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.

 conscriptboris wrote:

Issues being, the biology of 40k has inherently been linked to our universe. This isn't a galaxy long time ago, far away etc. This is the human timeline of Earth. Only the top 0.1% of men qualify for space marines. It is intentionally created to be the most impossible level of achievement, failure is death. What about the 99.9% of men excluded? How is that fair? (shall we revert Space Marines to RT's Humans in Power Armour?, Thunder Warriors were more powerful than Firstborn, shall we make a crappier version again?) The top 0.1% of female dont cut the grade when compared to the op 0.1% of males. So it is just tokenism. Early 40k did an amazing job of carving out female representation in the imperium, including other models (Inq/DH etc).

SoB - Power Armoured soldiers, as the church wasnt allowed 'Men at Arms', a genius way to circumnavigate archaic laws.

SoS - These needed fleshing out, maybe the emperor could have made them? And could only link the pariah gene to women.

I've always found this appeal to realism argument so funny because it just shows off that the people who have it have zero media literacy at all.

People think 40k is this gritty speculative fiction series where all things operate according to reality unless otherwise noted due to said speculative fiction elements ala A Song of Ice and Fire. Only it's not. It's an extremely high fantasy/soft science fiction series where rule of cool is the only consistent law of physics and where women, particularly at the top levels, are just as physically capable as men are when it comes to being fighters (as opposed to real life where that is obviously not the case). It's less Game of Thrones and more DC Comics, where despite being women Lady Shiva and Cassandra Cain/the second Batgirl will beat the fething brakes off of Batman in a fist fight and do so easily despite him being much larger and also a man. We're talking about a setting where enough people believing in something literally makes it true.

In 40k the best unaugmented soldiers in the Imperium are the Sisters of Battle and of Silence (I think some fluff says the latter are somewhat augmented but the majority of fluff says otherwise). Even without their powered armour a Sister of Battle is on par with the skills of a Tempestus Scion, the elite of the Imperial Guard, in terms of statline, and their own elites blow Scions out of the water. Even Repentia, who don't have the powered armour, are much better hand to hand fighters than any Imperial Guardsman unit that doesn't consist of Ogryn.

Funny how the argument of "women 2 weak to be recruited for the spess mehreens" doesn't seem to apply to the similarly augmented Officio Assassinorum who recruits women along with men all the time. And if women are so much weaker than men in 40k why was the hulking melee combatant in Eisenhorn's retinue at the start of the second book Ravenor's seven foot tall Amazonian girlfriend? Why has not a single one of the officially licensed 40k RPGs given a penalty to women in strength, weapon skill, or any other stat?

The argument that recruiting from women is a waste of time because they're weaker is stupid. 40k isn't that kind of setting and hasn't been one for years, maybe decades. And yet I'm largely fine with Spess Mehreens continuing to all be men. I do think the thematic parallels between them and monk/knightly bands of brothers works well. There's a reason beyond just the dumb technobabble for it to be the case.

Which is not the case with Custodes. People post the fluff stating that all Custodes are/were all men, but nobody can provide an excerpt stating why that is. Because there never was a deeper reason beyond either original writers not doing it or current writers like ADB being barred from doing so because the sculptor for the heads didn't do any female ones. So why keep this bit of fluff that has no reason to exist and never really did? It provides nothing to their lore and just keeps 51% of the population from being represented in the faction. That's all the old fluff did. There was nothing of value there and if you disagree you're merely wrong.

Yeah, this seems like a super weird hill to die on. Especially since Sisters are way the hell better thsn guardsmen.


On a side note- I have an old Middle Earth Quest book that allows you to make a female "man" (man being a race)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On Sisters?

It’s suggestive that The Imperium’s rules are very much “of the moment”. That if you can find a loophole for that sort of Gotcha, you need to do it right off the bat.

It probably also helps that their origins is with the Daughters of the Emperor, their particular role in stopping Vandire, and that the least thing The Imperium needed in that circumstance was another round of Civil War.

Taken together? It is quite possibly just poorly written legislation, an immediate exploitation of the wording, an immediate lack of appetite for Round Two, and so it was just accepted. That Sisters have a proven run of loyalty now insulates them from anyone having a “now wait a moment” reaction later on.

Sisters had active support for the loophole from the people making the rule.

