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.

 Nevelon wrote:


More opponents?

It’s not that we need to have a one-of-each checkmark on a diversity scorecard. It’s that we want anyone and everyone to feel welcome to participate in our shared hobby. If someone out there decides to pass on 40k because “that’s just for middle aged white guys, I don’t feel like I’d be accepted” we have lost out on another potential hobbiest. Casting as wide a net as possible, making everyone feel they can join and have a place, will help our hobby grow.

But then there we are looking for solutions that are universal, not limited to gender or skin colour, otherwise we end up with an unlimited number of specific campaigns directed at unlimited number of social groups underrepresented in the hobby. For example fantasy gaming (and wargaming specifically) has always been dominated by metalheads. Should we create sepecific campaigns to reach out to jazz lovers or disco fans so that they feel welcome in an environment where 3 out of 4 players wear a black shirt with a goat's skull?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Using a recent example I heard, compare Game of Thrones to The Witcher.

The Game of Thrones series goes out of its way to make each region different from one another. The people are not homogenised. The cultures are different. The styles are different. They film in wildly different locations and even use colour-grading to show a difference in places. Compare that to The Witcher, where every village and hamlet is populated like it came right out of a BBC diversity quota office. There's no sense of place anywhere, as every new location is just another copied of the same racial melting pot as the last one.

When I learned that the Withcher is being translated into other languages I wondered if this book is even possible to translate it considering how innately Slavic or even Polish it is with so many non-obvious references to Polish mentality, history and culture (do the translations have these references explained btw?). Changing the Witcher world for TV like you describe is called cultural appropriation, isn't it? Taking something Polish and making it US/western EU-like. Deleting the Slavic feel or limiting it to easily digestible stereotypes to make it more managable for a western audience.

On a side note, I actually think diversity in art is a great idea, but when done sensibly. My examples are from video games. In Battlefield 1 if you wanted to play a Prussian cavalryman (so, most likely, a Prussian noble) you ended up with a black-skinned character. It's just laughable for me and actually hurts the cause because of how nonsensical and open to ridicule it is. It could have been avoided so easily! In the same game the single player campaigh starts with some action from Harlem Hellfighters. It is an awesome way of introducing the player to those heroes and teaching them some part of history that should be known better. Why no Harlem Hellfighters in multiplayer if you wanted representation ? The medic character for the British is from India and it makes a lot more sense and adds to the diversity within the game without doing a disservice to the cause, like the absurd black Prussian horsemen do.

Or the storeowner in Hogwarts Legacy telling us (a total stranger) that she has a wife. Same sex relationships were depenalised in the UK when, in the 60's? The game is supposed to take place in the XIXth century (and feels nothing like that due to characters having 100% modern mindsets). In my opinion it would be so much more compelling to let the character help a secretive gay couple and to show their hardship in these difficult times than to do something simplistic and dumb like they did.

Honestly, it's as if the producers were actively trying to jeopardise the cause by being so heavy handed to the point of absurdity.

Battlefield 1 is so far removed from "historically accurate" that they could add martian invaders and it'd be as accurate as it is now. That being said, Hellfighters would be pretty amazing to see (but then the game would have to tackle the issue of why are american black soldiers fighting under the French instead of American command...and that'd make it Political)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
More money. Basically.

Going right back to the roots? That’s the driving force here.

It’s in any products own interest to remove as many needless barriers as possible, in order to maximise custom and sales.

Great, and that's the corporate side of things. I'm talking about what benefit there is for those of us who aren't GW shareholders.

The first reply to your comment literally covered this. More people in the hobby benefits everyone: more opponents, more people making cool conversions, a greater variety ideas coming into the hobby - and also more money for the companies involved.

I'm not saying there needs to be a specific quota we're trying to reach, or that gaming groups should be exactly representative of their local communities. But it seems that there is broad agreement that diversity is lacking in the hobby, purely from anecdotal evidence in this thread. Trying to improve that situation is an overall benefit to everyone involved.

