I think some support for smaller scale battles in 7th edition would be nice.

I hope someone at GW has noticed by now that their main competitors have very successful skirmish level gameplay. The buy in is lower, the learning curve is not as overwhelming and hooking people is easier. It also helps that battles play out faster, making more games possible...or just spending an afternoon at it rather than an all day affair.

Its completely against their "more minis, bigger armies" philosophy, but I still think it would be a positive development if it happened.

On a gameplay oriented note, whenever I have played WFB or WH40K (or watched my friends play it), the thing that always struck me was how non-interactive the gameplay was. Assuming you trusted your partner enough, you could actually just leave the table while he was taking his turn, because there was precious little you could do except be a witness. Obviously the social and chatting aspects are huge in this kind of game, but it has always struck me as problematic that each player takes turns being shackled.

More modern games like Dropzone Commander (if you're a fan of Epic btw, you owe it to yourself to at least check this game out) try to counter act this by switching unit activations within the turn, and using Command Cards. Suddenly it becomes important in what order you activate your units, because the enemy can and does react to you even within the turns. The game is gaining some traction locally, so I'm hoping I will get to do more than just read the rulebook and planning armies in my head.

I'm not saying that WH40K should completely reinvent themselves. But I do think the company would benefit long term from focusing on expanded and updated gameplay options, rather than codex creep and money fixation. They have become the industry standard for a reason, and that reason is the talents they employ and the passion they put into it. Going forward, I think GW needs to put their faith in that as opposed to miniature monopoly and price gouging.

Within the next decade or two, their main competitors are going to be games that publish you the intellectual rights to print your own units/tokens with your 3D printer, providing you the rule sets for a token fee in order to get you started/interested. These already exist on various websites btw, and its only a matter of time as the quality grows and 3D printers become more common before they start taking a bigger chunk out of the wargame/boardgame market.

GW's strength has always been their intellectual property and the people they employ to develop it. Going forward, it would be nice to see their business leadership acknowledge and support this...rather than behaving like extortionate robber barons...

Your feminization of Matt Ward to disparage him is entirely in keeping with my wholly negative perception of you, Fgdsdf.

And your continued attempts to pull threads off track and into social justice warrior territory is entirely in keeping with my wholly negative perception of you, cps. Only one such as you would count a pejorative "fangirl" as "feminization", and try to make it into an issue where previously there was none (I have to confess, I had to look through the text four times to even realize what you were referring to).

Never change, cps.

... You really have to ask yourself who he's selling his behind to and who actually hired this guy to write fluff.

A big part of the problem is that GW no longer supports as many venues for cultivating new writers (Inferno Magazine, Citadel Journal, comics) as they used to, and thus no longer have a 'deep bench' of talent to draw from. Now, writing jobs just go to whoever is available, regardless of fan opinion...

Entirely possible. I get the feeling that they try to pull as much as possible from "in house", simply because they are no longer in touch with the fan base, nor realizing that different part of it wants different things (more or less amounting to fluff vs. TT rules).

When they seemingly ask (demand?) that certain aspects of the latest codex/codices, I can see no other reason than it being a marketing attempt to show "Look at this cool new thing; play it in the TT" or somesuch, which just shows that there's a major disconnect. In my experience, the vast majority of RPers have no interest in the TT, and vice versa.

If they'd just keep the two venues separate, it would make it easier to choose between the wants and want not. It wouldn't matter if the latest Codex calls the Imperial Guard the Astra Militarum, for example, because FFG could just flat-out ignore it. I'm not using Astra Militarum as an example of something objectively terrible here, I'm just using it as an example. You could say Dread Knight, Necrons or whatever, too.

They give the writers of the novels a lot of leeway in interpretations of the WH40k universe. They honestly really should give FFG the same kind of leeway, because it's exactly the same kind of issues, and I really think that in the hand of dedicated professionals that actually enjoy the pre-exiting universe, the fluff would be far better off, and if the fluff is better off, it appeals more to those of the same mind - fans of the fluff and the universe.

That's my take on it, anyway.

Edit: Aaaaaaaaand apparently I was on the wrong page. Points still stand, though, so I'll leave it be, take it for what it's worth.

Your feminization of Matt Ward to disparage him is entirely in keeping with my wholly negative perception of you, Fgdsdf.

And your continued attempts to pull threads off track and into social justice warrior territory is entirely in keeping with my wholly negative perception of you, cps. Only one such as you would count a pejorative "fangirl" as "feminization", and try to make it into an issue where previously there was none (I have to confess, I had to look through the text four times to even realize what you were referring to).

Never change, cps.

Do you really want to be the guy saying, "Yes, using sexist language is acceptable"?

Your feminization of Matt Ward to disparage him is entirely in keeping with my wholly negative perception of you, Fgdsdf.

