah its not like this is soccer.

Spiney Norman
05-01-2016, 17:27
I'm frankly astounded that someone would claim that the massive disparity in the genders of tabletop gaming would be due biological cellular differences. It's simply absurd to think that such a niche hobby would be affected that profoundly, while lots of other traditionally male interests has seen massive upsurges in female interest without anyone's biology being changed..

And frankly I'm astounded that you seem to think that gender has nothing to do with whether or not a person is interested in a game that is fundamentally an army level war simulator. I mean do you really believe that men and women are equally interested in historical (or futuristic) processes of mass-murder when all other factors are removed?

My wife is deeply invested in world of Lord of the Rings, she's even painted a few models from GW's Lotr SBG range (not females, Aragorn and the grey company actually) but she's never expressed any interest in playing the game, she prefers to expend her time reading and writing romantic fan fiction set in the world than pretending to kill people in it, and to suggest that greater female representation in the model range would have increased her interest in fictitious bloodshed is actually quite insulting.

I appreciate that it's s sexist cliche to suggest that girls play with dollies and boys play with action men, and that is certainly not true for everyone, but the very reason it became a cliche is because it is true for the majority.

eron12
05-01-2016, 17:40
Equally? No and I don't think anyone has suggested it would be. But I think with all other factors removed there would be significantly more female interest. I know when my wife briefly looked at warhammer she wanted a fraction with more of a female presence. Women have been showing for years that when given a chance they have far more interest in traditionally make hobbies and careers than previously thought. Why would war gaming be the exception when the real military isn't one?

tmod
05-01-2016, 17:47
Well as an example I'm in the process of getting my commercial driving license for semi trucks and the classes are maybe 1/20th female. It's not that they don't exist. It's that they aren't interested. The minority who are interested are the sorts of women who either don't mind or can put up with a male dominated environment. Some are masculine lesbians, others are former military, etc. So for intents and purposes we act like its a room full of guys. I don't think women are being kept out because of our attitudes, I think our attitudes are because they're staying out. When a secretary from the office comes in we're all gentlemen and when she leaves we go back to being boobs. :rolleyes:

I find this statement absurd. Yes, there are areas of life that are male/female dominant, but that doesn't mean there are cellular reasons for it. In my town there's been a huge shift in the last 10-20 years, where 20 years ago pretty much all professional drivers where men. These days it's pretty close to 50-50, where especially bus driver recruits are largely female. Ironically, for taxi drivers the percentage of female drivers have fallen somewhat. This is not cellular level differences, this is culture. Culture can and will change over time, but it takes time, sometimes generations. I was a head coach for a women's sports team, and let me tell you the language there was no better than the male teams I've coached. The cliché that men are "all boobs and butts" and women are refined "gentlewomen" is just a myth, perpetuated by the expectations we all face through our culture.


And frankly I'm astounded that you seem to think that gender has nothing to do with whether or not a person is interested in a game that is fundamentally an army level war simulator. I mean do you really believe that men and women are equally interested in historical (or futuristic) processes of mass-murder when all other factors are removed?

My wife is deeply invested in world of Lord of the Rings, she's even painted a few models from GW's Lotr SBG range (not females, Aragorn and the grey company actually) but she's never expressed any interest in playing the game, she prefers to expend her time reading and writing romantic fan fiction set in the world than pretending to kill people in it, and to suggest that greater female representation in the model range would have increased her interest in fictitious bloodshed is actually quite insulting.

I appreciate that it's s sexist cliche to suggest that girls play with dollies and boys play with action men, and that is certainly not true for everyone, but the very reason it became a cliche is because it is true for the majority.

No, it's not.

This is an example of a fundamental disconnect between cause and effect. It is true that most Western women are leds prone to take an interest in wargaming then Western men, but there's no reason to believe this is biological.

It could be true that women are more prone to "reading and writing romantic fan fiction set in the world than pretending to kill people in it", but a much more powerful explanation is that this idea was a strongly promoted ideal for centuries, and that the residue of this ideal determine shopping habits/toy selection during the first few years of kids' lives and thus influences them during the rest of their lives.

This can also explain how we adopt new "traditional" traditions, like when, after ww2 suddenly boys' and girls' colours (pink and blue) where swapped around, and how wedding dresses came to be white rather than other colours (predominantly black).



Sent fra min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

ScruffMan
05-01-2016, 17:48
Fundamental biological differences? That is a bold claim to make when it comes to interest in wargaming. Fundamental societal norms I could get behind, sure. That's not really a particularly good thing though.

Spiney Norman
05-01-2016, 17:53
Fundamental biological differences? That is a bold claim to make when it comes to interest in wargaming. Fundamental societal norms I could get behind, sure. That's not really a particularly good thing though.

Granted that the causes are social rather than biological, but expecting production of more female models to make the slightest bit of difference (especially in a place they don't fit) is frankly bizarre.

If you're going to introduce more female models to a game it's absolutely vital that it doesn't come across as forced and patronising, otherwise it will most likely have the opposite effect.

ScruffMan
05-01-2016, 17:56
Granted that the causes are social rather than biological, but expecting production of more female models to make the slightest bit of difference (especially in a place they don't fit) is frankly bizarre.

If you're going to introduce more female models to a game it's absolutely vital that it doesn't come across as forced and patronising, otherwise it will most likely have the opposite effect.
Agreed. As long as any women who want to get into it are not discouraged from joining "the boys club" due to bitchy, cliquey behaviour it's not really a big deal anyway. I've experience of this happening in wargaming and videogaming circles but I think it is fairly rare.

Flipmode
05-01-2016, 18:00
Any of you fellas collect SE? Ladies? Anyone?

ScruffMan
05-01-2016, 18:02
Any of you fellas collect SE? Ladies? Anyone?

Haha! Well I have the starter set and Lord Castellant/Gryph Hound. Also considering adding some judicators. I like them well enough but wouldn't consider them as a potential main faction of mine.

csb
05-01-2016, 18:09
I don't expect hordes of males invading Louis Vuitton and the like to buy hilariously overpriced handbags any time in the future. At the same time I know that if there will be women in 10 000 years they will do that like they do today.

One can ignore biology, or say that human culture and thought stands above that, and that ideas will change nature. But it is not true.

tmod
05-01-2016, 18:11
Granted that the causes are social rather than biological, but expecting production of more female models to make the slightest bit of difference (especially in a place they don't fit) is frankly bizarre.

If you're going to introduce more female models to a game it's absolutely vital that it doesn't come across as forced and patronising, otherwise it will most likely have the opposite effect.

No, this I can totally get behind! Sure, better representation MIGHT over time make a difference, but nothing changes over night. My wife is more likely to play games with better female representation though, which is one reason she likes Freebooter's Fate.

Though that hardly makes me a fan of SE, I've recently bought a small batch of the hammer and shield ones in order to get a feel for how they are to put together and paint. Still waiting for them to arrive, but so far my favourite part was being able to buy five for £1 in an auction because nobody seems to want them...

Sent fra min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

Ayin
05-01-2016, 19:14
And I suppose you would have probably said the same about video- and computergames few decades ago, when almost no girls were playing.

Clearly you don't understand.

You see, Warhammer specifically, and wargames in general (but mostly Warhammer) is a special, magical snowflake of a game that's completely different than any other product or media (as assured to us by those who play it) and as such follows unique but obvious rules that are deeply entrenched into the female uterus by Sigmar himself.




I appreciate that it's s sexist cliche to suggest that girls play with dollies and boys play with action men, and that is certainly not true for everyone, but the very reason it became a cliche is because it is true for the majority.

The actual difference has to do with lead figures (ironic) of soldiers vs dolls. Toy marketing is a very interesting study, but if you've ever been part of it or read up about it, you will realize (in a very brief example) that both little boys and little girls watch the same cartoons, but boys buy the toys for the cartoon because the commercials during the show show boys playing with them, and girls buy toys that are NOT from the cartoon (and until recently often had no connection to the media they were consuming) but which are marketed towards them during the commercial.



Granted that the causes are social rather than biological, but expecting production of more female models to make the slightest bit of difference (especially in a place they don't fit) is frankly bizarre.

Unless of course you've paid attention to nearly any similar industry over the last half decade (lets just keep it recent), where the highest growing demographics are women because companies are marketing products towards them. Actually, to use comic books specifically, this could also be shown in the 50's and 60's with the marketing of comic books to girls (specifically "girls" because comics were marketed towards children, though this was to change soon to include only male teens, but that's another conversation).



If you're going to introduce more female models to a game it's absolutely vital that it doesn't come across as forced and patronising, otherwise it will most likely have the opposite effect.

Indeed, as I noted above. Any attempt to make a product for "them" often fails in the long term (something Nerf is exeperiencing with their "Rebel" line currently) with the seperately marketed towards group either walking away, or simply being absorbed into the main product (as is the case with WMMA and the American Negro League, two of the examples I've used above).



Agreed. As long as any women who want to get into it are not discouraged from joining "the boys club" due to bitchy, cliquey behaviour it's not really a big deal anyway. I've experience of this happening in wargaming and videogaming circles but I think it is fairly rare.

A bit off topic, but you should spend some time talking to a "girl gamer" and what that's like. The concern of putting oneself out there (admitting to be both a girl and a gamer) is fairly well founded, as they will suddenly have to deal with something that very few guys ever run into, the "fake geek girl" labeling.

My RPG group (which, admittedly, used to be about 12 guys and one very gay girl :) ) currently consists of 4 women and 3 men. My Wargamming group consists of 3 women and 5 men, and my consistent video game players (of whom I am easily the least consistent of all) is about 60/40 men to women.

Being around "girl gamers" online, when they go to stores, when they are at conventions, or even just being shown the messages they get on twitter or facebook REALLY opened my eyes (if the last several years doing marketing didn't) to exactly how different it is for them. Last night, one of my Diablo playing friends (who is a girl) made a Star Wars comment online, and a handful of guys immediately asked or demanded she defend her opinion, which she did, which is fine. But two just kept asking for more and more info and it quickly became obvious (because we've all seen it before) that they were "testing" her knowledge. Eventually it ended with one of them complimenting her on being (to quote) "a real geek girl" and buying her (over the internet) a present (a Star Wars Death Star tea infuser) in appreciation/congratulation of this.

This sounds kind of odd or maybe not that important, but it's something that, as guys, we likely never had to contend with (ESPECIALLY once we were adults), and it's in no way an uncommon occurrence.



I don't expect hordes of males invading Louis Vuitton and the like to buy hilariously overpriced handbags any time in the future. At the same time I know that if there will be women in 10 000 years they will do that like they do today.

Umm... you do realize how incredibly stupid this theory is, right?

