Is the drive for canonicity (or continuity) in fan cu toxic?

[Leif Bearclaw]

For a good example of the toxicity that gets throw at authors of you go through ADBs reddit posts the last thing he posted basically ended with him throwing up his hands in the face of posters taking personal shots at him

But isn't that just 'the internet' and its inherent toxicity? Don't get me wrong, it's not a good thing, but it's a far cry from either 'this fandom is specifically, unusually toxic' or 'wanting consistent canon in a setting is an inherently toxic approach'.

[bluntblade]

I'd say that 40K is in some ways less susceptible than others. Possibly because the game and army-building elements mean that there's less of a divide between the interpretive/transformative wing of the fandom and the rest.

 

The canon is less rigidly codified in every detail than some comparable universes.

Edited April 27, 2020 by bluntblade

[Rob P]

I'd say that 40K is in some ways less susceptible than others. Possibly because the game and army-building elements mean that there's less of a divide between the interpretive/transformative wing of the fandom and the rest.

 

The canon is less rigidly codified in every detail than some comparable universes.

Without any evidence, I wonder if it's all a numbers game. The more fans something has, the more opportunity for a toxic element that appears to be quite large. Perhaps Warhammer is inoculated from a lot of it because the existence and the prominence of the tabletop game, and present lack of TV shows/films, deters general entrants compared to the big franchises? I could be projecting here, but I know I will, for example, ignore videogame tie-in novels etc because i assume they'll be a naff cash-in.

[bluntblade]

I'm hypothesising here.

 

And a counterweight springs to mind: the 40K throng is probably more demographically uniform than others. There hasn't been a sudden influx of young female fans due to two or three newly introduced and divisive Sisters of Battle, and we've seen the sort of brouhaha that can cause. However, that is outside the realm of the canonicity discussion.

Edited April 27, 2020 by bluntblade

[DarkChaplain]

There was some sort of brouhaha? Sisters of Battle were divisive? Man, I feel out of the loop. The only negativity surrounding that that I've seen is that they still have a degree of boobplate and heels in their design - something that has been core to their design since their inception (but was already toned down from Alan Blight artworks, anyway)

[bluntblade]

I was trying to obliquely reference a couple of other franchises.

 

However, it was irrelevant to the canonicity question.

[Roomsky]

There was some sort of brouhaha? Sisters of Battle were divisive? Man, I feel out of the loop. The only negativity surrounding that that I've seen is that they still have a degree of boobplate and heels in their design - something that has been core to their design since their inception (but was already toned down from Alan Blight artworks, anyway)

 

/tg/ at least was up in arms over their belief the models looked like warrior women (or, in their words "that's a dude") instead of supermodels. I'd imagine they were far from the only community to do so.

[aa.logan]

I’ve kind of gotten lost in all of this thread, a lot of it has gone over my head, but am I right in thinking pretty much everyone agrees that there is something ‘wrong’ with fan culture, but we can’t reach a consensus on what that is or why?

 

Is anyone positing that, actually, everything is ok with online discourse?

 

Just for my own personal clarity, like.

[Scribe]

Of course not everything is 'ok' with online discourse. This forum is very rare in terms of its level of discussion, because its rare that mods allow discussion to venture 'out of bounds' in terms of context/content.

 

Online discourse on Twitter or something though? That's a hellscape.

[mc warhammer]

 

There was some sort of brouhaha? Sisters of Battle were divisive? Man, I feel out of the loop. The only negativity surrounding that that I've seen is that they still have a degree of boobplate and heels in their design - something that has been core to their design since their inception (but was already toned down from Alan Blight artworks, anyway)

 

/tg/ at least was up in arms over their belief the models looked like warrior women (or, in their words "that's a dude") instead of supermodels. I'd imagine they were far from the only community to do so.

 

nods in she ra and the princesses of power

[mc warhammer]

I’ve kind of gotten lost in all of this thread, a lot of it has gone over my head, but am I right in thinking pretty much everyone agrees that there is something ‘wrong’ with fan culture, but we can’t reach a consensus on what that is or why?

 

Is anyone positing that, actually, everything is ok with online discourse?