There were hoops jumped through to make it happen by everyone at the negotiating table


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grzzldgamerps5 wrote:
Can’t wait to see all the new female armies and minis for Horus heresy miniature line to further justify the retcon!

We already have them.

In the grim darkness of the female Custodes / Space Marines threads, there is only war ...

I have no axe to grind about Custodes in particular, as I tend to ignore most 40K fluff post-4th edition anyway. They already changed the Necrons, the Tyranids and all sorts of other stuff, along with Primaris and other oddness, so by now I just shrug.

Female Marines would discombobulate me a bit more. If they went that way I'd prefer newly revealed Chapters from previously blank spaces of the galactic map, in the same way that GW can plonk down a new planet wherever it likes and say it has ten thousand years of history that we're only just now hearing about. It would be harder to swallow if they said, "Oh yeah, the Space Wolves have always had females among them." But, again, they've mucked around with other things so much that I don't think I could get too worked up about it by this point.

I'll just throw this into the ring for consideration, on the general subject of women in the hobby.

Way back in 1997, in White Dwarf 206, some of GW's big names went to Italy to promote the new Italian translation of Warhammer Fantasy Battle. They attended the Lucca Games and Comics Fair. Nigel Stillman had this to say (I've bolded some of it for emphasis):

Nigel Stillman, White Dwarf 206, pp 55-56 wrote:"The Lucca fair is held during a bank holiday in Italy and so lots of people come to see it from all over the country. There were not only thousands of enthusiasts for the comics and games, but also plenty of local citizens enjoying a day out at the city's best known event. Again it was a busy day for questions. A casual glance across to the Perry twins' stand revealed that Michael was enjoying a deep and prolonged conversation with two fay enchantresses of Tilea. What kind of beguilement had he worked upon them one wonders?

"Indeed, among the most striking impressions of the Lucca show which stuck in our minds was the overflowing passion and enthusiasm that the Italians have for the hobby and the abundance of artistic talent. What impressed us even more was something which is rare to see in our own barbaric islands: at least a quarter of all the visitors at the Lucca games were female, and this included many hobby enthusiasts as well as understanding friends of the male fanatics! Some of the best painted figures were the work of couples sharing their passion for the hobby: La Dolce Vita!

"It seems that in Italy, being cultured and artistic is 'cool' and pursuing an artistic and intelligent hobby is also 'cool'. Here, playing games can be a glamorous and sophisticated pastime, like eating, Remember, this is the heartland of civilisation!"

Comments from Italian Dakkanauts who remember the late 90s would be most welcome.


I do have to jump on one point though:

stratigo wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I'm pretty sure the reason women weren't involved in war isn't due to the fact they can't jump or culture.

The issue is that suffering significant losses of your tribe's/kingdom's/country's young men is a tragedy - but suffering significant losses of your young women means you rapidly cease to exist.

Yes, powerful men have, since recorded history, attempted to control the bodies and sexuality of women.

Er, that wasn't the point Tyel was making.

Suppose you have a village of 100 men and 100 women of fertile reproductive age. All the men go off to war. 90 of them die and only 10 come back.

Those remaining 10 could, theoretically, get all 100 women pregnant. Say each man impregnates 10 women. There would soon be 100 children (50 of whom would be boys). A year or two later there could be another 100 children (50 of whom would be boys). In a couple of decades, those 100 boys would have grown up to be men, replenishing the losses from the war. And their sisters would also have grown up to be fertile women.

(In practice, of course, it wouldn't be as neat and tidy as that. e.g. Some men would be jealous and try to keep 'their' women from having sex with anyone else--controlling their bodies and sexuality, as you say. Gaps between pregnancies could occur due to breastfeeding. There would be a lot of inbreeding unless they were careful about who procreated with whom. And so on. But in an idealised thought-experiment world, the community can recover given time. Picture a population of mice or birds or some other animal if you prefer, to remove some of the messy human social factors.)


Now suppose that from that village of 100 fertile men and 100 fertile women, all the women go off to war. 90 of them die and only 10 come back.

Despite their best efforts, those remaining 10 women can only have 10 kids in the first year. Even if a woman has sex with all 100 men, she'll only get pregnant once. More children will have to wait until she's given birth to this one. That means only five girls in the first year, five girls in the second year, five girls in the third year ... and so on. And they'll reach fertile reproductive age in a much more gradual, staggered, drawn-out way over the next 10-20 years, prolonging the scarcity of women and meaning that the next generation will be smaller too.

