Lord Damocles wrote:
Some cultural groups might not be altogether onboard with mixed gender clubs.

Which, whilst I won’t necessarily agree, is all part of being a tolerant individual. Which is of course part of being inclusive.

As for Women Only Clubs Vs Men Only Clubs, I trust I don’t need to elaborate on why the two, thanks to misogyny, just aren’t an equal comparison? And yes. That is subject to the same case by case, tolerant “consider each club and its arguments in turn as they’re made” basis.

Just because Club A has some reason, and Club B has no reason, doesn’t mean I need to agree with both, either or neither. Because none of this is without significant grey areas.

That also, in case anyone wants to be particularly obtuse for the sake of being particularly obtuse, extends to my own wibblings on these matters.

Earlier today I commented saying that this thread is political and we shouldn't be having it in Dakka. My post just disappeared for some reason. Did the mods not like it and removed it or what happened?

Mod edit. Your post did not contribute in a constructive way, therefore it was removed. And please do not attach non-wargaming images to your posts. Off-site hosting is fine however.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Some cultural groups might not be altogether onboard with mixed gender clubs.

Which, whilst I won’t necessarily agree, is all part of being a tolerant individual. Which is of course part of being inclusive.

As for Women Only Clubs Vs Men Only Clubs, I trust I don’t need to elaborate on why the two, thanks to misogyny, just aren’t an equal comparison? And yes. That is subject to the same case by case, tolerant “consider each club and its arguments in turn as they’re made” basis.

This is a good point about such clubs. However, the whole idea of single-gender clubs is a bit of a distraction to this discussion because none of the wargaming clubs that have been discussed so far have declared themselves to be a single gender club.

I'm perfectly fine with womens-only and even mens-only clubs and gatherings of any kind, but they need to be declared as such from the outset and then they can be discussed -and I'm sure debated- as such.

All that said, anyone else feel that this discussion sort of devolved into an echo chamber largely lacking actual action steps that one might take towards diversifying the hobby and also lacking input from those whose presence would make a given club more "diverse".

I think there's a few ideas we've thrown around.

1) Icons - we've already seen this with women getting more positions in wargaming. Running paint channels, gaming channels, working in stores and such. A big one here would be more presenting content on GW+ and other big channels and soforth.

2) Representation at events - Salute had a womens panel this year which I think is another fantastic move. It's very similar to point 1, but more real world in your face and allows for engaging from both sides.

As an aside it was interesting how so many of them all told the same story that in person most people were kind and welcoming and that a lot of the hate/pushback was from online groups.

3) Moderating/language choice - I think Mad Doc rose this one up a few times. Can be tricky because until you identify specific groups and specific language issues its more of a generic consideration instead of a clear cut set of terms to avoid or such.




I do agree that one big barrier to increasing diversity is that the people from groups who are under/not represented are not in your system to be asked why they aren't there. So it can be very difficult to work out why they aren't present.

So discussions can end up going in circles and sometimes you can sit there considering that things are going well - that there are no barriers; that there are no inhibiting elements and that you are reaching out/marketing/making aware in the right way.


There's also a level of things outside of our control - things like GW or other firms using people from different backgrounds in marketing; creating themed models or just paint schemes and soforth .

 Hotzenplotz wrote:
Earlier today I commented saying that this thread is political and we shouldn't be having it in Dakka. My post just disappeared for some reason. Did the mods not like it and removed it or what happened?

Why do you believe addressing issues with a (perceived?) lack of diversity in the hobby is a political issue?

Acting like it isn't political, or is completely divorced from politics, is pretty naive in my mind.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Want to recast Jesus as Black, no problems from me. Now if you recast Storm from the X-Men as japanese, that wouldn't work.

Black Jesus is A-OK, but non-black Storm isn't? You realise how silly that sounds. You realise that the Egyptian government is kicking up a huge stink over Netflix race-swapping Cleopatra in something touted as a documentary?

But if we're talking fictional elements, then ethnic diversity, and in many cases a lack of ethnic diversity, is very important in fiction. Despite what people want to pretend, there are more places in the world that are virtually mono-ethnic than there are those that aren't. Not every part of the world looks like a cosmopolitan major Western capital or major city (and even within Western cities, racial groups tend to gather together - it's just the way reality is vs the tokenistic crap they try to push in TV/movies). Racial differences give a sense of place, geography, culture and all the kinds of things you need when world building.

Using a recent example I heard, compare Game of Thrones to The Witcher.

The Game of Thrones series goes out of its way to make each region different from one another. The people are not homogenised. The cultures are different. The styles are different. They film in wildly different locations and even use colour-grading to show a difference in places. Compare that to The Witcher, where every village and hamlet is populated like it came right out of a BBC diversity quota office. There's no sense of place anywhere, as every new location is just another copied of the same racial melting pot as the last one.

One feels lived in. One feels artificial.

I don't think I have ever seen a single "Black Jesus" in TV/Movies. A lot of white Jesus even though Jesus was probably more olive skinned.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Acting like it isn't political, or is completely divorced from politics, is pretty naive in my mind.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Want to recast Jesus as Black, no problems from me. Now if you recast Storm from the X-Men as japanese, that wouldn't work.

Black Jesus is A-OK, but non-black Storm isn't? You realise how silly that sounds.

You realise that the Egyptian government is kicking up a huge stink over Netflix race-swapping Cleopatra in something touted as a documentary?

Behold, Black madonna, mother of christ, and something most holy.


Mind you that is in the middle of switzerland which basically hadn't seen a Black person to the point when some tiraileurs sénegalése were pushed into switzerland during ww2 were at first confused and then basically surprised at the civilisationary Standards shown by their french.

Yes french/high french were considered high standards. Yes after some interactions with them the locals considered them french.


Sides that one should represent all of hummanity and the other was a ruler of a kingdom that was known for its more circular form of familiy tree. One is a semi abstract entity of believe the other is a real figur of history in a supposedly accurate depiction of history.

Fun fact , after ww2 a Lot of swiss origin US soldiers visited their homeland, often bringing friends along, some of them organised tours especialy those of that town, the Black madonna was a quite liked tourist destination regardless of skin colour.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
I don't think I have ever seen a single "Black Jesus" in TV/Movies. A lot of white Jesus even though Jesus was probably more olive skinned.

Considering he was jewish in judea, soon to be rebranded by rome, yes.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Behold, Black madonna, mother of christ, and something most holy.

Ok. And?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Behold, Black madonna, mother of christ, and something most holy.

Ok. And?

Well what is Madonna holding?

Again one is a semi abstract symbol of an universalist faith,the other is a clear defined charachter.

The problem is as you brought up the fact that it (the cleopatra "documentary") is claiming to be historicaly accurate.

The issue for cuda i think is, that the exchange of race of the clear defined charachter would fly in the charachters face, whilest the exchange of race for the literal god creating all of us as a kind of mirror image is far more fluid there.

On the examples given?

As covered, where he’s reputed to have born and lived, Jesus certainly wouldn’t have been white. The western imaging of Jesus is of course the result of it being….western. But sadly, there are still corners where showing him as anything other than blonde haired and blue eyed will lead to a book burning.

Storm however is explicitly a fictional character. So on one hand “what does her skin colour matter” seems a fairly innocuous. However consider Storm’s role in wider comics history. She is/was a relatively rare example of a non-white hero.

So whilst I agree to some extent, the importance of her character being black shouldn’t be ignored.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On the examples given?

As covered, where he’s reputed to have born and lived, Jesus certainly wouldn’t have been white. The western imaging of Jesus is of course the result of it being….western. But sadly, there are still corners where showing him as anything other than blonde haired and blue eyed will lead to a book burning.

Storm however is explicitly a fictional character. So on one hand “what does her skin colour matter” seems a fairly innocuous. However consider Storm’s role in wider comics history. She is/was a relatively rare example of a non-white hero.

So whilst I agree to some extent, the importance of her character being black shouldn’t be ignored.

I don't know one singular depiction of Jesus being blond and blue eyed. And whilest we all kinda know how he looks like skin colour technically included, that is only really relevant if we would make a historicaly accurate documentary or work. Contrary to his depiction as a symbol of faith.

That said i think with 'literary ' figures there is something diffrent at play, and that has to do with narrative consistency, which you should not damage for the sake of the stability of the charachter portrayed especialy when the charachter is recurring charachter. Hence why a lot of people are frustrated with the comic industry recently which seems to activly practition charachter arsony for no reason other than spite.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Storm however is explicitly a fictional character. So on one hand “what does her skin colour matter” seems a fairly innocuous. However consider Storm’s role in wider comics history. She is/was a relatively rare example of a non-white hero.

So whilst I agree to some extent, the importance of her character being black shouldn’t be ignored.

If you take e.g. Magneto, his past as a jewish boy that barely survived the Holocaust is a fundamental part of the character (as it motivates his distrust of non-mutant Humans - he literally has been the victim of attempted genocide, and knows that humans are capable of it even among themselves, let alone against the literal 'other' of the mutants, which he regards as a race apart from humanity) - others, like Black Panther etc. etc. are also intimately tied to a specific ethnic background. As you said, it can still matter intrinsically, and in that case changing that without a narrative reason (like e.g. alternate universes/histories where changing it is the point) is boorish and looks like fishing for controversy.

Luckily, that's kind of beside the point for the various GW universes, as their all pretty much post-race(as a concept): when literal mutants and transhumans are running around and at-will genetic mutation as well as esoteric mutation are rampant, skin colour is the least of your problems.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On the examples given?