Men DO spend large amounts of money on designer goods that are TARGETED towards them, just as women do. Men make up almost the ENTIRE customer base of the high end watch industry, just as women make up the high end purse industry.

Your point, when considered, proves the EXACT opposite of what you think it does.

Ayin
05-01-2016, 19:18
I would also like to point out that some posts ago, I distilled an argument into what I felt was the most prevalent part:


For biological reasons as well as for the whole thing being (and staying) a nerdy niche-thing, far away from their interests.




I think you could delete the vast majority of what you type and just put this. It perfectly sums up your argument and the reasoning you've used to reach that conclusion.


This may have upset some, but it seems to have turned out to in fact be the main reasoning of several other posters as well.

ScruffMan
05-01-2016, 19:30
Ayin: fair enough, I had experienced this some 10+ years ago in "nerdy" university societies but had hoped things had moved on since then.

Philhelm
05-01-2016, 19:31
Obviously, the only difference between men and women is their naughty bits. Therefore, any perceived differences (which there aren't) would be due to social conditioning and clever marketing.

Ayin
05-01-2016, 19:52
Ayin: fair enough, I had experienced this some 10+ years ago in "nerdy" university societies but had hoped things had moved on since then.

You know what, I have no doubt it's gotten better but for significantly greater use of Social Media and anonymous messaging systems.


Obviously, the only difference between men and women is their naughty bits. Therefore, any perceived differences (which there aren't) would be due to social conditioning and clever marketing.

Ah yes, the "if it's not 100% one way, it's 100% the other" argument. Solid reasoning, good effort, keep up the work.

Philhelm
05-01-2016, 19:56
Ah yes, the "if it's not 100% one way, it's 100% the other" argument. Solid reasoning, good effort, keep up the work.

Like this?


You see, Warhammer specifically, and wargames in general (but mostly Warhammer) is a special, magical snowflake of a game that's completely different than any other product or media (as assured to us by those who play it) and as such follows unique but obvious rules that are deeply entrenched into the female uterus by Sigmar himself.

Zywus
05-01-2016, 20:41
And frankly I'm astounded that you seem to think that gender has nothing to do with whether or not a person is interested in a game that is fundamentally an army level war simulator. I mean do you really believe that men and women are equally interested in historical (or futuristic) processes of mass-murder when all other factors are removed?
I don't know if biological sex is totally irrelevant when it comes to interest in tabletop gaming.

I'm certain however that if all cultural barriers were removed and if wargames were marketed towards women equally as towards men there would be a massively larger contingent of women gamers than we have today.

Perhaps the ratio would be 50-50, perhaps it would be 70-30. I'll bet you it certainly wouldn't be 99/1 (or whatever lopsided number currently describe the gender distribution of tabletop wargamers).

I suppose this subject has outgrown the original thread and is worth a thread of it's own though. Although Warseer don't really have a suitable sub-forum for this type of discussion. If any mod is considering locking the thread for OT discussion; please instead suggest where such a thread would be better placed.

Ayin
05-01-2016, 22:22
Like this?


Both of our statements were summary and sarcastic. That's where the similarity ends. Mine was pointing out the fact that Wargaming is NOT a uniquely special snowflake, it shares many similarities with other industries, and is also different from each of those as well. Being different in some ways does not make it different in every way, nor does it mean that no lessons learned from other industries apply, or that larger trends don't matter. Yours was arguing that this IS indeed the case, because genetic differences between the sexes uniquely apply to it and not any other industry which shares similar demographics for it's customers.


It should be pointed out that any "evidence" that's going to be presented that tabletop miniature games are genetically preferred by men over women is ALSO going to equally well apply to any other group X (where the demographic is well represented) and Y (where the demographic is less represented). Some of these will likely be true (where X=players 8 years old or under, and Y=players above 9), but many won't be. Think it through before you decide to assign differences to inherent genetic influences.

ToLongDidntRead
06-01-2016, 00:08
I guess it all depends really just how you view men and women in life in general. For me the very fact that the majority of young men and women are outright depressed and confused about their identities, due in part to having PC rammed down their throats is evidence that whether anyone likes to admit or not we are fundamentally different.

Alot of you brought up the point that you can't categorically say it's all genetic, culture will play a big part too. I won't argue that culture can't effect the way people think, heck as I said above I strongly believe that our current culture, along with factors, is the main cause of the current "lost generation." Anyone that has had the experience of seeing recent college graduates enter the corporate world will understand what I mean.

You can't say interests aren't influenced by genetics though. It's the
very reason that there are far more men in sports than there are women. There is a fundamental drive to compete in every man, you know of what I speak, none of us ever speak of it but there is an inherent desire for greatness and dominance over his peers. You'll never find that same sense of physical competitiveness in women, because that competitiveness is created by inherent hormone balances in our bodies.

That's not to say women can't be competitive. Heck any man who has enough experience with women knows just how competitive they can be with one another when they truly want something. But they're competitive in a whole different way to man, following behavioral patterns that you see in other animals, the same way you can in us men. There's no way in hell most behavioural patterns of men and women are created by culture. To even suggest so, suggests a gross misunderstanding of who we are as a sex/sexes.

Wargaming in very similar to sport in that respect. (Yup I said that.) It's effectively a way of competing with one another in a manner that doesn't risk harm to the other party. The very reason things like sport, and even games like chess came about, where to stop men from killing one another, while maintaining that competitive environment.

And one last thing. There was actually a study done on a group of primates, I think it was chimpanzees. Long story short, they took the young of the primates and locked them in a room with a bunch of children's toys. The male primates generally gravitated towards traditionally male toys like cars, the females to dolls etc: I'll see if I can find the study. But if our closest cousins naturally drop into those lines of interest.....

Edit: Search for "chimpanzees play with kids toys" on Google. There's a fair few journals backing up my last point. Far too many to link here.

BattleofLund
06-01-2016, 00:19
I guess it all depends really just how you view men and women in life in general. For me the very fact that the majority of young men and women are outright depressed and confused about their identities, due in part to having PC rammed down their throats is evidence that whether anyone likes to admit or not we are fundamentally different.
[...]
And one last thing. There was actually a study done on a group of primates, I think it was chimpanzees. Long story short, they took the young of the primates and locked them in a young with a bunch of children's toys. The male primates generally gravitated towards traditionally male toys like cats, the females to follow etc: I'll see if I can find the study. But if our closet cousins naturally drop into those lines of interest.....

Better watch out, there are Dwarfs with orange mohawks who are very interested in meeting you!

ToLongDidntRead
06-01-2016, 00:32
Better watch out, there are Dwarfs with orange mohawks who are very interested in meeting you!

I'm guessing this was a gay jk? Continuing from comments I've seen about the new slayers belonging in gay pride parade?

While I'm not even going to rise to it, I'am going to shut this down before anyone even tries to pin this on me.

There is a profound amount of evidence in other animals to suggest that homosexuality is natural. I think it's been found in something like 37 different species. It's more than likely that it's actually a natural form of population control.

That is my opinion on the matter, and I won't be discussing this any further, because I can see where this is going already.

Col. Tartleton
06-01-2016, 00:36
I find this statement absurd. Yes, there are areas of life that are male/female dominant, but that doesn't mean there are cellular reasons for it. In my town there's been a huge shift in the last 10-20 years, where 20 years ago pretty much all professional drivers where men. These days it's pretty close to 50-50, where especially bus driver recruits are largely female. Ironically, for taxi drivers the percentage of female drivers have fallen somewhat. This is not cellular level differences, this is culture. Culture can and will change over time, but it takes time, sometimes generations. I was a head coach for a women's sports team, and let me tell you the language there was no better than the male teams I've coached. The cliché that men are "all boobs and butts" and women are refined "gentlewomen" is just a myth, perpetuated by the expectations we all face through our culture.

Growing up most of my female friends were the female athletes just like most of my male friends were the male athletes. They're just as coarse and vulgar as the guys. I don't think they ever played Warhammer. But several of my male sport playing friends were into it.

What I'm talking about is how men are conditioned to behave around women and vice versa in polite company. As one comedian put it, if a black woman walks into a room suddenly everyone is walking on eggshells because suddenly they're afraid of saying something sexist or racist. All the banter and teasing that makes things fun dies. Worst of all the black woman in the example probably doesn't mind the talk as long as its not all directed at her, and now feels like she's not welcome because everyone shut up when she came into the room.

Yes bus drivers, but my school is more focused on tractor trailer. Anyhow, all I'm saying is that women aren't necessarily interested in the same things as men, to the same degree, in the same proportion.

...

Anyhow in a discussion of whether gender is a social or biological construct no one can win anymore because one position is considered sexist and the other is considered transphobic. Welcome to 2016.

Bingo the Fun Monkey
06-01-2016, 03:33
I love where this thread ended up. My baby's all grown up and mutated ^_^. Gotta admit, I had assumed that GW would use the new setting to create a more demographically inclusive atmosphere. However, the investor's report on his trip to GW HQ has laid to rest any notion that GW seeks to expand their customer base.

Dosiere
06-01-2016, 04:03
For whatever it's worth, I have had much success getting certain women in my life to play a few games by simplifying the games being played and making sure the atmosphere is nice. Granted, this is my wife and mom, step mom, mother in law, etc... But they actually enjoy going to the local LGS and playing board games over lunch and a smoothie. Games like Risk (various versions), Carcassone, some of the easier to understand card games, even X-Wing they have all enjoyed enough not to run away. :)

The bottom line is that they enjoy the social interaction over the games themselves, and given an easy to play game and a setting other than my garage at 2 in the morning (oh the good old D&D days) are perfectly happy to hang out and play. So, I don't know. The more complex/tabletop war games seem to really appeal to males for various reasons, but the gaming hobby in general could easily be more inviting to women.

Col. Tartleton
06-01-2016, 05:33
Yeah I would imagine board games about close to 50:50. Every even slightly nerdy girl like Settlers of Catan and so forth. I on the other hand still don't know what it is. :D

Handmaiden
09-01-2016, 01:49
Quote Originally Posted by Spiney Norman View Post
Granted that the causes are social rather than biological, but expecting production of more female models to make the slightest bit of difference (especially in a place they don't fit) is frankly bizarre.

If you're going to introduce more female models to a game it's absolutely vital that it doesn't come across as forced and patronising, otherwise it will most likely have the opposite effect.