And your continued attempts to pull threads off track and into social justice warrior territory is entirely in keeping with my wholly negative perception of you, cps. Only one such as you would count a pejorative "fangirl" as "feminization", and try to make it into an issue where previously there was none (I have to confess, I had to look through the text four times to even realize what you were referring to).

Never change, cps.

I'll bring it every time you call men women in an effort to undermine their credibility, mock them, or otherwise imply women are lesser and it goes unchallanged. Your attitude is one of the big reasons gaming (not just TT or RPGs) has trouble bringing in new people. You're toxic. And proud of it, somehow.

Do you really want to be the guy saying, "Yes, using sexist language is acceptable"?

Strawman, off-topic, attempted derail, taking offence on the behalf of others in order to stir issues, 90's viewpoint, baseless insult, strawman.

Yawn. Get a new repertoire.

I get that you'd rather not engage my points and admit to holding opinions good people find distasteful, but I'm genuinely not sure what you mean by '90s viewpoint'. As in, an opinion popular in the 1990s? Was there some relevant thing the 1990s that has since fallen into disrepute?

Well ... why do you think they don't? FFG's version of the setting already differs from GW's on a lot of subjects, from the existence of divine magic, the affiliation of the Deathwatch, SoB numbers and Astartes using more powerful guns, to Storm Troopers being attached as individuals to grunt squads.

For where FFG has opted to go with a new image it could be an exception from the usual leeway (James Swallow mentioned how he had to re-write part of his Hammer & Anvil novel because apparently GW had a special interest in the reimagining of the Newcrons), or because the guys at FFG actually like the new idea.

I'm going out on a limb here and say they don't like Grey Knights doing Chaos Sorcery, so they've simply chosen to ignore that part for the Daemon Hunter book. And GW still gave them green light.

Do you really want to be the guy saying, "Yes, using sexist language is acceptable"?

I like to believe that such incidents are mainly slip-ups (in fairness, I haven't seen him talk like that in any other thread), because such language has unfortunately become to be considered normal for our little corner of the internet. It's a good example for one of the several reasons why 40k struggles with being appealing to women, though.

PS: I prefer Oldcrons, too. But that's just because this is how I've grown to know them, and I like them as unpersonal and mechanically cold automatons even up to their leaders. It did make them scarier, imho.

The new version is at the very least interesting (I like the concept of Tomb Kings in WHFB too, so ...), it just isn't what I'm used to. And I generally dislike change when it doesn't feel like a natural evolution (a la Battletech) but rather a Retcon.

Do you really want to be the guy saying, "Yes, using sexist language is acceptable"?

I like to believe that such incidents are mainly slip-ups (in fairness, I haven't seen him talk like that in any other thread), because such language has unfortunately become to be considered normal for our little corner of the internet. It's a good example for one of the several reasons why 40k struggles with being appealing to women, though.

I actually agree with you here - sexism in gaming circles has become mostly subconscious. I'm sure Fgsdgf didn't sit down and think, "You know, 'fanboy' doesn't convey enough of my distaste for Ward in merely infantilizing him. 'Fangirl' is better because it additionally attacks his masculinity." But that's what he wrote, and the effect is that language which uses femininity as a pejorative becomes normal . It casts women as an other, weaker entity. It's insidious.

Only be examining what we say can we understand why we say it, and as a community we need to ask ourselves if this is the kind of language we want to use and environment we want to create.

But then I'm just a derailing strawmanning social justice warrior, so what do I know?

PS: I prefer Oldcrons, too. But that's just because this is how I've grown to know them, and I like them as unpersonal and mechanically cold automatons even up to their leaders. It did make them scarier, imho.

The new version is at the very least interesting (I like the concept of Tomb Kings in WHFB too, so ...), it just isn't what I'm used to. And I generally dislike change when it doesn't feel like a natural evolution (a la Battletech) but rather a Retcon.

One could easily make the case that the fiction of a license changing to meet business needs (in this case, selling new/more Necron models) is the natural evolution.

I like to believe that such incidents are mainly slip-ups (in fairness, I haven't seen him talk like that in any other thread), because such language has unfortunately become to be considered normal for our little corner of the internet. It's a good example for one of the several reasons why 40k struggles with being appealing to women, though.

To be fair, most girls don't like the theme of war. And in a setting in which there is "only war"...? It's never going to be Twilight, right? Also, I like (sexist language alert! ) chicks who know how to "man up" and can hold their ground when talk gets a little rougher.

In short: Some tough talk is okay, within bounds. Clearly some stuff that gets flung at Mr. Ward on teh webz is beyond, also I don't like it when a group of people systematically gang-up to pick on an individual.