As covered, where he’s reputed to have born and lived, Jesus certainly wouldn’t have been white. The western imaging of Jesus is of course the result of it being….western. But sadly, there are still corners where showing him as anything other than blonde haired and blue eyed will lead to a book burning.

Where is this happening? Everyone casts Jesus and Mary in their own cultural images and in the west there's more than just the Anglo-Saxon Jesus.

I’ve seen a lot of depictions of Jesus with straight hair. Most depictions I’ve seen give him light brown or blondish hair (although most of those are in Mormon settings). I don’t think I have ever seen a depiction of Jesus with a “Jew fro”. As a descendent of King David, he might have had red hair. If not that, then dark brown or black seem most likely.

 Tyran wrote:
I don't think I have ever seen a single "Black Jesus" in TV/Movies. A lot of white Jesus even though Jesus was probably more olive skinned.

American Gods is probably the closest off the top of my head. . . Even with that, Mr. Wednesday explains the in universe reason for it.

Again, we are letting the thread get derailed in minutia and navel gazing.

The question is how do you make the hobby more inclusive? The answer is you go out into the diverse communities and find out what would make them want to participate. There is probably plenty of detail out there all ready for generic products and marketing.

Then, you take this input and build a marketing plan to attract the demographics you are interested in attracting. It is not rocket science, but it is also work.

That is work that most hobby groups do not have the resources to do. It takes the industry leaders to do it and then filter what works out to the community.

 Easy E wrote:
The question is how do you make the hobby more inclusive?

Why does it need to be more inclusive though? What tangible or practical benefit is there to such a thing?

I'm all for demographics, and the targeting thereof, but there has to be a reason behind it. For most companies it's to expand potential customer bases, but far as I can tell we, here, don't have that goal, so again: What is the purpose behind increase diversity?

My group has a man of Saudi origin. Would having two of such people be better somehow? What precisely would change?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The question is how do you make the hobby more inclusive?

Why does it need to be more inclusive though? What tangible or practical benefit is there to such a thing?

I'm all for demographics, and the targeting thereof, but there has to be a reason behind it. For most companies it's to expand potential customer bases, but far as I can tell we, here, don't have that goal, so again: What is the purpose behind increase diversity?

My group has a man of Saudi origin. Would having two of such people be better somehow? What precisely would change?

More opponents?

It’s not that we need to have a one-of-each checkmark on a diversity scorecard. It’s that we want anyone and everyone to feel welcome to participate in our shared hobby. If someone out there decides to pass on 40k because “that’s just for middle aged white guys, I don’t feel like I’d be accepted” we have lost out on another potential hobbiest. Casting as wide a net as possible, making everyone feel they can join and have a place, will help our hobby grow.

More money. Basically.

Going right back to the roots? That’s the driving force here.

It’s in any products own interest to remove as many needless barriers as possible, in order to maximise custom and sales.

Cresting and inclusive and welcoming space isn’t a huge amount of effort. GW are going to paint models, write novels and produce artwork for the games anyway. Having LGBTQ+ characters….costs nothing. Showing off your models with various skin tones…costs nothing. Same with any art set in-universe. If someone can literally see themself in your universe, they’re more likely to pay attention, and then hopefully, money into your till.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The question is how do you make the hobby more inclusive?

Why does it need to be more inclusive though? What tangible or practical benefit is there to such a thing?

I'm all for demographics, and the targeting thereof, but there has to be a reason behind it. For most companies it's to expand potential customer bases, but far as I can tell we, here, don't have that goal, so again: What is the purpose behind increase diversity?

Especially in wargaming which is so heavy in art, narrative and creation, diversity is a great way to bring new ideas into the gaming community, New ways of doing things, new artistic and narrative perspectives, etc.

Also, from just a purely self-interested perspective, non-white people are becoming much larger percentages of most countries where wargaming has a major presence. If we want the hobby to thrive in the future, it is in everyone's interest to spread the hobby beyond the groups from which it currently draws. I don't think most gaming companies have the resources or knowledge to do this, so -like with most hobbies- spreading the word and growing the hobby falls to the participants in that hobby.

Suffice it to say that bringing in diverse people can benefit both the experience and the future viability of the hobby. It's a win-win, but it takes work-work.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The question is how do you make the hobby more inclusive?

Why does it need to be more inclusive though? What tangible or practical benefit is there to such a thing?

Because that is what the OP is asking about.

 ForgedSteel wrote:
what can we do as the community to encourage more people -of all walks of life- to join?

So out of respect for the OP, I figured I would try to answer his question.

But also? Why shouldn’t it be more inclusive?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But also? Why shouldn’t it be more inclusive?

While this is not true for Warhammer in particular, art tends to suffer from an artistic standpoint by focusing on being inclusive as opposed to...let's say artistically true. The idea that everything needs to appeal to everyone is absurd.

trexmeyer wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But also? Why shouldn’t it be more inclusive?

While this is not true for Warhammer in particular, art tends to suffer from an artistic standpoint by focusing on being inclusive as opposed to...let's say artistically true. The idea that everything needs to appeal to everyone is absurd.

But, since it isn't true for Warhammer, I think there's probably more value than loss in being inclusive.

trexmeyer wrote:
While this is not true for Warhammer in particular, art tends to suffer from an artistic standpoint by focusing on being inclusive as opposed to...let's say artistically true. The idea that everything needs to appeal to everyone is absurd.

How is that relevant to a setting where there isn't segregation based on race, sex, or gender within humanity, at least not from a wider cultural standpoint?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
More money. Basically.

Going right back to the roots? That’s the driving force here.

It’s in any products own interest to remove as many needless barriers as possible, in order to maximise custom and sales.

Great, and that's the corporate side of things. I'm talking about what benefit there is for those of us who aren't GW shareholders.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Cresting and inclusive and welcoming space isn’t a huge amount of effort. GW are going to paint models, write novels and produce artwork for the games anyway. Having LGBTQ+ characters….costs nothing. Showing off your models with various skin tones…costs nothing. Same with any art set in-universe. If someone can literally see themself in your universe, they’re more likely to pay attention, and then hopefully, money into your till.

Representation is important in children, but anyone who needs to see themselves represented in media - especially science fiction or fantasy filled with creatures, races and species that aren't real - probably has self-image issues. Back in the late 80's and 90's the most popular cartoons coming to Oz were of American origin. From what I recall, I never cried out in despair that there wasn't more Australian representation in the Ninja Turtles, Transformers or Dino-Riders (and Outback wasn't my default fav Transformer either).

But, if we have to change the art, stories and whatnot to draw more people in, aren't we essentially sacrificing the thing as it exists, changing it into something it is not? You're right, having an Asian Space Marine on a cover costs nothing, but I don't see that as really changing anything. That's more diversifying the imagry so Marines aren't all cloned screamy bald men.

Demographics exist for a reason. Changing something to bring in other demographics risks alienating and driving away your current demographics. Surely it would be better to make something that caters to different demographics rather than dramatically changing something that doesn't.

Changing something to bring in other demographics risks alienating and driving away your current demographics

Will more representation of other demographics in 40k drive you away? Is there a hard limit of gay genestealers that will cause nerd flight from the hobby once exceed?

I bet it would bring in or back as many players as it alienated. If it squirms the chuds out of the hobby, it’s better for everyone.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You're right, having an Asian Space Marine on a cover costs nothing, but I don't see that as really changing anything. That's more diversifying the imagry so Marines aren't all cloned screamy bald men.

Right, GW has been very generous to bald aging white dudes (no ageism here) who are usually either associated with power or prison. That said aren't all space marines technically Asian?

 Nevelon wrote:


More opponents?

It’s not that we need to have a one-of-each checkmark on a diversity scorecard. It’s that we want anyone and everyone to feel welcome to participate in our shared hobby. If someone out there decides to pass on 40k because “that’s just for middle aged white guys, I don’t feel like I’d be accepted” we have lost out on another potential hobbiest. Casting as wide a net as possible, making everyone feel they can join and have a place, will help our hobby grow.

But then there we are looking for solutions that are universal, not limited to gender or skin colour, otherwise we end up with an unlimited number of specific campaigns directed at unlimited number of social groups underrepresented in the hobby. For example fantasy gaming (and wargaming specifically) has always been dominated by metalheads. Should we create sepecific campaigns to reach out to jazz lovers or disco fans so that they feel welcome in an environment where 3 out of 4 players wear a black shirt with a goat's skull?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Using a recent example I heard, compare Game of Thrones to The Witcher.

The Game of Thrones series goes out of its way to make each region different from one another. The people are not homogenised. The cultures are different. The styles are different. They film in wildly different locations and even use colour-grading to show a difference in places. Compare that to The Witcher, where every village and hamlet is populated like it came right out of a BBC diversity quota office. There's no sense of place anywhere, as every new location is just another copied of the same racial melting pot as the last one.

When I learned that the Withcher is being translated into other languages I wondered if this book is even possible to translate it considering how innately Slavic or even Polish it is with so many non-obvious references to Polish mentality, history and culture (do the translations have these references explained btw?). Changing the Witcher world for TV like you describe is called cultural appropriation, isn't it? Taking something Polish and making it US/western EU-like. Deleting the Slavic feel or limiting it to easily digestible stereotypes to make it more managable for a western audience.

On a side note, I actually think diversity in art is a great idea, but when done sensibly. My examples are from video games. In Battlefield 1 if you wanted to play a Prussian cavalryman (so, most likely, a Prussian noble) you ended up with a black-skinned character. It's just laughable for me and actually hurts the cause because of how nonsensical and open to ridicule it is. It could have been avoided so easily! In the same game the single player campaigh starts with some action from Harlem Hellfighters. It is an awesome way of introducing the player to those heroes and teaching them some part of history that should be known better. Why no Harlem Hellfighters in multiplayer if you wanted representation ? The medic character for the British is from India and it makes a lot more sense and adds to the diversity within the game without doing a disservice to the cause, like the absurd black Prussian horsemen do.