 

Just for my own personal clarity, like.

it's an interesting question. cos, no...fandom isn't the only lightning rod for "toxicity". head to the comment section on any news article on any topic (vaccines, politics, sports, toys, cars, human rights, top ten ways to peel bananas) and you better remember to wear a helmet and a mouth-guard because it's going to get rough in there.

 

but there might be a way that "online toxicity" specifically manifests itself within context of a certain fandom. like, i've never (personally) seen allegations of authors being biased towards a faction in any other fandom (afaik nobody accuses lucas of being biased towards jedi), and that's in part due to the way 40k was built...by creating fans of different factions. similarly, 40k's loose canon structure invites all sorts of reactions specific to 40k.

[Scribe]

Other settings absoluteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeely have accusations of Author bias, or Game Developer bias. 100%

 

Go ask some Alliance World of Warcraft players if they think there is Game Dev bias. lol

 

EDIT: Reminds me of a story, not sure if true.

 

Long ago, there was a meta story for Battletech. I loved it, and followed it as a good young lad should love stompy robots.

 

Well one of the authors (Stackpole?) was supposedly confronted by some obnoxious fan of a Mercenary company within the setting, and so in Stackpoles next books, that group was turned into some mook's for the sake of the protagonist's faction.

 

I'll have to see if I can drag up the story, it was from the early 90s lol

Edited April 28, 2020 by Scribe

[DarkChaplain]

 

 

There was some sort of brouhaha? Sisters of Battle were divisive? Man, I feel out of the loop. The only negativity surrounding that that I've seen is that they still have a degree of boobplate and heels in their design - something that has been core to their design since their inception (but was already toned down from Alan Blight artworks, anyway)

 

/tg/ at least was up in arms over their belief the models looked like warrior women (or, in their words "that's a dude") instead of supermodels. I'd imagine they were far from the only community to do so.

 

nods in she ra and the princesses of power

 

 

points at thundercats roar and weeps. The last decade did not do my childhood many favors...

 

I think online discourse in general suffers by and large from the current, maybe even sudden, ease of access. Instead of people sitting down and posting on a forum like this (and most forums I used to frequent basically died by this point, B&C is pretty rare in its longevity, in a sense) while on their PCs or Laptops, crowds instead ended up on social networks like Facebook, Twitter and co. Basically platforms that are all about presenting oneself, often with extreme opinions, imagery or what not, trying to catch others' attention and go viral, rather than to foster discourse. Those platforms are made for statements or largely irrelevant commentary, not conversations. That's down both to how short-lived content posted there actually is, how limited expression ends up being due to the word/character limits (and Twitter barely even managed to increase the character limit not so long ago), and how all those mobile apps for smartphones make on-the-go posting very appealing. Post-and-Run is the name of the game. People on the bus or train, or while out with friends, may shoot a tweet to comment on something they've just seen, been told, or saw on their timeline, but then put the phone aside and not continue participating.

 

In a way, you could say that most of those opinions and comments are being shouted into the void, without any consequences or expectation of further engagement on the subject. As such, it's easy to vent or vocally complain in a "toxic" manner - because nobody gives a damn after the fact anyway. There's barely any moderation, replies are sparse, and so those tweets and posts can be made in a totally self-serving manner unless you have some sort of social clout. It's a matter of throwaway comments made on a whim. I'd be honestly super interested in statistics on how many twitter users even sit down when tweeting.

 

Comparing that to forums like this one, where people are well-willing and able to argue their points of view, engage on the subject matter for often weeks at a time, having the patience to wait for replies from the rest of the community? It's like night and day. And it's moderated, too, meaning personal attacks and general dickery get taken care of. It's a topic-focused conversation, not a personality-focused one. I'd make the harsh argument that social media and smartphones in particular, the always-connected era, has made people too self-centered by far, with companies constantly casting the illusion that they matter, they're important. They're not. I'm not. But it's easy to forget that the works you're criticising in mindbogglingly rude ways are written by somebody probably more important than yourself, just because you're able to stand on your own social media stage and posture for the sake of reactions.

[mc warhammer]

Other settings absoluteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeely have accusations of Author bias, or Game Developer bias. 100%

 

Go ask some Alliance World of Warcraft players if they think there is Game Dev bias. lol

 

EDIT: Reminds me of a story, not sure if true.

 

Long ago, there was a meta story for Battletech. I loved it, and followed it as a good young lad should love stompy robots.