Unlike with the Space Marines, there's nothing in the Stormcast background that makes it an all male faction. To not include a single female sculpt or depiction in any form of artwork, in their new "iconic" faction, by a multinational corporation in 2015/2016, same with Chaos, not a single female model released, shows a blatant disregard for existing and potential female custom. At this point it wouldn't surprise me if "Aelfs" were all male too. Not that it matters, because it's too late by that point and seeing likely minimal female representation in only one faction is pathetic.

malisteen
09-01-2016, 02:27
Yeah, the qualifications for eternals aren't "compatible genetic, hormonal, and physical factors sufficient to accept organ transplants based on the primarchs - all partial clones of one particular dude", no the Stormcast qualifications are "worthy champion of humanity demonstrating heroism and self sacrifice in the face of the tyranny of Chaos", something that really has no justification for being gender specific. I mean, the eternals are essentially spirits encased in armor forged in Sigmar's image, I could buy even female eternals looking the same outwardly, but if you're going to do that you really have to go the extra mile in establishing that that's the case in the fluff, and you shouldn't be putting them opposite a similarly all male faction in your starter box.

Speaking off, imo there's also no good justification for the Bloodbound to be all male, as while physical strength plays a part in gaining the blood god's favor, emotional characteristics are always the bigger factor there (indeed, the will of the gods will write their champions internal characteristics accross their physical forms regardless), and there's no reason why there shouldn't be any women who have displayed a sufficient degree of hatred and bloodlust to qualify.

It's more than a little frustrating that there is not a single identifiably female model in the starter box, or even the first, like year of model releases. I understand that this won't matter to some players, and that's fine, but considering just how far GW went to distance themselves from their prior player base, it seems like a poor decision that they didn't go the extra mile in courting players in previously untapped demographics, and a 40ish to zero gender ratio is not exactly sending the right message there.

Handmaiden
09-01-2016, 06:21
I mean, the eternals are essentially spirits encased in armor forged in Sigmar's image

Apparently they have bodies. He either chose no females or incased female souls in male, or at least heavily masculinized bodies. Why? Cos that's his thing. Only men were worthy. Only muscled up mutated mens bodies can...withstand his godly Sigmarpowah.

Asmodios
09-01-2016, 06:29
Yeah, the qualifications for eternals aren't "compatible genetic, hormonal, and physical factors sufficient to accept organ transplants based on the primarchs - all partial clones of one particular dude", no the Stormcast qualifications are "worthy champion of humanity demonstrating heroism and self sacrifice in the face of the tyranny of Chaos", something that really has no justification for being gender specific. I mean, the eternals are essentially spirits encased in armor forged in Sigmar's image, I could buy even female eternals looking the same outwardly, but if you're going to do that you really have to go the extra mile in establishing that that's the case in the fluff, and you shouldn't be putting them opposite a similarly all male faction in your starter box.

Speaking off, imo there's also no good justification for the Bloodbound to be all male, as while physical strength plays a part in gaining the blood god's favor, emotional characteristics are always the bigger factor there (indeed, the will of the gods will write their champions internal characteristics accross their physical forms regardless), and there's no reason why there shouldn't be any women who have displayed a sufficient degree of hatred and bloodlust to qualify.

It's more than a little frustrating that there is not a single identifiably female model in the starter box, or even the first, like year of model releases. I understand that this won't matter to some players, and that's fine, but considering just how far GW went to distance themselves from their prior player base, it seems like a poor decision that they didn't go the extra mile in courting players in previously untapped demographics, and a 40ish to zero gender ratio is not exactly sending the right message there.
I'm not one to go the extra mile to stick up for games workshop but I think everyone is blowing this a bit out of proportion. Firstly it's not like GW does not have any female characters (many elves are female as well as most of the slaanesh line). Secondly why try to fit a square peg in a round whole? The three armies that GW has been sigmariens aka space marines, beefy male chaos and dinosaurs from space. Non of these armies maket well with a female look. Sigmariens are supposed to be a rip off of their most popular line, so of course they followed the mold of all male. Making a sisters of battle type of equivalent wouldn't be playing to the strong existing market they were trying to play into. Blood borne are supposed to be crazed madmen where the strongest survive and are rewarded ( the look they are going for is bulky evil dudes incase you don't like bulky good dudes). Lizardmen are well... lizards from space so sex dosent even play a roll really ( they are just projections from dreams anyway).

Also from a marketing standpoint its perfectly logical to go after your biggest market first which is male gamers. Nothing sexist about admitting that far more males participate in table top gaming then females and this is the market they are after. So of course the re launch of a major product line is going to go after what their main target audience pictures as a bad a@@ warrior. Trying to go after a small audience of females and social justice warriors right out of the gate would have been a very surprising move and my guess wouldn't be a smart one for trying to pull in the customers GW wants (little Timmy who thinks sigmar guys look jacked and cool).

I have always been a fan of a lot of the female GW factions (i am always drawn to less played factions). But let's pump the brakes a bit when freaking out on GW for not enough female characters for their new flagship game. GW is attempting to make money, not spread equality across the floating islands of shimmera..... Or whatever it's called. Either way i really want to make an all slaanesh themed army for 9th...... Just need to fined the time to do it.

Handmaiden
09-01-2016, 06:37
The three armies that GW has been sigmariens aka space marines, beefy male chaos and dinosaurs from space. Non of these armies maket well with a female look. Sigmariens are supposed to be a rip off of their most popular line, so of course they followed the mold of all male.

Yeah apparently Valkyia the bloody managed to rise to the top and have Khorne do something he's never done before, and revive a killed champion to keep fighting, but apparently now, in a more cartoonly less realistic setting than the previous, we gotta have "the strongest" all lookin like Jay Cutler.

How is it a bad thing for sigmarines to not be such a transparent Space Marine rip off? It's circular logic to say "It's supposed to look male so of course it looks male". It's begging the question.


GW is attempting to make money, not spread equality across the floating islands of shimmera.

We'll talk about "equality" after they manage tokenism, and include a single female model in these two factions.

Asmodios
09-01-2016, 06:50
Yeah apparently Valkyia the bloody managed to rise to the top and have Khorne do something he's never done before, and revive a killed champion to keep fighting, but apparently now, in a more cartoonly less realistic setting than the previous, we gotta have "the strongest" all lookin like Jay Cutler.

How is it a bad thing for sigmarines to not be such a transparent Space Marine rip off? It's circular logic to say "It's supposed to look male so of course it looks male". It's begging the question.



We'll talk about "equality" after they include a single female model in these two factions.
I'm not talking about lore I'm talking about marketing your product to your target audience. GWs target audience is young males. When I was a younger my favorite super hero captain America, I loved the show street sharks, I idolized male hockey players and I thought the coolest thing in GW store was space marines the first time I walked in. Most of my friends had similar taste and this is the market GW goes after. Young males will identify and want to own a male based faction 90% of the time. So GW releases a male based good and evil faction. It's not some evil plot to take away rights from women or to laugh at female warriors..... Its marketing. I'm sure both factions will get female releases down the road, but its obvious why they didn't lead with this.

Handmaiden
09-01-2016, 07:05
I'm not talking about lore I'm talking about marketing your product to your target audience. GWs target audience is young males. When I was a younger my favorite super hero captain America, I loved the show street sharks, I idolized male hockey players and I thought the coolest thing in GW store was space marines the first time I walked in. Most of my friends had similar taste and this is the market GW goes after. Young males will identify and want to own a male based faction 90% of the time. So GW releases a male based good and evil faction. It's not some evil plot to take away rights from women or to laugh at female warriors..... Its marketing. I'm sure both factions will get female releases down the road, but its obvious why they didn't lead with this.

Lets talk marketing. A GW manager once told me and has told others that one in ten customers who go through the door are female. Including the odd female model doesn't turn male players off, so marketing isn't a valid argument. If you want to claim it's all for marketing and inclusion = loss, fluff be damned, then there's no reason for Aelfs to have females either. Again, they're a year in and haven't even managed a token nod to what a manager claims is 10%. That's hardly good marketing. Other model companies have a much higher ratio of female models and GW by their own words do zero market research, so how do they even know who's buying their product? Much less how their customers think? They're going by their own internal views. Views that haven't changed since 1985.

Asmodios
09-01-2016, 07:26
Lets talk marketing. A GW manager once told me and has told others that one in ten customers who go through the door are female. Including the odd female model doesn't turn male players off, so marketing isn't a valid argument. If you want to claim it's all for marketing and inclusion = loss, fluff be damned, then there's no reason for Aelfs to have females either. Again, they're a year in and haven't even managed a token nod to what a manager claims is 10%. That's hardly good marketing. Other model companies have a much higher ratio of female models and GW by their own words do zero market research, so how do they even know who's buying their product? Much less how their customers think? They're going by their own internal views. Views that haven't changed since 1985.
Once again your acting as if they don't have female models if a female customer walks through the door. I'm also not saying that your GW manager is lying but I highly doubt 10% of people walking through the door are female (excluding moms taking kids in). Other then one guys wife i always see in store I haven't see a girl at my local store in 2 years.

When you first release a new product line you are trying to draw in your base customers. Let me ask you if GW was to pick between the loss of 10 male customers or 1 female which would they choose? Obviously one female release wont push away a young male gamer but chances are it wont catch his eye either. It's the same reason they focused on generic good/evil faction fisrst. They want to hit the main demographic with all the new stuff and chances are old stuff will be enough for those that don't. Just because they didn't focus on ogers dosent mean they are fat shaming, it just dosent appeale to as many potential customers.

I'm not even currently purchasing GW models because of what they did with AOS but you really are attacking them over this? Trying to argue that they should ignore potentially big sales right at the start of a struggling product just to appease a possible 10% of customers (once again I highly doubt 10%) is highly irrational. I'm not saying a female release can't do well but the crowd GW is claiming that they want to pull in wants a product they can identify with. Young males want to buy models they invision themselves as being. A girl that walks in has plenty of female models to pick from, but isn't the main target audience for this new product. GW wants to make money and making bulky he men is a better way to do it.... No devious motives behind it.

Handmaiden
09-01-2016, 09:04
Once again your acting as if they don't have female models if a female customer walks through the door.

For the Stormcast they don't. Which is what this topic is about. Saying they have female models somewhere, as if any will do, is off topic.

"I'm also not saying that your GW manager is lying but I highly doubt 10% of people walking through the door are female (excluding moms taking kids in). Other then one guys wife i always see in store I haven't see a girl at my local store in 2 years. "

Games Workshop themselves have no numbers and do no research, so the "marketing" argument falls on its face out of the starting blocks. All we and they know is that male players are a majority. That however doesn't justify no female models at all after this long.

"Obviously one female release wont push away a young male gamer but chances are it wont catch his eye either."