Alex

I like to believe that such incidents are mainly slip-ups (in fairness, I haven't seen him talk like that in any other thread), because such language has unfortunately become to be considered normal for our little corner of the internet. It's a good example for one of the several reasons why 40k struggles with being appealing to women, though.

To be fair, most girls don't like the theme of war. And in a setting in which there is "only war"...? It's never going to be Twilight, right? Also, I like (sexist language alert! ) chicks who know how to "man up" and can hold their ground when talk gets a little rougher.

In short: Some tough talk is okay, within bounds. Clearly some stuff that gets flung at Mr. Ward on teh webz is beyond, also I don't like it when a group of people systematically gang-up to pick on an individual.

Alex

This is kind of a chicken and egg thing. There's nothing genetic predisposing boys to playing with toy soldiers and girls to toy dolls. It's a socialization thing - boys are conditioned to like GI Joe and girls Barbie. You see the exact same argument to the question of why women are underrepresented in STEM - that women just aren't interested in hard sciences, so why bother reaching out to try to include them?

There are a host of articles about the gendering of toys, the effects of marketing on gender roles, and the vitriolic reaction women receive when breaking into the 'boys club' (comics and newspaper editing having received some recent attention). Neil DeGrasse Tyson gave a great answer to the question of why women and minorities are underrepresented in STEM , and I think his response can be applied to other areas where we find outsiders unwelcome. Social barriers say, "You should not be interested in this" and that pushes people out.

To think that women are looking for Twilight is a misunderstanding of the issue.

I don't really have a problem with the use of "chick" as slang for women. I'm not aware of any inherent sexist baggage that word has, but I could be wrong (googling says the jury is out on that question).

And I want to be clear - I'm not picking on Fgsdgf. Criticism for saying a bad thing is not bullying.

One could easily make the case that the fiction of a license changing to meet business needs (in this case, selling new/more Necron models) is the natural evolution.

Oh yeah, I meant that as a purely "in-universe" evolution. My example with Battletech was referring to the setting changes because it moves forward chronologically, and if a faction is represented differently in one book than in another nowadays, you can trace it back to something that happened within the setting, rather than a business decision or someone simply changing the vision the original creator had when writing things.

To be fair, most girls don't like the theme of war.

Sure, contemporary culture still supports a gender-based rift in interests, but the overlap is growing every year - and I have a feeling that some circles/hobbies are missing out on the chance to tap the potential of this expanded playerbase simply because of ... well, I'm sure we've all heard the horror stories of "so I brought my GF into the store last week and [...]"

Someone not feeling welcome and/or accepted as "one of them" may easily be turned away from what little curiosity that first peek into a hobby has caused.

Then again, I suppose 40k has always been a "men's world", in a way. Now more than ever.

I get that you'd rather not engage my points and admit to holding opinions good people find distasteful, but I'm genuinely not sure what you mean by '90s viewpoint'. As in, an opinion popular in the 1990s? Was there some relevant thing the 1990s that has since fallen into disrepute?

You mistake me not caring for you with an inability to deal with you. The difference is, as you are well aware, miles-wide, and while I don't mind grinding social justice warriors that plies the internet looking for perceived slights into dust, you know where this takes us.

You might consider it worth it to get hung up on non-existent issues and derail threads left and right, in some mistaken quest for the approval of the culturally and politically shallow, but I don't. I want to make it clear here that you are getting hung up on the word "fangirl", here, calling it "feminization", and wholly on your own assuming that that is on it's own "imply women are lesser"; while at the same time, we all know that you wouldn't at all react the same way if I called him a fanboy, even though the intent would have been equally insulting, although in a different way - you yourself calling people "greybeards", beards being an exclusively male attribute.

I have no interest in arguing with you or derailing threads. I'm too busy focusing on real issues, such as whether or not to give 1.5 Strength Bonus to my players wielding a 2h weapon, or whether a Ripper Gun can have the Mono-upgrade applied to it. Issues that happens to relate to the forum we're on.

As for the 90's, that's back when gaming had problems appealing to women. This problem only really exists in your head. Just because a certain party of a hobby does not appeal to women doesn't mean that gaming as a whole can't or won't, it simply means that they choose other interests to focus on. By saying that women in particular would get hung up on and put off by themes and contexts men discuss with no problem whatsoever, you are the one implying that women are inferior, and that we should treat them differently. Women don't need you to fight their battles for them, cps. Women, believe it or not, are largely the same as men in many regards, including being able to take offence entirely on their own.

[...]

But then I'm just a derailing strawmanning social justice warrior, so what do I know?

Not much, by the looks of it. I think it's one hell of a strawmen to make the assumption that fangirl isn't just feminization of the masculine, but also a pejorative with the intent to cast of women as weaker entities. On top of that, it's apparently insidious. Woooaoooooh.

