Would still mean that I am required to buy something that other people aren't in order to play the same game. That's like saying "oh you're black, here's a white mask for a dollar, wear it and you get to reroll dice for this high elf's casting roll".

 Melissia wrote:
Would still mean that I am required to buy something that other people aren't in order to play the same game. That's like saying "oh you're black, here's a white mask for a dollar, wear it and you get to reroll dice for this high elf's casting roll".

Ten dollar white mask, and it has skulls on it. You don't seem impressed, maybe it should be fifteen dollars, or twenty.

Joking aside, I agree with you.

It should be gold. And 28 USD.

Get with the program.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

I didnt Spend 10k$ on a silly kids game.

lol

Melissia is crushing this thread. I agree with her sentiments completely.

I think we can all agree that making a beard rule shows just how disconnected gamesworkshop actually is with their modern player base. Its like they never leave their offices in the past 20 years.

It reeks of severe in house promotions and keeping it in the group mentality. I can't imagine GW runs a good business when the neckbeard types are basically in the habit of keeping their friends on the payroll rather than hiring people who actually know what they're doing.

I think AoS shows that GW is very in touch with its customer base. GW knows its customers like 40k and Space Marines and don't like/care about Fantasy.

 Melissia wrote:
Ridiculous, pointless jackassery, with no redeeming features. They're rules crafted assuming that people who play WHFB are nothing more than immature neckbearded manchildren.

As an immature, neckbearded manchild I take offence! I also do not like these rules

But really, the rules are silly. If you like silly, fine, but lets call a spade a spade here, they are silly and some of us don't think silly = fun and some of us do (I don't).

As for the fact the silly rules are obviously biased toward the idea that the player base is made up of males, obviously it's true and obviously it's stupid, though admittedly I can't really bring myself to care given they are just silly rules to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
I think AoS shows that GW is very in touch with its customer base. GW knows its customers like 40k and Space Marines and don't like/care about Fantasy.

Say wha? What makes you think that? Do you have any unbiased surveys to show there's not a large pool of people who like and care about Fantasy?

I think there are plenty of customers who like and care about Fantasy. Even if the sales are down I think that has more to do with the changes GW have made over recent years rather than an actual lack of liking and caring about the game.

I, for one, liked the fact WHFB was WHFB (a regimental massed battle game) and 40k was 40k (a loose formation skirmish game). Making them the same is completely illogical to me because if I wanted to play 40k I'd play 40k.

Jumping in late I completely agree with Melissia.

It doesn't matter how minute or miniscule the bonus is, any bonus is too much. Women in this hobby are rare enough but if a new player is interested and they find out the game was designed in such a way that they cannot get some bonus due to being a woman it's going to disenfranchise them.

It also hurts those who cannot grow facial hair due to work, religious beliefs, or just ability. It may be a small tiny bonus but all it takes is for that bonus to win a game or kill one model and that ruins it.

I think these rules enforce GWs stance that they are NOT a game company. They are a MODEL company and have no interest in writing competitive rules.

I am of the opinion that behavior outside the game should have NO impact on what happens in the game. OK yes if the player is being a knob he should be disqualified in a tournament but you know what I mean...

Manchu wrote:I think AoS shows that GW is very in touch with its customer base. GW knows its customers like 40k and Space Marines and don't like/care about Fantasy.

I agree, the problem is GW long ago stopped caring about the older crowd and started targeting little Johnny, and via little Johnny, mommy & daddies pocketbook. To me it shows in their simplified rules and their current "Take whatever it's cool" mentality. Little johnny no longer needs to calculate points or worry about a FOC he can put his models down & go.

Fantasy did not do well with little Johnny. He can't hide behind 2+ armour and when his knights get flanked and crushed by skeletons, then run down & slaughtered, he feels bad. So GW removed the positioning aspect. Fantasy also had a long standing tradition fo requiring fully painted & based models with a display board. Little Johhny doesn't want to paint, he want to play.

I am not saying if you like AoS you're some dumb little kid. It is perfectly OK to like it. I don't and that's fine too. I am saying I understand I am no longer GWs target audience. Their audience is clear, for better or worse, only time will tell.

I generally find those quick to take offense are slow to think things over. This is okay, so long as the thinking over part eventually happens. Every pastime is better off without the people who never get to the thinking things over part, whether they are men or women or whatever else.

Why should non-mechanical input create mechanical output? Seemingly, to encourage enthusiasm about the fluff. What should you do if you don't like this part of the game? Change it or ignore it. What if your opponent won't let you? Don't play with them. Instead, find opponents with preferences closer to your own. This may include playing a different game but it certainly doesn't have to. Every instance of play of any game entails a social contract; don't participate in contracts with disfavorable terms.

I agree, I'm just saying I believe she is in the right to be offended. The whole "Well you can ignore that part" is irrelevant to me. The problem, to me, is the company believes it is ok to make discriminatory rules and that is not ok.

Would it be OK if skaven slaves reolled 1's to hit as long as the controlling player was white and referred to each one as "Toby"?

How about if you could negate that rule provided you were black and every time your opponent says "Toby" you replied "Koonta Kintae"?

Yes you can ignore the rule, that doesn't make it go away and that is not how discrimination should be handled, and yes it IS discrimination.

 Manchu wrote:
I generally find those quick to take offense are slow to think things over. This is okay, so long as the thinking over part eventually happens. Every pastime is better off without the people who never get to the thinking things over part, whether they are men or women or whatever else.

Why should non-mechanical input create mechanical output? Seemingly, to encourage enthusiasm about the fluff. What should you do if you don't like this part of the game? Change it or ignore it. What if your opponent won't let you? Don't play with them. Instead, find opponents with preferences closer to your own. This may include playing a different game but it certainly doesn't have to. Every instance of play of any game entails a social contract; don't participate in contracts with disfavorable terms.

I think you'll find most women (especially those in hyper male dominated cultures like gaming) have had plenty of time to think these things over.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
Would it be OK if skaven slaves reolled 1's to hit as long as the controlling player was white and referred to each one as "Toby"?

How about if you could negate that rule provided you were black and every time your opponent says "Toby" you replied "Koonta Kintae"?

Those are some pretty dramatic false equivalencies. I'm surprised you didn't mention something about burning crosses while you were at it. Back in reality, there is nothing sexist about the rule in question. As some wise person pointed out above, this rule -- if slavishly interpreted as if it were a commandment from on high -- disfavors beardless women as much as beardless men, including men who can't grow beards, or don't want to, or must avoid doing so for the sake of other commitments (such as military service), and FFS even the preteens who make up a good chunk of GW's own customer base. The rule has absolutely nothing to do with being discriminatory and everything to do with giving the unit a bit of flavor that can be adjusted to the circumstances without affecting the game in any meaningful way.

 Las wrote:
I think you'll find most women (especially those in hyper male dominated cultures like gaming) have had plenty of time to think these things over.

