Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah, I miss a lot of the specialist games. Necromunda for example... actually did a bit of an online game of Necrumunda (making use of maptool) last year which was quite fun.

Mordheim is nice at least, on Steam. (I seem to have been dyslexic in remembering which name belonged to which game...)

 asorel wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
@ Slayer la boucher: Personally I can assure you I am not a shy or socially awkward guy, I used to run bar crawls in Newcastle averaging between 150-180 people, and I promise you that no shy or socially awkward person could have been as successful at running them as I was. Now having said that - I would resent GW for forcing me to do such things if I want to play the game 'properly' and with an even chance. I like to play the game in my own way and whilst I do not mind the odd person doing the whole in-character shouting, it is not my style. It would also make it difficult to carry on in converting my girlfriend to the game.
Furthermore, granting people official in game benefits for having a longer beard or moustach is pure sexism, no matter how you dress it up as a laidback jovial approach.

That's discriminating against women that have beards!

I seriously doubt that this was meant to be sexist. For one, no publicly traded company would deliberately say or do anything considered 'offensive.' Second, that would imply that GW have this aspect of the rules any more than a moment's thought.

You haven't been paying attention if you think publicly-traded companies don't frequently stick their feet in their mouths.

Further, just because GW is publicly-traded does not mean they have members of the public actually working there. In fact, we know they don't. They do no market research, they do no industry analysis. They don't pay attention, at all, to who plays their games, why, or in what manner. For all we know, GW assumes that every 40K player on the planet is a Caucasian Male, aged 35-45, earning a median $125K a year, with a two-story house and two-car garage, and is of Anglo-Saxon descent. Since GW does no market research, we will never know what they think.

The thought that GW might not have realized that there are people that buy or play their games who cannot grow beards is actually the scariest part!

I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

 Psienesis wrote:


Grimdark has always been grim-dork. Always.

Which is why it is called "Grimdark" and not ... dunno ... dystopian or something along those lines.

Silly portmanteau word to describe a silly concept.

 Polonius wrote:
I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Unconscious sexism is still sexism. In the "real world", unconscious bias is the most common type.

 Melissia wrote:

 Runic wrote:
Putting a moustache joke rule in a game isn't sexism. For crying out loud, will you get real.

"Get real" is what I suggest to you.

You provide a flat out denial, but you don't actually provide any reasoning to counter the arguments presented.

Of course, you don't have any counter-argument to begin with.

I can't believe, I'm actually arguing about this...

Going by the rules, fake beards DO count. Therefore it does not put women at a disadvantage. Therefore it is not sexist.

And btw: RAW you do not even need to WEAR the fake beard. You just need to HAVE it. Never played a lot of Munchkin, did you?

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Unconscious sexism is still sexism. In the "real world", unconscious bias is the most common type.

Fair enough. I think that people always color the word "sexist" with chauvanism, when that isn't always the case.

Let me amend: I don't think the rule, as written, exhibits any animosity or dislike for women. However, it is mildly discrimanatory against women.

AS you point out, the unconcious bias, in that a woman would never wnat to play it, is the real problem here.

I'm avoiding the loaded language, because one third of hte internet is devoted to calling everything sexist, while another third is devoting to denying that sexism exists. I try to move past the big language and get to the meat.

 Polonius wrote:
I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Imagine the conversation at GW: "we know there are going to be a lot of current customers who won't be happy with the new game, but it's worth it because the simplification will make our products more accessible to new customers and broaden our appeal. Oh, by the way, let's write the rules on the assumption that our target audience is the exact same people we're already selling to."

 Melissia wrote:
And I've seen men with bigger boobs than mine. An exception to a general rule does not disprove the existence of a general rule; IE, "it's a bad idea to drive around Israel waving a Nazi flag" is a good general rule, and while it might be possible for you to have a good time doing that, it's still kind of dumb.

So...what's your point? The rule asks you to emulate a defining feature of a specific character (his moustache) and makes no exclusions for fake moustaches. Even if it did, you're ignoring the inability of male kids and many men to grow moustaches for the sake of soapboxing about a problem that doesn't exist. Are you going to lecture us on the ageism implied by another of the new rules or just accept that the game is simply not meant to be taken seriously?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Imagine the conversation at GW: "we know there are going to be a lot of current customers who won't be happy with the new game, but it's worth it because the simplification will make our products more accessible to new customers and broaden our appeal. Oh, by the way, let's write the rules on the assumption that our target audience is the exact same people we're already selling to."

That seems to be exactly what happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lustigjh wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
And I've seen men with bigger boobs than mine. An exception to a general rule does not disprove the existence of a general rule; IE, "it's a bad idea to drive around Israel waving a Nazi flag" is a good general rule, and while it might be possible for you to have a good time doing that, it's still kind of dumb.

So...what's your point? The rule asks you to emulate a defining feature of a specific character (his moustache) and makes no exclusions for fake moustaches. Even if it did, you're ignoring the inability of male kids and many men to grow moustaches for the sake of soapboxing about a problem that doesn't exist. Are you going to lecture us on the ageism implied by another of the new rules or just accept that the game is simply not meant to be taken seriously?