 

Well one of the authors (Stackpole?) was supposedly confronted by some obnoxious fan of a Mercenary company within the setting, and so in Stackpoles next books, that group was turned into some mook's for the sake of the protagonist's faction.

 

I'll have to see if I can drag up the story, it was from the early 90s lol

 

not being a gamer, (or even really a "fan" of anything)...i have no idea what those things are, but i believe you.  i guess the thing in common here is that those examples and 40k are all game licenses at heart, which maybe promotes some sort of factionalism?

 

my point was that there might be things that are 40koxic specifically, i'm probably gonna be off on some of the specifics.

Edited April 28, 2020 by mc warhammer

[mc warhammer]

 

 

 

There was some sort of brouhaha? Sisters of Battle were divisive? Man, I feel out of the loop. The only negativity surrounding that that I've seen is that they still have a degree of boobplate and heels in their design - something that has been core to their design since their inception (but was already toned down from Alan Blight artworks, anyway)

 

/tg/ at least was up in arms over their belief the models looked like warrior women (or, in their words "that's a dude") instead of supermodels. I'd imagine they were far from the only community to do so.

 

nods in she ra and the princesses of power

 

 

points at thundercats roar and weeps. The last decade did not do my childhood many favors...

 

I think online discourse in general suffers by and large from the current, maybe even sudden, ease of access. Instead of people sitting down and posting on a forum like this (and most forums I used to frequent basically died by this point, B&C is pretty rare in its longevity, in a sense) while on their PCs or Laptops, crowds instead ended up on social networks like Facebook, Twitter and co. Basically platforms that are all about presenting oneself, often with extreme opinions, imagery or what not, trying to catch others' attention and go viral, rather than to foster discourse. Those platforms are made for statements or largely irrelevant commentary, not conversations. That's down both to how short-lived content posted there actually is, how limited expression ends up being due to the word/character limits (and Twitter barely even managed to increase the character limit not so long ago), and how all those mobile apps for smartphones make on-the-go posting very appealing. Post-and-Run is the name of the game. People on the bus or train, or while out with friends, may shoot a tweet to comment on something they've just seen, been told, or saw on their timeline, but then put the phone aside and not continue participating.

 

In a way, you could say that most of those opinions and comments are being shouted into the void, without any consequences or expectation of further engagement on the subject. As such, it's easy to vent or vocally complain in a "toxic" manner - because nobody gives a damn after the fact anyway. There's barely any moderation, replies are sparse, and so those tweets and posts can be made in a totally self-serving manner unless you have some sort of social clout. It's a matter of throwaway comments made on a whim. I'd be honestly super interested in statistics on how many twitter users even sit down when tweeting.

 

Comparing that to forums like this one, where people are well-willing and able to argue their points of view, engage on the subject matter for often weeks at a time, having the patience to wait for replies from the rest of the community? It's like night and day. And it's moderated, too, meaning personal attacks and general dickery get taken care of. It's a topic-focused conversation, not a personality-focused one. I'd make the harsh argument that social media and smartphones in particular, the always-connected era, has made people too self-centered by far, with companies constantly casting the illusion that they matter, they're important. They're not. I'm not. But it's easy to forget that the works you're criticising in mindbogglingly rude ways are written by somebody probably more important than yourself, just because you're able to stand on your own social media stage and posture for the sake of reactions.

 

 

i'm good with thundercats roar, and i feel for the creators with all this backlash. the original series still stands unmarred, why not try a new take? the quality is there...it's just not what existing fans want.

 

totally agree, technology has shifted the way we interact. similar shifts happened in society when we were able to communicate faster via sea mail and then later air mail. it's interesting that greater connectivity than ever before in human history has resulted in greater selfishness and fragmentation than ever before.

 

i'd actually say that twitter isn't that different to a forum. yes, it's all 25 words or less, but some of those twitter threads go on for thousands of posts with a reach of millions. i've seen some twitter threads get ridiculously in-depth, some academics will post 500 word responses... just broken into 25 word chunks. but yeah, generally, meme culture has removed all that sweet context and nuance. it's a powerful form of communication but man, it can really muck things up.