Besides that, the number of boys being born will also be very few. Only five boys in the first year, five in the second ... It will take much, much longer for the population to recover. And, in practice, you have the risk of a woman dying in childbirth (further reducing the number of fertile women) each time, the damage to her health from churning out babies, and so on. Every death will be a further blow to their chances.

Evolutionarily speaking, males are the expendable sex.

odinsgrandson wrote:On a side note- I have an old Middle Earth Quest book that allows you to make a female "man" (man being a race)

That reminds me ... One curious thing about GW's Lord of the Rings / Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game is that, unlike 40K and WFB, females in LotR do not have the same statline as males. At least they didn't in the original iterations of the game in the 2000s.

It's not obvious, because the only female models in the game back then were Heroes (e.g. Eowyn and Arwen), not rank-and-file Warriors*. And each Hero has his or her own points cost and unique stat line / abilities. But if you use the old points formula to deconstruct and compare them, you find that the baseline stats for the female Heroes are lower than for males.

Maybe that's changed these days. I don't know. My guess is that they were going some Tolkien-inspired realism, albeit quietly and behind the scenes.

Meanwhile over in 40K and WFB it's been standard for a long time to have a basic 'strength 3 toughness 3' statline for a Human or Elf whether you were male or female.

*Though I guess some of the Easterling Warrior models could have been assumed to be female, based on a bit of fluff in the A Shadow in the East sourcebook, which in turn presumably took its cue from that lone scene in the LotR films where an Easterling is seen in closeup and seems to have feminine eyes/brows behind the helmet. But who reads the fluff in LotR SBG sourcebooks? If it ain't Tolkien's own words it ain't happening!

 odinsgrandson wrote:
Yeah, this seems like a super weird hill to die on. Especially since Sisters are way the hell better thsn guardsmen.

They're the same as a Veteran except with better equipment, right? T3 S3 WS4+ BS3+, yeah? I thought they were essentially statted as "elite human".

Some sisters have WS3+

Lammia wrote:
Some sisters have WS3+

(Looking at Index) Ahh, so some do! Fair enough.

Not exactly what I'd call "way the hell better" than the elite Guardsmen, but interesting. I'd chalk that up to extra training for more CC oriented units, which is not a Guard proclivity, and possibly an advantage given through the power armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

stratigo wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
No no no, jesus no. Don't paint with that broad brush. I'm perfectly happy to enjoy the hobby with women, I just don't think the background has to change to make that happen.

So you're perfectly happy for women to visit the hobby on your terms.

Bad faith much?

women are telling you what makes us comfortable in the hobby, and in return, you're telling us that such things are unacceptable. so we're allowed to exist in the hobby, but only when it's hostile to us

And the woman who likes the lore, paints up a Tyranid army and joins her local club is "just visiting" apparently?

There's a dissonance here.

"A real woman is telling me something, but I have invented a hypothetical one in my head that agrees with me. "

So the woman who likes the lore, and paints and plays with her local group is not a "real" 40k player, they're "just visiting", whatever that means? That's what seems to have been said. That's a hard one to accept and sounds pretty gate-keepy (god I hate the term, but ok :/ )

Am I "just visiting" when playing a Sisters army because men cannot be Sisters? Am I "just visiting" when I play an Eldar army who looks upon humans as primutive monkeys? Can I not enjoy fictional things that are antithetical to me?

Also, I'd suggest that women as a whole are not a monolith, and can hold varying opinions on the matter.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also a fun aside that came up in another thread?

The Imperium isn’t just 39,000 years from now. It’s 39,000 thousand years of technological development and decline from now.

The Leagues of Votann offer a tantalising insight into what that could mean, as we know they’re children of the STC. Not exactly clones, but each and everyone is designed, and not the result of random genetic combination like us modern humans.

Now, the Votann benefit from that for at least one specific reason. The region of space their ancestors were dispatched to was known to be very different from Earth and our solar system. And so the inherent gene editing may have been unique to ensure they could be up and running and shipping those precious minerals back to their masters as soon as possible.

And we’ve seen in other short stories that other Abhumans had similar gene editing - that they’re not just the result of genetic drift.

Now, unfortunately we have to stop short of the conclusion that “therefore all Abhumans are the result of deliberate gene editing and forced evolution and that”, because we can’t rule that out.