Also, it is about attracting kids. Because they’re the newbies who, if GW are lucky, stick around to become Sad Old Gits like what we am.

Is it a somewhat cynical approach? Kind of. Yeah. I guess. But inclusive is inclusive. It encourages as many folk as possible to develop a life long crippling plastic crack addiction.

What relevance do any of these examples have for Warhammer when the settings aren't historical and don't have to consider historical norms or practices?
Is the argument that GW shouldn't be putting non-straight white male-presenting characters in stories or art because it would alienate straight white males? I fit those categories and I don't feel threatened by a black space marine or a non-binary character.

The Old World setting has specific ethnicities based on where they are located. Ethnic diversity is happening in wh40k and is very well implemented - still, having black White Scars would feel weird, and I received critical comments when I painted a white Salamander.

Also, being part of a sub culture is much more important for many people than skin colour or gender. Like, seriously, whether a Warhammer tournament or an outdoor LARP encampment, these events in my entire quarter of a century fantasy gaming career have looked like side shows at the Wacken festival. Are non-metalhead players discouraged from joining or should something be done to encourage them more? What about other social groups that are underrepresented? Aren't they without number?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, it is about attracting kids. Because they’re the newbies who, if GW are lucky, stick around to become Sad Old Gits like what we am.

Is it a somewhat cynical approach? Kind of. Yeah. I guess. But inclusive is inclusive. It encourages as many folk as possible to develop a life long crippling plastic crack addiction.

That would actually be far more inclusive and easier to achieve if gw wouldn't demand exorbitant prices for plastic miniatures.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But also? Why shouldn’t it be more inclusive?

There are limits to how inclusive it can be without fundamentally changing and becoming something else.

There are people out there who consider checkers to be too complicated. You can't include them in Warhammer/miniature wargaming without effectively destroying the hobby.

There are the cultures and religions that would consider the art of painting minis to be blasphemous. Or find the idea of actually playing demons to be evil. They won't want anything to do with fantasy wargaming and therefore cannot be included.

And, of course, there are those who prefer.... shall we say, chemical stimulation to mental stimulation? Not much in mini wargaming for them.

Thankfully, these are extremes and rare.

Lots of people just prefer more physical pursuits. There, maybe the LARPing aspect GW is starting to get into might be a good way to get them included if they choose. If money is the issue, then smaller scale games with low entry costs can bring people in, and escalation leagues help them build up. (I didn't get into miniature gaming, even with D&D, until I started playing Blood Bowl in my early thirties, which eventually escalated into five armies totaling somewhere past 45,000 points so far.)

And yes, creating a welcoming environment for the newcomer goes a long way.

In other words, there are things that players can do to help inclusion. Others have to come from the corporate level. And in the end, people have to chose to be included; we can't decide that for them.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I bet it would bring in or back as many players as it alienated. If it squirms the chuds out of the hobby, it’s better for everyone.

Gay genestealers would bring people in? I would expect it to squick people out much more commonly. Sounds almost as bad as some of the more... ah, 'creatively' sculpted Slaanesh armies out there.

Besides, Rainbow Marines are apparently a thing now, so that's been taken care of. Not to mention that, by canon, Space Marines are segregated by gender and isolated from the general population most of the time. Under such conditions I'd expect homosexuality to be the norm, not the exception, among Space Marines.

I suspect the tendency of some adolescents to casually say 'that's gay!' when referring to a substandard army build chases far more people away than a lack of explicitly gay characters in canon. Which is something the adults in the room really should be keeping an eye (ear?) out for.

Cyel wrote:
The Old World setting has specific ethnicities based on where they are located. Ethnic diversity is happening in wh40k and is very well implemented - still, having black White Scars would feel weird, and I received critical comments when I painted a white Salamander.

Interesting that you ignored AoS, picked the worst example for 40k, and ignored everything but race. Why is that?

