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

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

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

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

Joking aside, I agree with you.

It should be gold. And 28 USD.

Get with the program.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

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

lol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

Jumping in late I completely agree with Melissia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still exclusive, still discriminatory, still not OK.

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

And still a false equivalence.

Not at all.

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

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

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

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

 Manchu wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

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

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

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

 Manchu wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

People disagree with facts all the time.

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

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

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

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

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

People disagree with facts all the time.

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

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

 Manchu wrote:

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

People disagree with facts all the time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Polonius wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

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

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

For the record, I don't visit either.

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

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

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

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

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