The fact that you instantly thought that someone was insulting women and implying women to be weaker says more about you than it does us. I don't think anyone in their right mind would've interpreted it in that way, had you not pointed it out as a possible interpretation. I advise you to stop projecting.

Meanwhile, in the real world :

Well ... why do you think they don't? FFG's version of the setting already differs from GW's on a lot of subjects, from the existence of divine magic, the affiliation of the Deathwatch, SoB numbers and Astartes using more powerful guns, to Storm Troopers being attached as individuals to grunt squads.

For where FFG has opted to go with a new image it could be an exception from the usual leeway (James Swallow mentioned how he had to re-write part of his Hammer & Anvil novel because apparently GW had a special interest in the reimagining of the Newcrons), or because the guys at FFG actually like the new idea.

I'm going out on a limb here and say they don't like Grey Knights doing Chaos Sorcery, so they've simply chosen to ignore that part for the Daemon Hunter book. And GW still gave them green light.

Well of course they have a lot of leeway as such, I just meant that novelists didn't seem to be asked (required?) to mention - for example - certain key changes in their books on principle. Judging by your example of James Swallow having to re-write parts of Hammer & Anvil suggests that I was, in fact, wrong - regrettably. I was simply under a mistaken impression as to what freedoms the novel writers had, I suppose.

I think it is more likely that GW didn't ask (demand?) them to include anything on the GK sorcery, which left FFG with the opportunity to ignore it. But again, that's just what I think, there's no way to know for sure.

I still stand by the rest, however. GW should do a better job at keeping the TT rules and the fluff separate, leaving it to those that have a genuine interest in maintaining coherent and congruent (would that be the right word?) fluff. GW's main product doesn't hinge on the fluff-fanatics, but on the TT being a good, playable game. It's two nearly completely different markets that happens to share the overall universe, and I believe that it would be in the best interest of both GW and the fans, due to the high possibility of cross-pollination of the two markets, based on different appeals.

There's even a marketing word for it, but the name escapes me.

Ah, the good old canard of "The tolerant are the real intolerants." Let's just look at this one piece:

Not much, by the looks of it. I think it's one hell of a strawmen to make the assumption that fangirl isn't just feminization of the masculine, but also a pejorative with the intent to cast of women as weaker entities. On top of that, it's apparently insidious. Woooaoooooh.

The fact that you instantly thought that someone was insulting women and implying women to be weaker says more about you than it does us. I don't think anyone in their right mind would've interpreted it in that way, had you not pointed it out as a possible interpretation. I advise you to stop projecting.

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been, because your whole post is misrepresenting my position.

At the most basic level, you called Matt Ward a girl in order to insult him. Can we at least agree that's what happened? (for the record, I take no issue with insulting Matt Ward)

Using 'female' as an insult has the effect of casting anything female in a bad light. You're saying that being a girl is a bad thing for someone (in this case, a man) to be. It's the same thing as using "gay" or "f-ggot" to insult. Those terms become bad things to be, which dehumanizes a whole class of people.

So, back to my original question, yes or no, do you, Fgdsfg, think it is acceptable to use "girl" as an insult?

At the most basic level, you called Matt Ward a girl in order to insult him.

I'm not sure what I'd expect from a person that googles whether words are objectionable from a feminist perspective or not, but cannot see why 'chick' would be considered sexist (i.e. comparing females to defenceless, cute and fluffy animals generally considered to be airheaded) on his own.

The worst part of this is that I'm actually getting pulled in by your attempted derailment(s). In the interest of the forums, I think I'm going to start ignoring you now, since you clearly cannot handle adult conversations without looking for potential offences to be offended on the behalf of someone else on.

I should've just stuck to my initial reaction. Yawn.

I'm not sure what I'd expect from a person that googles whether words are objectionable from a feminist perspective or not, but cannot see why 'chick' would be considered sexist (i.e. comparing females to defenceless, cute and fluffy animals generally considered to be airheaded) on his own.

Really? Someone posed a question (Is this word offensive to some people?) and I didn't know the answer, so I looked it up. I sought out information I didn't already have. And to be clear the consensus was that the word is not inherently sexist. I guess your response is to not care one way or the other whether you're offending people?

What I'm seeing from your responses is an unwillingness to consider alternative viewpoints and mindset that assumes it is beyond reproach.

I think it is more likely that GW didn't ask (demand?) them to include anything on the GK sorcery, which left FFG with the opportunity to ignore it. But again, that's just what I think, there's no way to know for sure.

That's probably it, yes. It may be as simple as depending on the individual editor who has oversight.

