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.

 TheDraconicLord wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If one of them is mortally wounded, their remains get revived by Sigmar's powers and the broken shell is put into a huge...steam-and-magic driven golem so that despite having their body broken, they can fight on and inspire their batte brothers.

... Ok, the moment they release Steampunk Dreadnoughts is the moment my wallet weeps.

Same here

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
GW has rarely been good at functional anything.

Yeah, not even rules ...

Been trying to get into the fluff, Just seems pretty poor, not really appealing to me at all, and im normally pretty easily pleased with fantasy and sci-fi.

I was one of the few that did not see so many similarities to space marines, but now I have read some of the fluff, its very similar to space marine stuff, some of the words too its like they use there own jokey word generator to come up with them.

I am however looking forward to seeing some Dwarves or whatever stupid name they have now, hope they get a shift on with them.

 TalonZahn wrote:

 Talys wrote:
I think that big crossbow guy is hilarious. That thing must be bigger than a 40k missile launcher, LOL.

I dig the black armor.

At least we know where the bottom half of the new SoB minis went.

Well that's depressing

I'm not a sigmarine hater but the missile troops really don't do it for me. A unit of ranged troops in head-to-toe plate armour doesn't make a lick of sense. Here's hoping we're getting to the end of this and can have some more chaos, or the other factions, soon.

 Rayvon wrote:
I am however looking forward to seeing some Dwarves or whatever stupid name they have now, hope they get a shift on with them.

"The Dispossessed" is the new name IIRC.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Maybe even female warriors look male after they have been reforged.

Female soldiers that look like a man / trap? Let's call them...Sisters of...ehm...War!

How about "Misters of Battle" :p

I thought this muight be relevant to the discussion on lack of females thus far in AOS:

(From Josh Reynolds site)

Q
Is it possible that any of the stormcast eternals were women, or members from one of the other races like aelfs and duardim?

A:
I actually asked about that. The answer I was given was...possibly? It's being left vague intentionally, was my understanding. Nothing stopping you saying yours are aelfs or whatever, if you want.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I thought this muight be relevant to the discussion on lack of females thus far in AOS:

(From Josh Reynolds site)

Q
Is it possible that any of the stormcast eternals were women, or members from one of the other races like aelfs and duardim?

A:
I actually asked about that. The answer I was given was...possibly? It's being left vague intentionally, was my understanding. Nothing stopping you saying yours are aelfs or whatever, if you want.

It's rather a cop out answer though.

migooo wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I thought this muight be relevant to the discussion on lack of females thus far in AOS:

(From Josh Reynolds site)

Q
Is it possible that any of the stormcast eternals were women, or members from one of the other races like aelfs and duardim?

A:
I actually asked about that. The answer I was given was...possibly? It's being left vague intentionally, was my understanding. Nothing stopping you saying yours are aelfs or whatever, if you want.

It's rather a cop out answer though.

Yea, it's the coward's answer. Games Workshop is afraid that many of their male players will run from the icky cooties if there are any female stormcast eternals in the actual fluff, apparently.

I'm still trying to figure out why they're so blatantly sexist (male-only knights, storm troopers, unwilling to confirm any female storm cast eternals but all the named ones are male, etc) when the guys just down the hall at Forgeworld aren't (They actually mention women in their fluff sometimes and don't dance around the issue with vague answers! And even ignore the male-only knight thing)

Wouldn't be surprised if Forgeworld at least mentions female stormcasts in their fluff someday.

 Bull0 wrote:
I'm not a sigmarine hater but the missile troops really don't do it for me. A unit of ranged troops in head-to-toe plate armour doesn't make a lick of sense. Here's hoping we're getting to the end of this and can have some more chaos, or the other factions, soon.

I agree, Im interested to see something new. Not the same model released 4 weeks in a row.

TiamatRoar wrote:


Yea, it's the coward's answer. Games Workshop is afraid that many of their male players will run from the icky cooties if there are any female stormcast eternals in the actual fluff, apparently.

I'm still trying to figure out why they're so blatantly sexist (male-only knights, storm troopers, unwilling to confirm any female storm cast eternals but all the named ones are male, etc) when the guys just down the hall at Forgeworld aren't (They actually mention women in their fluff sometimes and don't dance around the issue with vague answers! And even ignore the male-only knight thing)

Wouldn't be surprised if Forgeworld at least mentions female stormcasts in their fluff someday.

