I'm pretty sure that they didn't make an all-male cover because of "political correctness". That'd be like wanting to get to the north pole and walking south.

I guess that opinions differ on the DH1 cover's assassin. My wife is strongly feminist and she didn't mind the cover; she even played an assassin in our first game. She didn't see the DH1 cover assassin as cheesecake, although I get that some people could. However, she does see the new cover's lack of inclusion as a disappointment. The people in this thread might disagree about what good inclusion looks like, but I think we'd mostly agree that no inclusion at all is a bad thing.

I think the reason why cps reacted so strongly is that we want women to be included because they're people, and not just because we think they're pretty. Your initial post could have been interpreted the second way, and I think cps took it that way because that attitude is unfortunately way too common.

I think the reason why cps reacted so strongly is that we want women to be included because they're people, and not just because we think they're pretty. Your initial post could have been interpreted the second way, and I think cps took it that way because that attitude is unfortunately way too common.

This is it precisely. He hasn't said much to dissuade me from that interpretation, either. The response has been a whole lot of defensive indignation and not a lot of thoughtful reflection.

If your adding women because you want to I am all for it. If your adding women because you feel pressured and forced to do that there is a problem. You want people to want to include other people in the covers because the moment they are no longer force to you can bet your ass they won't. Make friends, but avoid making enemies.

If FFG is trying to sell the game to women, then they should want to add women. Judging by their other games, I'd suspect that they do. I don't think that any of us are forcing FFG to do anything; we're just talking on a message board about what we like and don't like. I don't think that telling them what we care about makes us enemies. I think that FFG is composed of both decent people and decent salespeople, and as such they have multiple reasons to care how their customers feel.

I think you're right, too, that they probably didn't leave women off of the cover because of malice. But being left out because the game designers forgot about you still sucks.

If FFG is trying to sell the game to women, then they should want to add women. Judging by their other games, I'd suspect that they do. I don't think that any of us are forcing FFG to do anything; we're just talking on a message board about what we like and don't like. I don't think that telling them what we care about makes us enemies. I think that FFG is composed of both decent people and decent salespeople, and as such they have multiple reasons to care how their customers feel.

I think you're right, too, that they probably didn't leave women off of the cover because of malice. But being left out because the game designers forgot about you still sucks.

Hey man, stop being all reasonable and stuff

If FFG is trying to sell the game to women, then they should want to add women. Judging by their other games, I'd suspect that they do. I don't think that any of us are forcing FFG to do anything; we're just talking on a message board about what we like and don't like. I don't think that telling them what we care about makes us enemies. I think that FFG is composed of both decent people and decent salespeople, and as such they have multiple reasons to care how their customers feel.

Your problem is that women been buying and playing rpgs for decades. Decades long before social justice became even close to a fade that it is today. The lack of females in the cover won't stop women from playing it nor discourage them from playing it.

Though yes I do like to see women on the cover too.

Your problem is that women been buying and playing rpgs for decades. Decades long before social justice became even close to a fade that it is today. The lack of females in the cover won't stop women from playing it nor discourage them from playing it.

Though yes I do like to see women on the cover too.

Here we have a fine example of equivocating pointing out a problem with inventing a problem. Just because we're talking about social ills now doesn't mean they didn't exist beforehand.

Your problem is that women been buying and playing rpgs for decades. Decades long before social justice became even close to a fade that it is today. The lack of females in the cover won't stop women from playing it nor discourage them from playing it.

I disagree. The reason we have the saying "don't judge a book by its cover" is because people often judge books by their covers. If the cover didn't matter, you wouldn't have read this far into a thread about the cover, and it wouldn't bother you when folks ask for more inclusion on the cover.

Women have certainly been playing rpgs for some time, but I think that they're doing it more now, at a time when RPGs are far more likely to include them in the artwork and the text. I think the two have gone hand in hand.

Disagree with me all you want. The fact is a lot of women did play games and none of those old covers stop them from playing. Hell before the satanic scare in the 80's DnD was being played by many children and adults.

Disagree with me all you want. The fact is a lot of women did play games and none of those old covers stop them from playing. Hell before the satanic scare in the 80's DnD was being played by many children and adults.

Note that I didn't say that women never played RPGs before now; I said that inclusive art and games make it easier for them to get into it. I remain unconvinced that the proportion of women in gaming has remained unchanged in the last thirty years, or that inclusiveness has no effect on people's interests. We may, as you say, just have to disagree here.

For my part I agree that inclusion is a good thing. What I believe causes the division is when something is included and the someone makes it their personal crusade about how said something is portrayed. You can't have it both ways! Either something/someone is included and you might not like it's form or, it's not and you are further lacking for it's absence! This is Particularly true with art! Art is inspiration and passion! As such, not everyone's tastes will be the same. The minute you become obsessive in limiting it, you lose something!

I don't think that criticism is a threat to art. My own writing has been greatly improved by other people's criticism; it's a necessary part of the creative process.

No piece of art is ever going to please everyone, but I think we all have a right to say what we like and what we don't. Divisions are not always bad; it'd be awfully hard for anything to change if we all had to change our minds at the same time.

In general I think that the 40k Universe is by design a rather masculine-oriented universe.

Of course there are exceptions, but a lot of the elements attract rather men than women.

Therefore, publications usually know very well what their customer base is.