And why is it weird to have a black White Scar? They don't exclusively recruit from Chogoris and even then Chogoris is still a normal planet with people who don't all look the same. In-universe in the novel Scars a Terran recruit notes that the Vth Legion prefers to take candidates from those nations that used to be China, Mongolia, and Japan, which the recruit believes defeats the purpose of Unification.
The Salamander thing is just people being silly. Unless you're painting an entire army of white Salamanders, a couple isn't a problem because the geneseed mutation isn't necessarily instant.


With regard to the Old World, I disagree. People migrate between the various human states as traders, refugees, or simply just people looking for a change. As far as I'm aware GW hasn't made it explicit that the Empire or Bretonnia actively repress those people not from specific provinces of their lands so why is it a problem if I paint my Bretonnia Paladin as a non-white person? Can someone from Araby or Cathay not pledge to the Lady and take the code of Chivalry? Can someone whose family came from Ind not serve in an Elector Counts State Troops? Why not if so? Nobody is arguing that Karl Franz be made into a black man so why does it matter if some models in an army aren't white guys?

 Gert wrote:

Cyel wrote:
The Old World setting has specific ethnicities based on where they are located. Ethnic diversity is happening in wh40k and is very well implemented - still, having black White Scars would feel weird, and I received critical comments when I painted a white Salamander.

Interesting that you ignored AoS,

I just ignore AoS existance in general and feel better this way in a similar vein to Terminators after the first 2 or the fourth Indiana Jones movie.

So just gonna ignore the rest as well then?

I actually agree with everything you said in the rest of your post.

You may feel I am against this diversity. I am not. I'm just against it being introduced in a heavy handed, indiscriminate way.

 Gert wrote:

Cyel wrote:
The Old World setting has specific ethnicities based on where they are located. Ethnic diversity is happening in wh40k and is very well implemented - still, having black White Scars would feel weird, and I received critical comments when I painted a white Salamander.

Interesting that you ignored AoS, picked the worst example for 40k, and ignored everything but race. Why is that?

With regard to the Old World, I disagree. People migrate between the various human states as traders, refugees, or simply just people looking for a change. As far as I'm aware GW hasn't made it explicit that the Empire or Bretonnia actively repress those people not from specific provinces of their lands so why is it a problem if I paint my Bretonnia Paladin as a non-white person? Can someone from Araby or Cathay not pledge to the Lady and take the code of Chivalry? Can someone whose family came from Ind not serve in an Elector Counts State Troops? Why not if so? Nobody is arguing that Karl Franz be made into a black man so why does it matter if some models in an army aren't white guys?

Many of these things are not only reasonable conclusions to draw from the background, but are actively mentioned as existing, even in older lore. There are Ambassadors, Traders, the Bretonnians but also some Imperial Knightly Orders do crusades in foreign lands like Numas and Zandri and have holdings there, Arabian merchants and their entourages get around a lot, up to and including to Marienburg and even Norsca, trade with Cathay and Ind exists both by sea and along the Ivory Road, there's the Border Princes, Tilea and Estalia that have more mixed population and produce a lot of travelling warbands and mercenary companies, several factions that travel the whole world are infamous for raiding and enslaving people from all sorts of countries - these people could easily be sold in the Imperium, get rescued after battles against these slave-holding factions, or escape on their own and end up in a foreign land. And that's before we get into entirely magical modes of transportation and translocation, which also exist both under the control of factions and as more-or-less random forces of nature.

Cyel wrote:
I actually agree with everything you said in the rest of your post.

You may feel I am against this diversity. I am not. I'm just against it being introduced in a heavy handed, indiscriminate way.

Good to know you agree. But I don't get what "heavy-handed" and "indiscriminate" are supposed to mean in the context of Warhammer. You need to actually explain what you mean and not just use buzzwords because without context they are utterly meaningless.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But also? Why shouldn’t it be more inclusive?

There are limits to how inclusive it can be without fundamentally changing and becoming something else.

I feel like we've two sides of the argument going on, but each is arguing at a different stance.