And so if they have not by now, you're suggesting they never will? I prefer to live in hope.

Ok rather than being black what if it was based on the shade of your skin? Sure you can tan/bleach or put on black face, still does not make it ok.

Still exclusive, still discriminatory, still not OK.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
Still exclusive, still discriminatory, still not OK.

And still a false equivalence.

Not at all.

As some wise person pointed out above, this rule -- if slavishly interpreted as if it were a commandment from on high -- disfavors Pale negros as much as Pale whites, including men who can't Tan, or don't want to, or must avoid doing so for the sake of other commitments (such as avoiding melanoma), and FFS even the preteens who make up a good chunk of GW's own customer base.

It does not matter that it can be ignored. The fact that it exists is problem enough. If you honestly can't see that, it's ok. You can keep being a red piller, that's fine, but don't be surprised when other people think you're a misogynist for it.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
You can keep being a red piller, that's fine, but don't be surprised when other people think you're a misogynist for it.

And you can keep making terrible arguments, including this ad hominem argument, but don't be surprised if educated people can't take you seriously.

 Manchu wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
You can keep being a red piller, that's fine, but don't be surprised when other people think you're a misogynist for it.

And you can keep making terrible arguments, including this ad hominem argument, but don't be surprised if educated people can't take you seriously.

But it is a discriminatory rule no matter which way you look at it. Its basing something that happens in game on a persons appearance. Game rules even for flavor shouldn't have anything to do with the player outside the game. They should be universal for any man, woman, child, black, white anyone. When you start bringing external factors into the actual game itself it becomes skewered. Simple fact is neckbeards now have an advantage based not on models or skills but based on physical appearance which happens to favour a table top gaming stereotype, furthering that stereotype.

We can pretend that all local gaming clubs are all going to be cool about it but lets be honest here. There are going to be a lot of people willing to abuse these stupid rules to win and sure you don't have to play against them but what happens when the neckbeard guys all want to play with those rules one or two nights? you're left at a disadvantage or left out completely as 6 or 7 bearded guys laugh it up playing as many games as they want. The minute game night declares that "tonight these rules are on" anyone without is at a disadvantage that night and thats really poor game design and you're then breeding segregation of players things like "Oh we want to play these rules tonight so lets not invite the girls"

At BEST it's just another and completely unnecessary barrier to women getting involved with wargaming.

I'm all for game designers making the game THEY want instead of the game they think will be politically correct. If a company wants to make a game with no female models and/or female models only represented by big breasted women in bikinis, that doesn't bother me in the slightest...

...BUT this is just unnecessarily silly discrimination that most likely exists because the game designers lacked any foresight. They could have included their silly rules in a way that wasn't immediately off putting to women at no detriment to the game itself and at no extra effort from the game designers.

Ok without the ad hominem, I'll admit it's getting heated.

Any rule, no matter how small or how ignorable, that is exclusive in nature based on factors such as a players genetic makeup is discriminatory, exclusive & should not be in a game.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
what happens when the neckbeard guys all want to play with those rules

Just for the record, complaining about "the neckbeards" does not make your appeal to non-discrimination more believable.

Now this is very important: The only reason that beards come up at all is because these make-believe creatures called dwarfs archetypically really love beards. It actually has nothing to do with the player or even real life at all; no moreso than say cosplay. This is 100% about the pretend land in which the game takes place.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
At BEST it's just another and completely unnecessary barrier to women getting involved with wargaming.

This rule is not a barrier to any reasonable person regardless of their gender.

 Manchu wrote:
It actually has nothing to do with the player or even real life at all.

Except it does. Its a rule about players in real life and effects the game, in real life.

 Manchu wrote:
Just for the record, complaining about "the neckbeards" does not make your appeal to non-discrimination more believable.

Now this is very important: The only reason that beards come up at all is because these make-believe creatures called dwarfs archetypically really love beards. It actually has nothing to do with the player or even real life at all. This is 100% about the pretend land in which the game takes place.

I never said a word about "the neckbeards" I said red pillers, different people.

And it DOES have something to do with the player & real life. Because the condition to fulfill the rule and gain the bonus must be completed in real life. Therefore it is NOT 100% about pretend land. This rule exists and is fulfilled completely outside the game in real life, meaning it DOES have something to do with it.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It actually has nothing to do with the player or even real life at all.

Except it does. Its a rule about players in real life and effects the game, in real life.

Only if you read the rule in a way that effectively ignores everything about the game, including the actual point of the rule.

 Manchu wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
At BEST it's just another and completely unnecessary barrier to women getting involved with wargaming.

This rule is not a barrier to any reasonable person regardless of their gender.

You say that as if it's fact and yet I disagree

I think we may have different definitions of "reasonable person".

I think to many "reasonable people" it would be yet another barrier... it may be a small barrier, but it is a completely unnecessary barrier that is frankly just silly and I doubt came from any intelligent design.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
You say that as if it's fact and yet I disagree

People disagree with facts all the time.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I think we may have different definitions of "reasonable person".

I think you're right. I think a reasonable person considers specific rules in the context of the larger game. I think it is unreasonable to decontextualize a rule and interpret it to fit some unrelated political ideology.

He acknowledges that the 'funny' rules are rather silly and don't make for a great intro to the system for new people. His response was that the armies in the box set don't have the silly rules. They're there as kind of a celebration and final send off of the old warhammer armies, and he said you might notice the new armies don't have the stupid noises or imaginary friends. This is deliberate, its designed that you'll only generally play the old stuff with your mates since it's a bit embarassing to play in a public place.

Might just be BS, but I thought this is interesting. I could honestly see GW trying to push people away from the old factions by making them be embarrassing to play (so that they buy the new ones). They might just be crazy enough to do it.

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2015/07/gw-answers-age-of-sigmar-questions.html

People disagree with facts all the time.

dis·crim·i·na·tion
dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: discrimination; plural noun: discriminations
1.
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Manchu. The Beard and Mustache rule by definition are discriminatory. I think you are looking at implied context as opposed to what is actually written. Author intent is virtually impossible to ascertain as reading between the lines is wholly unreliable.

 Manchu wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
You say that as if it's fact and yet I disagree

People disagree with facts all the time.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's not a fact and you are indeed mistakenly mixing up opinion with fact I know it's a pretty crazy concept, I'll leave you to let it sink in for a while

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I think we may have different definitions of "reasonable person".

I think you're right. I think a reasonable person considers rules in the context of the larger game. I think it is unreasonable to decontextualize a rule to fit some irrelevant political ideology.

You're assuming someone has actually read all the rules and spent time evaluating them to understand that the context that the author may or may not have meant was "silly rule which most people will ignore".

It's unreasonable to assume that a reasonable person should have to go through all of that to realise "oh, this stupid barrier isn't a stupid barrier, it's actually a stupid insignificant rule".