Well, matter of preferences - personally, I like the fluff being a representation of the TT. It lets it feel less like different worlds, and considering how very different various novel (or RPG) writers' interpretations are, I appreciate the TT for providing me with solid numbers that at the very least allow a rough, abstracted assessment of who is weaker, about equal, or better than what.

In contrast, whenever I grab a 40k novel or any other licensed product, there's a 2-in-3 chance I see something different that strikes me as odd, such as Mr. Abnett and his emotional servitors, or quite simply disappointing, such as Blood of Asaheim's portrayal of Sisters .

So I actually see it from the other side: GW should have been stricter with the fluff. But they are not , because they want people to "make the setting their own". This works wonderfully for a game you're supposed to play with 2-3 friends, but as soon as you add the internet into this equation, you've got a recipe for disaster. In short, I have a feeling GW's policy here is simply a result of the early 1980s, back before everyone got networked with something that works faster than letters in White Dwarf.

FFG now finds itself in the very different role of catering to a bunch of fans who all have a different idea of how the setting "should" look like. It's pretty much a catch-22 because regardless of what they are going to write, the level of detail they strive to attain means that they will upset someone .

Case in point: In the first Only War beta, only the Triplex-pattern lasgun had a variable settings slider, which is actually in line with GW's original material (5E Guard Codex, Inquisitor rulebook) for once. However, a lot of fans, apparently utterly unaware of said material, lobbied for all lasguns getting this feature, because that's what it said in the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer - a Black Library book. And at some point, FFG caved in, someone said "feth this", and now any and all las weapons save cannons have it. In turn upsetting those who would rather stick with the original fluff, or who wanted more consistency between the different product lines (seeing as a charge slider was still described as a heretical modification in Black Crusade).

Calling someone a fangirl is not the same as calling someone a female, for the same reason calling someone a fanboi doesn't mean calling them a man, or calling someone a manchild isn't calling them age-impaired.

In fairness, I think he is referring to the question of why you called him a fangirl rather than fanboy. The usage of a different gender does imply you consider it more insulting.

I'm still thinking this was just a result of "internet polemics", just like people calling others <insert various terms for sexual preferences> may not necessarily mean they really think this of the other person. They just want to hurt them.

But in this case, you could still "own up", do a bit of self-reflection, and ask yourself why you opted for fangirl rather than fanboy. And then transcend said internet polemics by not doing so again.

Women don't need you to fight their battles for them, cps. Women, believe it or not, are largely the same as men in many regards, including being able to take offence entirely on their own.

Nothing wrong with one person standing up for another, regardless of whether they are disadvantaged themselves. Especially when the group in question is underrepresented or has less influence due to how they are perceived/treated. Men and women may well argue in favour of the other gender, just like atheists may argue for religious freedom, or religious people may argue for more tolerance (see: abortion, homosexuality, unbelievers, etc), or like some White Americans argued in favour of African Americans "back then" (or still do - racism isn't gone yet entirely either).

Most women having a bad experience during their first journey into 40k will probably not fight a battle to get accepted. They will simply leave and look for a place that's more fun.

But this is really not the thread for this ...

Using 'female' as an insult has the effect of casting anything female in a bad light. You're saying that being a girl is a bad thing for someone (in this case, a man) to be. It's the same thing as using "***" or "f-ggot" to insult. Those terms become bad things to be, which dehumanizes a whole class of people.

So, back to my original question, yes or no, do you, Fgdsfg, think it is acceptable to use "girl" as an insult?

Okay, I wanted to stay out of that part of the conversation but at this point I have to step in. Calling a guy a girl or f*ggot (btw, i never call someone a xxxfag) isn't an insult because girls or gay people are inferior. It's instead about questioning a guy's manliness.

It's more akin to saying: "You're not a real American, you ain't no patriot."

What it does is indicate a preference for men acting according to a certain idea of manhood. According to that codex it may or may not be okay for a girl/gay to act unmanly but it's definitely not appropriate for a heterosexual male.

(Do not mistake my saying this as an endorsement of such a views. Nor my pointing this out as a rejection.)

Men and women may well argue in favour of the other gender, just like atheists may argue for religious freedom, or religious people may argue for more tolerance (see: abortion, homosexuality, unbelievers, etc), or like some White Americans argued in favour of African Americans "back then" (or still do - racism isn't gone yet entirely either).

Most women having a bad experience during their first journey into 40k will probably not fight a battle to get accepted. They will simply leave and look for a place that's more fun.

Well, men and women are competitors on some levels. There's even rivalry in relationships after all. Sexism is real but it is also a leverage some women use time and again. Or some men who want to gain popularity with women. It works.

Which also explains to a fair deal why there is in my perception rising antagonism towards political correctness. But, yeah, that's another story.

Alex

I'm not looking to get involved in the hate-debate between cps and fgdsfg. This will be the only time I will ever even acknowledge it. After this I'll go back to passively filtering out most of your posts.