Those arguing for means and method to improve diversity tend to do so from the view of outreach, removal of barriers and marketing. Ergo not actually changing the product, but changing its presentation and such. So things like using more diverse presenters; different marketing tactics to appeal to different groups; removing racist comments (most accidental) from communities and so forth. Basically methods that mean the GW product doesn't change, but that its presentation does.
We've already seen this too in the market in general - more women getting into the hobby not because GW (And every other brand) threw out thousands of female models, but because we got more and more painters, youtubers, gamers, panels and soforth all showing women having fun and engaging with the hobby. Which in turn has helped attract others and encourage others to step past the threshold.


Those arguing against diversity methods, or at least against overt moves to increase diversity; tend to be arguing from a product and lore viewpoint. That of not wanting to see "female space marines" or dramatic shifts in ethnic groups (Arabian Bretonnia etc...). Even if some of these changes are actually not changes in the lore itself (eg Space Marines do recruit from many worlds and the Imperium has a vast diversity of racial and social backgrounds). And even if many changes are often things encouraged by gamers when converting their own armies (I've never seen anyone opposed to someone converting an army set of rules to work with a converted army with a different visual/cultural/whatever theme - heck I've seen people build MLP style armies).


As a result of this divergence both sides are kind of arguing past each other and only connecting every so often on the extremes.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Many of these things are not only reasonable conclusions to draw from the background, but are actively mentioned as existing, even in older lore. There are Ambassadors, Traders, the Bretonnians but also some Imperial Knightly Orders do crusades in foreign lands like Numas and Zandri and have holdings there, Arabian merchants and their entourages get around a lot, up to and including to Marienburg and even Norsca, trade with Cathay and Ind exists both by sea and along the Ivory Road, there's the Border Princes, Tilea and Estalia that have more mixed population and produce a lot of travelling warbands and mercenary companies, several factions that travel the whole world are infamous for raiding and enslaving people from all sorts of countries - these people could easily be sold in the Imperium, get rescued after battles against these slave-holding factions, or escape on their own and end up in a foreign land. And that's before we get into entirely magical modes of transportation and translocation, which also exist both under the control of factions and as more-or-less random forces of nature.

Ah... well, we are talking about a broadly medieval setting, yes?

In general, ambassadors, traders, nobles, and what-not generally don't commonly join the armies of the lands they're visiting in broadly medieval settings. And even if they were willing to join the army of the land their visiting, would the leadership of that army trust them enough to let them join?

Even more pointedly, no, those crusaders in Arabay are most definitely NOT fighting as part of the Arabay army; they're there to fight against Arabay...

Why are there even crusades in Araby when there is no holy land for Sigmarites or followers of the Lady in Araby to begin with.

Anyway, to my knowledge there is no real reason why all Empire people must be caucasian beyond the unstated fact that Old World is just eurasia with serial numbers filed off.

 Vulcan wrote:

Ah... well, we are talking about a broadly medieval setting, yes?

We actually are not, the Old World setting has outliers that are late-medieval or from completely different epochs like ancient egypt, like e.g. Bretonnia, but is for the most part squarely rooted in Renaissance and early modern times - the Empire uses gunpowder and steam engines and is mostly modelled on 16th and 17th century clothes and modes of organisation (for example, the whole Elector Count thing started in the 13th century in the Holy Roman Empire, and ended in 1806, i.e. just barely in the 19th century. The late medieval is considered to range from the 13th to the last decacdes of the 15th or the first decades of the 16th century). Tilea is literally a filed-the-serial-numbers-off version of Renaissance Italy, including a knockoff Leonardo da Vinci. Dwarves use steam and gunpowder, and so on. We have knockoff Marco Polo (13th and 14th century) and knockoff Columbus (15th and just barely 16th century, again) as things that happened in the (recent) past of the setting. Other stuff happening in the setting, like the founding of universities and colleges (of magic and engineering, in Warhammer) also match real-world events that are commonly used as markers that divide the late medieval era from the early modern era in various contexts (these are by no means fixes dates, and can shift around a bit depending on context. A common marker, for example, would be the 'discovery' of the Americas, but that is kinda useless if you're talking about e.g. an educational context). Excuse me for nerding out for a moment, but i find the early modern era intensely fascinating and read a lot about it

 Vulcan wrote:


In general, ambassadors, traders, nobles, and what-not generally don't commonly join the armies of the lands they're visiting in broadly medieval settings. And even if they were willing to join the army of the land their visiting, would the leadership of that army trust them enough to let them join?