Reasonable people evaluate things at face value because it is completely unreasonable to do a detailed analysis of everything that we come across in our daily life, if we did we'd get bogged down in the details of life instead of enjoying life.

It is entirely reasonable to assume that another reasonable person (in this case, a female) will see a room full of smelly guys stroking their chins and ask "what are they doing?" and get the response "well this rule says it comes in to effect if you have a more impressive beard than your opponent, isn't that FUN??"" and naturally assume that it is a silly no-girls-allowed game made by boys for boys.

Maybe that hypothetical situation won't happen, but the fact is it doesn't even need to be a hypothetical situation because the rules could have been written in a way that wasn't like that (and still have been silly/fun/whatever).

 Nightwolf829 wrote:
Author intent is virtually impossible to ascertain as reading between the lines is wholly unreliable.

Seems more than a bit ironic to lecture me about authorial intent while proposing a conspiracy theory regarding the same ...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
You're assuming someone has actually read all the rules and spent time evaluating them to understand that the context that the author may or may not have meant was "silly rule which most people will ignore".

Yes, I expect criticism (especially serious accusations like racism or sexism) to be based on careful consideration of all the relevant information. I understand that this bar is too high for you and others posting ITT; and it is so much more self-righteously fun to fling around words like discriminatory and "red piller."

 Polonius wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
You can make a point, clearly and repeatedly, without hyperbole or harshness.

If I wanted to respond to tone-policing I'd go read Reddit or Tumblr.

For the record, I don't visit either.

I'm not policing, I'm advising. It's what I do. it's because when you butcher making your point, it's actually counterproductive. And I agree with the main thrust of your point, and watching you mangle it is like nails on a chalkboard.

And the bigger point is, how little editing did these rules go through, that somebody thought rules that favor men over women would be okay? Or, how little does GW think of their female fanbase that they wouldn't change that rule to include some other method, such as hearing runic jewelry?

One way to read this is that it's cheeky and fun, and I've got no beef with that. But this is a publically traded multinational, doing very little review of a massive relaunch. That's the big deal.

I think this is really overthinking it. Dwarfs were always all about dem beards - it's in their fluff, it's in their models - why seek discrimination and sexism where it's all about a single trope that is so vital to faction such as dwarfs in fantasy? Especially that they don't really strike me as a go-to faction for female players. But before I get crucified and castrated - I know, I know, girls can play whatever they want, but focusing on a rule like that (along with moustache one for Empire, although I saw some women who do have moustache, so it's just a matter of dedication!) makes me think about feminazis looking for issues where there actually aren't any.

Also I don't believe it's really that huge an issue - the only person I see preaching about it all over Dakka, in every single AoS thread (don't quote me on that, I know I'm exaggerating a little) is Melissia. A lot of people seem to just accept them as lulzy rules that go well along with the fluff of the character or faction for a wee bit of tongue in cheek fun. Also the rule doesn't state it has to be a natural beard, so you're free to buy a fake one and pretend to be a bearded dwarf lady for fun. For fun! Because that's what that handful of rules has been designed for. If you don't find them fun, then okay, but imho preaching about it and making it sound like some huge social problem is ridiculous.

 Manchu wrote:
Seems more than a bit ironic to lecture me about authorial intent while proposing a conspiracy theory regarding the same ...

You state your claim is fact when it is objectively wrong. I said that the statement made by someone else (that supposedly works at Games Workshop) is interesting if it is true. I then stated they might be crazy (out of touch with reality enough) to do it.

 Nightwolf829 wrote:
You state your claim is fact when it is objectively wrong.

You have failed to demonstrate as much, on either score.

To avoid the whole discussion spiralling off into this cul-de-sac of beard, I would like to remind people that the Beard Rule does not actually require you to grow or even wear a beard. You simply must "have", i.e. possess a larger, more impressive Beard than your opponent. Therefore you could just carry a comedy false beard in your game bag.

However this interpretation of the rule itself presents a different kind of discrimination, as gay men who wish to conceal their sexual inclination, often go about accompanied by attractive women for a sort of camouflage. These women are known colloquially as "Beards".

I think you will agree that an attractive woman taking an interest at any wargame event is a most impressive thing in itself and also she is almost certain to be larger than any beard you might grow or buy.

 Nightwolf829 wrote:

People disagree with facts all the time.

dis·crim·i·na·tion
dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: discrimination; plural noun: discriminations
1.
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Manchu. The Beard and Mustache rule by definition are discriminatory. I think you are looking at implied context as opposed to what is actually written. Author intent is virtually impossible to ascertain as reading between the lines is wholly unreliable.

My original section of the post relevant to our conversation. How is the beard rule, as written and without authorial intent, not discriminatory? Where in the rules does it say that my opponent must agree not to abide by those rules when asked?

 Nightwolf829 wrote:
How is the beard rule, as written and without authorial intent, not discriminatory? Where in the rules does it say that my opponent must agree not to abide by those rules when asked?

None of those questions are material to the statement at hand:

 Manchu wrote:
This rule is not a barrier to any reasonable person regardless of their gender.

You are having a merry time arguing with someone, but it doesn't appear to be me.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think you will agree that an attractive woman taking an interest at any wargame event is a most impressive thing in itself and also she is almost certain to be larger than any beard you might grow or buy.

I think you're getting into the realms of fantasy there, KK. (Which I suppose is appropriate for AoS.) But we are trying to have an important grown-up discussion about how a rule that is said to be silly is also at the same time a deadly serious matter of sexism, or anti-cleanshavenism, or something or other anyhow.

 Nightwolf829 wrote:
Where in the rules does it say that my opponent must agree not to abide by those rules when asked?

Not to mention suddenly you're spoiling the fun if you don't want to play with those rules when you show up. What if the rest want the beard rule you either play to a disadvantage or sit it out.
This would never have been an issue had they just not done this, not like these are super important and needed rules.

 Manchu wrote:

 Nightwolf829 wrote:
How is the beard rule, as written and without authorial intent, not discriminatory? Where in the rules does it say that my opponent must agree not to abide by those rules when asked?

None of those questions are material to the statement at hand:

 Manchu wrote:
This rule is not a barrier to any reasonable person regardless of their gender.

You are having a merry time arguing with someone, but it doesn't appear to be me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think you will agree that an attractive woman taking an interest at any wargame event is a most impressive thing in itself and also she is almost certain to be larger than any beard you might grow or buy.

I think you're getting into the realms of fantasy there, KK.

Well I know when I'm beat. I'll just leave this here as food for thought and be on my merry way for tonight. Cheers!

beard
ˈbird/
noun
1.
a growth of hair on the chin and lower cheeks of a man's face.
"he had a black beard"
synonyms: facial hair, whiskers, stubble, five o'clock shadow, bristles; More
2.
USinformal
a person who carries out a transaction, typically a bet, for someone else in order to conceal the other's identity.