It's the smart answer. If gender is left open to your imagination, what's the downside? People who want them to be male can play them thinking they're male and vice versa. The more important question would be why you need the designer's official confirmation that they're female when you could just assume that they are...

Chopxsticks wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
I'm not a sigmarine hater but the missile troops really don't do it for me. A unit of ranged troops in head-to-toe plate armour doesn't make a lick of sense. Here's hoping we're getting to the end of this and can have some more chaos, or the other factions, soon.

I agree, Im interested to see something new. Not the same model released 4 weeks in a row.

there's probably at least 2 more kits coming for the Sigmarines

I know sadly =/

TiamatRoar wrote:



Yea, it's the coward's answer. Games Workshop is afraid that many of their male players will run from the icky cooties if there are any female stormcast eternals in the actual fluff, apparently.

I'm still trying to figure out why they're so blatantly sexist (male-only knights, storm troopers, unwilling to confirm any female storm cast eternals but all the named ones are male, etc) when the guys just down the hall at Forgeworld aren't (They actually mention women in their fluff sometimes and don't dance around the issue with vague answers! And even ignore the male-only knight thing)

Wouldn't be surprised if Forgeworld at least mentions female stormcasts in their fluff someday.

I hope FW never even acknowledges this horrid game.. They got plenty of 40k to work on, no reason to even consider female anything for AoS.

 Sigvatr wrote:

It's the smart answer. If gender is left open to your imagination, what's the downside? People who want them to be male can play them thinking they're male and vice versa. The more important question would be why you need the designer's official confirmation that they're female when you could just assume that they are...

The downside is there are no female storm cast eternals in the actual fluff. Like, anywhere, named or unnamed. Because GW is too cowardly to acknowledge that women actually exist. It's the equivalent of having a movie (or more appropriately, a series of movies) and saying "People of color MIGHT exist in this world if you use your imagination!" and yet the entire cast of every movie in the series, including the background characters, are white.

TiamatRoar wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

It's the smart answer. If gender is left open to your imagination, what's the downside? People who want them to be male can play them thinking they're male and vice versa. The more important question would be why you need the designer's official confirmation that they're female when you could just assume that they are...

The downside is there are no female storm cast eternals in the actual fluff. Like, anywhere. Because GW is too cowardly to acknowledge that women actually exist. It's the equivalent of having a movie and saying "People of color MIGHT exist in this world if you use your imagination!" and yet the entire cast of the movie, including the background characters, are white.

Right, because every single Stormcast Eternal has been named and gendered as of now...

Seriously, you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Every bit of the background that we have gotten about the generalities of the Stormcast is gender neutral. We have had male characters named, but that's as far as it has gone for gender specifics.

 Kanluwen wrote:


Seriously, you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Every bit of the background that we have gotten about the generalities of the Stormcast is gender neutral. We have had male characters named, but that's as far as it has gone for gender specifics.

If you recall my original post, it's sexism in comparison to Forgeworld (and Fantasy Flight Games and Black Library, really). Maybe it isn't an issue. However, WE HAVE COMPARISONS LITERALLY NEXT DOOR (not even in the next building. Literally in the same building, next door, down the hall!) where within the same fluff, Forgeworld is willing to acknowledge, mention, or have female characters while GW is not. And I always found that strange and puzzling.

Fantasy Flight Games and Forgeworld always states "Men and women" while GW says "mortals". Fantasy Flight Games always adds "Although they are a brotherhood, there are both men and women in the cult" or "Xerunt Frostfathers can be female, despite the masculine name" while GW just says "Brotherhood" (when GW talkes about Stormcast Eternals). And then when interviewed about it directly, Josh Reynolds just says "Maybe".

Why is GW so cowardly about this while their various subsidiaries and partners are not?


(and the gender neutrality is debatable. Sure, they always use "mortals" when saying the stormcast eternals' origins, but if you actually read the white dwarf pics here, they also always use male pronouns for them and, again, they're referred to as a "Brotherhood" without the disclaimer that FFG gives. In addition to the fact that all the named Stormcast Eternals are male, and the only way to find out that the females are a "maybe" is to go ask Reynolds directly, I think it's pretty obvious what the average buyer is going to think about them considering how much you have to go out of the way with interpretation of words for female stormcast eternals when they're always referred to as "His" and "brotherhoods". If nothing else, official confirmation of female Sigmarines might have at least helped deflect the "Space Marines... IN FANTASY!" accusations a little, which Josh Reynold's "maybe" clearly isn't going to do.)

