Taking the Game Too Seriously, and Ruining the Fun

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The brand new army book for Infernal Dwarves is finally available, along with a small surprise! Remember that it is a beta version, and provide us your feedback!

  • Kristian wrote:

    I wonder how a person so eloquent and who promotes himself as fun to be around fail to recognizenthat playing a game is a social contract that involves much more than the actual rules as written.
    I play with all and all who want to play, no matter what they bring. Take your strawman back to the corn field.

    Kristian wrote:

    Ragong heroes are maybe the worst models for including females. They are so overly sexualized and his been openly critizesed by actual females in the hobby.
    Theyre female models modeled and sold by female gamers. Only females who criticize them usually have their own gravitational field. Theres a female gamer in the Midwest whos darkelf army is half raging heroes.
    I am going to offend you. You are not going to like it. You will survive.

    Chaotic Neutral
    youtube.com/channel/UCJ9e5C1f26iuvhOA33rsFJQ

    Model Reviews with Twice the Brain Injuries!
  • Kristian wrote:

    @Grouchy Badger
    I think you missed my point.
    To clarify, do you think a game of 9th age involves more than the rules as written?


    Whether Raging Heroes models are sculpted by females, and that one female gamer likes them is irrelevant to the sexualized sculpts and how they are likely to be percieved på female gamers?
    9th Age, as stated by many, is rules as written. It has no model range, no model specifications on build, just on what size base it has to be on. Lots of female gamers like their models. Lots of male gamers like their models too. They model in a style specific to them, and a style they enjoy. All of my female models are from raging heroes, because they have the best female sculpts on the market, and that is an unbiased fact.
    I am going to offend you. You are not going to like it. You will survive.

    Chaotic Neutral
    youtube.com/channel/UCJ9e5C1f26iuvhOA33rsFJQ

    Model Reviews with Twice the Brain Injuries!
  • Vamp87 wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Vamp87 wrote:

    Chronocide wrote:

    Adam wrote:

    I really like how in topic about not taking game too seriously @Chronocide thinks he is proving we're take it too seriously when we want to have fun and aesthetically pleasing game while RAW he is supposed to be able to bring any minis he wants - in my book playing RAW and ignoring fun aspect are really close to taking game too seriously
    My stance is that my army is my business and your army is your business, and if you want to play this game, let's play.You, and others, have stated opinions to the effect that my army needs to conform your ideals of fun and my fun is inconsequential unless it meets up with your ideals of fun. And that's why I called it bullying, because by being unwilling to accept others as they are, and trying to force them to meet your ideals, it's bullying.That attitude to the hobby is exclusive and will result in less players. From the arguments in previous posts, players like @Marcos24 have established that less players is fine with them, provided the players that stay meet their requirements. Starting to sound like GW made the right call with AoS, as doing so ejected the "hardcore fluff elitist players" to this game.

    This is not unlike the rejections/laughs I've gotten when I suggest gender diversity/neutrality to the naming of unit entries. It's Exclusivity and limits our potential player base for zero gain. Dunno about other countries, but the USA is 51% female. How many T9A armies even have a female character option? Like one where the title is Female. GW has noticed, and they are changing. We aren't.

    I keep seeing T9A posts about getting more players into the hobby. Being Inclusive is how you get more people into the hobby. If I post an army idea that you don't like, telling me you'd refuse to play on principle that you dislike my army is exclusivity and is downright toxic towards the idea of getting people to like this hobby.


    And even if you @Adam represent a loud minority, the fact of the matter is that this thread is what the quiet majority will read and assume yours is the majority opinion. So, congrats, sounds like the majority wants a smaller player base.
    I think there is a difference between not wanting to play against someone because you don't really like how their army looks and not wanting to play against someone because their army fundamentally is in disagreement with the aesthetic of the game. Their are star wars themed miniature games. If you want to play games with star wars miniatures there are options. T9A is model agnostic, but I think there is a reasonable expectation that players will make some attempt to adhere to the spirit of the game. The official T9A policy is to use whatever models you feel represents unit X and I highly doubt you seriously believe that clone troopers represent empire handgunners. The fluff may not be fully developed but enough can be inferred to deduce that this is not, strictly speaking, a good choice. T9A is scent agnostic as well and yet most players have expectations that their opponent will wear deodorant.The point about gender neutrality and diversity is ridiculous. T9A's background is supposed to be based on a Medieval/Renaissance world with fantasy elements and some more advanced technologies. A very easy feature to see in Medieval societies is that women did not fight in armies except in circumstances so extraordinary you can basically count the totality of them on one hand. Additionally, to my knowledge, for some strange reasons, gender neutral pronouns had not quite caught on yet even if zer sounds kind of like sir. For a Medieval society to be gender neutral borders on being good content for a Monty Python sketch.
    As for what the majority opinion is, I would suspect it would be something along the lines of being openly friendly and willing to play you, but also wishing, for their own enjoyment, that you had just adhered to some semblance of what the spirit of the game is obviously supposed to be.
    OK, going to butt in here: "women did not fight in armies except in circumstances so extraordinary you can basically count the totality of them on one hand" - nonsense.
    Women have always fought. If you dig a little deeper than the writings of male authors we usually accept as "accurate history" you find them.

    fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2012/…tings-are-not-apolitical/


    However many instances of female warriors in Medieval European societies you think it would take to stop it being "extraordinary", I can practically guarantee you we have the historical records for it (a LOT more than the 5 that traditionally consitutes "one hand").


    Hell, the Knights Templar? Both had a rule forbidding female members... and, well, read this:

    historiamag.com/women-of-the-knights-templar/


    It's not "easy" to see how real Medieval societies worked because:
    - they're long since gone
    - realistic plate armour looks exactly the same if you large breasts or a flat chest
    - historical records are always, ALWAYS biased in some way
    - including just not mentioning things they didn't find unusual
    - vast swathes of history have NO written record


    And insofar as T9A have a policy... have y'all not noticed that half the Dark Gods are female (yes, exactly half of 7. One of them is both)? That Sunna is female?

    Stuff I can't point to because the ID book isn't out yet?




    The slim books are locked because the slim books are locked, end of story, but the world of T9A contains both non-sexist and sexist cultures, especially once we start considering the non-human cultures. (Consider this: sexual dimorphism in some species IRL is vastly skewed the other way from in primates - there's quite a lot of species with tiny males and larger, more powerful females)


    So even setting aside the dubiousness of your claims to historical accuracy...

    It wouldn't be "historical accuracy" if we made none of our 14 non-human factions have physically powerful females - it would be a deliberate design choice that ignores the possibilities inherent in non-human species.

    We didn't do that.

    We value inclusiveness, even if some forum members don't.
    I do not wish to derail the thread in a debate about the historical accuracy of female warriors beyond saying that I stand by my original points and, if you wish to convince, you should cite information from reliable sources like mainstream news outlets, Wikipedia, academic works, etc., rather than far left pseudo-blog websites that pedal near conspiracy theories and whose authors only credential is being nominated for 'best fan writer'.
    I also said nothing about the gender roles of non-human species to which historical arguments may not apply.

    I linked you to the first page because it was absolutely littered with citations and I don't have the time or inclination to recreate it.

    I don't expect you to take them at their word - just click some links.

    Background Team

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Vamp87 wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Vamp87 wrote:

    Chronocide wrote:

    Adam wrote:

    I really like how in topic about not taking game too seriously @Chronocide thinks he is proving we're take it too seriously when we want to have fun and aesthetically pleasing game while RAW he is supposed to be able to bring any minis he wants - in my book playing RAW and ignoring fun aspect are really close to taking game too seriously
    My stance is that my army is my business and your army is your business, and if you want to play this game, let's play.You, and others, have stated opinions to the effect that my army needs to conform your ideals of fun and my fun is inconsequential unless it meets up with your ideals of fun. And that's why I called it bullying, because by being unwilling to accept others as they are, and trying to force them to meet your ideals, it's bullying.That attitude to the hobby is exclusive and will result in less players. From the arguments in previous posts, players like @Marcos24 have established that less players is fine with them, provided the players that stay meet their requirements. Starting to sound like GW made the right call with AoS, as doing so ejected the "hardcore fluff elitist players" to this game.
    This is not unlike the rejections/laughs I've gotten when I suggest gender diversity/neutrality to the naming of unit entries. It's Exclusivity and limits our potential player base for zero gain. Dunno about other countries, but the USA is 51% female. How many T9A armies even have a female character option? Like one where the title is Female. GW has noticed, and they are changing. We aren't.

    I keep seeing T9A posts about getting more players into the hobby. Being Inclusive is how you get more people into the hobby. If I post an army idea that you don't like, telling me you'd refuse to play on principle that you dislike my army is exclusivity and is downright toxic towards the idea of getting people to like this hobby.