 Nightwolf829 wrote:
a person who carries out a transaction, typically a bet, for someone else in order to conceal the other's identity

Well there you have it old bean, simply bet on the game through the fattest friend you have and you've cinched nabbing that bonus regardless of your baby-smooth cheeks plus you have managed to do it with all the overly literal panache a stickler could hope for.

Up next, "The Endless Dance" discriminates against paraplegics and middle-aged dads.

Discuss...

 Manchu wrote:
Yes, I expect criticism (especially serious accusations like racism or sexism) to be based on careful consideration of all the relevant information. I understand that this bar is too high for you and others posting ITT; and it is so much more self-righteously fun to fling around words like discriminatory and "red piller."

And now that's just unnecessarily insulting. I expect more from a mod.

Of course, I, a person who has played WHFB for 20 years, can see that the stupid rule is just a stupid insignificant rule. That was never my argument.

I said it was an unnecessary barrier for a potential player. In fact what I said exactly was "At BEST it's just another and completely unnecessary barrier to women getting involved with wargaming."

To which you replied that it wouldn't be a barrier for any REASONABLE person. To which my retort was that it's perfectly logical to think it would be yet another (albeit small) barrier to even a reasonable person.

Now you attack me by saying *I* am too lowly to base my criticism on careful consideration... as if that's not what I've been doing for all my posts in this thread.

Maybe I shouldn't be so harsh, maybe you weren't intending to insult, you simply are incapable of comprehending "careful consideration" that is not your own, that's ok, maybe the bar is too high for you?

These rules actually add a huge lot of fun when playing with kids.
I think people who get into an argument about it are completely missing the point. It is just a game with plastic dolls for God's sake...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Up next, "The Endless Dance" discriminates against paraplegics and middle-aged dads.

Discuss...

Any wargame using dice and small miniatures. Discriminates against people with poor eyesight.

Aside from the fact that you're arguing about a 4$ disadvantage in a game that costs hundreds of dollars... and even that is a stretch, because grooming an actual beard causes expenses as well, so you might be cheaper off with the fake one... I think you're massively overvaluing mechanical advantages.

Looking at all the rules, Age of Sigmar clearly isn't meant to be a competition to win. There is no attempt to balance the game whatsoever! There isn't even a point system for armies!!! You can literally put as much stuff on the table as you want, as long as it fits in your deployment zone. If you care about winning, screws beard re-rolls, bring 15000 8th edition points of models, fill your half of the table and see how you're oppoent deals with that. In other words, if you care about winning, you can break the game in an instant.

Caring about things like re-rolls still comes from a competitive mindset. But this isn't a competitive game anymore. It's a cooperative game. Like tabletop rpgs. It's a fun way of rolling dice and pushing beatifully painted miniatures around, nothing more. Who cares, who wins! And if it doesn't matter who's winning, who cares if someone gets a re-roll or not.


For the record: I think, it's a terrible idea to design a tabletop game like that and GW is greatly overestimating the number of people, who want to play that way. But under the designers premise, there's nothing wrong with the beard rules.
If they absolutely had to go in that direction, what they should have done IMO is introducing some kind of dungeon master to the game and really make it an RPG.

After getting really excited for the next edition of fantasy, and helping to convince others to get involved in it at the local store, these rules have actually ruined the game for me. Why should I act the prat in order to gain 2" on my charge, when my opponent can take a similar model and have a minimum 6" charge, for no penalty? The game is designed for two friends to play together, and not playing with friends, and having no desire to act like a prat means I'm not going to play it again. The rules seem extra ridiculous, if you are unfamiliar with the more behind them, which most new players will be

I don't want to put words in Manchu's mouth, but my understanding of his view is that it's bizarre to literally read those rules and follow/enforce them. Basically, to him, it's "blah, blah, blah, re-roll all failed to hit rolls." At most, the requirement to talk to your model or have a beard is a formality that no decent person would require. It's window dressing.

Further, while I do think the writing in these rules shows some unconscious bias, or at the least regrettable lack of editing, let's keep a little perspective on the issue here. This is one model of one army, and far more male players are affected than female. It's a very, very minor issue, and one so easily dealt with by players.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The flip side to that, is that while I doubt the author of the beard rule expected slavish devotion to such rule, the gaming community is full of people that will. Now, such people aren't the best to game with, but not everyone has the same access to a quality gaming group.

Like it or not, the rules can be used to discriminate, albeit in a minor way.

 Nightwolf829 wrote:

He acknowledges that the 'funny' rules are rather silly and don't make for a great intro to the system for new people. His response was that the armies in the box set don't have the silly rules. They're there as kind of a celebration and final send off of the old warhammer armies, and he said you might notice the new armies don't have the stupid noises or imaginary friends. This is deliberate, its designed that you'll only generally play the old stuff with your mates since it's a bit embarassing to play in a public place.

Might just be BS, but I thought this is interesting. I could honestly see GW trying to push people away from the old factions by making them be embarrassing to play (so that they buy the new ones). They might just be crazy enough to do it.

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2015/07/gw-answers-age-of-sigmar-questions.html

It's extremely note worthy that the new models do not possess any "beard rules".

We could argue them back and forth all day, but if they truly were reasonable, why not put them in the new box of models they're hoping to sell tens of thousands of, rather than the boxes they're phasing out?

You can brush it aside but that rule and others like it are (possibly intentionally) terrible rules and an unnecessary barrier to play. Which is exactly why there's nothing at all like them in the new model boxes. They're like a "fluffy" goodbye joke, not a real rule, and make it even clearer GW is not supporting that entire line. That's not a problem if acknowledged to me - but there's a reason those rules aren't in the new box set. Exactly because they're silly, frivolous, and not something that will make people want to buy their models.

RiTides is right. That's also why, like I said before, I'm giving AoS the benefit of the doubt long enough to see what their ACTUAL Dwarf rules are going to be when the faction that includes them is released (cause there's like four factions now apparently).

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Up next, "The Endless Dance" discriminates against paraplegics and middle-aged dads.

Discuss...

Any wargame using dice and small miniatures. Discriminates against people with poor eyesight.

No, it is huge advantage because you have a great excuse for all sorts of "tactical" mistakes of seeing and not seeing.

Besides, the new AOS miniatures are Ecksbocks Hueg. Try playing with 15mm, 6mm or even 2mm models!

 Iron_Captain wrote:
These rules actually add a huge lot of fun when playing with kids.
I think people who get into an argument about it are completely missing the point. It is just a game with plastic dolls for God's sake...

Totally agree, I can't believe people are still debating this whole 'beard rules' thing... It's a fun little game of plastic toys, not a front for beard-harboring anti-women illuminati.

If a little ol' thing such as Age of Sigmar silly rules gets your goat, then I hesitate to think how stressful daily life would be. Like, how do you choose what to be offended by first?