But it does raise the prospect that some level of gene editing of colonists was commonplace, even if the tweaks were relatively minor - perhaps a mild increase in standard muscle mass or density for worlds with slightly higher gravity, but not such that it would be noticable off world.

This is old Space Wolves background, (not sure if it is still there)
the the original settlers were modified to survive the deathworld and evolve if necessary, hence the wolves on Fenris are no wolves but the very first humans to come to Fenris

Adding that any random mutation post heresy is cleansed to prevent the influence of chaos and that Ogryns and Halflings still exist would they are the result of genetic engineering to fulfil certain task rather than being something random that was seen as useful

there should be no "pure" humans left and at least some of the very old background would indicate that only the noble houses are still human while everyone else is genetic engineered (Man of Gold vs Man of Stone)
Ogryns, Halflings, Fenrisian, Cadians, Catachans, Votaan etc. should all be descentants from the Man of Stone


Automatically Appended Next Post:

stratigo wrote:

There is a reason I play eldar.
But I also have a custodes collection.
And I nostalgia bought into Votann too.
And I can assure you, more female models do, in fact, help draw women to the hobby. It's not a shock.

There is also a huge difference between female rep and cheesecake. Sisters of Battle are a bit too cheesecake for me even after the refresh toned that down, partly because I am distinctly aware that they originated out of someone's bondage nun fetish. Craftworld Eldar hit the right balance.

my wife would not touch 40k no matter how many female models there are and if she would play 40k, it would be Orks because they are funny

like most other woman I have met who play but not touched 40k it was not the lack of female models but the "grimdark" setting (like a female model for a fascist regime is still a model for the fascist regime)
similar to those not playing WW2 games, which had nothing to do with there being no female SS models available but simple that the setting is beyond of "just being a game"

"the hobby" being wargaming and mini-painting in general, I haven't noticed that there are only man or boys playing, it is certain parts of the hobby that are dominated by man and this is mostly related to the setting

From what I have seen over the years (and I have met plenty of women gamers over multiple genres of the hobby, from RPGs and Larping to board games, miniature wargames and video games) to incentivize more women to join the hobby, you don't need more female models.

You need more cute animal models.

Surely it all depends?

Going solely off the flags next to Dakkanauts names, we’re from different parts of the world. And as such, different underlying cultures. And those cultures will influence those living in them.

As such, the mix of persons exposed and encouraged into this peculiar hobby of ours may well vary country to country. And it’s important to keep in mind the Hobby is, and always has been, multi-faceted. Some are just here for the novels. Some only play the game. Some get their pleasure solely from painting, and some of those will strive to make every model Golden Demon worthy.

And not one of us is “doing it wrong” because we perhaps don’t partake of every facet equally or at all.

Do I think an all unpainted army lacks the visual impact of a painted one? Yes. Do I think both armies being painted adds to the overall enjoyment? Yes.

But….you do you. Unless we’re in a tournament or other organised environment where fully painted has been explained as a requirement, they’re your models and you do what you want with them.

Would I like to be able to persuade Painters to get their forces on the table for a truly glorious sight? Of course. But they’re your models, and you do what you want with them.

If someone is just partaking of the artistic side of the hobby, that’s their prerogative, and not really anyone else’s business.

As for those who insist on gatekeeping? Surely you must realise it’s entirely futile. You don’t have the reach, influence or persuasive skills. What are you going to be able to do if you visit a FLGS and see folk enjoying the hobby in a way you and your echo chamber don’t endorse? Other than tut and moan. Because the real world doesn’t behave like the internet. In the real world, people can and will simply tell you to sod off and keep your opinions to your self. And so, gatekeeping is an entirely pointless exercise, and a waste of your time and energy. I at least will get a cheap laugh out of it, but you get nothing except perhaps increased blood pressure.

You want to field an all male army, eschewing any female sculpts? Go for it. Genuinely. Just don’t expect anyone to much care why, or hang around whilst you wibble on and on and on about it.

You will need to help me with this, as I am not a player of these games, but some wargames do have a high representation of female models. For example, I believe in Guild Ball every team in the game has female models and they are always in play, you can hardly ever have a game with no females on both sides (correct me if I'm wrong).

Do these games see a visibly higher percentage of women playing them than, say, Wh40k?

I’ve absolutely no idea, as it’s not something I keep tabs on, or really have anyway of exploring.

But let me flip that argument around. Let’s say the inclusion of female models in a given game doesn’t increase female players or customers?