I would just like to point out that I have seen each of you contribute on a variety of topics in ways that are wholly excellent.

However, when the two of you start bickering its poisonous to watch. It ruins threads. It is not an isolated occurrence.

I would like to remind you that there is a private message function on this board. I urge you to deny your inner exhibitionist and use it the next time you want to start ripping on each other. You're less likely to derail the thread, and much less likely to make yourselves look like dingbats.

Using 'female' as an insult has the effect of casting anything female in a bad light. You're saying that being a girl is a bad thing for someone (in this case, a man) to be. It's the same thing as using "***" or "f-ggot" to insult. Those terms become bad things to be, which dehumanizes a whole class of people.

So, back to my original question, yes or no, do you, Fgdsfg, think it is acceptable to use "girl" as an insult?

Okay, I wanted to stay out of that part of the conversation but at this point I have to step in. Calling a guy a girl or f*ggot (btw, i never call someone a xxxfag) isn't an insult because girls or *** people are inferior. It's instead about questioning a guy's manliness.

It's more akin to saying: "You're not a real American, you ain't no patriot."

What it does is indicate a preference for men acting according to a certain idea of manhood. According to that codex it may or may not be okay for a girl/*** to act unmanly but it's definitely not appropriate for a heterosexual male.

(Do not mistake my saying this as an endorsement of such a views. Nor my pointing this out as a rejection.)

So, you're wrong on this, but you're not being a sh!thead about it, which is good. You actually hit the nail on the head in that society expects heterosexual men to behave a certain way and are punished for stepping outside of that definition. That's how it is.

The fact that you are aware of this and acknowledge it exists is a good thing. Kudos.

But that's not how it should be. That this seems normal is a product of living in a patriarchal society. We as a society have this conception of manliness and boys have extreme pressure to conform to it. Here's a great big list of how this construct harms men.

Basically, sexism and homophobia are two sides to the same coin. What they have in common is that they demean women, creating a hostility toward women. Here's a great article explaining that.

I'll give you credit for at least skimming those. fdsagg has literally said he refuses to read anything I link with the word 'feminist' in the URL, so just by clicking on them you'll be a better person than he.

I'm not looking to get involved in the hate-debate between cps and fgdsfg. This will be the only time I will ever even acknowledge it. After this I'll go back to passively filtering out most of your posts.

I would just like to point out that I have seen each of you contribute on a variety of topics in ways that are wholly excellent.

However, when the two of you start bickering its poisonous to watch. It ruins threads. It is not an isolated occurrence.

I would like to remind you that there is a private message function on this board. I urge you to deny your inner exhibitionist and use it the next time you want to start ripping on each other. You're less likely to derail the thread, and much less likely to make yourselves look like dingbats.

I'm never going to change fdsgsdg's mind. Private messaging would be pointless.

What I'd like to do is make other people aware of his kind of toxic language (which in this thread has been admittedly mild for him) and denounce it. I don't want his ilk representing me and my interests. I don't identify as a gamer because of exactly the kind of sexist baggage that comes with it. I'd like to change that, and make gaming something everyone can do, and not let the old boys club elite continue to run the show.

I'm not looking to get involved in the hate-debate between cps and fgdsfg. This will be the only time I will ever even acknowledge it. After this I'll go back to passively filtering out most of your posts.

I would just like to point out that I have seen each of you contribute on a variety of topics in ways that are wholly excellent.

However, when the two of you start bickering its poisonous to watch. It ruins threads. It is not an isolated occurrence.

I would like to remind you that there is a private message function on this board. I urge you to deny your inner exhibitionist and use it the next time you want to start ripping on each other. You're less likely to derail the thread, and much less likely to make yourselves look like dingbats.

As a general rule, I never put anyone on ignore, even if they are annoying and obnoxious, and I have always been of the opinion that arguments should be carried to their conclusion, in order for people - whether it's the participators or the audience - to be able to grow as persons. To this day, I've found this to be a good policy, not having banned anyone even on places usually filled with madness, including DeviantArt and Facebook (save my mother, because her terrible spelling infuriates me).

But it's clear that cps will latch onto every stray word in order to construct strawmen to carry on crusades against. I've made the moderators aware of this repeat issue, seeing as how "stirring the pot" in this fashion is usually frowned upon by forumites everywhere, derailing threads and creating baseless arguments where there previously was none.

I know myself well enough to not be able to take this sitting down; even when Cps spouts cultural marxist rubbish, I know full well that this is not the time or place to discuss such things. While the points are easily argued against, this quickly spills into a massive debate on sociology, politics and science.

It is not reasonable to have such an argument stemming from a single word misconstrued and strawmanned by someone looking to start arguments, nor is it reasonable to continue such an argument not just on a forum not remotely intended for that purpose, but in an otherwise interesting thread.