Or the storeowner in Hogwarts Legacy telling us (a total stranger) that she has a wife. Same sex relationships were depenalised in the UK when, in the 60's? The game is supposed to take place in the XIXth century (and feels nothing like that due to characters having 100% modern mindsets). In my opinion it would be so much more compelling to let the character help a secretive gay couple and to show their hardship in these difficult times than to do something simplistic and dumb like they did.

Honestly, it's as if the producers were actively trying to jeopardise the cause by being so heavy handed to the point of absurdity.

Battlefield 1 is so far removed from "historically accurate" that they could add martian invaders and it'd be as accurate as it is now. That being said, Hellfighters would be pretty amazing to see (but then the game would have to tackle the issue of why are american black soldiers fighting under the French instead of American command...and that'd make it Political)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
More money. Basically.

Going right back to the roots? That’s the driving force here.

It’s in any products own interest to remove as many needless barriers as possible, in order to maximise custom and sales.

Great, and that's the corporate side of things. I'm talking about what benefit there is for those of us who aren't GW shareholders.

The first reply to your comment literally covered this. More people in the hobby benefits everyone: more opponents, more people making cool conversions, a greater variety ideas coming into the hobby - and also more money for the companies involved.

I'm not saying there needs to be a specific quota we're trying to reach, or that gaming groups should be exactly representative of their local communities. But it seems that there is broad agreement that diversity is lacking in the hobby, purely from anecdotal evidence in this thread. Trying to improve that situation is an overall benefit to everyone involved.

Also, it is about attracting kids. Because they’re the newbies who, if GW are lucky, stick around to become Sad Old Gits like what we am.

Is it a somewhat cynical approach? Kind of. Yeah. I guess. But inclusive is inclusive. It encourages as many folk as possible to develop a life long crippling plastic crack addiction.

What relevance do any of these examples have for Warhammer when the settings aren't historical and don't have to consider historical norms or practices?
Is the argument that GW shouldn't be putting non-straight white male-presenting characters in stories or art because it would alienate straight white males? I fit those categories and I don't feel threatened by a black space marine or a non-binary character.

The Old World setting has specific ethnicities based on where they are located. Ethnic diversity is happening in wh40k and is very well implemented - still, having black White Scars would feel weird, and I received critical comments when I painted a white Salamander.

Also, being part of a sub culture is much more important for many people than skin colour or gender. Like, seriously, whether a Warhammer tournament or an outdoor LARP encampment, these events in my entire quarter of a century fantasy gaming career have looked like side shows at the Wacken festival. Are non-metalhead players discouraged from joining or should something be done to encourage them more? What about other social groups that are underrepresented? Aren't they without number?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, it is about attracting kids. Because they’re the newbies who, if GW are lucky, stick around to become Sad Old Gits like what we am.

Is it a somewhat cynical approach? Kind of. Yeah. I guess. But inclusive is inclusive. It encourages as many folk as possible to develop a life long crippling plastic crack addiction.

That would actually be far more inclusive and easier to achieve if gw wouldn't demand exorbitant prices for plastic miniatures.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But also? Why shouldn’t it be more inclusive?

There are limits to how inclusive it can be without fundamentally changing and becoming something else.

There are people out there who consider checkers to be too complicated. You can't include them in Warhammer/miniature wargaming without effectively destroying the hobby.

There are the cultures and religions that would consider the art of painting minis to be blasphemous. Or find the idea of actually playing demons to be evil. They won't want anything to do with fantasy wargaming and therefore cannot be included.

And, of course, there are those who prefer.... shall we say, chemical stimulation to mental stimulation? Not much in mini wargaming for them.

Thankfully, these are extremes and rare.

Lots of people just prefer more physical pursuits. There, maybe the LARPing aspect GW is starting to get into might be a good way to get them included if they choose. If money is the issue, then smaller scale games with low entry costs can bring people in, and escalation leagues help them build up. (I didn't get into miniature gaming, even with D&D, until I started playing Blood Bowl in my early thirties, which eventually escalated into five armies totaling somewhere past 45,000 points so far.)

And yes, creating a welcoming environment for the newcomer goes a long way.

In other words, there are things that players can do to help inclusion. Others have to come from the corporate level. And in the end, people have to chose to be included; we can't decide that for them.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I bet it would bring in or back as many players as it alienated. If it squirms the chuds out of the hobby, it’s better for everyone.

Gay genestealers would bring people in? I would expect it to squick people out much more commonly. Sounds almost as bad as some of the more... ah, 'creatively' sculpted Slaanesh armies out there.

Besides, Rainbow Marines are apparently a thing now, so that's been taken care of. Not to mention that, by canon, Space Marines are segregated by gender and isolated from the general population most of the time. Under such conditions I'd expect homosexuality to be the norm, not the exception, among Space Marines.

I suspect the tendency of some adolescents to casually say 'that's gay!' when referring to a substandard army build chases far more people away than a lack of explicitly gay characters in canon. Which is something the adults in the room really should be keeping an eye (ear?) out for.

Cyel wrote:
The Old World setting has specific ethnicities based on where they are located. Ethnic diversity is happening in wh40k and is very well implemented - still, having black White Scars would feel weird, and I received critical comments when I painted a white Salamander.

Interesting that you ignored AoS, picked the worst example for 40k, and ignored everything but race. Why is that?

And why is it weird to have a black White Scar? They don't exclusively recruit from Chogoris and even then Chogoris is still a normal planet with people who don't all look the same. In-universe in the novel Scars a Terran recruit notes that the Vth Legion prefers to take candidates from those nations that used to be China, Mongolia, and Japan, which the recruit believes defeats the purpose of Unification.
The Salamander thing is just people being silly. Unless you're painting an entire army of white Salamanders, a couple isn't a problem because the geneseed mutation isn't necessarily instant.


With regard to the Old World, I disagree. People migrate between the various human states as traders, refugees, or simply just people looking for a change. As far as I'm aware GW hasn't made it explicit that the Empire or Bretonnia actively repress those people not from specific provinces of their lands so why is it a problem if I paint my Bretonnia Paladin as a non-white person? Can someone from Araby or Cathay not pledge to the Lady and take the code of Chivalry? Can someone whose family came from Ind not serve in an Elector Counts State Troops? Why not if so? Nobody is arguing that Karl Franz be made into a black man so why does it matter if some models in an army aren't white guys?

 Gert wrote:

Cyel wrote:
The Old World setting has specific ethnicities based on where they are located. Ethnic diversity is happening in wh40k and is very well implemented - still, having black White Scars would feel weird, and I received critical comments when I painted a white Salamander.

Interesting that you ignored AoS,

I just ignore AoS existance in general and feel better this way in a similar vein to Terminators after the first 2 or the fourth Indiana Jones movie.

So just gonna ignore the rest as well then?

I actually agree with everything you said in the rest of your post.

You may feel I am against this diversity. I am not. I'm just against it being introduced in a heavy handed, indiscriminate way.

 Gert wrote:

Cyel wrote:
The Old World setting has specific ethnicities based on where they are located. Ethnic diversity is happening in wh40k and is very well implemented - still, having black White Scars would feel weird, and I received critical comments when I painted a white Salamander.

Interesting that you ignored AoS, picked the worst example for 40k, and ignored everything but race. Why is that?

With regard to the Old World, I disagree. People migrate between the various human states as traders, refugees, or simply just people looking for a change. As far as I'm aware GW hasn't made it explicit that the Empire or Bretonnia actively repress those people not from specific provinces of their lands so why is it a problem if I paint my Bretonnia Paladin as a non-white person? Can someone from Araby or Cathay not pledge to the Lady and take the code of Chivalry? Can someone whose family came from Ind not serve in an Elector Counts State Troops? Why not if so? Nobody is arguing that Karl Franz be made into a black man so why does it matter if some models in an army aren't white guys?

Many of these things are not only reasonable conclusions to draw from the background, but are actively mentioned as existing, even in older lore. There are Ambassadors, Traders, the Bretonnians but also some Imperial Knightly Orders do crusades in foreign lands like Numas and Zandri and have holdings there, Arabian merchants and their entourages get around a lot, up to and including to Marienburg and even Norsca, trade with Cathay and Ind exists both by sea and along the Ivory Road, there's the Border Princes, Tilea and Estalia that have more mixed population and produce a lot of travelling warbands and mercenary companies, several factions that travel the whole world are infamous for raiding and enslaving people from all sorts of countries - these people could easily be sold in the Imperium, get rescued after battles against these slave-holding factions, or escape on their own and end up in a foreign land. And that's before we get into entirely magical modes of transportation and translocation, which also exist both under the control of factions and as more-or-less random forces of nature.

Cyel wrote:
I actually agree with everything you said in the rest of your post.

You may feel I am against this diversity. I am not. I'm just against it being introduced in a heavy handed, indiscriminate way.

Good to know you agree. But I don't get what "heavy-handed" and "indiscriminate" are supposed to mean in the context of Warhammer. You need to actually explain what you mean and not just use buzzwords because without context they are utterly meaningless.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But also? Why shouldn’t it be more inclusive?

There are limits to how inclusive it can be without fundamentally changing and becoming something else.

I feel like we've two sides of the argument going on, but each is arguing at a different stance.