Even more pointedly, no, those crusaders in Arabay are most definitely NOT fighting as part of the Arabay army; they're there to fight against Arabay...

Yes, yes, but all these people and events include a lot of minders, entourages, servants, fellow travellers, guards, seafarers, mule-drivers and whatever else makes up the delightful careers available in the old world, and presents a myriad of possibilities how some person from Cathay could have ended up in Altdorf or whatever. It serves as an argument that it is certainly not impossible to have some black people or whatever in your force, if you want to, and it is certainly not 'breaking the setting'.

 Overread wrote:
I feel like we've two sides of the argument going on, but each is arguing at a different stance.

Those arguing for means and method to improve diversity tend to do so from the view of outreach, removal of barriers and marketing. Ergo not actually changing the product, but changing its presentation and such. So things like using more diverse presenters; different marketing tactics to appeal to different groups; removing racist comments (most accidental) from communities and so forth. Basically methods that mean the GW product doesn't change, but that its presentation does.
We've already seen this too in the market in general - more women getting into the hobby not because GW (And every other brand) threw out thousands of female models, but because we got more and more painters, youtubers, gamers, panels and soforth all showing women having fun and engaging with the hobby. Which in turn has helped attract others and encourage others to step past the threshold.


Those arguing against diversity methods, or at least against overt moves to increase diversity; tend to be arguing from a product and lore viewpoint. That of not wanting to see "female space marines" or dramatic shifts in ethnic groups (Arabian Bretonnia etc...). Even if some of these changes are actually not changes in the lore itself (eg Space Marines do recruit from many worlds and the Imperium has a vast diversity of racial and social backgrounds). And even if many changes are often things encouraged by gamers when converting their own armies (I've never seen anyone opposed to someone converting an army set of rules to work with a converted army with a different visual/cultural/whatever theme - heck I've seen people build MLP style armies).


As a result of this divergence both sides are kind of arguing past each other and only connecting every so often on the extremes.

Interesting you pick one line out of that post to quibble with, and ignore everything else that was said.

I can point at my Brettonian army and say 'this one is from Arabay, this one is chinese, this one is norse, etc. etc. etc. and you can't say otherwise for the simple reason that they're all in full suits of armor with great helms, no skin exposed. I can even say 'these ones are women' and again, full suits of armor go a long way to hiding gender as well. I can eve say 'these two with the same heraldry are a gay couple' and there's nothing you can say in response.

Does any of this affect how the game plays? Nope. Is it even likely to ever come up when discussing my personal army? Probably not. It's irrelevant to the game, and barely relevant to the players.

Sure, I could have painted all my Dwarves as Japanese and called them O-Bakemono, but in the game they'd still just be dwarves.

One of the guys I used to play regularly had converted his ogres to be some form of blue Chinese demons, complete with the big straw hats. Still functioned as ogres.

He's also a white make, which means instead of being diverse, he's probably now guilty of cultural appropriation.

Which is a problem in and of itself. When white guys do games about white guys it means we're being exclusionary, which is WRONG. If we do games about non-white non-men, it's cultural appropriation and is WRONG. So when you've written the rules so that everything I do is WRONG, what is my motivation to try and be RIGHT?

It can't all come from me. You've got to meet me halfway. Or is the point not to be all-inclusive... but to include everyone BUT me?

 Vulcan wrote:
Ah... well, we are talking about a broadly medieval setting, yes?

In general, ambassadors, traders, nobles, and what-not generally don't commonly join the armies of the lands they're visiting in broadly medieval settings. And even if they were willing to join the army of the land their visiting, would the leadership of that army trust them enough to let them join?