You’d then have to demonstrate it’s caused a direct detriment to the game for it to matter.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


But let me flip that argument around. Let’s say the inclusion of female models in a given game doesn’t increase female players or customers?

You’d then have to demonstrate it’s caused a direct detriment to the game for it to matter.

Unfortunately, you can't flip arguments like that. That's why a defendant in court isn't asked to provide evidence that they didn't commit the crime and why a theist's "counterargument" of "but you don't have evidence that god isn't real" makes no logical sense.

The burden of proof is on the one making a claim.

Btw, I don't care either way. I was just wondering if evidence can be provided to support the claim that increased number of female models increases female participation in a wargame or if it is just a shower thought. I have never played Guild Ball (which I regret!) or a wargame with similar representation of female models so I was wondering if members of these communities can confirm or disprove this correlation.

I stil stand by my (lifelong observation supported) shower thought that increasing the number of cute animal models would do a much better job in that respect.

Clearly, we must emphasize Fenrisian Wolves come next supplement.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That Sisters have a proven run of loyalty now insulates them from anyone having a “now wait a moment” reaction later on.

Of course, the flip side of that is the argument that if the church has proven that it can maintain its own military without turning against the Imperium, the Decree Passive is no longer required anyway.

If i remember correctly didnt saint celestine execute an ecclesiarch for heresy that suggested the decree passive be revoked suggesting in univers is it not viewed as a loop hole but as the will of the emperor?

As for the skill of the sisters they are not mearly on par with the scions they literally are trained together at the schola progenium.

I feel like i havent been adding much to this conversation, mostly commenting on the lore ^^*

stratigo wrote:
Sisters of Battle are a bit too cheesecake for me even after the refresh toned that down, partly because I am distinctly aware that they originated out of someone's bondage nun fetish.

The original image was one spike away from being the most the most generic unadorned power armour in existence, they were nuns because marines were monks, and they existed as a political joke.

Dark elves on the other hand were chains and whips from day one but no-one seemed to much mind. Peoples nun fetish is strong I suppose.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’ve absolutely no idea, as it’s not something I keep tabs on, or really have anyway of exploring.

But let me flip that argument around. Let’s say the inclusion of female models in a given game doesn’t increase female players or customers?

You’d then have to demonstrate it’s caused a direct detriment to the game for it to matter.

It would depend on how's it managed, don't you think?

Extra Sisters/Eldar miniatures probably would be well received. But let's say, for the sake of the argument, that female SM are on the menu for 2025. But SKUs, and shop space space is not unlimited, so half the Primaris LTs have to go, and they will be replaced by female models. Now you took something away from a more or less large part of the fan base in exchange for 0 increase of players, and customers, or even a net loss.

Or worse, GW could take notes from Amazon/Netfilx, and start suplanting core characters by female versions. I don't know who that Marneus Calgar fellow you keep mentioning is, there is a Marneix Calgarix, and it's always been that way.

I'd say that's a direct detriment to the game, and it would matter a lot.

M.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


But let me flip that argument around. Let’s say the inclusion of female models in a given game doesn’t increase female players or customers?

You’d then have to demonstrate it’s caused a direct detriment to the game for it to matter.

Unfortunately, you can't flip arguments like that. That's why a defendant in court isn't asked to provide evidence that they didn't commit the crime and why a theist's "counterargument" of "but you don't have evidence that god isn't real" makes no logical sense.

The burden of proof is on the one making a claim.

Btw, I don't care either way. I was just wondering if evidence can be provided to support the claim that increased number of female models increases female participation in a wargame or if it is just a shower thought. I have never played Guild Ball (which I regret!) or a wargame with similar representation of female models so I was wondering if members of these communities can confirm or disprove this correlation.

I stil stand by my (lifelong observation supported) shower thought that increasing the number of cute animal models would do a much better job in that respect.

Totally agree, yesterday a friend was asking around our gaming group to trade cute 3d printed minis for his daughters to paint in exchange of his classic style DnD/40K ones. His children want to join the hobby but totally refuse to touch his extensive miniature collection. Apparently Khorne, and DnD monsters have 0 attractive to them.

M.

Cyel wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


But let me flip that argument around. Let’s say the inclusion of female models in a given game doesn’t increase female players or customers?

You’d then have to demonstrate it’s caused a direct detriment to the game for it to matter.