Those arguing for means and method to improve diversity tend to do so from the view of outreach, removal of barriers and marketing. Ergo not actually changing the product, but changing its presentation and such. So things like using more diverse presenters; different marketing tactics to appeal to different groups; removing racist comments (most accidental) from communities and so forth. Basically methods that mean the GW product doesn't change, but that its presentation does.
We've already seen this too in the market in general - more women getting into the hobby not because GW (And every other brand) threw out thousands of female models, but because we got more and more painters, youtubers, gamers, panels and soforth all showing women having fun and engaging with the hobby. Which in turn has helped attract others and encourage others to step past the threshold.


Those arguing against diversity methods, or at least against overt moves to increase diversity; tend to be arguing from a product and lore viewpoint. That of not wanting to see "female space marines" or dramatic shifts in ethnic groups (Arabian Bretonnia etc...). Even if some of these changes are actually not changes in the lore itself (eg Space Marines do recruit from many worlds and the Imperium has a vast diversity of racial and social backgrounds). And even if many changes are often things encouraged by gamers when converting their own armies (I've never seen anyone opposed to someone converting an army set of rules to work with a converted army with a different visual/cultural/whatever theme - heck I've seen people build MLP style armies).


As a result of this divergence both sides are kind of arguing past each other and only connecting every so often on the extremes.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Many of these things are not only reasonable conclusions to draw from the background, but are actively mentioned as existing, even in older lore. There are Ambassadors, Traders, the Bretonnians but also some Imperial Knightly Orders do crusades in foreign lands like Numas and Zandri and have holdings there, Arabian merchants and their entourages get around a lot, up to and including to Marienburg and even Norsca, trade with Cathay and Ind exists both by sea and along the Ivory Road, there's the Border Princes, Tilea and Estalia that have more mixed population and produce a lot of travelling warbands and mercenary companies, several factions that travel the whole world are infamous for raiding and enslaving people from all sorts of countries - these people could easily be sold in the Imperium, get rescued after battles against these slave-holding factions, or escape on their own and end up in a foreign land. And that's before we get into entirely magical modes of transportation and translocation, which also exist both under the control of factions and as more-or-less random forces of nature.

Ah... well, we are talking about a broadly medieval setting, yes?

In general, ambassadors, traders, nobles, and what-not generally don't commonly join the armies of the lands they're visiting in broadly medieval settings. And even if they were willing to join the army of the land their visiting, would the leadership of that army trust them enough to let them join?

Even more pointedly, no, those crusaders in Arabay are most definitely NOT fighting as part of the Arabay army; they're there to fight against Arabay...

Why are there even crusades in Araby when there is no holy land for Sigmarites or followers of the Lady in Araby to begin with.

Anyway, to my knowledge there is no real reason why all Empire people must be caucasian beyond the unstated fact that Old World is just eurasia with serial numbers filed off.

 Vulcan wrote:

Ah... well, we are talking about a broadly medieval setting, yes?

We actually are not, the Old World setting has outliers that are late-medieval or from completely different epochs like ancient egypt, like e.g. Bretonnia, but is for the most part squarely rooted in Renaissance and early modern times - the Empire uses gunpowder and steam engines and is mostly modelled on 16th and 17th century clothes and modes of organisation (for example, the whole Elector Count thing started in the 13th century in the Holy Roman Empire, and ended in 1806, i.e. just barely in the 19th century. The late medieval is considered to range from the 13th to the last decacdes of the 15th or the first decades of the 16th century). Tilea is literally a filed-the-serial-numbers-off version of Renaissance Italy, including a knockoff Leonardo da Vinci. Dwarves use steam and gunpowder, and so on. We have knockoff Marco Polo (13th and 14th century) and knockoff Columbus (15th and just barely 16th century, again) as things that happened in the (recent) past of the setting. Other stuff happening in the setting, like the founding of universities and colleges (of magic and engineering, in Warhammer) also match real-world events that are commonly used as markers that divide the late medieval era from the early modern era in various contexts (these are by no means fixes dates, and can shift around a bit depending on context. A common marker, for example, would be the 'discovery' of the Americas, but that is kinda useless if you're talking about e.g. an educational context). Excuse me for nerding out for a moment, but i find the early modern era intensely fascinating and read a lot about it

 Vulcan wrote:


In general, ambassadors, traders, nobles, and what-not generally don't commonly join the armies of the lands they're visiting in broadly medieval settings. And even if they were willing to join the army of the land their visiting, would the leadership of that army trust them enough to let them join?

Even more pointedly, no, those crusaders in Arabay are most definitely NOT fighting as part of the Arabay army; they're there to fight against Arabay...

Yes, yes, but all these people and events include a lot of minders, entourages, servants, fellow travellers, guards, seafarers, mule-drivers and whatever else makes up the delightful careers available in the old world, and presents a myriad of possibilities how some person from Cathay could have ended up in Altdorf or whatever. It serves as an argument that it is certainly not impossible to have some black people or whatever in your force, if you want to, and it is certainly not 'breaking the setting'.

 Overread wrote:
I feel like we've two sides of the argument going on, but each is arguing at a different stance.

Those arguing for means and method to improve diversity tend to do so from the view of outreach, removal of barriers and marketing. Ergo not actually changing the product, but changing its presentation and such. So things like using more diverse presenters; different marketing tactics to appeal to different groups; removing racist comments (most accidental) from communities and so forth. Basically methods that mean the GW product doesn't change, but that its presentation does.
We've already seen this too in the market in general - more women getting into the hobby not because GW (And every other brand) threw out thousands of female models, but because we got more and more painters, youtubers, gamers, panels and soforth all showing women having fun and engaging with the hobby. Which in turn has helped attract others and encourage others to step past the threshold.


Those arguing against diversity methods, or at least against overt moves to increase diversity; tend to be arguing from a product and lore viewpoint. That of not wanting to see "female space marines" or dramatic shifts in ethnic groups (Arabian Bretonnia etc...). Even if some of these changes are actually not changes in the lore itself (eg Space Marines do recruit from many worlds and the Imperium has a vast diversity of racial and social backgrounds). And even if many changes are often things encouraged by gamers when converting their own armies (I've never seen anyone opposed to someone converting an army set of rules to work with a converted army with a different visual/cultural/whatever theme - heck I've seen people build MLP style armies).


As a result of this divergence both sides are kind of arguing past each other and only connecting every so often on the extremes.

Interesting you pick one line out of that post to quibble with, and ignore everything else that was said.

I can point at my Brettonian army and say 'this one is from Arabay, this one is chinese, this one is norse, etc. etc. etc. and you can't say otherwise for the simple reason that they're all in full suits of armor with great helms, no skin exposed. I can even say 'these ones are women' and again, full suits of armor go a long way to hiding gender as well. I can eve say 'these two with the same heraldry are a gay couple' and there's nothing you can say in response.

Does any of this affect how the game plays? Nope. Is it even likely to ever come up when discussing my personal army? Probably not. It's irrelevant to the game, and barely relevant to the players.

Sure, I could have painted all my Dwarves as Japanese and called them O-Bakemono, but in the game they'd still just be dwarves.

One of the guys I used to play regularly had converted his ogres to be some form of blue Chinese demons, complete with the big straw hats. Still functioned as ogres.

He's also a white make, which means instead of being diverse, he's probably now guilty of cultural appropriation.

Which is a problem in and of itself. When white guys do games about white guys it means we're being exclusionary, which is WRONG. If we do games about non-white non-men, it's cultural appropriation and is WRONG. So when you've written the rules so that everything I do is WRONG, what is my motivation to try and be RIGHT?

It can't all come from me. You've got to meet me halfway. Or is the point not to be all-inclusive... but to include everyone BUT me?

 Vulcan wrote:
Ah... well, we are talking about a broadly medieval setting, yes?

In general, ambassadors, traders, nobles, and what-not generally don't commonly join the armies of the lands they're visiting in broadly medieval settings. And even if they were willing to join the army of the land their visiting, would the leadership of that army trust them enough to let them join?

Even more pointedly, no, those crusaders in Arabay are most definitely NOT fighting as part of the Arabay army; they're there to fight against Arabay...

It's closer to the Renaissance than Medieval Europe, at least for the Empire, Border Princes, Tilea, and Estalia. Bretonnia is very much that Arthurian/French mix of medieval fantasy but the Empire is far more modern. Regardless of that these traders, ambassadors, and nobles aren't just going around by themselves but with caravans or entourages who will mingle with the locals. Sometimes these people will stay behind or bring new companions home with them. That's how migration works and it's absolutely reasonable to have non-whites in an Empire or Bretonnia army.

Angronsrosycheeks wrote:
Why are there even crusades in Araby when there is no holy land for Sigmarites or followers of the Lady in Araby to begin with.

Anyway, to my knowledge there is no real reason why all Empire people must be caucasian beyond the unstated fact that Old World is just eurasia with serial numbers filed off.

Well, yeah, that's pretty much it. It's basically European history, which is basically just Caucasian history. It would be like having Cathay armies being black or Ind armies being Japanese.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

Ah... well, we are talking about a broadly medieval setting, yes?