GW don't give a **** about gamers though. By their own words they care about collectors and modellers. They're a model company.
But again, where are you getting this information? Are you saying GW priced Witch Elves at £35 based on the female market buying it? You think they release any set based on just the female market? They must do right, if female models according to you, don't catch the eye of male collectors. Apparently you know that somehow, and GW know it despite doing zero market research? I want to understand your reasoning that releasing female sculpts, aka giving more options "drives away" male players. Has the inclusion of female models ****ed over the elves? Eldar in 40k, in terms of popularity? You saying if we remove the Howling Banshees we'll see an Eldar popularity spike?

You don't have a leg to stand on.

ScruffMan
09-01-2016, 11:50
I'm not one to go the extra mile to stick up for games workshop but I think everyone is blowing this a bit out of proportion. Firstly it's not like GW does not have any female characters (many elves are female as well as most of the slaanesh line). Secondly why try to fit a square peg in a round whole? The three armies that GW has been sigmariens aka space marines, beefy male chaos and dinosaurs from space. Non of these armies maket well with a female look. Sigmariens are supposed to be a rip off of their most popular line, so of course they followed the mold of all male. Making a sisters of battle type of equivalent wouldn't be playing to the strong existing market they were trying to play into. Blood borne are supposed to be crazed madmen where the strongest survive and are rewarded ( the look they are going for is bulky evil dudes incase you don't like bulky good dudes). Lizardmen are well... lizards from space so sex dosent even play a roll really ( they are just projections from dreams anyway).

Also from a marketing standpoint its perfectly logical to go after your biggest market first which is male gamers. Nothing sexist about admitting that far more males participate in table top gaming then females and this is the market they are after. So of course the re launch of a major product line is going to go after what their main target audience pictures as a bad a@@ warrior. Trying to go after a small audience of females and social justice warriors right out of the gate would have been a very surprising move and my guess wouldn't be a smart one for trying to pull in the customers GW wants (little Timmy who thinks sigmar guys look jacked and cool).

I have always been a fan of a lot of the female GW factions (i am always drawn to less played factions). But let's pump the brakes a bit when freaking out on GW for not enough female characters for their new flagship game. GW is attempting to make money, not spread equality across the floating islands of shimmera..... Or whatever it's called. Either way i really want to make an all slaanesh themed army for 9th...... Just need to fined the time to do it.


You do have some valid points but using terms like 'social justice warriors' (which has become incredibly derogatory) just shuts down debate. Like it or not these are real people with real opinions, so just argue against them (as you largely do in your post) without trying to give them some hidden agenda.

Asmodios
09-01-2016, 14:04
For the Stormcast they don't. Which is what this topic is about. Saying they have female models somewhere, as if any will do, is off topic.

"I'm also not saying that your GW manager is lying but I highly doubt 10% of people walking through the door are female (excluding moms taking kids in). Other then one guys wife i always see in store I haven't see a girl at my local store in 2 years. "

Games Workshop themselves have no numbers and do no research, so the "marketing" argument falls on its face out of the starting blocks. All we and they know is that male players are a majority. That however doesn't justify no female models at all after this long.

"Obviously one female release wont push away a young male gamer but chances are it wont catch his eye either."

GW don't give a **** about gamers though. By their own words they care about collectors and modellers. They're a model company.
But again, where are you getting this information? Are you saying GW priced Witch Elves at £35 based on the female market buying it? You think they release any set based on just the female market? They must do right, if female models according to you, don't catch the eye of male collectors. Apparently you know that somehow, and GW know it despite doing zero market research? I want to understand your reasoning that releasing female sculpts, aka giving more options "drives away" male players. Has the inclusion of female models ****ed over the elves? Eldar in 40k, in terms of popularity? You saying if we remove the Howling Banshees we'll see an Eldar popularity spike?

You don't have a leg to stand on.
I know your really upset because of GW release schedule but slow down and think about what I'm saying for 2 second. First nobody ever has statistics to use when forming any numbers on GW, but that doesn't mean we can't use observations. Even you admit young males is GW largest player base and thats the foundation of my point'.

Ok let's say GW is just a model company. Doesn't change the fact they are trying to target a specific group and the group AOS is aimed at is younger male gamers. You are taking this the wrong way. I'm not saying female models are less desirable or that a male will never collect them, I'm saying they are typically not as popular amongst young males.

lets try this another way (i already know GW doesn't do market research and I'm using made up numbers, but I assume GW knows hoe much of a model they sold). Let's say GW has noticed that they make $5 ever time they release a new Sisters of battle kit but they make $10 when they release a SM kit. Now obviously you still make sisters of battle to help maintain a larger customer base but you also obviously spend more time and effort on new SM kits. You are now launching a new line and you need it to do well to keep investors on board..... What do you spend the first year focused on? You spend it focused on the kit that will generate the most money and by appealing to your target audience (BTW you don't need market research to have a target audience, you might not reach that audience without it, but you don't need it).

Also people's product is going to be designed toward its main audience. My girlfriend does hunter jumper competitions with horses and the sport is about 90% women. The store at her local barn only sells female riding equipment (despite having several male riders). Doesn't mean they are sexist or wouldn't love another male rider, they are just trying to make money.

Asmodios
09-01-2016, 14:10
You do have some valid points but using terms like 'social justice warriors' (which has become incredibly derogatory) just shuts down debate. Like it or not these are real people with real opinions, so just argue against them (as you largely do in your post) without trying to give them some hidden agenda.
Not trying to be rude that's just what I feel best describes the situation. She is litteraly arguing for social justice over a board game with a majority of male customers. I won't use it again, the term just seemed to fit the discription.

Ben
09-01-2016, 14:28
I loved when biotruths came out, along with all the arguments previously applied to women in sports (literally all sports, because women didn't used to be allowed to compete at all), video games, board games, etc etc.

There have always been some female wargamers, since the very start of wargaming, as mentioned in HG Wells introduction to Little Wars, and discussed in newsletters from wargaming societies I've read from the 40s and 50s. Not a lot, but you have to bear in mind women are a group pushed to the margins.

Social Justice Warriors was mentioned by a previous poster, but it is worth mentioning that while large numbers of women are involved in the making of computer games, and they form a large part of the market for games now, there is an ongoing campaign to threaten and harass women involved in the industry. SJWs appears to be a derogatory label applied to anyone who would like to purchase a product that reflects them a little. Hence being able to choose genders in Mass Effect, etc etc.

There is nothing whinier than middle class white males complaining that something is no longer just about them, and nerd hobbies (comics, sci fi, etc etc) have a fair share of fairly dysfunctional people. Just as video games increasing cater for everyone, not just teenage boys, as they evolve, so will other things. Board games are pretty much already there, as are a number of wargames products (Mantic and Warlord in Gates of Antares for instance)

I've seen someone tell Victoria Lamb that she doesn't sculpt women right because they don't have Doc Thunder esque boobs, because he can't conceive of a female image that isn't sexualised. Infinity gets stick because of the midriff baring mini skirted stripper heels vs enclosed power armour that female models vs male models are in.

If people are not comfortable with the idea of non-sexualised female images, then they have brain problems. Which a lot of nerds do, whether it is social anxiety or something else.

Back to GW? They voluntarily don't cater for a variety of groups, like gamers, women, etc. They should be trying to grow their customer base, not limiting it. Craft hobbies like painting and modelling do attract some women, and GW believe their product is a craft hobby with a game tacked on. It should be an easy mental step for them to make.

Bingo the Fun Monkey
09-01-2016, 14:44
I don't think tokenism manifesting as boob armor is a step forward.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

Asmodios
09-01-2016, 15:44
I loved when biotruths came out, along with all the arguments previously applied to women in sports (literally all sports, because women didn't used to be allowed to compete at all), video games, board games, etc etc.

There have always been some female wargamers, since the very start of wargaming, as mentioned in HG Wells introduction to Little Wars, and discussed in newsletters from wargaming societies I've read from the 40s and 50s. Not a lot, but you have to bear in mind women are a group pushed to the margins.

Social Justice Warriors was mentioned by a previous poster, but it is worth mentioning that while large numbers of women are involved in the making of computer games, and they form a large part of the market for games now, there is an ongoing campaign to threaten and harass women involved in the industry. SJWs appears to be a derogatory label applied to anyone who would like to purchase a product that reflects them a little. Hence being able to choose genders in Mass Effect, etc etc.

There is nothing whinier than middle class white males complaining that something is no longer just about them, and nerd hobbies (comics, sci fi, etc etc) have a fair share of fairly dysfunctional people. Just as video games increasing cater for everyone, not just teenage boys, as they evolve, so will other things. Board games are pretty much already there, as are a number of wargames products (Mantic and Warlord in Gates of Antares for instance)

I've seen someone tell Victoria Lamb that she doesn't sculpt women right because they don't have Doc Thunder esque boobs, because he can't conceive of a female image that isn't sexualised. Infinity gets stick because of the midriff baring mini skirted stripper heels vs enclosed power armour that female models vs male models are in.

If people are not comfortable with the idea of non-sexualised female images, then they have brain problems. Which a lot of nerds do, whether it is social anxiety or something else.

Back to GW? They voluntarily don't cater for a variety of groups, like gamers, women, etc. They should be trying to grow their customer base, not limiting it. Craft hobbies like painting and modelling do attract some women, and GW believe their product is a craft hobby with a game tacked on. It should be an easy mental step for them to make.
I hate how everyone jumps to the "you want to harass women" because you think it was a smart business move to focus on male models at first. You will also not only generalize everyone as "white middle class" but also say that "lots of nerds have brain problems" but at the same time be talking as if your pushing for reason and understanding from all groups. Despite your hateful rhetoric that attempts to paint anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint as a sexist with brain problems lets continue the discussion.

Now i don't think a lot of people are arguing that GW shouldn't release more female models (I'm surely not), but i think its unrealistic to ask them to on the launch of a new flagship product. Its simply smart business to go after your core audience first with everything you have. Once you have established a base of consumer you role out a larger range of models to grow your base. I think it would be great to cater to and try to bring more women into the hobby, just not right out of the gate.

jesper.adamsson.3
09-01-2016, 16:26
Well, they did release (ok, cut off from another faction and repackaged) an almost all female faction for Aos; the Sylvaneth.

ik0ner
09-01-2016, 16:30
I hate how everyone jumps to the "you want to harass women" because you think it was a smart business move to focus on male models at first. You will also not only generalize everyone as "white middle class" but also say that "lots of nerds have brain problems" but at the same time be talking as if your pushing for reason and understanding from all groups. Despite your hateful rhetoric that attempts to paint anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint as a sexist with brain problems lets continue the discussion.

Now i don't think a lot of people are arguing that GW shouldn't release more female models (I'm surely not), but i think its unrealistic to ask them to on the launch of a new flagship product. Its simply smart business to go after your core audience first with everything you have. Once you have established a base of consumer you role out a larger range of models to grow your base. I think it would be great to cater to and try to bring more women into the hobby, just not right out of the gate.