    And even if you @Adam represent a loud minority, the fact of the matter is that this thread is what the quiet majority will read and assume yours is the majority opinion. So, congrats, sounds like the majority wants a smaller player base.
    I think there is a difference between not wanting to play against someone because you don't really like how their army looks and not wanting to play against someone because their army fundamentally is in disagreement with the aesthetic of the game. Their are star wars themed miniature games. If you want to play games with star wars miniatures there are options. T9A is model agnostic, but I think there is a reasonable expectation that players will make some attempt to adhere to the spirit of the game. The official T9A policy is to use whatever models you feel represents unit X and I highly doubt you seriously believe that clone troopers represent empire handgunners. The fluff may not be fully developed but enough can be inferred to deduce that this is not, strictly speaking, a good choice. T9A is scent agnostic as well and yet most players have expectations that their opponent will wear deodorant.The point about gender neutrality and diversity is ridiculous. T9A's background is supposed to be based on a Medieval/Renaissance world with fantasy elements and some more advanced technologies. A very easy feature to see in Medieval societies is that women did not fight in armies except in circumstances so extraordinary you can basically count the totality of them on one hand. Additionally, to my knowledge, for some strange reasons, gender neutral pronouns had not quite caught on yet even if zer sounds kind of like sir. For a Medieval society to be gender neutral borders on being good content for a Monty Python sketch.As for what the majority opinion is, I would suspect it would be something along the lines of being openly friendly and willing to play you, but also wishing, for their own enjoyment, that you had just adhered to some semblance of what the spirit of the game is obviously supposed to be.
    OK, going to butt in here: "women did not fight in armies except in circumstances so extraordinary you can basically count the totality of them on one hand" - nonsense.Women have always fought. If you dig a little deeper than the writings of male authors we usually accept as "accurate history" you find them.

    fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2012/…tings-are-not-apolitical/


    However many instances of female warriors in Medieval European societies you think it would take to stop it being "extraordinary", I can practically guarantee you we have the historical records for it (a LOT more than the 5 that traditionally consitutes "one hand").


    Hell, the Knights Templar? Both had a rule forbidding female members... and, well, read this:

    historiamag.com/women-of-the-knights-templar/


    It's not "easy" to see how real Medieval societies worked because:
    - they're long since gone
    - realistic plate armour looks exactly the same if you large breasts or a flat chest
    - historical records are always, ALWAYS biased in some way
    - including just not mentioning things they didn't find unusual
    - vast swathes of history have NO written record


    And insofar as T9A have a policy... have y'all not noticed that half the Dark Gods are female (yes, exactly half of 7. One of them is both)? That Sunna is female?

    Stuff I can't point to because the ID book isn't out yet?




    The slim books are locked because the slim books are locked, end of story, but the world of T9A contains both non-sexist and sexist cultures, especially once we start considering the non-human cultures. (Consider this: sexual dimorphism in some species IRL is vastly skewed the other way from in primates - there's quite a lot of species with tiny males and larger, more powerful females)


    So even setting aside the dubiousness of your claims to historical accuracy...

    It wouldn't be "historical accuracy" if we made none of our 14 non-human factions have physically powerful females - it would be a deliberate design choice that ignores the possibilities inherent in non-human species.

    We didn't do that.

    We value inclusiveness, even if some forum members don't.
    I do not wish to derail the thread in a debate about the historical accuracy of female warriors beyond saying that I stand by my original points and, if you wish to convince, you should cite information from reliable sources like mainstream news outlets, Wikipedia, academic works, etc., rather than far left pseudo-blog websites that pedal near conspiracy theories and whose authors only credential is being nominated for 'best fan writer'.I also said nothing about the gender roles of non-human species to which historical arguments may not apply.
    I linked you to the first page because it was absolutely littered with citations and I don't have the time or inclination to recreate it.

    I don't expect you to take them at their word - just click some links.
    I like how he skipped right past your citations and then asked for citations.
    I am going to offend you. You are not going to like it. You will survive.

    Chaotic Neutral
    youtube.com/channel/UCJ9e5C1f26iuvhOA33rsFJQ

    Model Reviews with Twice the Brain Injuries!
  • DarkSky wrote:

    I find it funny that @Damo first says 'If I don't want to play versus your Star Wars Themed army, I don't have to' (which is perfectly fine) and then goes on to say "if somebody plays DH, but you don't want to play versus DH, you still have to".