Unfortunately, you can't flip arguments like that. That's why a defendant in court isn't asked to provide evidence that they didn't commit the crime and why a theist's "counterargument" of "but you don't have evidence that god isn't real" makes no logical sense.

The burden of proof is on the one making a claim.

Btw, I don't care either way. I was just wondering if evidence can be provided to support the claim that increased number of female models increases female participation in a wargame or if it is just a shower thought. I have never played Guild Ball (which I regret!) or a wargame with similar representation of female models so I was wondering if members of these communities can confirm or disprove this correlation.

I stil stand by my (lifelong observation supported) shower thought that increasing the number of cute animal models would do a much better job in that respect.

We can in this instance. First, nobody is on trial.

Here, the arguments essentially boil down to “visible representation encourages participation” and “go woke go broke”. Both are positive claims. And for clarity I’m not claiming you to have made either.

So, we look at a given game, where visible representation is there. Such as a mix of male and female sculpts, perhaps the option between them, such as the HeroQuest hero expansions. It’s then on those making the arguments to show if that argument holds water based on whatever evidence is available.

And my point here is it’s entirely possible for neither to be correct. Representation may not lead to participation. But even if it doesn’t, we can’t then conclude representation is at all detrimental to the game and its prospects.

Will there be some out there who might see female sculpts and decide “ewww”? Sure. But enough to balance out those who see the same thing and think “oh cool!”? I honestly don’t know.

What we can however point to are GW’s own financials, which show a sustained period of pretty impressive and consistent growth. Now, again we can’t conclude “yay increased diversity!” there, because absolutely nothing happens in a vacuum. But, we can absolutely observe that said growth has occurred alongside increased diversity. So I think we can be confident the increased diversity isn’t detrimental, thus defeating the premise “go woke go broke” in this instance. And that lack of detriment is sufficient reason to continue diversifying things.

And on GW’s financials? For us as prospective investors, they don’t really break down their sales by system, army, kit etc in the reports, instead going into channels and territories and their respective changes. But you can be damn sure GW does have those facts and figures, and will be using them to inform decisions and releases going forward. They’re a business first and foremost, and obliged to provide as much profit and growth as possible for their shareholders. So we can at least argue if their sales data showed female or mixed kits sold less well? They’d take heed of that in some way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further thoughts to show I’m trying to be balanced.

Mixed gender kits are currently something of a novelty, being something GW hasn’t historically been that fussed for.

And that novelty in itself holds an appeal for adding variety to an existing army. So any uptick in sales of that unit would have to take that into account.

It’s all very, very complex. And the two extremes try to make it overly simplified, one way or the other, black or white, yes or no binary type stuff.

But, I stand by my assertion that those opposed to diversity have to prove it’s been at all detrimental if their preference is to be enacted. Because whether it’s beneficial or entirely moot (as in it makes no difference either way), it’s gonna continue as it is now, because there’s no reason to change that approach.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

And my point here is it’s entirely possible for neither to be correct. Representation may not lead to participation. But even if it doesn’t, we can’t then conclude representation is at all detrimental to the game and its prospects.

Well, absolutely. Correlation does not imply causation. It just provides a piece of evidence increasing the probability.

And all the evidence we have is that since GW started taking steps to diversify their ranges with female sculpts and a greater variety of skintones, they’ve experienced a sustained period of frankly impressive growth. As in more than tripled their takings in 2022/2023 compared to 2014/2015. Source being their Annual Reports https://investor.games-workshop.com/annual-reports-and-half-year-results

So, whilst that doesn’t directly support “representation leads to participation”, it strongly challenges the opposite “go woke, go broke” claim, which is what the extreme of one side claims this is all about. Because as they’ve moved to diversify, takings have gone up. So even if that diversification hasn’t been a factor, minor or major? It’s evidently not hurt them any.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And all the evidence we have is that since GW started taking steps to diversify their ranges with female sculpts and a greater variety of skintones, they’ve experienced a sustained period of frankly impressive growth.

So, whilst that doesn’t directly support “representation leads to participation”, it strongly challenges the opposite “go woke, go broke” claim, which is what the extreme of one side claims this is all about.