Based on the highlighted in your post, is it correct to assume that you believe that having female models in this first wave of their new game would have hurt sales? Or in other words, you believe that launching Stormcast Eternals with female models would have had an negative economic impact on Games Workshop? For clarity

malisteen
09-01-2016, 16:53
Firstly it's not like GW does not have any female characters (many elves are female as well as most of the slaanesh line).

hermaphroditic daemons are not exactly a stellar example. Many of the elves are good, but what attention have they received in this game's release? While AoS does have the old line to draw on, it is a new game, one which deliberately burned its bridges with most of its existing players, and which needed to market to a new audience. 100% of new model releases for this game have been male, and that is not the way to appeal to a new audience these days. 15% female would be a bad rate, but 0% is atrocious. Even if you count re-releases, while there are gender neutral models (seraphon, being more 'lizard' than 'man' on the lizardman scale, are neither male nor female coded), there have still been no female releases at all.

We're not talking about tokenism here, and we're not talking about square pegs or round holes, either. We're talking about decisions. The decision to make some factions exclusively male when they did not need to be. The decision to draw exclusively from these arbitrarily-all-male factions for both the new game's starter box and the entirety of its new model releases for the first year of its existence. None of these decisions were dictated to GW from God, all were deliberate choices they made.

Again, a 40 to 0 gender ratio in the new game's flagship introductory release box was a decision, and, I would argue, a poor one, especially since they knew they were going to alienate a large portion of their existing customer base and needed to appeal to a new audience. Not the only poor decision in AoS's roll out. Not the worst by far. But it certainly counts among them.

And, for the record, I consider myself more a 'Social Justice Warlock'. I lack the physical stats needed for dedicated Warrior classes.

Asmodios
09-01-2016, 16:55
Based on the highlighted in your post, is it correct to assume that you believe that having female models in this first wave of their new game would have hurt sales? Or in other words, you believe that launching Stormcast Eternals with female models would have had an negative economic impact on Games Workshop? For clarity
I think with GW idea of a target audience it would have. They are clearly attempting to make their base young males. People are generally drawn to items they feel personify who they are and this is commonly studied in economics study of behavioral finance. For example many people buy jeeps even though they will never take them off road. The reason why they do this is they picture themselves as the type of person that is adventurous and goes off roading. When a young male walks into a GW store he is statistically more likely to pick a product that he feels identifies the type of male he wants to be seen as (most young males will want to be seen as a tough and rugged male hero). So if 9/10 people who walk into a GW store are male (using handmaidens number) GW would do its self good by having its brand new and on display item feature male characters. If GW had an unlimited amount of sculptors so they could put our an unlimited amount of models I'm sure there would be something for everyone in the new product line right off the bat. But when you can realistically only drop 1-2 dozen new kits it would hurt you economically if not most/ever kit was geared toward your target audience.

Asmodios
09-01-2016, 17:04
hermaphroditic daemons are not exactly a stellar example. Many of the elves are good, but what attention have they received in this game's release? While AoS does have the old line to draw on, it is a new game, one which deliberately burned its bridges with most of its existing players, and which needed to market to a new audience. 100% of new model releases for this game have been male, and that is not the way to appeal to a new audience these days. 15% female would be a bad rate, but 0% is atrocious. Even if you count re-releases, while there are gender neutral models (seraphon, being more 'lizard' than 'man' on the lizardman scale, are neither male nor female coded), there have still been no female releases at all.

We're not talking about tokenism here, and we're not talking about square pegs or round holes, either. We're talking about decisions. The decision to make some factions exclusively male when they did not need to be. The decision to draw exclusively from these arbitrarily-all-male factions for both the new game's starter box and the entirety of its new model releases for the first year of its existence. None of these decisions were dictated to GW from God, all were deliberate choices they made.

Again, a 40 to 0 gender ratio in the new game's flagship introductory release box was a decision, and, I would argue, a poor one, especially since they knew they were going to alienate a large portion of their existing customer base and needed to appeal to a new audience. Not the only poor decision in AoS's roll out. Not the worst by far. But it certainly counts among them.

And, for the record, I consider myself more a 'Social Justice Warlock'. I lack the physical stats needed for dedicated Warrior classes.
Yes they alienated the existing player base (including me) but this won't change the demographics that walk into GW stores. if 90-95% of people coming into a GW are males it seems to be understandable if almost all if not all products are marketed to males. Im all for GW increasing its female product line and i think it could be a great new costumer base to get into. But I'm also realistic that they should build a base that is already walking in their stores before going after a risky customer demographic (i doubt a 100% release of females would have drawn many more into the stores especially considering GW spends no money marketing their product outside of word of mouth). Hopefully Sigmaries get some Sigmaladys to go with them but I'm not surprised it might take a while before you start to see those releases. Look at Mantics human KOW line, i think that female archangel look would be a very cool addition for GWs line.

Col. Tartleton
09-01-2016, 17:34
Yeah I mean the main complaint about Stormcast is that they're too bland and similar looking (these ones walk, these ones fly, they have weapons and stuff but yeah they're pretty much just dudes.)

Making them roughly 50-50 male and female (3 male, 2 female per box) would make me think "Okay, this is different. This is something I can get into." As it is I still picked up the starter box and put space wolf heads on them so they look more like Germanic barbarians in level 100 epic plate and less like statues. Some women definitely would have helped the range. Although it'd be harder to find good female head swaps for them.

It'd be weird having half the state troops be female because they're semi historical regular humans. But Stormcast Eternals are immortal undead giants in magically forged armor with enchanted weapons. They may as well not be humans, they're more like Einherjar and Valkyries who follow Thor, so traditional common sense things like women ideally shouldn't be front line soldiers because they tend to be smaller, more prone to injury, less testosterone driven, weaker, and can contribute more in other roles really don't apply at all. We're not talking about women, we're talking about demi goddesses with plates that fully enclose their cleavage and lighting infused sledge hammers.

malisteen
09-01-2016, 17:38
What does "marketed to males" even mean these days? Do you think men don't go to movies, watch tv shows, read books, or play games with female characters? Do you think no men play any of the armies that include female models? Do you have figures on the Mortarch sales, indicating that only female players purchased that box, on account of you can use it to make Neferata, in addition to Arkhan and Mannfred?

The presence of female models doesn't ostracize or exclude male players. It does not send a message that "this is not for you". But the absence of female models absolutely does send that message to female players, and though some will ignore or deliberately defy that message and play anyway, others will turn to Malifaux or War machine or other table top games, games which also have majority male player bases, and yet don't feel a need to hang a 'no girls allowed' sign on the front door of their clubhouse, and the last thing Age of Sigmar needed was another reason to play Malifaux instead.

And the sad thing is, GW's female models are in many cases considerably better than those of other companies. A lot of Malifaux female models, for instance, are very sexually objectified, male-gazey sorts of things, while GW's female models tend to emphasize the character and personality of their factions, whether we're talking about the grace and elegance of elves or the grit and badassery of sororitas (admittedly the naked chainsaw ladies are a lamentable exception in that line, but still). With a new game featuring new model lines, this was something GW was well positioned to take advantage of, and they didn't just drop the ball, they recoiled from it like someone had tossed them a handful of spiders.

Asmodios
09-01-2016, 17:55
What does "marketed to males" even mean these days? Do you think men don't go to movies, watch tv shows, read books, or play games with female characters? Do you think no men play any of the armies that include female models? Do you have figures on the Mortarch sales, indicating that only female players purchased that box, on account of you can use it to make Neferata, in addition to Arkhan and Mannfred?

The presence of female models doesn't ostracize or exclude male players. It does not send a message that "this is not for you". But the absence of female models absolutely does send that message to female players, and though some will ignore or deliberately defy that message and play anyway, others will turn to Malifaux or War machine or other table top games, games which also have majority male player bases, and yet don't feel a need to hang a 'no girls allowed' sign on the front door of their clubhouse, and the last thing Age of Sigmar needed was another reason to play Malifaux instead.

And the sad thing is, GW's female models are in many cases considerably better than those of other companies. A lot of Malifaux female models, for instance, are very sexually objectified, male-gazey sorts of things, while GW's female models tend to emphasize the character and personality of their factions, whether we're talking about the grace and elegance of elves or the grit and badassery of sororitas (admittedly the naked chainsaw ladies are a lamentable exception in that line, but still). With a new game featuring new model lines, this was something GW was well positioned to take advantage of, and they didn't just drop the ball, they recoiled from it like someone had tossed them a handful of spiders.
Of course people like female character and typically a movie or video game is aimed at a much larger audience then GW minis. But when you see young teenage boys lining up to see the avengers how many are wearing black widow shirts? I'm sure they all like black widow but she isn't what drew them in, it was captain America, Thor and iron man. I think GW will make more female models but right now they are trying to get people to pick up the game. Young males are more likely to pick up a product they see themselves in and they more then likely identify better with a male based army.

malisteen
09-01-2016, 18:21
And you're arguing men would be incapable of seeing themselves in a game where only 50% or 70% or 95% of models were male instead of 100%?

Col. Tartleton
09-01-2016, 18:24
And to be fair the repentias are not meant to be attractive, certainly not in the official art. They're emaciated from fasting with scrolls nailed through their bodies and are covered in bandages from self mutilation. They're naked because they lost the privilege of wearing armor and are basically in the process of throwing themselves into the enemy guns to die.

The only questionable design with regular sisters is the corset and push up bra look, but that's kind of a Gothic fashion nod rather than kink, especially since they're fully clothed.

akai
09-01-2016, 18:25
hermaphroditic daemons are not exactly a stellar example. Many of the elves are good, but what attention have they received in this game's release? While AoS does have the old line to draw on, it is a new game, one which deliberately burned its bridges with most of its existing players, and which needed to market to a new audience. 100% of new model releases for this game have been male, and that is not the way to appeal to a new audience these days. 15% female would be a bad rate, but 0% is atrocious. Even if you count re-releases, while there are gender neutral models (seraphon, being more 'lizard' than 'man' on the lizardman scale, are neither male nor female coded), there have still been no female releases at all.


The re-release of the the Slyvaneth Dryads are more female than male (I think 100% female).

---

The option to field a 100% all female or feminine army is possible in AoS. Start with the Sylvaneth. Take all the other releases before AoS, you can have Alarielle be the "god-leader" of the Slyvaneth faction. Bodyguard or second in command...the handmaiden. Use a bit more imagination and take Sisters of the Thorn / Avelorn / Slaughter / Witch Elves and you can get a 100% female combined army. Extra female heads bits, you can swap male heads with the female heads. Would like human female models...take an elf head, green stuff the point ears out. So I think there is reasonable amount of GW products already available for female players (or even male players) that want to field an all female army or convert some models here and there to be female.