    Also he seems to say homophobia is okay, but racism isn't. But the cake example is somewhat unclear to me and I don't understand exactly what his point was.
    I was going to wade back into the discussion but after 2 pages of keyboard rage From all corner just walking away may be the best option...

    but to put it simply; one player cannot choose to disregard written rules. I used the example of the DH book, but the bodyguard rule would also serve as an example.

    models aren’t written rules, so being not cool with it is a valid option.

    the cake example- weird analogies is my specialty;-)
  • Grouchy Badger wrote:

    I like how he skipped right past your citations and then asked for citations.
    Just to be clear, I acknowledged his citations; my point was they were not reliable.

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    I linked you to the first page because it was absolutely littered with citations and I don't have the time or inclination to recreate it.

    I don't expect you to take them at their word - just click some links.
    Yes, I was aware. However, many of the links were to equally unreliable sources. There was a link to a Wikipedia article, but linking to the Wikipedia article that provides an exhaustive list of every know female pirate of which there are only 19, most of these falling outside the period traditionally associated with "pirates" in pop-culture, hardly is a good strategy in refuting claims that female participation in piracy was extraordinarily limited. Furthermore, this article is labelled as poorly sourced and in need of improvement by Wikipedia itself. The article writer seems, in general, to be woefully ignorant of the fact that pointing out a handful of specific cases of women who became soldiers does nothing to disprove the statement that it was extremely rare for women to become soldiers. The fact that entire Wikipedia articles are written about people who's claim to fame is being a female soldier says quite a bit about the peculiarity of female soldiers in previous eras.

    Also, some of the claims about contributions to science made me further suspicious of the article (I know scientific history much better than military history of which I know quite little). The claims about supposed historical gay lovers also raise eyebrows; it's a bad sign when you provide a link to a source that says your claim lacks any real historical evidence.

    History is a big place and many people populated it. Filling a page with specific examples of such people does nothing to demonstrate general trends.

    If you wish to continue this discussion, I'd suggest we open another thread. I wasn't planning on posting again here, but felt you had misinterpreted my post. I didn't disagree with many of the linked sources in your linked article; it's just that, on the whole, they failed to prove your point and the author herself, was an unreliable source and thus her supposed claims to historical enlightenment I couldn't really trust.
  • consider that the models are agnostic, which gender specific unit names are there?

    I can only find prince (HBE, SE and DE), King, and Duke for male, and Courtesan and Damsel for female. that leaves approx 600 gender neutral units.

    To further add that there whole books where gender is a downright ridiculous or irrelevant idea (Daemons, UD and VC- does a skeleton even have a gender when all of their soft tissue fell of years ago?) and many of the other are heavily populated by monsters (do we worry about whether a wyvern is a male or female?)
  • Damo wrote:

    consider that the models are agnostic, which gender specific unit names are there?

    I can only find prince (HBE, SE and DE), King, and Duke for male, and Courtesan and Damsel for female. that leaves approx 600 gender neutral units.

    To further add that there whole books where gender is a downright ridiculous or irrelevant idea (Daemons, UD and VC- does a skeleton even have a gender when all of their soft tissue fell of years ago?) and many of the other are heavily populated by monsters (do we worry about whether a wyvern is a male or female?)
    technically there are female and male skeletons.
    I am going to offend you. You are not going to like it. You will survive.

    Chaotic Neutral
    youtube.com/channel/UCJ9e5C1f26iuvhOA33rsFJQ

    Model Reviews with Twice the Brain Injuries!
  • Grouchy Badger wrote:

    Damo wrote:

    consider that the models are agnostic, which gender specific unit names are there?

    I can only find prince (HBE, SE and DE), King, and Duke for male, and Courtesan and Damsel for female. that leaves approx 600 gender neutral units.

    To further add that there whole books where gender is a downright ridiculous or irrelevant idea (Daemons, UD and VC- does a skeleton even have a gender when all of their soft tissue fell of years ago?) and many of the other are heavily populated by monsters (do we worry about whether a wyvern is a male or female?)
    technically there are female and male skeletons.
    yes- if you did a DNA sample and/or structural analysis, particularly of the hips. And you could do the same of any currently (or previously) reproducing creature beast or monster.

    but a) its irrelevant to the language, its an ‘it’, a b) skeletons are gender neutral names.

    And c) where did i go wrong in my life that im having a discussion about proper gender pronouns of fantasy creatures? Was it the stage 3 gender in employment paper in 2002? I think it was.

    edit: it was pushing that kid in the mud when i was 6. That karma stuff is insidious.
  • Grouchy Badger wrote:

    Kristian wrote:

    @Grouchy Badger
    I think you missed my point.
    To clarify, do you think a game of 9th age involves more than the rules as written?