Because characters that aren't a cross between space marines and necrons are otiose in this faction. Clearly.

You know what might have actually grabbed my interest a little? If the Sigmarines kept the aesthetic of the armored champion of their god, without all the silly slap a new coat of paint on it literal Astartes background. Instead, they should have made them Champions of Sigmar. Yes, in that way.

Someone who wants to be a Sigmarine does great deeds in the name of the Heldenhammer. If they are worthy of his notice, they may gain angelic wings, or a magical hammer, or a voice to compel the masses to rise up against Chaos...the goal is ascension to Sigmar's army, hidden away in his palace to prepare for the final assault on the Realm of Chaos or whatnot.

Of course, if they fall in the Path to Glo - er, Righteousness, the consequences are dire...they may become ever-more intolerant of non-Sigmarites, might become crazed flagellants, or worst of all, lose their humanity and become little more than hammer-wielding suits of armor.

Truly, a terrible fate.

@TiamatRoar: You are far too emotional about a business doing business. Your emotions cloud your rational thinking on this one. It's an extremely simple, smart decision by GW.

Their playerbase is male. Period. Female players are an extremely tiny minority. GW are a business. You cater to the biggest possible audience.

That is it. Male players prefer male characters in pretty much any media, be it movies, games or tabletops. Reasons for this don't matter, at all.

Why would GW ever alienate parts if its customer base? What would GW gain from changing their "Could be both!"? Nothing. They are a business and they act as one. That has nothing to do with cowardice (the term you keep throwing around), but with business sense.

You can either accept that or keep on raging about the evil company GW is. Vote with your wallet because /that/ is the only thing GW cares about.

That is it. Male players prefer male characters in pretty much any media, be it movies, games or tabletops. Reasons for this don't matter, at all.

Is that true - i remember it ebing said for video games before Tomb Raider and look at them now.............

I would agree that I think GW thinks that ......

 Sigvatr wrote:

That is it. Male players prefer male characters in pretty much any media, be it movies, games or tabletops. Reasons for this don't matter, at all.

Some of my favorite comic book, movie, television, webcomic, and even tabletop gaming characters are female. Bit of a sweeping statement, don't you think?

Malifaux, Warmahordes and Infinity have pretty good female representation in their games and they're all doing very well, so I don't think having females in the game is going to hurt their business at all. I like females in my games if for nothing more than variety in what I'm painting. 'Male players prefer male characters' definitely is a sweeping statement. Most people probably don't care, at which point why not include female models? It's not going to hurt, there's more variety, and it might get a few more female players in.

 Spinner wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

That is it. Male players prefer male characters in pretty much any media, be it movies, games or tabletops. Reasons for this don't matter, at all.

Some of my favorite comic book, movie, television, webcomic, and even tabletop gaming characters are female. Bit of a sweeping statement, don't you think?

It's a statement that refers to the average. We're talking business practice here and your personal opinion doesn't matter on that level. Don't take this as offensive to you as a person. It's just when talking about business, you need to look at the greather scheme of things and not individuals. I absolutely hate football (soccer) and am bored to death by it. Would the statement that the majority of Germans love football then be falsified by my personal opinion?

 Mr Morden wrote:

That is it. Male players prefer male characters in pretty much any media, be it movies, games or tabletops. Reasons for this don't matter, at all.

Is that true - i remember it ebing said for video games before Tomb Raider and look at them now.............

I would agree that I think GW thinks that ......

The irony here being that Ian Livingstone (one of the original founders of GW) was involved with the development of Tomb Raider....

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

That is it. Male players prefer male characters in pretty much any media, be it movies, games or tabletops. Reasons for this don't matter, at all.

Some of my favorite comic book, movie, television, webcomic, and even tabletop gaming characters are female. Bit of a sweeping statement, don't you think?

It's a statement that refers to the average. We're talking business practice here and your personal opinion doesn't matter on that level. Don't take this as offensive to you as a person. It's just when talking about business, you need to look at the greather scheme of things and not individuals. I absolutely hate football (soccer) and am bored to death by it. Would the statement that the majority of Germans love football then be falsified by my personal opinion?