The other thing that muddies the water is that a lot of geeky hobbies - Cardgames, Larping, boardgames, DnD, video games* - experienced a sustained period of considerable growth at the same time GW was treading water during the latter part of the Kirby era. One could argue that some of GW's amazing, more recent growth, is simply the result of them joining the geek-growth-wave late due to policies and marketing choices made before that inhibited growth. Ergo That GW is playing catchup and would have grown as they have now, just over a lower rate over more years if they'd been tapping into modern marketing moves and such much earlier. GW were at least 10years or so behind the Internet really. They never got forums to work during the height of forums and then spent a good number of years avoiding the internet and being hostile toward it. Couple that with things like shutting down sponsoring events and not even running their own annual major gaming event etc.... and it all was strange when at the same time even video games were pushing into the competitive event market.


This might also explain GW's market's slower growth of women, whilst other areas of geeky hobbies have had greater general growth. Ergo part of it isn't the product, the lore or such but simply awareness, outreach and inspiration and so forth. Heck GW still doesn't really have a major female face to the company in any key role that's been sustained to create icons. Almost all the icons and known faces are men - even in their event coverage.


*I'd argue these started earlier than most of the others

Well there’s lots and lots of potential elements.

For instance? Geeky stuff is now accepted in the wider world. TTRPG, War Games, Board Games are now part of pretty mainstream culture. So that’s going to have some impact.

GW themselves have offered a wider variety of games. Not just classics like Necromunda and Blood Bowl, but new(ish, now) enterprises like Underworlds and WarCry, which whilst still not cheap have a much lower price entry barrier.

But whilst pondering this further? I have to point out that WarCry and Underworlds have shown diversity in the sculpts and paintjobs since they launched. And both seem to be doing pretty well so far as we can reasonably tell.

Now I’d argue that observation is somewhat stronger than anecdote, and may go beyond coincidence even. But. If “go woke go broke” has any merit as an argument? The fact these games have taken off and continue to be well supported again challenges that - even if, again, the diversity of models isn’t itself a particular factor of their popularity compared to relatively modest entry cost, and not having to paint a bajillion models before you can get proper games going.

In conclusion? Whilst I’m inclined to accept “representation leads to participation” holds some merit, the same simply can’t be said of “go woke, go broke” where GW is concerned. And so at the very, very worst? Diversification of sculpt and painted skintones is a completely neutral development, neither helping nor hindering in any meaningful way.

REMOVED.

 Formosa wrote:
REMOVED.

What does the Frankfurt School have to do with any of this? You brought that up completely unprompted.

 Formosa wrote:
REMOVED.

The only way female Astartes would erode male representation would be if they all suddenly and retroactively became women, which no one has suggested happen (except in obvious hyperbole from someone opposed to the idea of female Astartes). Ditto the masculinity.

But please explain to me why you think men should have "control over a popular cultural institution".

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
REMOVED.

What does the Frankfurt School have to do with any of this? You brought that up completely unprompted.

Because Formosa has bought into the Nazi propaganda of cultural marxism (the nazis called it cultural bolshevism, but it is the exact same conspiracy theory of "jews are using marxism to undermine western civilization, so we need fascism to stop that by genociding the jews and murdering all marxists" that the nazis used, just with some more dog-whistles to push the inherent anti-semitism a little bit under the surface).

 Formosa wrote:
REMOVED.

So, what is the goal? In your opinion. Because you can’t just rubbish the stated intent without providing an alternative like that.

 Formosa wrote:
REMOVED.

No it doesn't.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Racism is a problem in real life, and if it were present in the game most of us never would have stuck around to get to know the lore. The whole point of the 40k satire is to use fake Sci Fi bigotry and religious extremism that lets them comment on real issues without furthering the actual injustices they are lampooning.

Ah yes, racism should not be permitted in 40k because real people have been affected by racism.

Meanwhile, it's perfectly fine for 40k to feature genocide, because no one has ever been affected by that.

 vipoid wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Racism is a problem in real life, and if it were present in the game most of us never would have stuck around to get to know the lore. The whole point of the 40k satire is to use fake Sci Fi bigotry and religious extremism that lets them comment on real issues without furthering the actual injustices they are lampooning.

Ah yes, racism should not be permitted in 40k because real people have been affected by racism.

Meanwhile, it's perfectly fine for 40k to feature genocide, because no one has ever been affected by that.

I mean it's the same reason why people in certain places want to ban or restrict access To Kill a Mockingbird over concerns over the fact there's racist content in the book, even though it's addressing the problems of racism but some people get so sensitive over the use of the n-word and the historical aspects of it that they want to memory hole it.