 

i like your point about different forums or mediums influencing its own sub of a culture. compare b&c to reddit to 4chan to warseer (is that still happening). there's some commonalities but each is distinct. 4chan seems to embrace 40kocity.

Edited April 28, 2020 by mc warhammer

[DarkChaplain]

 

i'm good with thundercats roar, and i feel for the creators with all this backlash. the original series still stands unmarred, why not try a new take? the quality is there...it's just not what existing fans want.

 

My issue specifically is: Why even bother using the IP and characters, then, if you're gonna change the recipe so much that it bothers legacy fans? Similar could be said about FFVII Remake: Why change the formula when it's neither going to please new players that'll be confused with what's going on, and veterans are mad about being lied to in marketing, promises and what they were told the game is, but then ended up not being.

 

There's the common defense of "the old game still exists, go play it then", but that goes completely against what the target audience was asking for: A modern remake of what they already loved, something they've been asking for (myself included) for 15 years until release. The same can be said for Thunder Cats, or She Ra: The originals still exist, go watch them. But they wanted the familiar with a new coat of paint, not a reinvented wheel that doesn't appeal to them anymore. Funnily enough, from what a friend just told me a few days ago, Thunder Cats Roar seems to have poked fun at fans of the original or somesuch, and he was slightly upset about it. FFVII Remake also made it a plotpoint to symbolically defy the fandom by making their game-incarnation, so to say, the penultimate boss...

And don't even get me started on the Disney canon Star Wars reset that split the community hard...

 

To get back to GW, and how they relate to the same thing, albeit not 40k: Age of Sigmar, and the death of WHFB. "You can still play 8th Edition, it's not like Kirby comes over to burn your books or stomp your models". But even putting aside squatted model lines (some of which were stellar, just old and metal/finecast), the end of fiction written by Black Library authors, the cancellation of ongoing projects (RIP Josh's 3rd Blood of Nagash novel and dozens upon dozens of pitches for Warhammer Heroes), it all means that the old thing (WHFB) was doomed to death while the new hotness (AoS) got all the attention. When you ask people that started with AoS in the last year who Sigmar is, or Nagash, you won't be hearing about Sigmar the barbarian king or Nagash the pseudo-egyptian priest, but Sigmar the literal God and creator of lightning men and Nagash the spiteful Ur-Death God.

 

While factually true, the old stuff still exists in some capacity, public attention and affection is going to inevitably shift away from the original, towards what many veterans will be disappointed with, making discourse about the original topic extremely difficult. There's barely any fresh blood, no new material to discuss, and what material is still being recalled is nowadays more memey than relevant.

I mean, is the Ninth Age thing still happening? How many people still play that, or Kings of War with their GW models?

 

For 40k, as much as I'm okay with the Primaris stuff, Cawl and co at this point - mostly thanks to authors like Guy Haley who made it work and explained away a few of the bigger bugbears - the same WILL happen with 40k as well, given time. While not as extreme as with WHFB/AoS, old Astartes kits will inevitably disappear, the question is merely one of timing. Old classic characters will either be turned into Primaris (often with awkward posing or changes to their armor, looking at Shrike...) or dropped in one way or another. Players with narrative interests will find it ever trickier to play games set before the Great Rift, and even the iconic marks of power armour have already been pushed out of the limelight in most new media, merch etc, by the Mark X. While old stuff isn't invalid yet, including thanks to the rules compilation for out of production kits, the focus will shift drastically towards the advancing timeline, with the wider community leaving behind the good ol' status quo of 999.M41. It still exists, but as part of history, and even if you yourself limit your collection to classic models of Space Marines, your opponents probably won't.

 

So I definitely see negativity about these things as more often down to personal disappointment and frustration that their own place in the hobby is being phased out or seen by others as obsolete. It gets harder to connect with others when the basis is so drastically different a few years on. It's not like GW hasn't added characters here and there throughout the ages, like they do now. But I'm pretty sure every one of us has special characters or novel characters in 40k that they hold a deeper reverence for simply because they've been around pretty early in their hobby-career. Heck, I still like Uriel Ventris because I read those McNeill books, but still have a bad grip on who that Cato Sicarius punk is, despite a few novels and shorts about him. Lukas the Trickster still feels like a newcomer compared to Ragnar.