We actually are not, the Old World setting has outliers that are late-medieval or from completely different epochs like ancient egypt, like e.g. Bretonnia, but is for the most part squarely rooted in Renaissance and early modern times - the Empire uses gunpowder and steam engines and is mostly modelled on 16th and 17th century clothes and modes of organisation (for example, the whole Elector Count thing started in the 13th century in the Holy Roman Empire, and ended in 1806, i.e. just barely in the 19th century. The late medieval is considered to range from the 13th to the last decacdes of the 15th or the first decades of the 16th century). Tilea is literally a filed-the-serial-numbers-off version of Renaissance Italy, including a knockoff Leonardo da Vinci. Dwarves use steam and gunpowder, and so on. We have knockoff Marco Polo (13th and 14th century) and knockoff Columbus (15th and just barely 16th century, again) as things that happened in the (recent) past of the setting. Other stuff happening in the setting, like the founding of universities and colleges (of magic and engineering, in Warhammer) also match real-world events that are commonly used as markers that divide the late medieval era from the early modern era in various contexts (these are by no means fixes dates, and can shift around a bit depending on context. A common marker, for example, would be the 'discovery' of the Americas, but that is kinda useless if you're talking about e.g. an educational context). Excuse me for nerding out for a moment, but i find the early modern era intensely fascinating and read a lot about it

 Vulcan wrote:


In general, ambassadors, traders, nobles, and what-not generally don't commonly join the armies of the lands they're visiting in broadly medieval settings. And even if they were willing to join the army of the land their visiting, would the leadership of that army trust them enough to let them join?

Even more pointedly, no, those crusaders in Arabay are most definitely NOT fighting as part of the Arabay army; they're there to fight against Arabay...

Yes, yes, but all these people and events include a lot of minders, entourages, servants, fellow travellers, guards, seafarers, mule-drivers and whatever else makes up the delightful careers available in the old world, and presents a myriad of possibilities how some person from Cathay could have ended up in Altdorf or whatever. It serves as an argument that it is certainly not impossible to have some black people or whatever in your force, if you want to, and it is certainly not 'breaking the setting'.

Never said it would break the setting. Merely pointing out that non-Caucasians are going to be a very distinct minority in most WFB armies, as WFB is set in Caucasian-majority lands. There most certainly could be a few of whatever ethinicity you please be part of your army. Indeed, there's a canon special character for the Bretonians, Sulamein le Saracen, who is most definitely from Arabay. I don't have one, because he's been out of print for a LONG time and has become pretty stupid expensive on e-Bay. But I keep looking.

But I reiterate: An Empire army that is depicted with mostly Indian or African troops is not going to look right, any more than an Ind or Cathay army composed mostly of Caucasians.

 Gert wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Ah... well, we are talking about a broadly medieval setting, yes?

In general, ambassadors, traders, nobles, and what-not generally don't commonly join the armies of the lands they're visiting in broadly medieval settings. And even if they were willing to join the army of the land their visiting, would the leadership of that army trust them enough to let them join?

Even more pointedly, no, those crusaders in Arabay are most definitely NOT fighting as part of the Arabay army; they're there to fight against Arabay...

It's closer to the Renaissance than Medieval Europe, at least for the Empire, Border Princes, Tilea, and Estalia. Bretonnia is very much that Arthurian/French mix of medieval fantasy but the Empire is far more modern. Regardless of that these traders, ambassadors, and nobles aren't just going around by themselves but with caravans or entourages who will mingle with the locals. Sometimes these people will stay behind or bring new companions home with them. That's how migration works and it's absolutely reasonable to have non-whites in an Empire or Bretonnia army.

Very crisply put

I wanted to add that 'medieval' is a hell of a thing to be 'broadly' - if we use the most extreme definitions that have some standing in academic circley, that covers just about exaclty 1500 years, for the begin of the reign of Emperor Constantine in 306 to the official dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 (which coincidentially also the time that an identity called the Roman Empire that was explicitly having Christianity as state religion existed in some form, and is why these two points are somewhat acceptable to older generations of historians). That time period contains so much change that summarizing it all as a single thing is laughable; someone from the very end of it would be literally alien to someone from the start. For example, we have a good handful of completely different societal models in it, and that's not even starting to consider economical, social, moral etc. factors.

The Old World isn't even a relevant setting currently. It will be again eventually but AoS is the primary fantasy setting for GW regardless of whether people acknowledge its existence or not and in AoS there is absolutely no reason why representation and diversity shouldn't be a thing.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Ah... well, we are talking about a broadly medieval setting, yes?

In general, ambassadors, traders, nobles, and what-not generally don't commonly join the armies of the lands they're visiting in broadly medieval settings. And even if they were willing to join the army of the land their visiting, would the leadership of that army trust them enough to let them join?

Even more pointedly, no, those crusaders in Arabay are most definitely NOT fighting as part of the Arabay army; they're there to fight against Arabay...

It's closer to the Renaissance than Medieval Europe, at least for the Empire, Border Princes, Tilea, and Estalia. Bretonnia is very much that Arthurian/French mix of medieval fantasy but the Empire is far more modern. Regardless of that these traders, ambassadors, and nobles aren't just going around by themselves but with caravans or entourages who will mingle with the locals. Sometimes these people will stay behind or bring new companions home with them. That's how migration works and it's absolutely reasonable to have non-whites in an Empire or Bretonnia army.

Very crisply put

I wanted to add that 'medieval' is a hell of a thing to be 'broadly' - if we use the most extreme definitions that have some standing in academic circley, that covers just about exaclty 1500 years, for the begin of the reign of Emperor Constantine in 306 to the official dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 (which coincidentially also the time that an identity called the Roman Empire that was explicitly having Christianity as state religion existed in some form, and is why these two points are somewhat acceptable to older generations of historians). That time period contains so much change that summarizing it all as a single thing is laughable; someone from the very end of it would be literally alien to someone from the start. For example, we have a good handful of completely different societal models in it, and that's not even starting to consider economical, social, moral etc. factors.

That's fair.

However, I will also point out that the world of WFB includes cultures which are every bit as historically diverse as that wide variety of 'broadly medieval European' cultures you've just mentioned...

The Old World is not our world, even if it's modeled on our world. And I would not expect to see a Caucasian majority army from Ind any more than I'd expect to see an Hindi-majority army from the Empire.

Of course, if that's what floats your boat, it's your army and your minis. Paint 'em however you like, come up with whatever fluff you like to justify it. So long as you play by the rules why should I care?

 Gert wrote:
The Old World isn't even a relevant setting currently. It will be again eventually but AoS is the primary fantasy setting for GW regardless of whether people acknowledge its existence or not and in AoS there is absolutely no reason why representation and diversity shouldn't be a thing.

Yes, and also-also, Diversity in the setting is not the same as diversity in the community - one can certainly help the other (and the other way around, eventually), but they're very distinct concepts. And i find it a bit telling that people start to argue against the one and almost invariably end up argueing against the other.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I feel like we've two sides of the argument going on, but each is arguing at a different stance.

Those arguing for means and method to improve diversity tend to do so from the view of outreach, removal of barriers and marketing. Ergo not actually changing the product, but changing its presentation and such. So things like using more diverse presenters; different marketing tactics to appeal to different groups; removing racist comments (most accidental) from communities and so forth. Basically methods that mean the GW product doesn't change, but that its presentation does.
We've already seen this too in the market in general - more women getting into the hobby not because GW (And every other brand) threw out thousands of female models, but because we got more and more painters, youtubers, gamers, panels and soforth all showing women having fun and engaging with the hobby. Which in turn has helped attract others and encourage others to step past the threshold.


Those arguing against diversity methods, or at least against overt moves to increase diversity; tend to be arguing from a product and lore viewpoint. That of not wanting to see "female space marines" or dramatic shifts in ethnic groups (Arabian Bretonnia etc...). Even if some of these changes are actually not changes in the lore itself (eg Space Marines do recruit from many worlds and the Imperium has a vast diversity of racial and social backgrounds). And even if many changes are often things encouraged by gamers when converting their own armies (I've never seen anyone opposed to someone converting an army set of rules to work with a converted army with a different visual/cultural/whatever theme - heck I've seen people build MLP style armies).


As a result of this divergence both sides are kind of arguing past each other and only connecting every so often on the extremes.

It can't all come from me. You've got to meet me halfway. Or is the point not to be all-inclusive... but to include everyone BUT me?

I wasn't really quibbling, I was making an observation on the nature of the debate being made. It's not exclusive to you, I was just raising the point in observation in general.

Again we are hitting that separation of diverse increase in the community looking at the community increasing diversity not the actual product/lore; again its a spot where the debate is getting stuck because two sides (not the only two sides) are kind of glancing comments past each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Gert wrote:
The Old World isn't even a relevant setting currently. It will be again eventually but AoS is the primary fantasy setting for GW regardless of whether people acknowledge its existence or not and in AoS there is absolutely no reason why representation and diversity shouldn't be a thing.

Yes, and also-also, Diversity in the setting is not the same as diversity in the community - one can certainly help the other (and the other way around, eventually), but they're very distinct concepts. And i find it a bit telling that people start to argue against the one and almost invariably end up argueing against the other.

Put what I was saying into far fewer words

 Overread wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Gert wrote:
The Old World isn't even a relevant setting currently. It will be again eventually but AoS is the primary fantasy setting for GW regardless of whether people acknowledge its existence or not and in AoS there is absolutely no reason why representation and diversity shouldn't be a thing.

Yes, and also-also, Diversity in the setting is not the same as diversity in the community - one can certainly help the other (and the other way around, eventually), but they're very distinct concepts. And i find it a bit telling that people start to argue against the one and almost invariably end up argueing against the other.

Put what I was saying into far fewer words

If you want it even snappier: It's about people at the table, not people on the table.

Agreed. Howling Banshees or Witch Elves never translated to large numbers of female wargamers.

The Old World argument falls apart when you realize only European cultures are portrayed with any car for accuracy. Mesoamericans, South Americans and Africans are all
Lizarpeople.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, it is about attracting kids. Because they’re the newbies who, if GW are lucky, stick around to become Sad Old Gits like what we am.