This will be my absolutely last say on this matter and if anyone wants to ask any further questions (such as Lynata's question as to why I opted for fangirl - however, the end of the post makes a more important point, for which reason it is important that I do not broach on the subject), you can always contact me via PM or Skype (rebel.entertainment.inc). I'm a straight-up matter-of-fact kind of person, and I really do hate to see topics derailed or see issues of irrelevance brought up over and over again.

Want to discuss A? Fine, let's discuss A. Want to discuss B? Fine, let's pick the subject apart and beat it with a hammer and see what answers come out. But don't pull subject 66 out of a discussion on C and strawman it as issue.. I don't know, I tried to do an analogy to letters and numbers (i.e. not relating to eachother as such) but I couldn't come up with a suitable 3rd part.

So for my mental wellbeing (since yes, I confess that I have a very hard time just ignoring things like this and the derailment of threads) and the enjoyment of all, Cps is now on ignore. I'd advise everyone else to do the same thing, just report him and move on when any issues crop up, but honestly, that's up to each of you.

Now can we please get back on track, or do we have to wait 3 pages before Cps cools down or the thread gets locked as usual?

That's a whole lot of words for what basically amounts to, "asking me not to use gendered insults is asking too much".

I like to believe that such incidents are mainly slip-ups (in fairness, I haven't seen him talk like that in any other thread), because such language has unfortunately become to be considered normal for our little corner of the internet. It's a good example for one of the several reasons why 40k struggles with being appealing to women, though.

To be fair, most girls don't like the theme of war. And in a setting in which there is "only war"...? It's never going to be Twilight, right? Also, I like (sexist language alert! ) chicks who know how to "man up" and can hold their ground when talk gets a little rougher.

In short: Some tough talk is okay, within bounds. Clearly some stuff that gets flung at Mr. Ward on teh webz is beyond, also I don't like it when a group of people systematically gang-up to pick on an individual.

Alex

This is kind of a chicken and egg thing. There's nothing genetic predisposing boys to playing with toy soldiers and girls to toy dolls. It's a socialization thing - boys are conditioned to like GI Joe and girls Barbie. You see the exact same argument to the question of why women are underrepresented in STEM - that women just aren't interested in hard sciences, so why bother reaching out to try to include them?

There are a host of articles about the gendering of toys, the effects of marketing on gender roles, and the vitriolic reaction women receive when breaking into the 'boys club' (comics and newspaper editing having received some recent attention). Neil DeGrasse Tyson gave a great answer to the question of why women and minorities are underrepresented in STEM , and I think his response can be applied to other areas where we find outsiders unwelcome. Social barriers say, "You should not be interested in this" and that pushes people out.

To think that women are looking for Twilight is a misunderstanding of the issue.

I don't really have a problem with the use of "chick" as slang for women. I'm not aware of any inherent sexist baggage that word has, but I could be wrong (googling says the jury is out on that question).

And I want to be clear - I'm not picking on Fgsdgf. Criticism for saying a bad thing is not bullying.

Yeah and German are conditioned to drinking beer and Russians are conditioned to drinking vodka. Good thing too.

What I don't like and what I would actively oppose is any artificial effort to break down differences as if they were a bad thing.

As a hererosexual male, I am glad (!!!) that girls are generally not completely like men. If they were, I might as well be homosexual or bisexual (not talking hobbies, etc. here). And I am completely okay that Russians prefer vodka and I am not trying to overcome their conditioning so that they can finally become like us Germans. In short: nothing wrong with girls being exposed to girlish toys and boys to boyish toys. As long as people who break out of the mold are accepted, it's all good.

To be fair, most girls don't like the theme of war.

Sure, contemporary culture still supports a gender-based rift in interests, but the overlap is growing every year - and I have a feeling that some circles/hobbies are missing out on the chance to tap the potential of this expanded playerbase simply because of ... well, I'm sure we've all heard the horror stories of "so I brought my GF into the store last week and [...]"

Someone not feeling welcome and/or accepted as "one of them" may easily be turned away from what little curiosity that first peek into a hobby has caused.

Then again, I suppose 40k has always been a "men's world", in a way. Now more than ever.

I have never been hanging out in gamestores. I got a clique of fairly reasonable friends, so that was never the problem in my mind. Most girls seem to enjoy more fantasy or Vampire than, say, Only War. War is mostly a man's thing, it's dirty business and women have suffered from the lawlessness of war for a long time.

Many women I know don't feel comfortable with the acting part. Nor with the crunch part, it's overly complicated and it doesn't seem to be worth the effort. I am generalizing but based on my experience, women prefer light-rules boardgames.