Well, in that case, I would absolutely love to see your source on that data. Likewise, this isn't meant as offensive to you as a person, but it's a very broad statement and when making that kind of generalization, you need to back it up with some kind of evidence.

I'm strange. Video games, I prefer female models and characters. RPGs and miniatures, males. (I am a male)

 Sigvatr wrote:
@TiamatRoar: You are far too emotional about a business doing business. Your emotions cloud your rational thinking on this one. It's an extremely simple, smart decision by GW.

Their playerbase is male. Period. Female players are an extremely tiny minority. GW are a business. You cater to the biggest possible audience.

That is it. Male players prefer male characters in pretty much any media, be it movies, games or tabletops. Reasons for this don't matter, at all.

Why would GW ever alienate parts if its customer base? What would GW gain from changing their "Could be both!"? Nothing. They are a business and they act as one. That has nothing to do with cowardice (the term you keep throwing around), but with business sense.

You can either accept that or keep on raging about the evil company GW is. Vote with your wallet because /that/ is the only thing GW cares about.

I um... well, I think everyone else already ninja'd me on this one. But I'll echo them anyways.

Source, please?

Addendum Edit:

Besides, I thought the implication was that Age of Sigmar was supposed to attract new players in part, which is why they revamped the rules and the setting. Because I imagine the old player base, which are mostly male, wasn't bigenough for GW to do such drastic measures. If that's the case, then basically slapping half of the human population which is nearly completely untapped for its revenue potential by GW's original product with "Oh, and although it's no where in any of the official game written materials, if you ask one of the designers directly, he'll tell you that some of these guys referred to in male pronouns as brotherhoods where all the named characters are male-only might be female, maybe." seems to be kind of self-sabotaging for that.

And somehow I don't think GW will lose many players by confirming that some stormcast eternals are female. There aren't THAT many sexist men in the world who will run away screaming from GW because GW dared to infect their stormcast eternals with girl cooties.

TiamatRoar wrote:
[I um... well, I think everyone else already ninja'd me on this one. But I'll echo them anyways.

Source, please?

(besides, I thought the implication was that Age of Sigmar was supposed to attract new players in part, which is why they revamped the rules and the setting. Because I imagine the old player base, which are mostly male, wasn't bigenough for GW to do such drastic measures. If that's the case, then basically slapping half of the human population which is nearly completely untapped for its revenue potential by GW's original product with "Oh, and although it's no where in any of the official game written materials, if you ask one of the designers directly, he'll tell you that some of these guys referred to in male pronouns as brotherhoods where all the named characters are male-only might be female, maybe." seems to be kind of self-sabotaging for that.

And somehow I don't think GW will lose many players by confirming that some stormcast eternals are female. There aren't THAT many sexist men in the world who will run away screaming from GW because GW dared to infect their stormcast eternals with girl cooties.

This isn't entirely the same as it's a RPG but it reminds me of Mass Effect where a high percentage of players picked the male character. Link


I do wish there were more female models especially if they were not overly sexualised.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

That is it. Male players prefer male characters in pretty much any media, be it movies, games or tabletops. Reasons for this don't matter, at all.

Some of my favorite comic book, movie, television, webcomic, and even tabletop gaming characters are female. Bit of a sweeping statement, don't you think?

It's a statement that refers to the average. We're talking business practice here and your personal opinion doesn't matter on that level. Don't take this as offensive to you as a person. It's just when talking about business, you need to look at the greather scheme of things and not individuals. I absolutely hate football (soccer) and am bored to death by it. Would the statement that the majority of Germans love football then be falsified by my personal opinion?

Well, Germans not interested in football are not a small minority (oh the heresy!).

I don't think it's that much of a specific business decision to sell more male troops and characters than female ones. It's just... common. Especially in a war game. Female troops are over-represented in GW's range if you look at human history for comparison, and this is the usual source. And there're females in Tolkien's universe, but...

With males prefering male characters - I never heard of Dark Eldar players sorting out the females but saw some who did the opposite. I think most people want some variety in a lot of miniature ranges and GW know this very well. I suppose we'll see some females in future releases like always - those golden boys and the dwarfs later are just not the prime model range for that.