Asmodios
09-01-2016, 19:04
And you're arguing men would be incapable of seeing themselves in a game where only 50% or 70% or 95% of models were male instead of 100%?
No I'm saying that a young male 14-21 is more likely to pick up an army consisting of males because thats what he sees himself to be on the battlefield. It is done subconsciously and has been studied a lot in behavioral finance (i studied this in college). Its why a young male might like blackwidow as a super hero but typically purchases an iron man shirt. Its not because black widow isn't cool, its because they can much more easily identify which ironman because he is male. Theres nothing sexist about it or ridiculous that it happens. GW is simply trying to provide a product that their target audience can identify with easily and young men can usually identify more easily with male characters easier then female.

malisteen
09-01-2016, 19:39
Is this the same behavioral finance that saw the cancellation of successful shows like Teen Titans and Young justice not because they didn't have a large enough audience, but because too much of that audience was female, and advertisers weren't creative enough to be able to market products for one gender without being outright insulting to another, let alone market to both? The same behavioral finance that's made a laughing stock of hasbro's Star Wars line and its shameful dearth of toys for the new movie's lead character? Hasbro, who was of course more than happy to sell pony toys to men, because the marketing machine is so sexist even its sexism is sexist. I'm sorry to say this, Azzy, but I think you might have been better served by studying phrenology.

Regardless, if GW's actually trying to market $100 boxes of three toy soldiers to boys who are still afraid of cooties, then they've probably got bigger financial problems than the behavioral kind.

Zywus
09-01-2016, 19:42
No I'm saying that a young male 14-21 is more likely to pick up an army consisting of males because thats what he sees himself to be on the battlefield. It is done subconsciously and has been studied a lot in behavioral finance (i studied this in college). Its why a young male might like blackwidow as a super hero but typically purchases an iron man shirt. Its not because black widow isn't cool, its because they can much more easily identify which ironman because he is male. Theres nothing sexist about it or ridiculous that it happens. GW is simply trying to provide a product that their target audience can identify with easily and young men can usually identify more easily with male characters easier then female.And that's exactly why GW should endeavor to broaden their target audience. By only targeting males, they're leaving upwards of half their potential market untapped.

I'm pretty sure the reasons Warmahordes, Infinity etc doesn't include female models to the extent it does is because their creators hope to better tap into the female market.

Asmodios
09-01-2016, 19:51
And that's exactly why GW should endeavor to broaden their target audience. By only targeting males, they're leaving upwards of half their potential market untapped.

I'm pretty sure the reasons Warmahordes, Infinity etc doesn't include female models to the extent it does is because their creators hope to better tap into the female market.
Im not saying that GW shouldn't produce female characters.

What I'm saying is that at launch of a NEW product its not surprising that they are pushing for what THEY see as THEIR core audience. I think its foolish that GW wants little timmy to be the poster boy for AOS (what type of 14 year old has hundreds of dollars to spend on a few plastic models. But given that this is who gw is going after its logical that they released space marines with swords and buff evil dudes for their first wave or releases.

Zywus
09-01-2016, 20:05
I see your reasoning and I'm not overly critical of GW's for the Sigmarines being all male. But I'd say it's one missed opportunity among many to not use the somewhat clean slate and the ultra-high fantasy setting of AoS to address one of the companies big deficits; lack of female customers. And in my opinion, a part of that problem is absolutely the lack of representation in the miniatures. If you never endeavor to broaden your audience, chances are it'll never happen.

While female models would feel "tacked-on" or "shoehorned" in many positions of the human WHFB factions. None of that applies to AoS. Everything is Totally Over the top (for better or worse) so anything goes. It doesn't matter what roles women had on the battlefield historically, the setting is totally new, so anyone can have any position without it clashing with existing background.

As so often in AoS discussions, we can speculate about what may be released down the line, but that doesn't matter here and now. In this facet at least, AoS could have been a new start with positive connotations. It however was not to be.

Asmodios
09-01-2016, 20:06
Is this the same behavioral finance that saw the cancellation of successful shows like Teen Titans and Young justice not because they didn't have a large enough audience, but because too much of that audience was female, and advertisers weren't creative enough to be able to market products for one gender without being outright insulting to another, let alone market to both? The same behavioral finance that's made a laughing stock of hasbro's Star Wars line and its shameful dearth of toys for the new movie's lead character? Hasbro, who was of course more than happy to sell pony toys to men, because the marketing machine is so sexist even its sexism is sexist. I'm sorry to say this, Azzy, but I think you might have been better served by studying phrenology.

Regardless, if GW's actually trying to market $100 boxes of three toy soldiers to boys who are still afraid of cooties, then they've probably got bigger financial problems than the behavioral kind.
I actually agree with you that its stupid to market such an expensive product to a young crowd but that seems to GW direction. Im not saying GW is making a great long term investment..... actually AOS is about the dumbest idea GW has ever had imo (this is a discussion for a different thread). That being said this is the direction that GW took. If you are going after little Timmy you release a product little timmy might be drawn to. Young males are more likely to identify with a male army so its logical that this is what GW released. I agree that going after this crowd with all your might isn't smart. This is where i think the miss communication is coming from (i most likely did a poor job getting it across) I don't like most of GW choices as a company. But if i worked at GW and this is the audience they told me to go after i doubt i would have released many/ any female characters.

Asmodios
09-01-2016, 20:15
I see your reasoning and I'm not overly critical of GW's for the Sigmarines being all male. But I'd say it's one missed opportunity among many to not use the somewhat clean slate and the ultra-high fantasy setting of AoS to address one of the companies big deficits; lack of female customers. And in my opinion, a part of that problem is absolutely the lack of representation in the miniatures. If you never endeavor to broaden your audience, chances are it'll never happen.

While female models would feel "tacked-on" or "shoehorned" in many positions of the human WHFB factions. None of that applies to AoS. Everything is OOT so anything goes. It doesn't matter what roles women had on the battlefield historically, the setting is totally new, so anyone can have any position without it clashing with existing background.

As so often in AoS discussions, we can speculate about what may be released down the line, but that doesn't matter here and now. In this facet at least, AoS could have been a new start with positive connotations. It however was not to be.
I agree GW neglecting female gamers for year is a different story all together. Im not surprised that female characters haven't been focused on yet in a new release. Without GW spending money to draw more females into a store to see new female models (could be a good idea in the long run) i don't see releases to female models from the get go grabbing the audience GW is looking for.

A bit off topic but i think GW missed out on a huge opportunity with twitch/ pro gaming circuits taking off.They should have pushed a more tournament style 9th with the help of prize support and broadcast over twitch tournaments from around the world. Then used AOS to bring in young/ casual gamers for the easy to play rules and used it as a launching point to get people to buy fully into a high priced fantasy army. This would have taken care of the knock of models because you couldn't use them in all the GW official tournaments.

Col. Tartleton
09-01-2016, 21:09
GW should focus on the real market: People who start around 10-12 when its cool, lose interest around 14 when its not cool, then nostalgia back into it around their early 20's and stick with it when they stop caring about being cool.

10-15 and 25+

The Teens have time but not money (skirmish). Young adults have money but not time (unprimed block pushers) The older players have money and time (painted block pushers.)

Your best customer is the older player. He has the time to hobby and the money to buy product.

Warhammer: The Toy
Warhammer: The Game
Warhammer: The Hobby

Spiney Norman
09-01-2016, 22:07
I see your reasoning and I'm not overly critical of GW's for the Sigmarines being all male.

And yet you keep coming back to that point, and conveniently ignoring points like Akai made, that Sylvaneth are almost exclusively feminine in aspect (tree lords excepted). It's easy enough to run an all-or-mostly female army of any of the elf factions or Sylvaneth or a mixture of the four, (not to mention that skeleton-based undead armies are notably gender-neutral and we have plenty of lady vampire models). I'd say that's a pretty good start for anyone of the female gender who wants to play the game, I sincerely doubt stormcast pectorals are going to be a deal-breaker for anyone.

Zywus
09-01-2016, 22:08
I agree GW neglecting female gamers for year is a different story all together. Im not surprised that female characters haven't been focused on yet in a new release. Without GW spending money to draw more females into a store to see new female models (could be a good idea in the long run) i don't see releases to female models from the get go grabbing the audience GW is looking for.Indeed, it would be a long term project especially since the current demographic of the actual players is overwhelmingly male; but It has to start somewhere.

Col. Tartleton
09-01-2016, 22:12
And once girls do it it won't be weird and nerdy. It'll just be nerdy.

Zywus
09-01-2016, 22:20
And yet you keep coming back to that point, and conveniently ignoring points like Akai made, that Sylvaneth are almost exclusively feminine in aspect (tree lords excepted). It's easy enough to run an all-or-mostly female army of any of the elf factions or Sylvaneth or a mixture of the four, (not to mention that skeleton-based undead armies are notably gender-neutral and we have plenty of lady vampire models). I'd say that's a pretty good start for anyone of the female gender who wants to play the game, I sincerely doubt stormcast pectorals are going to be a deal-breaker for anyone.
Sure it's possible to make all female armies and GW has some of the more tasteful female models on the market. I agree that the Wood elf and to a lesser extent the undead range has a good, and for lack of a better term 'natural', inclusion of females. GW deserves props for that.

The problem I see is that apart from those ranges females still very much feel like the exeption rather than a natural inclusion. And it's most important to have that kind of inclusion in the human representatives, as they are easiest to relate to. AoS was a possibility to do that and so far we haven't seen a move in that direction.

Spiney Norman
09-01-2016, 22:44
Except they haven't made a basic human army for AoS yet, and stormcast eternals are in no way 'easy to relate to', not even for guys. It's also worth pointing out that our society's current awareness of gender equality is the product of millennia of social development, it would be a bit weird if humans in AoS had the same (or even more highly developed) sense of equality and yet had a technological level of the medieval or Renaissance era, it would feel 'wrong' and shoe-horned in.

Zywus
09-01-2016, 22:55
Except they haven't made a basic human army for AoS yet, and stormcast eternals are in no way 'easy to relate to', not even for guys.That's true and is one of the reasons for AoS floundering among the current male dominated player base.


It's also worth pointing out that our society's current awareness of gender equality is the product of millennia of social development, it would be a bit weird if humans in AoS had the same (or even more highly developed) sense of equality and yet had a technological level of the medieval or Renaissance era, it would feel 'wrong' and shoe-horned in.This I highly disagree with. Unlike WHFB, AoS has nothing to do with the real world medieval or renaissance history. It's a super-epic setting with magic realms and over the top aestetics all over the place.