    Whether Raging Heroes models are sculpted by females, and that one female gamer likes them is irrelevant to the sexualized sculpts and how they are likely to be percieved på female gamers?
    9th Age, as stated by many, is rules as written. It has no model range, no model specifications on build, just on what size base it has to be on. Lots of female gamers like their models. Lots of male gamers like their models too. They model in a style specific to them, and a style they enjoy. All of my female models are from raging heroes, because they have the best female sculpts on the market, and that is an unbiased fact.
    I disagree. Raging Heroes are good, but Hasslefree Miniatures have better female sculpts imo:

    Rules Clarification

    Lord of the Hobby


    Empire of Sonnstahl Blog, including links to my other blogs
    The 9th Wiki, a community wiki for the official 9th Age background
    T9A: Skirmish Campaigns
  • Chronocide wrote:

    Adam wrote:

    I really like how in topic about not taking game too seriously @Chronocide thinks he is proving we're take it too seriously when we want to have fun and aesthetically pleasing game while RAW he is supposed to be able to bring any minis he wants - in my book playing RAW and ignoring fun aspect are really close to taking game too seriously
    My stance is that my army is my business and your army is your business, and if you want to play this game, let's play.
    You, and others, have stated opinions to the effect that my army needs to conform your ideals of fun and my fun is inconsequential unless it meets up with your ideals of fun. And that's why I called it bullying, because by being unwilling to accept others as they are, and trying to force them to meet your ideals, it's bullying.

    That attitude to the hobby is exclusive and will result in less players. From the arguments in previous posts, players like @Marcos24 have established that less players is fine with them, provided the players that stay meet their requirements. Starting to sound like GW made the right call with AoS, as doing so ejected the "hardcore fluff elitist players" to this game.

    This is not unlike the rejections/laughs I've gotten when I suggest gender diversity/neutrality to the naming of unit entries. It's Exclusivity and limits our potential player base for zero gain. Dunno about other countries, but the USA is 51% female. How many T9A armies even have a female character option? Like one where the title is Female. GW has noticed, and they are changing. We aren't.

    I keep seeing T9A posts about getting more players into the hobby. Being Inclusive is how you get more people into the hobby. If I post an army idea that you don't like, telling me you'd refuse to play on principle that you dislike my army is exclusivity and is downright toxic towards the idea of getting people to like this hobby.


    And even if you @Adam represent a loud minority, the fact of the matter is that this thread is what the quiet majority will read and assume yours is the majority opinion. So, congrats, sounds like the majority wants a smaller player base.
    Yes your army is your business I have never denied that. Now it is my business whether I want to play against your star wars army and I do not want to. And if you think that everyone has to accept all your whims otherwise they are bullying you, then I hate to break it to you but by not accepting that they do not accept your army you are also bullying them by your own definition. You cannot force anybody to accept your army choices.

    And your argument about supposed sexism of T9A is laughable, especially given how new T9A armies are built (see WoTG fluff for reference).

    Now there is also your argument about RAW rules supporting Star Wars army, let me quote BRB here:

    BRB p.7 section 3.A wrote:

    The 9th Age does not officially support any particular product line, and you are welcome to play with whatever scaleand miniatures you and your opponent have agreed upon
    I do not think that needs further explanation.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Adam ().

  • On the topic of sci-fi armies etc... perhaps I could urge a little more "live and let live".

    @Mad 'At has linked a show where we recently discussed how different players get different things from the game.
    In that show I mention a "my little pony" army that existed in legacy times (using tamurkhan chaos dwarf rules).

    It was vey nicely painted and converted, so some loved it.
    It broke some players' immersion, so they didn't love it.
    The thing is, neither of these is right or wrong. It isn't illegal or immoral to like or dislike this army.

    Perhaps, rather than saying "I would rather die in a fire than play against that ", maybe just explain that immersion is important to your fun, and it wouldn't be your first choice to play against that army.
    Equally, perhaps people on the other side can try to understand that for some people, this immersion issue does affect their fun, and that is just fundamentally part of how they experience the game.

    But honestly, I think it is important that we all remember that few enough people in the world play wargames already.