Even more pointedly, no, those crusaders in Arabay are most definitely NOT fighting as part of the Arabay army; they're there to fight against Arabay...

It's closer to the Renaissance than Medieval Europe, at least for the Empire, Border Princes, Tilea, and Estalia. Bretonnia is very much that Arthurian/French mix of medieval fantasy but the Empire is far more modern. Regardless of that these traders, ambassadors, and nobles aren't just going around by themselves but with caravans or entourages who will mingle with the locals. Sometimes these people will stay behind or bring new companions home with them. That's how migration works and it's absolutely reasonable to have non-whites in an Empire or Bretonnia army.

Angronsrosycheeks wrote:
Why are there even crusades in Araby when there is no holy land for Sigmarites or followers of the Lady in Araby to begin with.

Anyway, to my knowledge there is no real reason why all Empire people must be caucasian beyond the unstated fact that Old World is just eurasia with serial numbers filed off.

Well, yeah, that's pretty much it. It's basically European history, which is basically just Caucasian history. It would be like having Cathay armies being black or Ind armies being Japanese.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

Ah... well, we are talking about a broadly medieval setting, yes?

We actually are not, the Old World setting has outliers that are late-medieval or from completely different epochs like ancient egypt, like e.g. Bretonnia, but is for the most part squarely rooted in Renaissance and early modern times - the Empire uses gunpowder and steam engines and is mostly modelled on 16th and 17th century clothes and modes of organisation (for example, the whole Elector Count thing started in the 13th century in the Holy Roman Empire, and ended in 1806, i.e. just barely in the 19th century. The late medieval is considered to range from the 13th to the last decacdes of the 15th or the first decades of the 16th century). Tilea is literally a filed-the-serial-numbers-off version of Renaissance Italy, including a knockoff Leonardo da Vinci. Dwarves use steam and gunpowder, and so on. We have knockoff Marco Polo (13th and 14th century) and knockoff Columbus (15th and just barely 16th century, again) as things that happened in the (recent) past of the setting. Other stuff happening in the setting, like the founding of universities and colleges (of magic and engineering, in Warhammer) also match real-world events that are commonly used as markers that divide the late medieval era from the early modern era in various contexts (these are by no means fixes dates, and can shift around a bit depending on context. A common marker, for example, would be the 'discovery' of the Americas, but that is kinda useless if you're talking about e.g. an educational context). Excuse me for nerding out for a moment, but i find the early modern era intensely fascinating and read a lot about it

 Vulcan wrote:


In general, ambassadors, traders, nobles, and what-not generally don't commonly join the armies of the lands they're visiting in broadly medieval settings. And even if they were willing to join the army of the land their visiting, would the leadership of that army trust them enough to let them join?

Even more pointedly, no, those crusaders in Arabay are most definitely NOT fighting as part of the Arabay army; they're there to fight against Arabay...

Yes, yes, but all these people and events include a lot of minders, entourages, servants, fellow travellers, guards, seafarers, mule-drivers and whatever else makes up the delightful careers available in the old world, and presents a myriad of possibilities how some person from Cathay could have ended up in Altdorf or whatever. It serves as an argument that it is certainly not impossible to have some black people or whatever in your force, if you want to, and it is certainly not 'breaking the setting'.

Never said it would break the setting. Merely pointing out that non-Caucasians are going to be a very distinct minority in most WFB armies, as WFB is set in Caucasian-majority lands. There most certainly could be a few of whatever ethinicity you please be part of your army. Indeed, there's a canon special character for the Bretonians, Sulamein le Saracen, who is most definitely from Arabay. I don't have one, because he's been out of print for a LONG time and has become pretty stupid expensive on e-Bay. But I keep looking.

But I reiterate: An Empire army that is depicted with mostly Indian or African troops is not going to look right, any more than an Ind or Cathay army composed mostly of Caucasians.

 Gert wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Ah... well, we are talking about a broadly medieval setting, yes?

In general, ambassadors, traders, nobles, and what-not generally don't commonly join the armies of the lands they're visiting in broadly medieval settings. And even if they were willing to join the army of the land their visiting, would the leadership of that army trust them enough to let them join?