Is it a somewhat cynical approach? Kind of. Yeah. I guess. But inclusive is inclusive. It encourages as many folk as possible to develop a life long crippling plastic crack addiction.

That would actually be far more inclusive and easier to achieve if gw wouldn't demand exorbitant prices for plastic miniatures.

We’re in agreement here.

Great point, this thread is about diversity around the table.

Now, an argument could be made that the diversity around the table could be improved with diversity on the table too. However, that is the least likely driver.

The biggest driver is communities not only being inclusive to different players showing up around the table, but actively courting and asking diverse folks to take a place at the table.

To respond to the gay Genestealers comment, I think it is something that should be explored in lore. Now, pure strains are canonically pansexual—they will impregnate any sapient hey can hold down with their reproductive cells. But what happens when they “impregnate” a gay man or woman? Does the victim feel compelled to breed? Do they bring in a same sex spouse and fulfill other functions for the brood? Does any experience “in the closet” make them better infiltrators, or does their sudden change in priorities give them away?

For me, I already know what happens if a Genestealer gets someone like me. The metaphor for the cucked parent tricked into raising his cuckoo offspring taps into a trope with a lot of cultural weight, taking a real life “horror” and exaggerating it. So, what trope or subconscious horror would genestealer implantation tap for LGBT gamers? What would be the experience of a gay implanted or a 2nd/3rd gen genestealer uninterested in breeding with the opposite sex? Where is the hook for those gamers?


PS: Fo Genestealers only target sapients? Are there grox or ambull broods out there?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
To respond to the gay Genestealers comment, I think it is something that should be explored in lore. Now, pure strains are canonically pansexual—they will impregnate any sapient hey can hold down with their reproductive cells. But what happens when they “impregnate” a gay man or woman? Does the victim feel compelled to breed? Do they bring in a same sex spouse and fulfill other functions for the brood? Does any experience “in the closet” make them better infiltrators, or does their sudden change in priorities give them away?

For me, I already know what happens if a Genestealer gets someone like me. The metaphor for the cucked parent tricked into raising his cuckoo offspring taps into a trope with a lot of cultural weight, taking a real life “horror” and exaggerating it. So, what trope or subconscious horror would genestealer implantation tap for LGBT gamers? What would be the experience of a gay implanted or a 2nd/3rd gen genestealer uninterested in breeding with the opposite sex? Where is the hook for those gamers?


PS: Fo Genestealers only target sapients? Are there grox or ambull broods out there?

afaik, only sapients, and assuming that the reproductive system get's highjacked as is implied atleast in the codices i own one would assume that sexual identity would be forcefully overridden in order to generate more cycles. Alternatively if not capable to do so (which is unrealistic, we are talking about a splinter hive mind with immense psychic presence and mortal humans), it may well be that they are treated as "fodder" or "waste" / biomass to feed the patriarch and princelings.
Iow, just as you "devolve" mentally into a subject in all manners if you get the "kiss" and considering the immense controll of the patriarch and later hive mind you'd basically lose that aspect of your identity since it's useless.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
To respond to the gay Genestealers comment, I think it is something that should be explored in lore. Now, pure strains are canonically pansexual—they will impregnate any sapient hey can hold down with their reproductive cells. But what happens when they “impregnate” a gay man or woman? Does the victim feel compelled to breed? Do they bring in a same sex spouse and fulfill other functions for the brood? Does any experience “in the closet” make them better infiltrators, or does their sudden change in priorities give them away?

For me, I already know what happens if a Genestealer gets someone like me. The metaphor for the cucked parent tricked into raising his cuckoo offspring taps into a trope with a lot of cultural weight, taking a real life “horror” and exaggerating it. So, what trope or subconscious horror would genestealer implantation tap for LGBT gamers? What would be the experience of a gay implanted or a 2nd/3rd gen genestealer uninterested in breeding with the opposite sex? Where is the hook for those gamers?

These are interesting matters, but are not exactly stuff for codex lore or BL books - which is a shame, but they want to write mostly inoffensive shlock, not deep introspections into human nature. It's a topic that maybe could get a fair chance in either the Warhammer Horror or Warhammer Crime imprints, but i think 'mainstream' GW is just to gun-shy to approach any of that. They barely acknowledge sexuality exists at all in any detail, even though they have a whole god of depravity and related stuff in their settings, obviously the stick to the ruleset where ultraviolence is okay, but boobs are risky and anything further than that is right out.

In theory Genestealers have 2 roles when infiltrating

1) Weaken the current top species to be low/now threat when a hive fleet comes

2) Convert enough stealers that it generates enough of a signal to lure in a hive fleet.


This latter one is why if nothing comes to eat the Cult, the Cult will just keep growing and go from 1 planet to a system to potentially many systems.




So in theory they could take over other species. Heck stealers taking over Eldar is a thing, though rather like Chaos taking over Eldar and such, its not something we get represented at table level and thus also tends to be minor in the lore

I would also expect the Genestealer bio-curse to operate in a more complex way than simply messing with the sexual drive.

That's because civilization has gotten very good at separating sexual drive from actual reproduction (contraception and abortion on one side of the equation, IVF and sperm/eggs banks on the other), so simply messing with the sex drive is unlikely to work on any post-industrial civilization.

So I imagine that the bio-curse doesn't necessarily touches sexuality but rather imprints an actual desire to be parent.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
To respond to the gay Genestealers comment, I think it is something that should be explored in lore. Now, pure strains are canonically pansexual—they will impregnate any sapient hey can hold down with their reproductive cells. But what happens when they “impregnate” a gay man or woman? Does the victim feel compelled to breed? Do they bring in a same sex spouse and fulfill other functions for the brood? Does any experience “in the closet” make them better infiltrators, or does their sudden change in priorities give them away?

For me, I already know what happens if a Genestealer gets someone like me. The metaphor for the cucked parent tricked into raising his cuckoo offspring taps into a trope with a lot of cultural weight, taking a real life “horror” and exaggerating it. So, what trope or subconscious horror would genestealer implantation tap for LGBT gamers? What would be the experience of a gay implanted or a 2nd/3rd gen genestealer uninterested in breeding with the opposite sex? Where is the hook for those gamers?

These are interesting matters, but are not exactly stuff for codex lore or BL books - which is a shame, but they want to write mostly inoffensive shlock, not deep introspections into human nature. It's a topic that maybe could get a fair chance in either the Warhammer Horror or Warhammer Crime imprints, but i think 'mainstream' GW is just to gun-shy to approach any of that. They barely acknowledge sexuality exists at all in any detail, even though they have a whole god of depravity and related stuff in their settings, obviously the stick to the ruleset where ultraviolence is okay, but boobs are risky and anything further than that is right out.

 Easy E wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The question is how do you make the hobby more inclusive?

Why does it need to be more inclusive though? What tangible or practical benefit is there to such a thing?

Because that is what the OP is asking about.

 ForgedSteel wrote:
what can we do as the community to encourage more people -of all walks of life- to join?

So out of respect for the OP, I figured I would try to answer his question.

Thank you! I appreciate the response!

Vulcan wrote: Which is a problem in and of itself. When white guys do games about white guys it means we're being exclusionary, which is WRONG. If we do games about non-white non-men, it's cultural appropriation and is WRONG. So when you've written the rules so that everything I do is WRONG, what is my motivation to try and be RIGHT?

It can't all come from me. You've got to meet me halfway. Or is the point not to be all-inclusive... but to include everyone BUT me?

I don’t think anyone in this thread has argued from that position though.

The closest I think we came was touching on the difference between a culture influence on a design, and a design being based on a cultural stereotype.

This is the thorny issue of course. Because no culture is homogenous. One person might be genuinely offended by the model. The next might not care at all. And there’ll be lots of opinions in between.

Example of personal experience? I’m Scottish. In my own peculiar way as I live in England, I’m sort-of minority. I personally get offended by Bad Scottish Accents in film and TV. I personally might find a Scots inspired model range too reliant on stereotypes. I find the Nac Mac Feegle hilarious. I find CalHab (a relatively short lived Judge Dredd spinoff, written by a Scot, insultingly offensive. Another Scot may have entirely different, or indeed no opinions upon those. Indeed there will quite possibly be as many opinions as there are Scots. All of us right in our own opinion. Because we’re not homogenous. There’s no newsletter sent round tell me what to clutch my Kilt and shoot “Hoots!” over.

Ultimately it’s not for anyone else to tell me what I should or shouldn’t find offensive. Especially a person that isn’t a Scot. Yes, that has happened. Not that long ago here on Dakka as it happens.

And here’s where the true problem of Cultural Appropriation comes from. Because as with a lot of issues and areas riddled with nuance and grey areas, it’s the Bad Faith Actors you need to watch for, as quite often, they’ll be randomers trying to dictate what is or isn’t offensive. This can include people not of a culture trying to say something is cultural appropriation, and the same from the other side of the argument. And yes, you do (as is appropriate for this example) get “No True Scotsman” arguments. That somehow if the next Scot in line isn’t bothered by something, they have to hang up their Haggis and turn in their Caber because Wee Jock McPlop has decided they speak for all, and No True Scotsman can ever disagree with Wee Jock McPlop and his pal, Toley Joe,

So yeah. Nuance. Significant grey areas. All I ask as someone to whom a representation of their culture can appear in various media, is that people listen if I see it as problematic. Not agree. Not do anything. Just….listen.

Side question, Doc - what do you think of people from England who move up to Scotland and adopt the Scottish cultural trappings, including wearing kilts?