    I personally would choose to play against armies that break my immersion, because I want other people to enjoy t9a and I want to have opponents in the future. I might then express my wish to play against a different army at some point.
    Equally, if one of my regular opponents dislikes playing against one of my armies for this reason (or another reason, and in fact this has happened) I will use a different army against them.
    We are all on the same team here, and I think that a little bit of give and take (from all concerned) can only be a good thing :)
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • Damo wrote:

    consider that the models are agnostic, which gender specific unit names are there?

    I can only find prince (HBE, SE and DE), King, and Duke for male, and Courtesan and Damsel for female. that leaves approx 600 gender neutral units.

    To further add that there whole books where gender is a downright ridiculous or irrelevant idea (Daemons, UD and VC- does a skeleton even have a gender when all of their soft tissue fell of years ago?) and many of the other are heavily populated by monsters (do we worry about whether a wyvern is a male or female?)

    Daemons are probably the best faction for explicit representation - "Siren" and "Succubi" are gendered names, as well as "Courtesan".
    (and VC aren't that bad - both "Banshee" and "Lamia" are female mythical monsters)

    It's tricky stuff. We're doing our best. I personally welcome feedback, especially for the books in the LAB queue (where we're actually looking to make changes to names in the near future).


    That said, IMO the best place for representation is in the LAB fiction, as we don't want to be too specific in too many names. Where, I just want to note, we did a push for inclusiveness for the ID book.

    Background Team

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Damo wrote:

    consider that the models are agnostic, which gender specific unit names are there?

    I can only find prince (HBE, SE and DE), King, and Duke for male, and Courtesan and Damsel for female. that leaves approx 600 gender neutral units.

    To further add that there whole books where gender is a downright ridiculous or irrelevant idea (Daemons, UD and VC- does a skeleton even have a gender when all of their soft tissue fell of years ago?) and many of the other are heavily populated by monsters (do we worry about whether a wyvern is a male or female?)
    Daemons are probably the best faction for explicit representation - "Siren" and "Succubi" are gendered names, as well as "Courtesan".
    (and VC aren't that bad - both "Banshee" and "Lamia" are female mythical monsters)

    It's tricky stuff. We're doing our best. I personally welcome feedback, especially for the books in the LAB queue (where we're actually looking to make changes to names in the near future).


    That said, IMO the best place for representation is in the LAB fiction, as we don't want to be too specific in too many names. Where, I just want to note, we did a push for inclusiveness for the ID book.
    I think you get into odd territory quickly with mythical creatures, and quickly get into the absurd. If a mythical creature was typically characterised as female, was it a solely female species? We assume these creatures reproduced- if there are mermaids, there must be mermen? So if we look at sirens in mythology, either they were all females produced by the gods, or there were male and female sirens, ie sirens is not necessarily female specific names. Was the sphinx male? the Greeks conceptualise as female, the Egyptians male.

    Are minotaurs only male? I assume they reproduce, and therefore have male and female, therefore the term minotaur is not exclusively male.

    Succubi- Ill totally give you that. Seducing men to their death is a female only thing.

    In short- I think the name for species is not exclusively male or female if they sexually reproduce, unless very specific reasons why this would not be the case. Even if its lifted by myths that only had female versions.

    We havent even touched on female dwarves yet, and what they look like. My proposition- longbeards is a gender neutral term.
  • Incubus is the male counterpart to a succubus. :)


    Anyway: No. T9A Dwarf females are short and stocky (that's just the basic dwarven body plan) but they don't have beards. Sorry. Our Dwarf women look like, well, women.

    There's enough female Dwarf Miniatures out there that one could make an army if one was sufficiently dedicated, or at least include a few notable ladies. (e.g. afaict Atlantis Miniatures has a unit of them at NZ$80 for 10, which is the same price as the GW Longbeards kit)

    Background Team

  • My personal stance is that I'll gladly have a drink and talk about painting with someone with a nice conversion army, even an utterly silly one (I knew one guy who sculpted a Darth Vader as his vampire lord), but I probably wouldn't want to play against that army. Even back when we still had regular WHFB time, play time was precious, maybe one game every two weeks which took all day, and I wouldn't want to waste that playing an army that doesn't fit the world the game is set in. (I'll gladly play count-as armies or weird conversion that do fit the world, like that guy who built his scratch-built mechanicus army using Necron rules before they got their own codex.)
    I have whirl’d with the earth at the dawningWhen the sky was a vaporous flameI have seen the dark universe yawning,
    Where the black planets roll without aim;
    Where they roll in their horror unheeded, without knowledge or lustre or name.