If you produced some funky human models clad in sigmarite armour wielding sigmarite swords and throwing fyre-spears, wrote in the background that the inhabitants of Azyrheim are conscripted from the entirety of it's population, made the models 50/50 male/female, I don't think it would feel the least bit wrong' or shoe-horned in.

Col. Tartleton
10-01-2016, 00:00
They also should have female Bloodbound. Women like blood too!

malisteen
10-01-2016, 05:08
Most women certainly see a hell of a lot more of it in their lives than men do.


I also admit to being personally biased, as my 40k CSM army has a Khorne-dedicated female warrior hero leading their LatD style human auxilliary/cultists/feral world warriors in its fluff (the army's fluff is loosly based on a combination of the Death Corps and the Shrine Knights from FF Tactics, and this character is based on Milleuda, plus being female is an easy fluff excuse for why the character hasn't undergone implantation to become a full fledged chaos marine). A female bloodbound hero would have been ideal conversion fodder. As it is, there's not much to draw from. Valkia's too skinny, and since she's winged her pose is all wrong for an infantry character. I could use a sororitas hq or champion, but that's a lot of conversion to get a proper khorne look going.

Oh, well.

Dosiere
10-01-2016, 05:21
Most women see a hell of a lot more of it in their lives than men do.

I like it. From the virtues of Stormcast Eternals fluff and models to menstrual cycles. This forum is the bestest.

malisteen
10-01-2016, 05:26
I'm just saying, if GW wanted justification for female soldiers of the blood god - or hell, even a female-exclusive khornate sub-faction, it was kind of right there.

Dosiere
10-01-2016, 05:34
This whole time we've been arguing over the anatomy of fantasy space golems when the answer was right there in front of us. Blood for the blood god... of course.

malisteen
10-01-2016, 05:45
Imagine (http://www.diabloii.net/gallery/data/509/medium/diablo3-female-barbarian-101.jpg)an entire army (https://altorelieve.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/cool-fantasy-art-by-laurel-d-austin.jpg) of variations (http://www.diabloii.net/gallery/data/509/barb-f-fb-may24.jpg)on the female barbarian (http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--SFM7h6nb--/17ebcgz7ayn0pjpg.jpg) from Diablo 3 (http://www.gameguyz.com/sites/default/files/pictures_images/24.04.2014/1398335423_13.jpg).

Frankly, we were robbed (http://40.media.tumblr.com/532c79dc363fe531ba8a380fad5407e4/tumblr_nakxmy4mvb1r5jvj1o1_500.jpg).

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 09:08
I'm just saying, if GW wanted justification for female soldiers of the blood god - or hell, even a female-exclusive khornate sub-faction, it was kind of right there.

I'm not sure that a female sub-faction whose defining feature was menstruating to honour their god would be particularly likely to inspire female gamers to join the hobby, in my experience women tend not to hype up that aspect of their biology in public very often.


That's true and is one of the reasons for AoS floundering among the current male dominated player base.

This I highly disagree with. Unlike WHFB, AoS has nothing to do with the real world medieval or renaissance history. It's a super-epic setting with magic realms and over the top aestetics all over the place.

If you produced some funky human models clad in sigmarite armour wielding sigmarite swords and throwing fyre-spears, wrote in the background that the inhabitants of Azyrheim are conscripted from the entirety of it's population, made the models 50/50 male/female, I don't think it would feel the least bit wrong' or shoe-horned in.

That's a rather bizarre assertion unless you have some (as yet unpublished) information about the human civilisations in the mortal realms settings that I haven't seen, the humans in AoS might well be based on a real world historical era for all we know, certainly the Stormcast's god has a connection to the Renaissance era Empire from the world that was.

Zywus
11-01-2016, 09:24
That's a rather bizarre assertion unless you have some (as yet unpublished) information about the human civilisations in the mortal realms settings that I haven't seen, the humans in AoS might well be based on a real world historical era for all we know, certainly the Stormcast's god has a connection to the Renaissance era Empire from the world that was.Judging by how for example the slayers have been introduced (riding beasts instead of slaying them) I would be very surprised if GW felt bound to any of the connections the WHFB human factions had to real-world history.

They could base the culture (not just aesthetic inspiration) of any future AoS human faction on real world history, but why would they? Wasn't the whole point of rebooting the background to not be constrained by the vast history and existing themes of the old world?

And if for some reason GW would chose a theme for a coming AoS human faction (if such a thing ever become reality) wherein inclusion of female models would feel 'wrong' and shoe-horned in; then that's a choice from their part. A choice that makes no sense financially.

malisteen
11-01-2016, 11:18
I'm not sure that a female sub-faction whose defining feature was menstruating to honour their god would be particularly likely to inspire female gamers to join the hobby, in my experience women tend not to hype up that aspect of their biology in public very often.

That was a joke, my friend.

However, the assertion that handful of Khornate warrior-women in the vein of the Diablo 3 female barbarian (ie, huge, buff, muscular, angry) would have been both ridiculously awesome and a considerable sight more interesting than the sausage fest Bloodborn we actually got.

Ayin
11-01-2016, 18:22
That's a rather bizarre assertion unless you have some (as yet unpublished) information about the human civilisations in the mortal realms settings that I haven't seen, the humans in AoS might well be based on a real world historical era for all we know, certainly the Stormcast's god has a connection to the Renaissance era Empire from the world that was.

Show it to me.

Show me any reference or AoS in-written product link between The Emperor/Sigmar and a historically based Renaissance era fantasy civilization. Because it's not there. Sigmar's character is based on Conan styled fantasy and a time of tribes. The eventual evolution of the Warhammer: Fantasy Empire doesn't make him any more Renaissance than our current devolopement makes Jesus a post-Industrial figure.

Philhelm
12-01-2016, 14:23
Unlike WHFB, AoS has nothing to do with the real world medieval or renaissance history. It's a super-epic setting with magic realms and over the top aestetics all over the place.

If you produced some funky human models clad in sigmarite armour wielding sigmarite swords and throwing fyre-spears, wrote in the background that the inhabitants of Azyrheim are conscripted from the entirety of it's population, made the models 50/50 male/female, I don't think it would feel the least bit wrong' or shoe-horned in.

This is one of the reasons that I dislike Age of Sigmar and have always loved the Old World above all other fantasy settings (like D&D, etc.). While the Old World was certainly high fantasy, it was also a bit grounded in pseudo-reality. I liked the fact that the humans had weapons, armor, and clothing that were more realistic and equivalent to historical counterparts, as opposed to plenty of fantasy settings in which humans are garbed like High Elves with strange, nonsensical armor with dragon wings everywhere.

In addition, the beauty of the historical and stereotypical rip-offs that were the nations of the Empire, Bretonnia, Estalia, Tilea, Kislev (and even Nippon and Ind) was that we could easily flesh out the societies without having to be told everything. By simply stating that, say, Tilea is a fantasy version of Renaissance Italy with a vaguely similar geography, most players with a basic knowledge of history would be able to easily fill in the blanks. There are probably feuding city-states, mercenary armies, a recognizable architecture, tyrannical princes, greedy merchants, flamboyant duelists, marble statues, a crazy artist building strange and wondrous contraptions, etc., etc., etc.

The last thing I want to see are super egalitarian human societies that are in a perpetual war against Chaos, yet trip over themselves not to hurt each others' feelings. My witch hunters will continue to burn heretics, mutants, and deviants in the Boring Moors of Stirland (just north of the Grassy Plains of Averland), while everyone else can build Care Bear armies (with dragon-winged helmets and double-bladed sword-guns) hailing from the Exciting, Floating City of Shimmertown.

Zywus
12-01-2016, 14:57
This is one of the reasons that I dislike Age of Sigmar and have always loved the Old World above all other fantasy settings (like D&D, etc.). While the Old World was certainly high fantasy, it was also a bit grounded in pseudo-reality. I liked the fact that the humans had weapons, armor, and clothing that were more realistic and equivalent to historical counterparts, as opposed to plenty of fantasy settings in which humans are garbed like High Elves with strange, nonsensical armor with dragon wings everywhere.I agree. The mix of real world history and fantasy elements was what made the old world great.

That said. For all the flaws of AoS (and they are many and great indeed), there is a few possibilities the setting has that weren't as readily available in the Old World. One of those is the possibility to create a human faction that include a number of women models across the board, without it feeling shoehorned in.



There doesn't need to be any feminist or egalitarian agenda involved what so ever either in- or out of universe.

In-Universe: Oh no, evil chaos maniacs want to eat us! General conscription ahoy. Every able man/woman of suitable age; grab a magic sigmarite spear and go out and shoot some lightning bolts right in their chaotic faces!

Out-of-Universe: Listen up my fellow GW dudes. We have very few women playing our games, that's a whole lot of untapped potential sales. Lets try to come across as more inclusive and produce this new range where women feels like a natural inclusion, not just a few heroes and perhaps a bikiniclad woman regiment. Make sure they look bad ass and cool so the boys buy them as well.

malisteen
12-01-2016, 15:04
I appreciate the benefits of historical references for short hand characterization of a setting, sure, though personally I think the Old World relied overmuch on it. However, when 'historical accuracy' is used as an excuse to exclude brown people and women from a setting, that's generally neither especially historically accurate nor are the stories or settings well served by doing so, imo. While your Fantasy setting may reference the past, it exists in the present, as do its creators and its players, and it says more about them than it does about people living 500 years ago.

Philhelm
12-01-2016, 16:37
I appreciate the benefits of historical references for short hand characterization of a setting, sure, though personally I think the Old World relied overmuch on it. However, when 'historical accuracy' is used as an excuse to exclude brown people and women from a setting, that's generally neither especially historically accurate nor are the stories or settings well served by doing so, imo. While your Fantasy setting may reference the past, it exists in the present, as do its creators and its players, and it says more about them than it does about people living 500 years ago.

I highly doubt that GW uses historical accuracy as an "excuse" to exclude brown people and women from the Empire and Bretonnian armies (the implication being that the desire to exclude said people precedes the reasoning), so much as it is the reason they are excluded. If GW were to release armies for Nippon or Ind (fat chance now...), I doubt that any of the models would be painted to be blond-haired, blue-eyed Northmen.

Furthermore, why can't brown people accept that the context of, say, the Empire, is that it is supposed to be a fantasy version of the Renaissance Holy Roman Empire, and that the phenotype and culture of its people mirrors that of its historical counterpart? Is it really that horrible to stomach? Plenty of white people field armies that are based upon non-European cultures and races without issue, so I don't see why brown people are limited to only wanting to play armies that are not influenced by white Europeans history.