My beard is thick, manly and thoroughly impressive, its about time it got some god damn recognition... I love the new rules.
If you don't love the new rules then you are unmanly and unworthy and undeserving of your rerolls... simple as.

Side not: if i see anyone with a fake beard or moustache I'm going to rip it off their face and burn it, you need to earn your rerolls mofos.

Yes, I am unmanly. Got a problem with it?

My fake beard is gold encrusted with lapis lazuli.

No problem at all but you do if you want to play empire or dwarves.
If you do I suggest you don't play against dudes with beards, if you're opponent is clean shaven you should get the reroll by proxy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My fake beard is gold encrusted with lapis lazuli.

Pretty sure a lot of GW regular beards are also encrusted. No gold, though.

BAN wrote:
No problem at all but you do if you want to play empire or dwarves.
If you do I suggest you don't play against dudes with beards, if you're opponent is clean shaven you should get the reroll by proxy.

I so hope you're joking. Can't be sure these days.

My beard is soft and luxurious beset with bronze and silver rings and bathed in fine scented oils.

 clamclaw wrote:
It's a fun little game of plastic toys, not a front for beard-harboring anti-women illuminati.

Yeah and jet fuel can melt steel beams *rolls eyes*

well seems all the funny rules are a fond farewell to the models that are being discontinued. there will be a balancing system and there will be a tournament pack. there going to be replacing the factions with easier to protect ip versions for instance orks are becoming Ooruks. so will be intersting to see what they look like and what will become of everyone else.

http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/gw-answers-age-of-sigmar-questions.html?m=1

BAN wrote:
No problem at all but you do if you want to play empire or dwarves.
If you do I suggest you don't play against dudes with beards, if you're opponent is clean shaven you should get the reroll by proxy.

I fething hate these rules.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I understand that this bar is too high for you and others posting ITT

And now that's just unnecessarily insulting.

There is nothing to be insulted about, as this accurately reflects what you yourself posted:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
You're assuming someone has actually read all the rules and spent time evaluating them to understand that the context that the author may or may not have meant was "silly rule which most people will ignore". It's unreasonable to assume that a reasonable person should have to go through all of that to realise "oh, this stupid barrier isn't a stupid barrier, it's actually a stupid insignificant rule".

Between this and the beard thing, I conclude that you are inventing insults.

 Polonius wrote:
but my understanding of his view is that it's bizarre to literally read those rules and follow/enforce them

This is fairly accurate. It is bizarre to insist a rule (a) actually requires you to make your opponent uncomfortable and (b) absolutely must be followed under all circumstances. There could be a very weird shade of Milgram experiment to all this. But honestly I think it is just a lot of hot air for the sake of arguing on the internet.

 Polonius wrote:
Like it or not, the rules can be used to discriminate, albeit in a minor way.

Sort of like how you could theoretically kill someone with thumbtacks, I guess. I mean, it could be done but you would have to be quite a sadistic donkey-cave to do it. Frankly, isn't it much more worrisome (if you are the type to worry about such things) that the whole concept of super expensive miniature games inherently discriminates against poor people? I mean, I was once that kid who could not afford to join in the fun. Those scars are what drove me to become a heartless super villain mod! Bwahahaha!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Besides, the new AOS miniatures are Ecksbocks Hueg.

Yes, Stormcast guys are the miniatures equivalent of large print. Turns out, AoS is for oldsters rather than juves.

 Manchu wrote:
It is bizarre to insist a rule (a) actually requires you to make your opponent uncomfortable and (b) absolutely must be followed under all circumstances.

It's bizarre that the rule itself requires that, and that GW thoughtlessly put such a dumbass rule in in the first place.

Given the bizarre fact of its existence, it's hardly any more bizarre that people want to abide by it when playing the game it is a rule for.

I heard somewhere that:

"A recent interview indicates that these rules were intentional, an attempt to make using the older models "embarrassing" to play in public."

this true or unfounded? cause if true, deik move GW if you wanted fantasy gamers gone just say it you didn't have to try to embarrass us away.

They're trying to embarrass Beardy players by literally encouraging them to compete with their beards.

 Melissia wrote:
It's bizarre that the rule itself requires that

My point it is, it actually doesn't. No more so than, for example, any RPG ruleset requires the players to do anything that makes them uncomfortable or forces any of them to make each other uncomfortable.

As a general mod note, let's try not to insult each other despite the heated disagreement over these rules...

People are free to like the wacky rules, and free to dislike them - this doesn't mean one side or the other is "childish". Rule #1 at all times, please!

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
this true or unfounded?

It was posted on Faeit 212 and purports to be from "an official representative" at Forgeworld Open Day answering questions about AoS but of course there is (as usual) zero evidence to back this up and no way to know how much this alleged representative did say, if s/he actually exists and said any of it at all, versus the gloss applied by the person reporting the conversation.

 Manchu wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
It's bizarre that the rule itself requires that

My point it is, it actually doesn't.

The rule exists and is a requirement to obtain the full bonuses for a unit.

So yes.

It does require that.

 Melissia wrote:
and is a requirement

I've explained why this is false and am not interested in joining a nuh uh yeah huh spat.

 Manchu wrote:

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
this true or unfounded?

It was posted on Faeit 212 and purports to be from "an official representative" at Forgeworld Open Day answering questions about AoS but of course there is (as usual) zero evidence to back this up and no way to know how much this alleged representative did say, if s/he actually exists and said any of it at all, versus the gloss applied by the person reporting the conversation.

It originally came from a guy on the Something Awful forums, but still has zero independent verification.

 Manchu wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I understand that this bar is too high for you and others posting ITT

And now that's just unnecessarily insulting.

There is nothing to be insulted about,

I don't know about where you live, but I consider an attack on someone's capability as an insult. Seriously, I think a mod should know better. But then I guess this is the internet, where only calling someone a bad name constitutes an insult, simply saying someone isn't capable of a high level of thought is too indirect to be considered an insult?

I also find it amusing that you yourself accused another poster for making an ad hominen argument and then you turn around and make one of your own What is it you said, oh yes "don't be surprised if educated people can't take you seriously".

this accurately reflects what you yourself posted:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
You're assuming someone has actually read all the rules and spent time evaluating them to understand that the context that the author may or may not have meant was "silly rule which most people will ignore". It's unreasonable to assume that a reasonable person should have to go through all of that to realise "oh, this stupid barrier isn't a stupid barrier, it's actually a stupid insignificant rule".

Between this and the beard thing, I conclude that you are inventing insults.

How on earth does what I said imply that the bar of "careful consideration" is too high for me? Puh-lease, give me a break.

It seems you did fail to comprehend as you seem unable to put yourself in the shoes of someone else. Perhaps you shouldn't talk about other people being reasonable or too low to make careful consideration when you yourself aren't too good at reading other peoples' posts, it just makes you look like an arse.