And thats ok to me. I wouldnt want a rpg that aims for all, if I have to make a compromise in the content.

I like 40k because it is the way it is. Dark, gritty, with its over-the-top-testosterone-battle-monks-of-doom and its clearly designed-for-men sororitas.

The same goes for movies, music and video games. You can also see having different target groups there.

There are those that target one group, and there are those that target several.

In my oppinion, wh40k has its target group in a rather narrow window, but with a very loyal customer base.

If you have mixed groups, I think there are other rpgs that might suit better.

Again, this of course has exceptions. There definitely are women who also like 40k, but this is a rather small number compared to other rpgs.

In general I think that the 40k Universe is by design a rather masculine-oriented universe.

Of course there are exceptions, but a lot of the elements attract rather men than women.

Therefore, publications usually know very well what their customer base is.

It's worth noting, in terms of their customer base, that FFG have done an awful lot of inclusion so far. If they didn't think women were going to play the 40k rpgs, they wouldn't have put women on every cover before this one (except Deathwatch, which has a canon reason for being a sausage fest), or put women in their sample adventures, or had so much art with women in it. And FFG has been right, too; several people in this thread have mentioned that women are part of their gaming groups. So, yes; I think they do know their customer base, which is why I think this cover's gender homogeneity is an unfortunate omission, rather than a deliberate choice to exclude.

Take, for example, the just released bits of story written by Dan Abnett (who's from what I've seen, been pretty good at having solid female characters in his books): Those seem to me a great way to include women. There's two quite different ones, neither is solely eye-candy (the killer one reminded me a bit of the Heavy from Only War) nor are they treated in any way differently than the men in the text. Which is perfectly in keeping with the setting and what seems to me FFGs efforts to include women. As such I agree with exseraph: No women on the cover seems more unfortunate than intentional. Which is precisely why it needs to be brought up: The people in charge can, during the stress of creating such a book, forget about including women. So we remind them that they can and have done better and could they please get back to that standard?

I am not really sure that women are put on the cover to attract female players to the game.

I am quite sure it is rather to

a.) give it in general a more diverse look

b.) rather be attractive to men than women (you'd be surprised, but rteally a lot of men like to see women)

I have also played with mixed groups. But in my experience, most women I played with (about a dozen so far) preferred other game lines to WH40k lines - this were either fantasy-oriented ones (D&D style) or more realistic ones (Cthulu).

WH40k has a setting that in my opinion really is rather male.

It is the islay scotch in the world of RPG drinks.

Oh, what the heck, I'll 'stir the pot':

Some of the figures on the cover are servitors; can you imagine the outraged response if we ever saw a picture of a female servitor?

Oh, what the heck, I'll 'stir the pot':

Some of the figures on the cover are servitors; can you imagine the outraged response if we ever saw a picture of a female servitor?

I don't know if servitors effectively have a sex/ gender...

Oh, what the heck, I'll 'stir the pot':

Some of the figures on the cover are servitors; can you imagine the outraged response if we ever saw a picture of a female servitor?

I don't know if servitors effectively have a sex/ gender...

Well...the parts of them that are from a human genetically have a gender.

Oh, what the heck, I'll 'stir the pot':

Some of the figures on the cover are servitors; can you imagine the outraged response if we ever saw a picture of a female servitor?

I personally wouldn't be outraged at that unless someone tried to claim that a female servitor on the cover counts as meaningful inclusion. The Imperium puts women in penitent engines, so we already know that it's equal opportunity with its tortures.

Oh, what the heck, I'll 'stir the pot':

Some of the figures on the cover are servitors; can you imagine the outraged response if we ever saw a picture of a female servitor?

I don't know if servitors effectively have a sex/ gender...

Servitors definitely have gender. The overwhelmingly vast majority of servitors are humans that have had some or most of their brain and some other choice bits replaced by machinery, and are used for everything from calculations to base labour.

Gives a whole new meaning to the concept of "sex-bot".

Anyway, there's an argument that there could conceivably be vat-grown servitors that are essentially genderless, but there hasn't been any, as far as I know. And last I checked, humans are either male or female. So yeah, servitors have gender. Not sure it matters much, but yeah.

Oh, what the heck, I'll 'stir the pot':

Some of the figures on the cover are servitors; can you imagine the outraged response if we ever saw a picture of a female servitor?

I.. I'm not sure I can. I'm sure someone would blow a gasket about "**** culture" or something like that, or some other nonsense about depicting women as slaves, but on the whole, I don't see anyone sane really caring.

WH40k has a setting that in my opinion really is rather male.

It is the islay scotch in the world of RPG drinks.

Maybe you're just drinking with the wrong women.

WH40k has a setting that in my opinion really is rather male.

It is the islay scotch in the world of RPG drinks.

Maybe you're just drinking with the wrong women.

Ahm..well...not sure if that speaks for or against me ;D

You mean, like the outrage over the old female servitor models?
http://n-a-g.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2013-05-23093357_zps2384bf9b.jpg

I mean, yeah, it looks horrendous, but hey, I'm told most models back then were terrible.

You mean, like the outrage over the old female servitor models?

http://n-a-g.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2013-05-23093357_zps2384bf9b.jpg

I mean, yeah, it looks horrendous, but hey, I'm told most models back then were terrible.

I've always enjoyed how people who want game mechanics from the 80s also want gender equality from the 80s. Do you post on these forums from an Amiga?