 

It must be extremely frustrating to find that your old favorite characters become obsolete, though, or retconned into something that doesn't vibe with your understanding of the original. What's Altdorf? We got Sigmaron now. There's been a lot of supposed "toxicity" ascribed to those kinds of fans over the years in particular - something I generally try to reject as a notion; while some toxicity does inevitably occur, most of the negative response is certainly not down to malice or intentional toxicity, but personal frustration and disorientation. Labeling it toxic, as has happened with WHFB/AoS especially, hasn't helped anybody, in my experience.

 

That is to say, toxicity is often used as a blanket statement to describe negativity in online spaces these days. There's not much distinction between well-argued critique, annoyed dismissiveness or, indeed, direct :cussflinging and blatant trolling. A superhero movie reboot got bad reception from fans? Toxic fandom. People arguing that female Space Marines should not be a thing because it goes against established lore in drastic ways? Toxic fandom, gatekeeping, yadda yadda. Little Timmy using his smartphone to call a creator names? Obviously a sign of an inherently toxic fandom. There are some websites/rags in particular that'll use single tweets with no real relevance or support to craft fairytales about toxic fandoms, these days, in a bid for outrage clicks.

 

Something a streamer who I've been following for a few years observed recently was rather interesting, in this context. He was having a bad day due to his Twitch chat feeling toxic due to the competitive nature of the tournament he was participating in. But looking at it from a different angle, the users themselves weren't really toxic at all - it was the aggregate effect that felt toxic, but 99% of participants were actually acting in good faith. They weren't being toxic, didn't act with malicious intent, didn't go out of their way to rile him up or gang up on his rivals. It's just what happens when you have hundreds or even thousands of people talking at a rapid pace, shouting into the aether, and thus become aware of patterns or repetitions, something that the viewers talking probably didn't have the capacity or care for.

 

So basically, I'm somebody who would like to move away from the notion of toxicity in fandoms in so far as it often ends up dismissing individual concerns or feelings, because of the aggregate effect it may have on the observer. At a micro-scale, there might be no toxicity present at all (or at least not on a level larger than anywhere else), but at a macro-scale? It becomes much easier to feel bogged down by negativity there.

 

 

Also, it's 4:30am. Blame the clock for my rambling, I need to go to bed.

Edited April 28, 2020 by DarkChaplain

[Scribe]

 

not being a gamer, (or even really a "fan" of anything)...i have no idea what those things are, but i believe you.  i guess the thing in common here is that those examples and 40k are all game licenses at heart, which maybe promotes some sort of factionalism?

 

my point was that there might be things that are 40koxic specifically, i'm probably gonna be off on some of the specifics.

 

 

For sure, when you can 'join' some faction, or be part of it, thats going to drive a lot of toxic behavior.

[mc warhammer]

 

 

i'm good with thundercats roar, and i feel for the creators with all this backlash. the original series still stands unmarred, why not try a new take? the quality is there...it's just not what existing fans want.

 

My issue specifically is: Why even bother using the IP and characters, then, if you're gonna change the recipe so much that it bothers legacy fans? Similar could be said about FFVII Remake: Why change the formula when it's neither going to please new players that'll be confused with what's going on, and veterans are mad about being lied to in marketing, promises and what they were told the game is, but then ended up not being.

 

There's the common defense of "the old game still exists, go play it then", but that goes completely against what the target audience was asking for: A modern remake of what they already loved, something they've been asking for (myself included) for 15 years until release. The same can be said for Thunder Cats, or She Ra: The originals still exist, go watch them. But they wanted the familiar with a new coat of paint, not a reinvented wheel that doesn't appeal to them anymore. Funnily enough, from what a friend just told me a few days ago, Thunder Cats Roar seems to have poked fun at fans of the original or somesuch, and he was slightly upset about it. FFVII Remake also made it a plotpoint to symbolically defy the fandom by making their game-incarnation, so to say, the penultimate boss...

And don't even get me started on the Disney canon Star Wars reset that split the community hard...

 

 

i'll put this out there: why are some of the best covers of a song not just a faithful rendition with modern recording techniques? many hop into totally new genres. often the best covers take the song somewhere excitingly new but with just enough familiarity.

 

i imagine most reboots aim for that same sweet spot with varying success.