I was not discussing *me*, I was discussing it as being a barrier for *other people*, that is, people who don't already know about Warhammer, may not know about gaming, etc. It is LOGICAL to assume that for someone who doesn't already know the game that silliness like this will be a barrier to entry because it will be off putting before they get to the point of reading the rules deeply enough to understand the intent.

If you genuinely think a "reasonable person" is one who has to read between the lines of an author they don't know in a game they don't know in a community they don't know then your bar for reasonable person is absurdly high, in fact I don't think you'd clear it yourself, in fact I think people who do belong to that group would be bordering on autistic savant

But at the end of the day, it's all unnecessary. If they really wanted to keep their silly rules they could have done it in a way that wasn't foolishly and unecessarily (albeit only minimally) exclusionary.

The last thing wargaming needs is for the rules writers to start writing rules that automatically assume players are, how did Melissa put it, "nothing more than immature neckbearded manchildren."

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
simply saying someone isn't capable of a high level of thought is too indirect to be considered an insult

I never said you weren't capable of considering all the relevant information. What you (not me) said is, doing so is unreasonable. I would bet you are completely capable of doing so. If you are intelligent enough to invent these acrobatic arguments you must be intelligent enough to realize they are terrible. I guess we both expect more out of the other.

 pretre wrote:
It originally came from a guy on the Something Awful forums, but still has zero independent verification.

The bigger question is, what does it tell us about the source and the target audience that the source expects us to believe a GW employee intentionally explained that the company wants to humiliate players in order to force them to buy new models?

The rule I find most distasteful is Wulfric the Wanderer's "Gift of Tongues," because it specifically instructs you to insult the opponent, not a character. In the 6th edition WH40K rulebook there was a "Forge the Narrative" box explicitly reminding you that if you wanted to issue a challenge IRL you should insult the enemy character, not the opponent.

If real life actions give in-game effects does it count as a loss if your opponent walks round the table and thumps you?

That's actually a great example. You're not actually supposed to really insult your opponent to the point where s/he wants to stop playing the game and physically harm you. If that is how you are reading the rule, the problem is with you.

 Manchu wrote:
That's actually a great example. You're not actually supposed to really insult your opponent to the point where s/he wants to stop playing the game and physically harm you. If that is how you are reading the rule, the problem is with you.

In fact, I think the easiest way to get Wulfrik's rule to work is to say something silly about your opponent.

 pretre wrote:
the easiest way to get Wulfrik's rule to work

Whoa whoa, none of that power gaming buddy!

 Manchu wrote:

 pretre wrote:
the easiest way to get Wulfrik's rule to work

Whoa whoa, none of that power gaming buddy!

We should start a tactics thread for which jokes are most proven to work on the most opponents.

 Manchu wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
and is a requirement

I've explained why this is false

No you haven't; you dismissed it and pretended the rule doesn't actually exist.

It's still there. It's still official GW rules, which explicitly state that these various bonuses require these various nonsensical actions in order to be applied. Denial doesn't really change this. You can houserule anything away, but if you have to houserule something because it's so stupid, then well... just admit it's stupid already.

 Manchu wrote:
That's actually a great example. You're not actually supposed to really insult your opponent to the point where s/he wants to stop playing the game and physically harm you. If that is how you are reading the rule, the problem is with you.

Well, the part about getting smacked was obviously a joke. I was thinking more along the lines of feelings getting hurt, unintentionally or otherwise. For example, there are people at my LGS with no filter who I could imagine from personal experience saying some pretty crude things to people they barely know.

The problem is with a rule that says "you can be as insulting as you dare" without including some caveat reminding you to keep the insult in character. Some people are bound to use this as an excuse to go too far.

 Melissia wrote:
you dismissed it and pretended the rule doesn't actually exist

Actually, I made a bunch of posts directly dealing with it in its context. Even provided another example:

 Manchu wrote:
You're not actually supposed to really insult your opponent to the point where s/he wants to stop playing the game and physically harm you. If that is how you are reading the rule, the problem is with you.

 pretre wrote:
We should start a tactics thread for which jokes are most proven to work on the most opponents.

A real power gamer would retort, I am insufficiently insulted so you fail to get the bonus. (Even if they are crying on the inside.) But that's a WAAC player for you.

 Fezman wrote:
Some people are bound to use this as an excuse to go too far.

Some people will use anything as an excuse to go to far. For example, some people will use a joke rule about dwarf beards to accuse strangers of sexism.

 Manchu wrote:
A real power gamer would retort, I am insufficiently insulted so you fail to get the bonus. (Even if they are crying on the inside.) But that's a WAAC player for you.

Wulfrik's rule only requires a change of expression on their face. Pretty easy to get that to happen.

 Manchu wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
It's bizarre that the rule itself requires that

My point it is, it actually doesn't. No more so than, for example, any RPG ruleset requires the players to do anything that makes them uncomfortable or forces any of them to make each other uncomfortable.

I don't disagree, but I think you're using a very specific definition of "require" that is very enlightened, but ignores that most people aren't.

You game with who you want, and you don't care enough about winning a game to do anything remotely unpleasant. That's great, but that's not how most people view the rules. You see them as tools, for people to use to amuse themselves. For a huge swath of gamers, the rules are THE RULES, in the same way a child or prisoner views the rules. I think you don't realize how different you are from many, if not most people, that are gamers. I'm hoping that's the case, because otherwise you come off as very pedantic, which I doubt.

It is the nature of most people to accept rules, as you alluded to with your reference to the Milgram Experiement. That's a social fact, and one that you cannot simply ignore. You commented that while rules could be used to hurt, you responsed by saying that so could thumbtacks. In response, thumbtacks cannot be redesigned to not be harmful. Rules can.

In the spirit of ridiculous rules, anyone that can't grow a beard or doesn't want to should instead do a big pantomime Great Big Bushy Beard: hold your hands about a foot away from your chin, the make as if your stroking a beard and say "Look at it. LOOK AT IIIIIIIT!"

Ther are also pant beards, butt beards, back beards... Think outside of the box, people.

 pretre wrote:
Wulfrik's rule only requires a change of expression on their face. Pretty easy to get that to happen.

A single tear down a beardless face.

 Polonius wrote:
You see them as tools, for people to use to amuse themselves.

Yes, I see the rules of a game as tools for amusement. I acknowledge that different folks are amused by different things -- hence why we have all these different games. And I understand, but strongly disapprove of, the slavish mindset of applying a game's rules by rote to affect malicious intent; which is an issue with the player rather than the game.

 Polonius wrote:
You commented that while rules could be used to hurt, you responsed by saying that so could thumbtacks. In response, thumbtacks cannot be redesigned to not be harmful. Rules can.