 Easy E wrote:
Great point, this thread is about diversity around the table.

Now, an argument could be made that the diversity around the table could be improved with diversity on the table too. However, that is the least likely driver.

The biggest driver is communities not only being inclusive to different players showing up around the table, but actively courting and asking diverse folks to take a place at the table.

yeah, for all the screeching in this thread about quotas and tokenism and all kinds of fever dreams, the actual actions we'd be talking about is we maybe just act and talk like we're not afraid of girls or minorities, and run events in places that don't scare them off.

Don’t really have an opinion on that to be honest.

It irks me when English blokes wear a Kilt to a wedding, if only because they’re almost certainly only doing it for attention.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Don’t really have an opinion on that to be honest.

It irks me when English blokes wear a Kilt to a wedding, if only because they’re almost certainly only doing it for attention.

To be fair, everything done at a wedding is for attention. My first though at my wedding wasn't "I want people thinking about how easy it is to reach my junk" but different strokes, you know?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
To respond to the gay Genestealers comment, I think it is something that should be explored in lore. Now, pure strains are canonically pansexual—they will impregnate any sapient hey can hold down with their reproductive cells. But what happens when they “impregnate” a gay man or woman? Does the victim feel compelled to breed? Do they bring in a same sex spouse and fulfill other functions for the brood? Does any experience “in the closet” make them better infiltrators, or does their sudden change in priorities give them away?

For me, I already know what happens if a Genestealer gets someone like me. The metaphor for the cucked parent tricked into raising his cuckoo offspring taps into a trope with a lot of cultural weight, taking a real life “horror” and exaggerating it. So, what trope or subconscious horror would genestealer implantation tap for LGBT gamers? What would be the experience of a gay implanted or a 2nd/3rd gen genestealer uninterested in breeding with the opposite sex? Where is the hook for those gamers?


PS: Fo Genestealers only target sapients? Are there grox or ambull broods out there?

afaik, only sapients, and assuming that the reproductive system get's highjacked as is implied atleast in the codices i own one would assume that sexual identity would be forcefully overridden in order to generate more cycles. Alternatively if not capable to do so (which is unrealistic, we are talking about a splinter hive mind with immense psychic presence and mortal humans), it may well be that they are treated as "fodder" or "waste" / biomass to feed the patriarch and princelings.
Iow, just as you "devolve" mentally into a subject in all manners if you get the "kiss" and considering the immense controll of the patriarch and later hive mind you'd basically lose that aspect of your identity since it's useless.

Sure. But I imagine if the scenario were written by someone with an LGBT perspective, they might be able to mine some real horror gold with tropes about being forced to live a lie, or even darker SA as conversion therapy (a form of real violence exaggerated by grimdark aliens into nightmare fuel. The Ciaphas Cain books already use date rape tropes to add horror to Genestealer implantation.). There are plrobably angels and nuances I wouldn’t ever think of from my experiences that could add layers of meaningful horror to a genestealer infestation.

Even just “use them as fodder” could become weighty for a community that often has to deal formerly-loving parents disowning and expelling them when they are most vulnerable.

"every man woman and child saw a different face, a different skin tone, a different temperament, when they looked upon the emperor"
From The Master of Mankind

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
To respond to the gay Genestealers comment, I think it is something that should be explored in lore. Now, pure strains are canonically pansexual—they will impregnate any sapient hey can hold down with their reproductive cells. But what happens when they “impregnate” a gay man or woman? Does the victim feel compelled to breed? Do they bring in a same sex spouse and fulfill other functions for the brood? Does any experience “in the closet” make them better infiltrators, or does their sudden change in priorities give them away?

For me, I already know what happens if a Genestealer gets someone like me. The metaphor for the cucked parent tricked into raising his cuckoo offspring taps into a trope with a lot of cultural weight, taking a real life “horror” and exaggerating it. So, what trope or subconscious horror would genestealer implantation tap for LGBT gamers? What would be the experience of a gay implanted or a 2nd/3rd gen genestealer uninterested in breeding with the opposite sex? Where is the hook for those gamers?


PS: Fo Genestealers only target sapients? Are there grox or ambull broods out there?

Does this actually get explored in the fluff of 40K? Major squick right there. No wonder the average woman wants nothing to do with 40K!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Have your read the Deathwatch novels - the "interactions" between the Stealer hybrids and female non-members of the cult is pretty brutal - physically and mentally!

Anyone ever consider the impact of this sort of fluff on the average woman? This is EXACTLY the sort of thing that keeps women away in droves.

Which brings us back to my point. IF this sort of thing is integral to the Genestealers, then changing it changes the nature of Genestealers. But if you don't change it you can't realistically expect more women 40K players.

So what's the priority for GW? Making the game more appealing to women, or keeping the nature of the Genestealers intact?

That's not a rhetorical question.

The xenomorph in Alien is a metaphor for sexual violation exaggerated into something monstrous. With Genestealers, it’s not even a subtext. It’s the text.

Most GW books don’t really dwell on Genestealers. The Ciaphas Cain books do. Guardsmen go out for an evening on the town…and wake up in an alley or something the next morning, sometimes injured, with no memory of how they got there. Sometimes they remember trusting a friendly face. In the end, they are considered tainted by their former friends and isolated (then killed). That’s taking the horror of Cosby and putting a monster face on it. It comes from a similar kind of disturbed horror as the xenomorph. That kind of horror has to resonate on some level besides scary fangs and claws.

Of course all that is assuming you can take 40k seriously enough. Kinda hard to have horror when you are very well aware the whole thing is just a pretext to roll some dice and move plastic toys.

I mean, not really covered.

I’d say the true horror of GSC is the Cult aspect. That once infected, you’re utterly beholden to the will of an utterly, unfathomably alien mind. Your children are hideous crossbreeds, yet you have utterly unconditional love for them. You free will is just…gone.

It doesn’t matter what your orientation or preferences were before. That’s…all overridden. Terrifyingly for me? You’re happy about it.

Total, irreversible brainwashing. Your will bent to the whims of another, with no way back.

Also worth keeping in mind the “kiss” of a Genestealer isn’t a Genestealer trying to do the mattress mambo with you. The main evidence of implantation according to a Cain novel is a small mark on the neck, and thanks to the hypnotism aspect, amnesia on the infectee.

Beyond that, the rest just…isn’t covered. There’s no mention of female infectees just becoming baby farms, or standard relationship within a culture being overridden. There’s no mention of male infectees forcing themselves upon anyone.

So the horror is largely left to the reader.

The DW novel people are referring to with regard to GSC is not good, at least not the actual GSC aspect of it. Its a really bad shock and awe section that has AFAIK not been replicated in other books or in Codexes. Instead of an actual insidious Cult it's literally just Aliens with the whole hive aspect and it was disturbing to read but not in a "good" way.

The newer books with GSC are unsettling rather than disturbing and it works far better. You still have the aspect where some women are compelled by the Patriarchs control to couple with a Hybrid and produce more members for the Cult but its nowhere near the Alien-r**e-fantasy stuff in that DW novel. The Cults are far more insidious and based around truly integrating into a society to remain as hidden as possible rather than having r**e-meetings in the local town hall to boost the Cults numbers.

Honestly? I find the removal of free will the creepiest aspect of the GSC. It’s the same sort of dread as I get from the Leagues of Votann, where their passions and focus seem to be the result of genetic engineering, to make them more efficient and less truculent workers. To have your entire self overwritten by another, and in doing so, losing the capacity to care that it happened in the first place.

Genuinely horrifying.

It's getting off track thanks to a dumb sidebar that deliberately misses the point.
Diversity doesn't mean players pick out and tell people the sexual orientation or gender identity of their models and nobody who is pro-diversity is saying it is.
When it comes to gender identity and sexual orientation that's where the novels and named characters come in. Portraying characters that represent a variety of things such as race, sex, gender or sexual orientation as normal people because that's what the are, normal.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:



Sure. But I imagine if the scenario were written by someone with an LGBT perspective, they might be able to mine some real horror gold with tropes about being forced to live a lie, or even darker SA as conversion therapy (a form of real violence exaggerated by grimdark aliens into nightmare fuel. The Ciaphas Cain books already use date rape tropes to add horror to Genestealer implantation.). There are plrobably angels and nuances I wouldn’t ever think of from my experiences that could add layers of meaningful horror to a genestealer infestation.

Even just “use them as fodder” could become weighty for a community that often has to deal formerly-loving parents disowning and expelling them when they are most vulnerable.

A persons conscience is nothing more than a combination of material place of it (body), memory and a selfrealisation, out of which you maybee are willing to assume that we have a will and controll over the first, on the most fundamental level. Or don't. Ultimatly it's irrelevant since language seems to indicate that we atleast assume that we have a will due to having concepts of responibility and agency but that is basically violence torwards wittgenstein using language theory to justify theories about free will.
Genestealers warp the memories as they do the body and reduce the selfrealisation (or expand) from an "individual body - mind structure" into an collectivly connected hivemind in which your former self get's obliterated by the demands of the collective which you serve happily as you have always. Or atleast get manipulated into serving the totality represented by it, if you want to use Adorno.

Again. There is nothing LEFT that you could qualify as a consciousness with free will, bar the memories warped by an utterly alien entity, of the person, you don't require a specific background to realise the utter alien horror and the literary gestus of pointing to the fact that said person lost their "will" / Consciousness.