 

the new she ra has gone on to widespread critical acclaim and multiple awards and lasted 2 more seasons than the original did. my new little pony was transformed into a very different interpretation that reinvigorated a dead property. 21 jump street, etc. they work for someone.

 

i'm not sure that giving an existing audience "something old with a lick of new paint" should be the inception for anything artistic. it seems like a slightly cynical exercise in money making to approach it that way. it's not just "your old series exists so go watch that, bro" it's "why would i make a new series that's essentially that old series, when the old series exists just fine"? the new take needs a reason to exist on its own.

 

this gets into the realm of the difference between reboots and remakes too.

 

but to digress, the original reason i brought she-ra up was off the back of the sister of battle comment was to make light of the old school fan reaction to a de-sexed she-ra. i don't think i even need to go into why that was just...ehhh.

 

with the specifics you mention of 40k, i've never played it so i don't have any of those same feelings of frustration about being replaced or sidelined. i'm probably one of those newer philistines who don't know how good it was back in the days of old and possibly i don't deserve a seat at the table.

 

but personally, i'm generally fine with properties doing what they need to modernise and grow their fan-base. if something moves on from my specific enjoyment, then...it is what it is. say with she ra...i'm not personally interested in it, and...that's ok. not everything has to be for me. same with roar, not my thing but i wish them every success with their take. if 40k goes in a direction i don't dig? oh well.

Edited April 28, 2020 by mc warhammer

[Donkey Kong]

Normally, when people don’t like a book, they put it down. They don’t write 1d4chan articles about the author having daddy issues and not understanding the universe they’ve been instrumental in building.

 

While I agree that personal insults towards an author usually aren't particularly good or productive criticism, there's absolutely nothing wrong with talking about the things that you don't like. If all you do is ignore and forget the things that you don't like, or, putting yourself in the author's position, expect nothing but praise or silence, then you'll never grow as a critic or a creator. And it doesn't matter how "instrumental" any author has been in building anything, nobody is beyond reproach.

 

 

There was some sort of brouhaha? Sisters of Battle were divisive? Man, I feel out of the loop. The only negativity surrounding that that I've seen is that they still have a degree of boobplate and heels in their design - something that has been core to their design since their inception (but was already toned down from Alan Blight artworks, anyway)

 

/tg/ at least was up in arms over their belief the models looked like warrior women (or, in their words "that's a dude") instead of supermodels. I'd imagine they were far from the only community to do so.

 

I wouldn't describe myself as "up in arms," but I'm definitely in the camp of "the new sisters of battle bare faces are ugly." But, we're having two conversations here. 1. What is a sister of battle supposed to look like? and 2. Are the miniatures portraying the sisters of battle accurately?

 

I like the attractive sisters of battle. There is official art (and quite a bit more fan art) supporting that portrayal. There are now three sisters miniatures directly referencing art (Cannoness Veridyan, Sister Superior Amalia Novena, and Sister Tariana Palos), and I'd argue that in every instance the illustration looks better than the miniature.

 

Veridyan

https://warhammerart.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/sisters-of-battle-codex.jpg

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/catalog/product/920x950/99810108001_SistersofBattleCannonessVeridyan01.jpg

Novena

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/BattleSisterBulletinPainting-June10-Kapinski4hfd.jpg

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/catalog/product/920x950/99120108020_SisterAmaliaNovena01.jpg

Palos

https://warhammerart.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AST001-Sisters-Of-Battle-Cover.jpg

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/catalog/product/920x950/99120108041_TarianaPalos2.jpg

 

I think that the sisters of battle are supposed to be attractive, and the miniatures are ugly and are an inaccurate representation. I don't know whether that's due to technological limitations, artistic inability, or a deliberate choice, and I don't want to make baseless accusations. But, that's all addressing the second question.

 

To answer the first question, someone may see boobplate and heels as a negative. I think that boobplate and heels are fine. "Loose canon" allows for everyone to interpret and portray sisters of battle however they please. I'm sure would could have a long and in depth conversation about all of this. And with or without one, none of us have to agree.

 

I don't have a smooth segue, but I noticed something similar with the portrayal of Inquisitor Greyfax, except she has one illustration where (I think) she's portrayed as attractive (Fall of Cadia), another where she isn't, and an ugly faced miniature. Food for thought.