We'll agree to disagree about the possibility of a revolution in thumbtack design. Regarding AoS, any conceivable harm (absent anti-social behavior) is too insignificant to merit changing the rules much less the amount of effort we have spent talking about it. It feels like you are arguing all hallways should have safety railing installed.

 monders wrote:
In the spirit of ridiculous rules, anyone that can't grow a beard or doesn't want to should instead do a big pantomime Great Big Bushy Beard: hold your hands about a foot away from your chin, the make as if your stroking a beard and say "Look at it. LOOK AT IIIIIIIT!"

Ther are also pant beards, butt beards, back beards... Think outside of the box, people.

There's also beards as in spouses that are there to provide an impression of heterosexuality. That's available to pretty much anyone.

 Fezman wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
That's actually a great example. You're not actually supposed to really insult your opponent to the point where s/he wants to stop playing the game and physically harm you. If that is how you are reading the rule, the problem is with you.

Well, the part about getting smacked was obviously a joke. I was thinking more along the lines of feelings getting hurt, unintentionally or otherwise. For example, there are people at my LGS with no filter who I could imagine from personal experience saying some pretty crude things to people they barely know.

The problem is with a rule that says "you can be as insulting as you dare" without including some caveat reminding you to keep the insult in character. Some people are bound to use this as an excuse to go too far.

And those people will lose the game, because their opponent will pick up his army and walk out, or they will get banned from the club, or in the worst case they might get a punch in the face.

Then they can write to GW customer service to complain.

I don't believe the story that GW made the rules to annoy people. They made them for fun but haven't got their finger on the pulse of the players.

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Besides, using "SJW" as a way of dismissing someone's criticism is beneath you.

I thought I was mirroring your ironic use of the term, just like "play like you have a pair."

Now I am just confused. I had mentally attributed the Special Snowflake post to you and had been reading your posts as condescending and insulting towards anyone who might feel excluded. Now I'm not sure what you are saying.

Now I feel we are playing waltzing goal posts, instead. But as to this:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Are you seriously saying you can't understand why someone who physically can't satisfy the criteria for the "fun" rules might not think they're "fun"?

I'll recapitulate my position: any non-mechanic can be substituted for any other non-mechanic without affecting the game. At first, I was tempted to call out the overly legalistic approach to "beard rules" as a bad faith attempt to foment internet argument. But I am beginning to understand this is just part and parcel of the same mindset that cannot imagine a game without a points system being plausibly playable.

?

Are you saying that because the "beard havening" part of the rule is not a game mechanic, it doesn't matter? It comes across as if you are saying that the 'fun' parts of the rules do not affect the mechanic parts of the rules and thus can be ignored as trivial. Thus, if the dwarf entry read "The person with the lighter skin" instead of "with the longer beard" that wouldn't matter to you and you wouldn't see why anyone would get upset since they can just change it in-house? I'm seriously asking if that is what you mean, because that is how I am reading your statement.

If that is what you mean, I believe you and Stephen Colbert are the only two beings in the world capable of seeing the world with such pure optimism.

Like I said, they made the rules without giving them any thought.

 Manchu wrote:
That's actually a great example. You're not actually supposed to really insult your opponent to the point where s/he wants to stop playing the game and physically harm you. If that is how you are reading the rule, the problem is with you.

But some of the people who play this game will interpret it like that, and insult their opponent, believing that, socially, it's ok because it says they can do it on a piece of paper. Yes, that means there's a problem with that person, but a problem that would likely have been averted had there not been a rule which says to insult your opponent. Wulfic's rule has gone too far, in my opinion.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
but haven't got their finger on the pulse of the players

Not ours around here anyhow. This is a good a time as any to reiterate that while I don't think the rules are sexist, exclusionary, malicious, or intended to leverage humiliation and degradation as a marketing ploy ... I also don't think this is top quality game design. As has been pointed out, Stormcast require no jigs, reels, fox trots, waltzes, polkas, polonaises, mazurkas, ballets, or any other form of dance so far as I can tell.

bitethythumb wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


That's fair. I don't think it's conciously or maliciously sexist, but in general I just avoid the word sexist because it tends to bring the worst out of all people online.

You may have a point there.

Unfortunately, I was simply trying to be accurate, not to use the term as a pejorative, and may have stumbled into an Online Context Problem.

its capitalism not sexism

Those are not mutually exclusive. However, considering the sheer hate AoS has generated among the fanbase, I'm not sure you can really call it capitalism. At least, not successful capitalism, which gets right back to the problem.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I had mentally attributed the Special Snowflake post to you

So you made a mistake, no worries. I forgive you but I am not going to entertain your false equivalency argument.

Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
but haven't got their finger on the pulse of the players

Not ours around here anyhow. This is a good a time as any to reiterate that while I don't think the rules are sexist, exclusionary, malicious, or intended to leverage humiliation and degradation as a marketing ploy ... I also don't think this is top quality game design. As has been pointed out, Stormcast require no jigs, reels, fox trots, waltzes, polkas, polonaises, mazurkas, ballets, or any other form of dance so far as I can tell.

The Masque requires you to dance I believe? For its bonuses?

 streamdragon wrote:
The Masque requires you to dance I believe? For its bonuses?

The Masque is a Stormcast model?

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
I think you'll find most women (especially those in hyper male dominated cultures like gaming) have had plenty of time to think these things over.

And so if they have not by now, you're suggesting they never will? I prefer to live in hope.

I'm saying that you shouldn't be so dismissive toward people with infinitely more experience on a subject simply because they don't agree with you. And frankly, the manner with which you chose to do so was insulting. You should be ashamed of yourself for reinforcing the idea that women in gaming shouldn't voice their criticisms of the culture.

 Manchu wrote:
It should be gold. And 28 USD.

Get with the program.

Getting a little Eyes Wide Shut now, isn't it?

 Las wrote:
You should be ashamed of yourself for reinforcing the idea that women in gaming shouldn't voice their criticisms of the culture.

You should be ashamed of yourself for this libel.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Getting a little Eyes Wide Shut now, isn't it?

Now we can worry about socialy awkward gamers.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Up next, "The Endless Dance" discriminates against paraplegics and middle-aged dads.

Discuss...

There have indeed been posts from Dakka members with anxiety disorders and/or lack of confidence who cannot dance and who feel excluded.

You can have a laugh. Just realize that there are people reading your texts who know you are laughing at them.

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
You should be ashamed of yourself for reinforcing the idea that women in gaming shouldn't voice their criticisms of the culture.

You should be ashamed of yourself for this libel.

A woman told you they feel the rule to be discomforting, your response was "it's not, now go think your opinion through until you agree with me."

I'd say I'm pretty on the button.

 Las wrote:
your response was

More libel ... Fortunately my actual response, which amounts to dozens of posts, is recorded here and you can read them at your convenience.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Just realize that there are people reading your texts who know you are laughing at them.