I have never heard a complaint about sexism; can't rule it out 100%ly but the above seem to be more the reasons why the women I know didn't get fully into RPGs.

That said, I like it when a woman breaks the mold. But: I wouldn't appreciate if all women would completely act like men, so maybe too much overlap isn't a good thing. I don't think the future holds that in store though. Where there is overlap, I think tomboyish chicks tend to put their own feminine spin onto things, so it's all good.

And, yeah, Arya Stark is my favourite character in GoT. So far.

Alex

[...]

And, yeah, Arya Stark is my favourite character in GoT. So far.

Alex

But we all know she'll die. Let's not kid ourselves. We like her too much for her to live.

Yeah and German are conditioned to drinking beer and Russians are conditioned to drinking vodka. Good thing too.

What I don't like and what I would actively oppose is any artificial effort to break down differences as if they were a bad thing.

As a hererosexual male, I am glad (!!!) that girls are generally not completely like men. If they were, I might as well be homosexual or bisexual (not talking hobbies, etc. here). And I am completely okay that Russians prefer vodka and I am not trying to overcome their conditioning so that they can finally become like us Germans. In short: nothing wrong with girls being exposed to girlish toys and boys to boyish toys.

You do realize these are entirely artificial constructs, right? Toys are only inherently one gender or the other because we've been told they are. There have been a lot of interesting articles lately about gender in marketing. Look up what happened with Toys'R'Us in the UK.

Don't confuse an honest conversation about the language we use with an artificial attempt to change it. The words we use affect others, whether we acknowledge so or not, and having open, honest discussion about it is anything but artificial.

As long as people who break out of the mold are accepted, it's all good.

I'm gonna call this progress.

I have never been hanging out in gamestores. I got a clique of fairly reasonable friends, so that was never the problem in my mind. Most girls seem to enjoy more fantasy or Vampire than, say, Only War. War is mostly a man's thing, it's dirty business and women have suffered from the lawlessness of war for a long time.

War may have once been a man's thing (that's debatable), but women are very much soldiers fighting wars now.

Many women I know don't feel comfortable with the acting part. Nor with the crunch part, it's overly complicated and it doesn't seem to be worth the effort. I am generalizing but based on my experience, women prefer light-rules boardgames.

I have never heard a complaint about sexism; can't rule it out 100%ly but the above seem to be more the reasons why the women I know didn't get fully into RPGs.

These are anecdotes and in no way applicable to women as a whole. There are two women in my group, and one of them is very much interested in roleplaying and crunch. Outside my RP group I have another female friend who is very into (and very good at) highly analytical euro games. Still just anecdotes and not at all generalizable.

That said, I like it when a woman breaks the mold. But: I wouldn't appreciate if all women would completely act like men, so maybe too much overlap isn't a good thing. I don't think the future holds that in store though. Where there is overlap, I think tomboyish chicks tend to put their own feminine spin onto things, so it's all good.

The goal isn't to have women act like men. The goal is to create communities where all are welcome, which tabletop gaming is not at all.

And, yeah, Arya Stark is my favourite character in GoT. So far.

Alex

Why doesn't George RR Martin tweet?

In short: nothing wrong with girls being exposed to girlish toys and boys to boyish toys. As long as people who break out of the mold are accepted, it's all good.

Well, it is a form of conditioning. Indoctrination, even, if we want to make it sound evil (hint: it isn't, just misguided - not dissimilar to other traditions we as citizens of western culture would consider harmful).

And yes, this tradition does have a large effect on how society perceives people who "break ouf of the mold". cps posted a great article earlier on how this harms men, too, in regards to the cultural ideal of "masculinity".

It'll be up to the coming generations to sort this mess out.

Now, I propose a change of topic . Before y'all get me into the mood to really commit to this debate and dig up articles and statistics on my own in reaction to that implied "women don't like logic, it's just how they're built" argument...

In my experience, debates such as these don't really lead anywhere, hence I say we should try and stop. It simply depends on how sensitive we are to the issue, and what we have seen/read/experienced ourselves. Any single time I've seen this discussion on a gaming forum, it inevitably devolved into a slugfest with both sides firmly entrenched into their opinions. Nobody is going to convince anyone here .

i'll de-rail this thread and say ...

The 7th edition is not exactly gettin me re-interested in the TT. I played a few tournaments during 3rd, 4th and 5th Edition, but time and money constraints but a halt to my hobby. Now i'm happily gluing my old models back together and paint them. There is still a box full of 200+ Orcs waiting for me, not to mention my IG.

And yes, i still call them IG.

I am also among those that wished that GW would do some house cleaning of it's fluff, and to keep Mr. Ward away from that section. I re-read some mentioned pieces like his Newcrons and Grey Knight blasphemies ... dear Lord NO!