 

Greyfax

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/d/d7/MariusAmalrich.png/revision/latest?cb=20170419020742

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/1/1f/Greyfax.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170501070314

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/catalog/product/920x950/99120108008_TriumvirateoftheImperium04.jpg

 

 

Apologies in advance, I wasn't able to post the images as I intended.

 

Aren't sites like that Ravelry and RPG.net private? What does them taking a political stance have to do with this discussion? This is getting too hard to follow for someone with english as a second language.

 

The Sisters of Battle conversation is an example for people that, in this instance, see how women are portrayed in fiction as a political issue. Mass Effect 3 and Mass Effect Andromeda both come to mind with how the default female protagonist appears in game. But, I'd rather not further derail. It's a boring conversation that usually ends  up falling on partisan lines. Again, mods, if answering the question is inappropriate, please delete the pertinent text in my reply and what I've quoted.

 

Edited to correct misinterpretation, sorry DarkChaplain.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Donkey Kong

[Lord_Caerolion]

At the risk of getting off-topic, I'd argue that Sisters of Battle are meant to be female, not always 100% attractive. 

[DarkChaplain]

Just gonna point out: I don't have anything against boobplate or the heels. I was just referencing seeing some controversy about those aspects (and I often found myself arguing against those folks anyway). Boobplate may not be practical on a realistic level, but in games, be they tabletop or video, they're an artistic choice I would not want to miss out on them for the sake of realism.

 

As for the Sisters' faces, they're actually the reason I've held off on ordering those special characters so far. It might be the paintjob, of course (and we've seen FW paintjobs in particular that didn't do their models faces many favors), but there's just something off that makes the models less appealing painting projects to me. Not necessarily bad, but not as satisfying as they could be.

In a way, they put me in mind of the old smaller scale LotR miniatures, which often had strange face-sculpts, especially when you compared the results to the scenes they're supposed to represent. They weren't bad, but obviously limited by the medium. I wonder if the same is true here. Heck, I wouldn't even be surprised if GW's studio employees just aren't used to sculpting female heads yet, or don't really know how to make them easily distinguishable as females. That new radical Inquisitor they just announced this month? I wasn't even able to tell it was a woman before I read the text.

 

But this is another thing where subjective views will obviously be split along many different lines. I wouldn't call either major side necessarily "toxic" either. People may not like their faces, but that's probably more down to how the model diverges from their own interpretation from the art etc. What's toxic isn't the disappointment, but the mindboggling way some people give vent to their frustrations, which includes memeing the hell out of it.

[Donkey Kong]

My mistake, sorry for the misinterpretation. I've edited my post to correct that.

 

I think arguing for practicality and realism in Games Workshop's space fantasy is a slippery slope that only ends with realizing how little of either there is. And I realize that I'm saying this as the person advocating for logical character behavior and plot progression taking precedent over hitting expected story beats. 

 

Regarding sculpts, of the three possibilities (the software isn't capable of, the artists aren't capable of, or the artists are unwilling to sculpt pretty female faces) I'm inclined to agree that that it's the second. Warhammer Community has posted enough of the sculpts that we can safely bet that there's more going on than a bad paint job. I've seen enough 3d sculpts and prints to conclude that it probably isn't the first. And the last assumes that the sculptors are making a deliberate choice to make them ugly, either because they're supposed to be and/or because someone is trying to push an agenda. Again, I don't want to make accusations, but similar things have been done before.

 

What's toxic about memeing? The definition of "toxic" is more nebulous than 40k's loose canon.

[Scribe]

They can obviously make idealized, over sexed female faces. The entire Dark Eldar, and Witch Elf model lines are proof if this.

 

The Sisters were an active choice to inject diversity into the range, and promote a more human (we are not all super models) grounding for the models.

 

You cannot tell me they are not Sisters. They hit all the required tropes.

[Marshal Rohr]

Maybe making models look different than the same face with different expressions like the fantasy models was the goal and not a conspiracy? Stop ruining the hobby with culture war :cuss.

 

 

This is EXACTLY the toxicity that is ruining communities all over the place. No one cares about your politics. Politics are way more toxic than the nature of the emperor. Leave that at the door or stop talking. It’s dragging everyone else trying to enjoy themselves down.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Marshal Rohr

[bluntblade]

Well this has diverged.