I do get that they weren't really represented at all, but that wasn't so much a fault of the existence of homogenous factions such as the Empire or Bretonnia, but that the other human nations were never developed. I just think that it is an unfair criticism of the Old World, given its pseudo-historical context. It's not like 40K in which brown people simply do not exist for some reason.

Of course, with AOS, anything under the sun can be envisioned without any self-imposed, "historical" constraints.

malisteen
12-01-2016, 16:51
You do not seem to know as much as you think about the Holy Roman Empire. I recommend further study, particularly from contemporary sources, rather than exclusively relying on Victorian era historians and artists.

Philhelm
12-01-2016, 17:20
You do not seem to know as much as you think about the Holy Roman Empire. I recommend further study, particularly from contemporary sources, rather than exclusively relying on Victorian era historians and artists.

Why the snide response?

I quite understand that the Holy Roman Empire was not comprised of a bunch of blond-haired Germans, and that it was, in fact, multicultural. However, I suspect that it wasn't as multicultural as people would like, given the context of the current thread, and I used "homogeneous" as a relative term.

Philhelm
12-01-2016, 17:21
You do not seem to know as much as you think about the Holy Roman Empire. I recommend further study, particularly from contemporary sources, rather than exclusively relying on Victorian era historians and artists.

Why the snide response?

I quite understand that the Holy Roman Empire was not comprised of a bunch of blond-haired Germans, and that it was, in fact, multicultural. However, I suspect that it wasn't as multicultural as people would like, given the context of the current thread, and I used "homogeneous" as a relative term.

eron12
12-01-2016, 18:56
I highly doubt that GW uses historical accuracy as an "excuse" to exclude brown people and women from the Empire and Bretonnian armies (the implication being that the desire to exclude said people precedes the reasoning), so much as it is the reason they are excluded. If GW were to release armies for Nippon or Ind (fat chance now...), I doubt that any of the models would be painted to be blond-haired, blue-eyed Northmen.

Furthermore, why can't brown people accept that the context of, say, the Empire, is that it is supposed to be a fantasy version of the Renaissance Holy Roman Empire, and that the phenotype and culture of its people mirrors that of its historical counterpart? Is it really that horrible to stomach? Plenty of white people field armies that are based upon non-European cultures and races without issue, so I don't see why brown people are limited to only wanting to play armies that are not influenced by white Europeans history.

I do get that they weren't really represented at all, but that wasn't so much a fault of the existence of homogenous factions such as the Empire or Bretonnia, but that the other human nations were never developed. I just think that it is an unfair criticism of the Old World, given its pseudo-historical context. It's not like 40K in which brown people simply do not exist for some reason.

Of course, with AOS, anything under the sun can be envisioned without any self-imposed, "historical" constraints.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the lack of "brown" people in the Empire. It's more that the decision was made to develop a setting that mimics the whole world, and the make their two main human factions direct analogs from the white part of the real world.

I don't suppose having the nonwhite portions of the world represented by the less human looking of the other races helped either.

Andnore
12-01-2016, 19:25
That was a joke, my friend.

However, the assertion that handful of Khornate warrior-women in the vein of the Diablo 3 female barbarian (ie, huge, buff, muscular, angry) would have been both ridiculously awesome and a considerable sight more interesting than the sausage fest Bloodborn we actually got.

I mostly find it funny, and sad, that the Khorne Bloodbound, despite being the villains, have more gender diversity than the heroes (Fyreslayers and Stormcast Eternals) by virtue of having Valkia on their side.

malisteen
13-01-2016, 14:00
I don't think anyone is complaining about the lack of "brown" people in the Empire. It's more that the decision was made to develop a setting that mimics the whole world, and the make their two main human factions direct analogs from the white part of the real world.

I don't suppose having the nonwhite portions of the world represented by the less human looking of the other races helped either.

Yes. Warhammer Fantasy was a global setting, not a European one, and yet the only humans we got were Europeans. Non-Northern-European analogs were either glossed over (Arab & East Asian cultures, southern European cultures), removed completely (were there any inhabitants of Naggaroth before the Druchii moved in? I don't recall ever reading about any), or replaced with monster armies. Khemri was based on a northern African civilization... but they're all skeletons. Lizardmen replaced both South American and Sub-Saharan Arfican civilizations. Instead of Babylonians & Persians we got chaos dwarves, while Central Asian cultures were replaced with Ogres (and to a lesser extent hobgoblins). Meanwhile, not only were what human races we did get presented as all-white*, but so too were the human-like non human nations (dwarves, three kinds of elves), though at least the elves actually had more than a token bit of gender diversity, while all other factions were lucky to have even one or two female models in production

Again, all of these were choices. Decision points that had the effect of white washing and gender imbalancing a game with a global, not just European, setting, and that's even before we get to the fact that Europe, between intercontinental trade, imperialist Expansion, and Persion, Carthaginian, and Moorish invasions, has always been a more diverse place than many in the Victorian era on would have you believe, making even an exclusively European setting that was this white washed unacceptable.

I'm not accusing the game designers (or its players) of deliberate racism or sexism, merely of not rising above the white noise background racism and sexism inherited from founders like Tolkien (who I likewise don't accuse of deliberate racism, I am merely agreeing with his own later self criticism), and endemic within the Fantasy genre at the time of the game's creation. But we don't live then. We live now. This kind of stuff doesn't go unquestioned now. The games exist now, are made by modern designers and purchased by modern consumers. It's one thing to be be unaware of a problematic subtext of a work, but it's another to have it pointed out and do nothing to fix it, or worse to double down on it. It's one thing to exclusively target one narrow target demographic in 1980 or 1990, but entirely another to still be operating that way in 2015.


As for why the flippancy, it was a tonal response to the flippancy of the 'care bears' comments.


*To some extent, the lack of racial diversity can be repaired in the armies of individual modelers, but that does not excuse the exclusionary default put in place by the game publisher itself, much as personal reading of a book's caste as diverse does not excuse a film adaptation casting exclusively white actors.

eron12
13-01-2016, 14:47
Yes. Warhammer Fantasy was a global setting, not a European one, and yet the only humans we got were Europeans. Non-Northern-European analogs were either glossed over (Arab & East Asian cultures, southern European cultures), removed completely (were there any inhabitants of Naggaroth before the Druchii moved in? I don't recall ever reading about any), or replaced with monster armies. Khemri was based on a northern African civilization... but they're all skeletons. Lizardmen replaced both South American and Sub-Saharan Arfican civilizations. Instead of Babylonians & Persians we got chaos dwarves, while Central Asian cultures were replaced with Ogres (and to a lesser extent hobgoblins). Meanwhile, not only were what human races we did get presented as all-white*, but so too were the human-like non human nations (dwarves, three kinds of elves), though at least the elves actually had more than a token bit of gender diversity, while all other factions were lucky to have even one or two female models in production

Again, all of these were choices. Decision points that had the effect of white washing and gender imbalancing a game with a global, not just European, setting, and that's even before we get to the fact that Europe, between intercontinental trade, imperialist Expansion, and Persion, Carthaginian, and Moorish invasions, has always been a more diverse place than many in the Victorian era on would have you believe, making even an exclusively European setting that was this white washed unacceptable.

I'm not accusing the game designers (or its players) of deliberate racism or sexism, merely of not rising above the white noise background racism and sexism inherited from founders like Tolkien (who I likewise don't accuse of deliberate racism, I am merely agreeing with his own later self criticism), and endemic within the Fantasy genre at the time of the game's creation. But we don't live then. We live now. This kind of stuff doesn't go unquestioned now. The games exist now, are made by modern designers and purchased by modern consumers. It's one thing to be be unaware of a problematic subtext of a work, but it's another to have it pointed out and do nothing to fix it, or worse to double down on it. It's one thing to exclusively target one narrow target demographic in 1980 or 1990, but entirely another to still be operating that way in 2015.


As for why the flippancy, it was a tonal response to the flippancy of the 'care bears' comments.


*To some extent, the lack of racial diversity can be repaired in the armies of individual modelers, but that does not excuse the exclusionary default put in place by the game publisher itself, much as personal reading of a book's caste as diverse does not excuse a film adaptation casting exclusively white actors.

Wow, that was a much better way of saying what I was trying to. I can't even blame it on typing on my tablet, that was just very well put.

Philhelm
13-01-2016, 17:56
There are plenty of things that could be stated in response, but we obviously perceive the world so differently that we might as well be speaking different languages from different Age of Sigmar Realmgates, so what's the point? Besides, the Old World is toast, and the possibilities with Age of Sigmar are limitless (aside from the fact that horses seemingly don't exist anymore).

I'm not a fan of the Stormcast, but I do like the Lord Castellant with the griffon hound, and I could see myself purchasing it since I've already had the core set of Stormcast dumped into my lap.

Spiney Norman
14-01-2016, 06:28
It's one thing to be be unaware of a problematic subtext of a work, but it's another to have it pointed out and do nothing to fix it, or worse to double down on it. It's one thing to exclusively target one narrow target demographic in 1980 or 1990, but entirely another to still be operating that way in 2015.


As for why the flippancy, it was a tonal response to the flippancy of the 'care bears' comments.


*To some extent, the lack of racial diversity can be repaired in the armies of individual modelers, but that does not excuse the exclusionary default put in place by the game publisher itself, much as personal reading of a book's caste as diverse does not excuse a film adaptation casting exclusively white actors.

I don't think there is any justification for protesting a lack of racial diversity in AoS, the stormcast faction has only one model that shows any skin (Lord relictor) and since he is undead his skin is mostly depicted as grey. Furthermore there has been a conscious effort by GW to depict the Khorne bloodbound models as multi-ethnic in their official photographs and box art of the models, both blood warriors and blood reavers display various skin colours on the front of the box and on the OLS.

In addition I don't recall reading anything in the fluff that would suggest white supremecism, or a lack of diversity.

MLP
14-01-2016, 08:46
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned already(too many pages to catch up on) but historically armies have consisted of men(with a few exceptions), not women. This is likely the reason behind there only being male sculpts.

However I do think that the bloodbound were a perfect opportunity to include female models due to the background of the army it would be quite appropriate.

With the races, at the end of the day it's a game designed in England, it's going to have models that mostly appeal to the main demographic of Europe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Andnore
14-01-2016, 10:24
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned already(too many pages to catch up on) but historically armies have consisted of men(with a few exceptions), not women. This is likely the reason behind there only being male sculpts.

It has been mentioned, repeatedly, and repeatedly refuted with the claim that AoS is so removed from any historical context that the argument comes across as hollow.