IF you attribute agency to a person with conscioussness then it becomes even worse, because fundamentally you aren't even a severly impaired person anymore, you are nothing more than part of the organism that is represented spiritually by the Patriarch of the cult, incidentally the only being then justifying the descriptor of person. And even he represents nothing more than a severly impaired person so long the hive mind isn't within reach to take over. Your patriarch is nothing more than a single cell for an organism so large it travels between galaxies, you yourself are nothing more than a single atom making up that cell, arguably even less.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The question is how do you make the hobby more inclusive?

Why does it need to be more inclusive though?

Why shouldn't it be? Why should we not want more people to be encouraged to join in, in the same ways we were all once encouraged to join?

I'm all for demographics, and the targeting thereof, but there has to be a reason behind it.

More people = more good. And why should those people only come from a select few demographics?

My group has a man of Saudi origin. Would having two of such people be better somehow? What precisely would change?

Why would it be worse if more joined in?

H.B.M.C. wrote:Representation is important in children, but anyone who needs to see themselves represented in media - especially science fiction or fantasy filled with creatures, races and species that aren't real - probably has self-image issues.

Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. Honestly, sounds like you're painting a pretty big brush there, and I don't think you intend it with any sort of sympathy or empathy.

Maybe some people *do* have image problems, because they see things like "why do we NEED diversity", implying that people need to justify why they should be welcomed into community groups?

Maybe that's a reason why representation is important - to tell people that "hey, those chuds asking you to justify your presence in the community? We don't agree with that".

Better yet, in media that is fantastical and unrealistic, as you say, why is there a need for "accuracy"? It's filled with things that aren't real - why not include some of the real things in there?

Demographics exist for a reason. Changing something to bring in other demographics risks alienating and driving away your current demographics.

I'll ask you the same question that you asked: "why do we need to pander to our current demographics though?"

Now, the obvious answer is "because why would we do that, that's just mean to people who have an interest in our material and their fee-fees might be hurt". Good. We understand empathy. Why shouldn't that empathy extend to people who want to join in, or otherwise might appreciate an olive branch? And why are we trying to appeal to people who get upset that other people are allowed to be a part of the same community?

Surely it would be better to make something that caters to different demographics rather than dramatically changing something that doesn't.

Describe these "dramatic changes"?

Gert wrote:Portraying characters that represent a variety of things such as race, sex, gender or sexual orientation as normal people because that's what the are, normal.

Ding ding ding, we got a winner.

Diversity isn't about "we need to fill our quotas of XYZ folks", it's about "XYZ folks exist, because that's normal, and we are normalising the existence of XYZ folks in this world". When we see uproar about "oh WOW look they added a gay character, oh WOW they added a black character, oh WOW they added a trans character, etc etc - look how WOKE they are" - that implies that gay, black, trans, etc folks *aren't* normal, and that their very existence is some kind of political slight. And, as we've seen from certain figures in the warhammer hobby, those things *are* seen as "woke" or "political" (case in point, Decimus Felix).

"Diverse" folks are normal. Why are we debating whether to allow normal people and normal things into our fantasy games?

 Gert wrote:
It's getting off track thanks to a dumb sidebar that deliberately misses the point.
Diversity doesn't mean players pick out and tell people the sexual orientation or gender identity of their models and nobody who is pro-diversity is saying it is.
When it comes to gender identity and sexual orientation that's where the novels and named characters come in. Portraying characters that represent a variety of things such as race, sex, gender or sexual orientation as normal people because that's what the are, normal.

So things done at the corporate level and that we have no control over then.

Open your favorite search engine, type in Bud Light, and search for News.

As a bonus, open Youtube and search for Bud Light Compilation.

I understand that this might not be big news outside of the US, but you should understand why GW and other corporations might be unlikely to go in this direction in the future.

Yeah because you can't control or influence every single thing within the wider hobby. You can foster an welcoming environment where people feel safe to be themselves. You can challenge bigots within the community and you don't stop fighting bigots because complacency is how they get in. That is what you can do.

 Gert wrote:
Yeah because you can't control or influence every single thing within the wider hobby. You can foster an welcoming environment where people feel safe to be themselves. You can challenge bigots within the community and you don't stop fighting bigots because complacency is how they get in. That is what you can do.

At the core of it, it's about not being a raging donkey-cave edgelord personally, stopping people you personally know from being raging donkey-cave edgelords as well if you can manage, and excluding the people that fail to clear this very, very low bar after you gave them enough chances to be better. Literally the first step to being a diverse environment is being an environment people of all walks of life want to actually enter and be part of, instead of being kind of just stuck there by the fact that other, more sensible places won't have them, because they're raging donkey-caves. A test, again, this community sadly fails in a lot of places. I won't call out specific people, but take a look into any of the 'hot' 40k 10th edition threads in this very forum, and try for a moment to look at it from the perspective of a person new or even just casually interested in the hobby. Look at the way people there treat each other, talk to each other, talk about the game and each other, and ask yourself from a vantage point that is as neutral as you can manage, if you wanted to invest time and money to become a member of a community that is represented to you, for now, by that thread.

Before you can work towards fostering diversity, specifically, it would pay well to foster a livable community in general first.

(Not talking about 'you' you personally, but in general, of course)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Honestly? I find the removal of free will the creepiest aspect of the GSC. It’s the same sort of dread as I get from the Leagues of Votann, where their passions and focus seem to be the result of genetic engineering, to make them more efficient and less truculent workers. To have your entire self overwritten by another, and in doing so, losing the capacity to care that it happened in the first place.

Genuinely horrifying.

But that’s just one layer.

When the Borg turned Picard into Locutus, that was a violation. I think Picard actually likened it to rape once, even though it wasn’t sexual. They took his bodily autonomy away from him, used him as their vessel. The Genestealers do that. And they utilize xenomorph SA horror. And Cronnenberg body horror. They fit in a number of horror aspects that appeal to different people. That’s why they resonated and became a big part of the setting where psychneuen, enslavers, and gyrinxes did not.


They combined different ideas and different perspectives of horror into one creature. And even if those aspects aren’t graphically explored in most of their appearances, they’re not exactly hidden either.


Bringing in more perspectives helps make the setting richer. Bring in more, and maybe another faction finds new life.

We can make the hobby as welcoming as is humanly possible, yet still the hobby will not appeal to some.

People have a wide range of tastes, even within the hobby we see a large diversity of appeal. For some it is the models, for some it is the painting, for some it is the conversion aspect, for some it is the tournament scene, for some it is the lore, for some it is the story telling, for some it is the social aspect, etc.

No demographic is homogeneous, so not everything is going to appeal to everyone. Which is totally fine, all part of the rich and wonderful human experience of life.

 Gert wrote:
Yeah because you can't control or influence every single thing within the wider hobby. You can foster an welcoming environment where people feel safe to be themselves. You can challenge bigots within the community and you don't stop fighting bigots because complacency is how they get in. That is what you can do.

Can do, should do, and in my case have been doing.

But it's worth remembering we're not omniscient; if someone in the far corner is muttering terrible things I can't hear from 20 feet away there's precious little I can do about calling it out unless I'm told about it. If I miss a week and someone in my group is being creepy toward a woman who wanders in while I'm not there, there's not a lot I can do about it at the time it occurs, and again I can't do anything about it if I'm not told about it until years later.

 Gert wrote:
Yeah because you can't control or influence every single thing within the wider hobby. You can foster an welcoming environment where people feel safe to be themselves. You can challenge bigots within the community and you don't stop fighting bigots because complacency is how they get in. That is what you can do.

I actually think you can go one step further, and actually reach-out and go to places where diverse ideas and groups are represented and then invite them to join you in the hobby. You can demo the hobby to them in their existing spaces, so they are not putting themselves at risk, you are the one showing vulnerability to them by exposing yourself to their critique. That is a very powerful statement of intent.

However, that maybe a bit too extreme for many folks. However, our hobby (of wargaming) needs to go to where the people are and try to recruit them to join us where we are; rather than waiting for people to wander into our realms. The HMGS does an Ok job at this from what I have seen, often going out to local schools and libraries to show how Wargaming can be a tool for learning. Now, imagine this concept but asking to be invited to the local GSA (Gay-Straight Alliance) meeting to talk to them about wargaming, or the local AA group, or the local ELKS, or the local BLM, or the local Shriners, or the local Mormon church, etc.?

That is the next level in my mind. It is not about creating a safe space within your safe space. It is about be willing to go out into other people's safe space and inviting them to join you in yours. That is a step I have only tentatively started myself, and it is not easy and is scary to put yourself out there.

I agree outreach is a very powerful too. GW already uses it to great effect through schools programs and such in the UK and GW 100% know that if they can snare you - even just as an interest - as a kid; then there's a bigger chance that you'll go on to develop an interest in the future.


Benefit to local groups doing it over GW is that you can tap into a wider range of games to show off and demo; which can mean even more potential chance to get people into the hobby.

I also think you've got ot think a bit outside the box and not just focus on the fun hobby side. GW, again, often makes use of advertising the game to parents by showing how it can help with social skills; maths; problem solving; hand-eye skills; art; confidence etc... Basically a whole bunch of stuff that is beyond just having fun. Things that, say, parents might well respond well too.


This separation can be a big thing because it might well be the parts that get people to step over the threshold.
I think it also gives you more to talk about and engage with beyond "its fun trust me its fun" kind of approaches



Even if you don't go to them directly, targeted advertising (fliers, leaflets, talking to key social leaders); can all help when combined with general open-days or demo-days.
Days where you focus on getting as many new people through the door to demo games; see what goes on; ask questions and such.

Such events can also be popular because you can get a bunch of new people all in the door at once so they feel reinforced by having other newbies along with them.

- removed