Even more pointedly, no, those crusaders in Arabay are most definitely NOT fighting as part of the Arabay army; they're there to fight against Arabay...

It's closer to the Renaissance than Medieval Europe, at least for the Empire, Border Princes, Tilea, and Estalia. Bretonnia is very much that Arthurian/French mix of medieval fantasy but the Empire is far more modern. Regardless of that these traders, ambassadors, and nobles aren't just going around by themselves but with caravans or entourages who will mingle with the locals. Sometimes these people will stay behind or bring new companions home with them. That's how migration works and it's absolutely reasonable to have non-whites in an Empire or Bretonnia army.

Very crisply put

I wanted to add that 'medieval' is a hell of a thing to be 'broadly' - if we use the most extreme definitions that have some standing in academic circley, that covers just about exaclty 1500 years, for the begin of the reign of Emperor Constantine in 306 to the official dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 (which coincidentially also the time that an identity called the Roman Empire that was explicitly having Christianity as state religion existed in some form, and is why these two points are somewhat acceptable to older generations of historians). That time period contains so much change that summarizing it all as a single thing is laughable; someone from the very end of it would be literally alien to someone from the start. For example, we have a good handful of completely different societal models in it, and that's not even starting to consider economical, social, moral etc. factors.

The Old World isn't even a relevant setting currently. It will be again eventually but AoS is the primary fantasy setting for GW regardless of whether people acknowledge its existence or not and in AoS there is absolutely no reason why representation and diversity shouldn't be a thing.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Ah... well, we are talking about a broadly medieval setting, yes?

In general, ambassadors, traders, nobles, and what-not generally don't commonly join the armies of the lands they're visiting in broadly medieval settings. And even if they were willing to join the army of the land their visiting, would the leadership of that army trust them enough to let them join?

Even more pointedly, no, those crusaders in Arabay are most definitely NOT fighting as part of the Arabay army; they're there to fight against Arabay...

It's closer to the Renaissance than Medieval Europe, at least for the Empire, Border Princes, Tilea, and Estalia. Bretonnia is very much that Arthurian/French mix of medieval fantasy but the Empire is far more modern. Regardless of that these traders, ambassadors, and nobles aren't just going around by themselves but with caravans or entourages who will mingle with the locals. Sometimes these people will stay behind or bring new companions home with them. That's how migration works and it's absolutely reasonable to have non-whites in an Empire or Bretonnia army.

Very crisply put

I wanted to add that 'medieval' is a hell of a thing to be 'broadly' - if we use the most extreme definitions that have some standing in academic circley, that covers just about exaclty 1500 years, for the begin of the reign of Emperor Constantine in 306 to the official dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 (which coincidentially also the time that an identity called the Roman Empire that was explicitly having Christianity as state religion existed in some form, and is why these two points are somewhat acceptable to older generations of historians). That time period contains so much change that summarizing it all as a single thing is laughable; someone from the very end of it would be literally alien to someone from the start. For example, we have a good handful of completely different societal models in it, and that's not even starting to consider economical, social, moral etc. factors.

That's fair.

However, I will also point out that the world of WFB includes cultures which are every bit as historically diverse as that wide variety of 'broadly medieval European' cultures you've just mentioned...

The Old World is not our world, even if it's modeled on our world. And I would not expect to see a Caucasian majority army from Ind any more than I'd expect to see an Hindi-majority army from the Empire.

Of course, if that's what floats your boat, it's your army and your minis. Paint 'em however you like, come up with whatever fluff you like to justify it. So long as you play by the rules why should I care?

 Gert wrote:
The Old World isn't even a relevant setting currently. It will be again eventually but AoS is the primary fantasy setting for GW regardless of whether people acknowledge its existence or not and in AoS there is absolutely no reason why representation and diversity shouldn't be a thing.