You make the assumption that GW thinks kids buy their products to actually play a game with them. No, no... that isn't the GW Hobby. The GW Hobby is buying GW Products, Specifically Models and Paints. Full stop.

Rules? Rules are just for those nerds who feel like they need to actually do something other than Buy GW Products with their GW Products.

Okay, lets just call this what it is, Hairist. Those vile bigwigs at GW are obviously doing their best to keep the non hairy people of the world down with their discrimination.
THE HAIRISTS ARE REAL, WAKE UP PEOPLE.

Really though, as a person who literally cannot grow a beard to save his life this is just silly. Its just another case of geedubs blundering through the dark groping for a stack of bills and making bad decisions like they always do. Why is everyone so surprised?

These look like they are something that was only ever intended to be fun little rules to be used in garage games or late night FLGS lockins. I cannot for the life of me see any reasonable person taking these rules seriously. They remind me of drinking games honestly

 Red Marine wrote:
Reminds me of 4th edition D&D. Removed all the old familiar rules to make it simpler, for the kids. You know, all those D&D playing 8 year olds. In my opinion its all gonna go as well as 4th ed D&D did. With pathfinder/mantic picking up the slack.

Actually, 4th edition sold better than 3.X. And 4e combat isn't what I would call "simple." Sure, A/E/D/U removed a lot of differentiation from the classes, but I believe that the intent was to make it easier to balance the game, as one of the chief complaints of 3.X was the disparity between martial and caster characters.

 asorel wrote:

 Red Marine wrote:
Reminds me of 4th edition D&D. Removed all the old familiar rules to make it simpler, for the kids. You know, all those D&D playing 8 year olds. In my opinion its all gonna go as well as 4th ed D&D did. With pathfinder/mantic picking up the slack.

Actually, 4th edition sold better than 3.X. And 4e combat isn't what I would call "simple." Sure, A/E/D/U removed a lot of differentiation from the classes, but I believe that the intent was to make it easier to balance the game, as one of the chief complaints of 3.X was the disparity between martial and caster characters.

I have trouble beliving 4th edition sold better. maybe the inital sourcebooks but the follow ups? thats doubtful. (every 3.x player bought the core 4th edition books. most of us promptly decided they sucked and didn't buy anymore)

but 4th edition is hardly alone in the "firebomb the game and, more importantly, the setting to try and draw in new blood" the problem is it tends to aliennate the old players whose word of mouth you need for a game to take off.

 Polonius wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Unconscious sexism is still sexism. In the "real world", unconscious bias is the most common type.

Fair enough. I think that people always color the word "sexist" with chauvanism, when that isn't always the case.

Let me amend: I don't think the rule, as written, exhibits any animosity or dislike for women. However, it is mildly discrimanatory against women.

AS you point out, the unconcious bias, in that a woman would never wnat to play it, is the real problem here.

I'm avoiding the loaded language, because one third of hte internet is devoted to calling everything sexist, while another third is devoting to denying that sexism exists. I try to move past the big language and get to the meat.

I like how you've put that.

 Polonius wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Unconscious sexism is still sexism. In the "real world", unconscious bias is the most common type.

Fair enough. I think that people always color the word "sexist" with chauvanism, when that isn't always the case.

Let me amend: I don't think the rule, as written, exhibits any animosity or dislike for women. However, it is mildly discrimanatory against women.

AS you point out, the unconcious bias, in that a woman would never wnat to play it, is the real problem here.

I'm avoiding the loaded language, because one third of hte internet is devoted to calling everything sexist, while another third is devoting to denying that sexism exists. I try to move past the big language and get to the meat.

I would agree that 'unconscious bias' is the most prevalent forms of bias. That being said, there are many (an alarmingly high number of which have influence in academia) who take wholly innocuous statements, and attempt to tease some sort of discrimination out of them, and labeling them "microaggressions."

Perhaps they're not quite so innocuous as you think they are, then.

 asorel wrote:


I would agree that 'unconscious bias' is the most prevalent forms of bias. That being said, there are many (an alarmingly high number of which have influence in academia) who take wholly innocuous statements, and attempt to tease some sort of discrimination out of them, and labeling them "microaggressions."

I'm very familiar with feminist theory, modern practice, and unconscious bias. There aspects of micro aggressions might be innocuous, and the result of overreaching, or they could be a genuine, if smaller scale, issue.

Feminists are people, and like any group of people a big chunk kind of suck.

*edit*

 Melissia wrote:
Perhaps they're not quite so innocuous as you think they are, then.

No, I'm fairly certain phrases like "where are you from" or "the most qualified person should get the job" aren't oppressing anyone.

 Melissia wrote:
Perhaps they're not quite so innocuous as you think they are, then.