Are you speaking for yourself here? -- I mean in addition to speaking for a bunch of others, including KK.

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
your response was

More libel ... Fortunately my actual response, which amounts to dozens of posts, is recorded here and you can read them at your convenience.

Are you offended? Maybe you just need to think it over some more.

 Las wrote:
Are you offended?

Nah, I have gotten used to posters saddling up the high horse and galloping off on the basis of failure to read, misattribution, and bad faith.

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I had mentally attributed the Special Snowflake post to you

So you made a mistake, no worries. I forgive you but I am not going to entertain your false equivalency argument.

You keep saying that, yet you are the only person who seems to think a product with a written statement giving advantages to a specific subset of the population can't be seen as discriminatory.

Frankly, I think you are either trolling the thread or unable to understand other people.

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
Are you offended?

Nah, I have gotten used to posters saddling up the high horse and galloping off on the basis of failure to read, misattribution, and bad faith.

I've read the thread, guy. Your entire argument about this boils down to "no it isn't, some men can't grow beards, you're too sensitive and/or unintelligent."

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Just realize that there are people reading your texts who know you are laughing at them.

Are you speaking for yourself here? -- I mean in addition to speaking for a bunch of others, including KK.

Not in this specific case, but I am a part of a certain minority and I do understand how it feels to be excluded, including the tremendous frustration it creates when you explain how someone is making you feel uncomfortable and the more mainstream people tell you to suck it up and explain to you how there isn't even a problem.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Las wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
your response was

More libel ... Fortunately my actual response, which amounts to dozens of posts, is recorded here and you can read them at your convenience.

Are you offended? Maybe you just need to think it over some more.

He'll just say it's a false equivalency. Anything that would require him to expand his mental horizons is somehow wrong.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
seems to think a product with a written statement giving advantages to a specific subset of the population can't be seen as discriminatory

Yep, I think a joke rule about dwarf beards is not a matter of prejudice. I guess that means I am trolling you?

 Las wrote:
I've read the thread, guy.

That may be so, pal. But you failed to understand it. Your summary of my argument is completely inaccurate. What I have actually argued is that interpreting the rule as a means to hurt people is contrary to the obvious purpose of the rule, which is to get people more involved in the game they are playing.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Anything that would require him to expand his mental horizons is somehow wrong.

This is nothing more than an insult. It reflects nothing about any argument I have made. I think it is time for you to reconsider how you're approaching this.

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
Are you offended?

Nah, I have gotten used to posters saddling up the high horse and galloping off on the basis of failure to read, misattribution, and bad faith.

So you're not even owning up to being offended, yet you'll respond with insults. You are the only one who doesn't seem to get what is happening. Have you even CONSIDERED, that you are the one with the comprehension problem? Has it even crossed your mind to wonder if maybe you aren't completely in the right?

 Manchu wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
The Masque requires you to dance I believe? For its bonuses?

The Masque is a Stormcast model?

oof, my mistake. "Stormcast" read in my brain as "Sigmar".

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You are the only one who doesn't seem to get what is happening.

Repeating this doesn't make it true. You just admonished KK for also not "getting" your point. And yet you have now twice told me I'm the only one who doesn't. I mean, I am not even assuming you have seen any other posts scoffing at the idea that this is a matter of prejudice.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Has it even crossed your mind to wonder if maybe you aren't completely in the right?

Sure, I considered the pages of posts before joining in and discussing the matter. But that was a rhetorical question right, rather than a sincere one I mean?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You keep saying that, yet you are the only person who seems to think a product with a written statement giving advantages to a specific subset of the population can't be seen as discriminatory.

Not the only one...

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
seems to think a product with a written statement giving advantages to a specific subset of the population can't be seen as discriminatory

Yep, I think a joke rule about dwarf beards is not a matter of prejudice. I guess that means I am trolling you?

Consider that it is. People can tell jokes about ethnic minorities and still be prejudiced. A joke based on the assumption that "we're all guys here" is discriminatory. Many people have told you why they feel the "joke" is, in fact, a problem, and you just brush them off instead of listening.

Reminds me of my coworker who used to tell racist jokes and never understood why people were upset since "it's just a joke".

It's not like the joke is even funny.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
Are you offended?

Nah, I have gotten used to posters saddling up the high horse and galloping off on the basis of failure to read, misattribution, and bad faith.

So you're not even owning up to being offended, yet you'll respond with insults. You are the only one who doesn't seem to get what is happening. Have you even CONSIDERED, that you are the one with the comprehension problem? Has it even crossed your mind to wonder if maybe you aren't completely in the right?

Emperor help me, but I'm on Manchu's side for this one. He's not the only one.

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
seems to think a product with a written statement giving advantages to a specific subset of the population can't be seen as discriminatory

Yep, I think a joke rule about dwarf beards is not a matter of prejudice. I guess that means I am trolling you?

 Las wrote:
I've read the thread, guy.

That may be so, pal. But you failed to understand it. Your summary of my argument is completely inaccurate. What I have actually argued is that interpreting the rule as a means to hurt people is contrary to the obvious purpose of the rule, which is to get people more involved in the game they are playing.

Boom. There we go. So you don't understand that intent can have an undesired effect. The intent of the rule definitely was "lol isn't this goofy and fun?" But the effect was that it happens to make some people feel excluded from the game. Your response to this has been a resounding dismissal of people's concerns because why exactly? Really, ask yourself that question. Why do the opinions of others within the community matter nothing to you simply because they are a minority?

 pretre wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You keep saying that, yet you are the only person who seems to think a product with a written statement giving advantages to a specific subset of the population can't be seen as discriminatory.

Not the only one...

Alright, I admit I was wrong. On this site, especially in OT, there are plenty of people who refuse to find anything discriminatory and will tell anyone to suck it up no matter how offensive the situation is.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
A joke based on the assumption that "we're all guys here" is discriminatory.

The joke is not based on assuming we're all guys, it's based on the unit in question being a dwarf.

 Las wrote:
So you don't understand that intent can have an undesired effect.

This is no more the actual issue than, as you also incorrectly claim, disregarding people because they are minorities. If what you are worried about is people abusing the rules (totally valid concern), then your problem is with abusive players rather than "sexist" rules.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
On this site, especially in OT, there are plenty of people who refuse to find anything discriminatory and will tell anyone to suck it up no matter how offensive the situation is.

Sure, now a vast swath of the user base is to blame because your rhetorical argument fell flat. I am actually on record on the subjects of racism and sexism in the OT by the way.

Okay, I think we've given this thread enough rope... the arguments have become circular and there are too many personal comments.

There are plenty of other threads open in this very section to discuss the rules which are full of much less personal comments, so please take discussion of the rules in general to those threads.

Discussion of racism, sexism, etc should remain in the OT forum, so this section can focus on Age of Sigmar and Warhammer Fantasy... thanks.