Yes, and also-also, Diversity in the setting is not the same as diversity in the community - one can certainly help the other (and the other way around, eventually), but they're very distinct concepts. And i find it a bit telling that people start to argue against the one and almost invariably end up argueing against the other.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I feel like we've two sides of the argument going on, but each is arguing at a different stance.

Those arguing for means and method to improve diversity tend to do so from the view of outreach, removal of barriers and marketing. Ergo not actually changing the product, but changing its presentation and such. So things like using more diverse presenters; different marketing tactics to appeal to different groups; removing racist comments (most accidental) from communities and so forth. Basically methods that mean the GW product doesn't change, but that its presentation does.
We've already seen this too in the market in general - more women getting into the hobby not because GW (And every other brand) threw out thousands of female models, but because we got more and more painters, youtubers, gamers, panels and soforth all showing women having fun and engaging with the hobby. Which in turn has helped attract others and encourage others to step past the threshold.


Those arguing against diversity methods, or at least against overt moves to increase diversity; tend to be arguing from a product and lore viewpoint. That of not wanting to see "female space marines" or dramatic shifts in ethnic groups (Arabian Bretonnia etc...). Even if some of these changes are actually not changes in the lore itself (eg Space Marines do recruit from many worlds and the Imperium has a vast diversity of racial and social backgrounds). And even if many changes are often things encouraged by gamers when converting their own armies (I've never seen anyone opposed to someone converting an army set of rules to work with a converted army with a different visual/cultural/whatever theme - heck I've seen people build MLP style armies).


As a result of this divergence both sides are kind of arguing past each other and only connecting every so often on the extremes.

It can't all come from me. You've got to meet me halfway. Or is the point not to be all-inclusive... but to include everyone BUT me?

I wasn't really quibbling, I was making an observation on the nature of the debate being made. It's not exclusive to you, I was just raising the point in observation in general.

Again we are hitting that separation of diverse increase in the community looking at the community increasing diversity not the actual product/lore; again its a spot where the debate is getting stuck because two sides (not the only two sides) are kind of glancing comments past each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Gert wrote:
The Old World isn't even a relevant setting currently. It will be again eventually but AoS is the primary fantasy setting for GW regardless of whether people acknowledge its existence or not and in AoS there is absolutely no reason why representation and diversity shouldn't be a thing.

Yes, and also-also, Diversity in the setting is not the same as diversity in the community - one can certainly help the other (and the other way around, eventually), but they're very distinct concepts. And i find it a bit telling that people start to argue against the one and almost invariably end up argueing against the other.

Put what I was saying into far fewer words

 Overread wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Gert wrote:
The Old World isn't even a relevant setting currently. It will be again eventually but AoS is the primary fantasy setting for GW regardless of whether people acknowledge its existence or not and in AoS there is absolutely no reason why representation and diversity shouldn't be a thing.

Yes, and also-also, Diversity in the setting is not the same as diversity in the community - one can certainly help the other (and the other way around, eventually), but they're very distinct concepts. And i find it a bit telling that people start to argue against the one and almost invariably end up argueing against the other.

Put what I was saying into far fewer words

If you want it even snappier: It's about people at the table, not people on the table.

Agreed. Howling Banshees or Witch Elves never translated to large numbers of female wargamers.

The Old World argument falls apart when you realize only European cultures are portrayed with any car for accuracy. Mesoamericans, South Americans and Africans are all
Lizarpeople.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, it is about attracting kids. Because they’re the newbies who, if GW are lucky, stick around to become Sad Old Gits like what we am.

Is it a somewhat cynical approach? Kind of. Yeah. I guess. But inclusive is inclusive. It encourages as many folk as possible to develop a life long crippling plastic crack addiction.

That would actually be far more inclusive and easier to achieve if gw wouldn't demand exorbitant prices for plastic miniatures.

We’re in agreement here.

Great point, this thread is about diversity around the table.

Now, an argument could be made that the diversity around the table could be improved with diversity on the table too. However, that is the least likely driver.

The biggest driver is communities not only being inclusive to different players showing up around the table, but actively courting and asking diverse folks to take a place at the table.