I personally think the offending rules stem less from an active bias or prejudice and more from the realm of indifference.
Hmmm... humor, slapstick, put a beard on it? Why not.
There are many injustices that deserve slapping down but these arguments feel like they fit in the realm of "you are opposite sex / orientation from me therefore are inherently prejudiced."
I respect the strength and... vigor of the arguments posed but I guess I feel they lack the sense of proportion to the crime.

Agreed, silly rules, I am too unbending to get that goofy, my problem.

 asorel wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Perhaps they're not quite so innocuous as you think they are, then.

No, I'm fairly certain phrases like "where are you from" or "the most qualified person should get the job" aren't oppressing anyone.

Well... I hope that this isn't all you've taken from feminism. Asking a person where they are from is usually innocuous, but it could intimidate a person who has been stalked, which is disproportionately women. I wouldn't consider it aggressive, but it's an interesting way of demonstrating privilege.

Now... The phrase "the most qualified person should get the job" is different. It's virtually always uttered by a person speaking against any sort of affirmative action, which makes it a loaded phrase. It's also painfully naive. I've been on hiring panels for professionals, and the concept of a clearly most qualified person is a unicorn. Jobs have different aspects, and two highly qualified people can bring very different things to the table. Due to this, it's really easy to pick candidates that you like personally.

Indeed it is. That's one of the biggest problems within Human Resources today-- that, and HR not understanding the needs of the department they're hiring for.

Tbh i dont think the silly/sexist/hairist etc rules are going to be much of a problem.

I for one will be taking all such rules as a given, without the need for the stupidity

 asorel wrote:

 Red Marine wrote:
Reminds me of 4th edition D&D. Removed all the old familiar rules to make it simpler, for the kids. You know, all those D&D playing 8 year olds. In my opinion its all gonna go as well as 4th ed D&D did. With pathfinder/mantic picking up the slack.

Actually, 4th edition sold better than 3.X. And 4e combat isn't what I would call "simple." Sure, A/E/D/U removed a lot of differentiation from the classes, but I believe that the intent was to make it easier to balance the game, as one of the chief complaints of 3.X was the disparity between martial and caster characters.

I, too, am going to need sources that prove 4th ed sold better than 3.x. I mean, I started D&D with the red box set in like 1983 or some such, and was not a huge fan of the execution of 3.x (good core ideas, poor execution). 4th ed was an MMO played with dice.

 Rautakanki wrote:
I don't get it. I wouldn't pay premium for a miniature game that has my kid behaving like a jackass, and certainly wouldn't play one myself. It's so lame and unfunny it just baffles my mind. Just who is it aimed for?

Ive been trying to figure that out. Sales volume has been declining every year so there is less and less new blood and raising the prices to a prohibitive level means its out for kids. Its rules are dumbed down for people that have a hard time with "The numbers" so GW is obviously trying to broaden the audience, but are a niche, so that's an idiot move. They cant be trying to win over their own people because everyone with a brain is looking at this as a gaint clusterfeth while the sycophants, apologists and goobs are the only ones harshly promoting this and scaring people off with GWs typical cunty attitude.

That leaves who? GW isn't on social media so I don't get why they have that guy going to all the major cons to promote it when in the first 30 seconds you realize its going to be a massive dollar investment into a company that just boned a lot of people with a bait and switch move and has one of the worst public images from its own customers.

I'm just really hoping they get a whole bunch of players abusing the everliving feth out of aos in their own events. Getting into heated discussions about what is balanced in every game and rules lawyering the paint of the models, destroying elaborate bases made especially for the event, completely boxing in armies with flyers and getting WWWAAYYY to much into character.

Make it the biggest troll event in the history of ever. Ofc only actually using the warscrolls for (still) existing units.

Burn it with fire.

If I wanted to play Munchkin, Cards Against Humanity, or We Didn't Playtest This At All, I would play those games instead.

I just hope the larger-scale book for Warhammer doesn't have any of this fething nonsense. I can get it for a small game you can play when drunk, but the novelty would wear really thin in larger-scale games.

lustigjh wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
And I've seen men with bigger boobs than mine. An exception to a general rule does not disprove the existence of a general rule; IE, "it's a bad idea to drive around Israel waving a Nazi flag" is a good general rule, and while it might be possible for you to have a good time doing that, it's still kind of dumb.

So...what's your point? The rule asks you to emulate a defining feature of a specific character (his moustache) and makes no exclusions for fake moustaches. Even if it did, you're ignoring the inability of male kids and many men to grow moustaches for the sake of soapboxing about a problem that doesn't exist. Are you going to lecture us on the ageism implied by another of the new rules or just accept that the game is simply not meant to be taken seriously?

Are the models free? If they are not then then game automaticly becomes serious. And please don't compare someones inability to have facial hair, with GW writing their rules in a way that assumes no female players use them.The fact that it could be worse, someone could be on a wheel chair and play demons, only points on how bad the rules are.

I agree with Makumba, why would you pay GW prices for a joke?

Wait, are these rules actually reall or just rumors ?! this is kinda silly to make fantasy a kid game.... I mean this would be fun to do with my son,daughter, etc. maybe even being drunk with friends...But a serious pick up game? lol no