MASCULINITY AND COHESION IN MINIATURE WARGAMING

University of Mississippi University of Mississippi

eGrove eGrove

Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate School

1-1-2021

MASCULINITY AND COHESION IN MINIATURE WARGAMING MASCULINITY AND COHESION IN MINIATURE WARGAMING

Christopher Gage

University of Mississippi

Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd

Part of the Sociology Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Gage, Christopher, "MASCULINITY AND COHESION IN MINIATURE WARGAMING" (2021).

Electronic

Theses and Dissertations

. 2005.

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd/2005

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at eGrove. It has been accepted for

inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information,

please contact [email protected].

MASCULINITY AND COHESION IN MINIATURE WARGAMING

A Thesis

presented in partial fulfillment of requirements

for the degree of Master of Arts

in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology

The University of Mississippi

CHRISTOPHER SEBASTIAN GAGE

May 2021

ABSTRACT

This research looked at the interactions on online platforms of those people who are part

of the miniature wargaming community. The goal of this study was to answer 1) Which

masculinities are present and practiced within the miniature wargaming community, 2) What is

the reason for the cohesion of the miniature wargaming community. I found support for different

masculinities, such as geek masculinity, hegemonic masculinity, and domestic masculinity. These

different masculinities have different aspects and some of these aspects were displayed in the

miniature wargaming community, with no masculinity being presented in all aspects. I also found

support for the theories on Field by Bourdieu, contributing to the cohesion of the miniature

wargaming community because of the discussion of practicing, playing, and the competition of

the game. While masculinity, and competition and cohesion are present and their presence can be

explained by my findings, there is a part of the community where participants in the hobby of

miniature wargaming have made their own space. This separate space which the community has

made for themselves allows them to seemingly ignore certain aspects of both masculinity and

competition.

DEDICATION

To Family and Friends

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude to my advisor and chair of this project Dr. Velitchkova

for the time she spent reading, editing, discussing my thesis, and calming my nerves.

Additionally, I want to express my appreciation to my committee members, Dr. Kirsten Dellinger

and Dr. Thomas for their support and enthusiasm in my project and all the encouragement I

received.

TABLE OF CONTENT

ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………………………. ii

DEDICATION.…………………………………………………………………………………. iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………………………………….... iv

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………....vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………....…1

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK…………………………………..…………....….........7

THEORIES RELATED TO COHESION………………...………………....…………….7

THEORIES OF MASCULINITY………………………...……………..............….........11

CHAPTER 2: METHODS…………………………………………………………….………....19

DATA SOURCES…………………………………………………………...…………...19

SAMPLING PROCEDURE……………………………………………………………..21

CODING………………………………………………………………………………....23

REFLEXIVITY…………………………………………………………………………..24

CHAPTER 3:FIELD DYNAMICS……………………………………………………………...27

FIELD AND POSITION………………………………………………………………...27

KNOWLEDGE/COMPETENCE………………………………………………………..29

COMMUNITY GOALS………………………………………………………………....31

UTILIZATION OF CAPITAL…………………………………………………………...33

CHANGE………………………………………………………………………………...36

COMPETITION IN THE FIELD: COMPETENCE QUESTIONED…………………...38

COMPETITION IN THE FIELD: DECREASING OF STATUS……………………….43

COMPETITION IN THE FIELD: COMPLAINING…………………………………....48

FORGIVING OR FORGETFUL COMMUNITY?...........................................................50

A MASCULINE FIELD………………………………………………………………....51

MASCULINE HIERARCHY……………………………………………………………53

OF WOMEN ENTERING THE FIELD………………………………………………....56

FEMININE EFFECTS…………………………………………………………….……..58

VIOLENCE……………………………………………………………………………....61

MASCULINITY, SKILL, AND KNOWLEDGE………………………………………..63

CHAPTER 4: GENDER BOUNDARIES.....................................................................................67

GROUP BELONGING…………………………………………………………………..67

INCLUSION & EXCLUSION…………………………………………………………..68

BONDING……………………………………………………………………………….71

SEXUALIZATION OF WOMEN……………………………………………………….73

CHAPTER 5: THE COMMUNITY……………………………………………………………..76

THE COMMUNITY……………………………………………………………………..76

SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE………………………………………………………….…...79

EMOTIONS……………………………………………………………………………...87

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION………………………………..…....……..90

MINIATURE WARGAMING AS A FIELD………………………………………......………...92

MASCULINITIES IN MINIATURE WARGAMING…………………………....……….….....96

MINIATURE WARGAMING AS A SUBCULTURE OF RESISTANCE?………........….…...103

MINIATURE WARGAMING AND SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM.......................….…...104

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………..……………..106

REFERENCES……………………..………………………………………………...………...111

APPENDIX A………………………………………………...………………………………...119

1. INTRODUCTION

When it comes to leisure, people do all sorts of different activities when they try to relax,

have fun, and interact with other people. The choice might depend on the subculture(s) in which

they participate. Thanks to leisure and leisure activities people come together and interact. Some

leisure activities or hobbies are not available to everyone. Social, cultural, and institutional

norms, especially those related to masculinity, affect who can partake in which activity.

Masculinity is an important aspect of our society which influences many decisions that people

make and leisure is no exception to that. This project is about people, mostly men, coming

together to play with little toy soldiers in hobby stores found in our daily lives.

Hobby stores in this study are defined as stores that supply products to build and operate

miniature toys, from miniature trains, to remote controlled cars, or miniatures that are toy

soldiers. Anyone may enter these stores found in large cities and in small communities, almost

anywhere in the world. The stores can be located in strip malls or may have their own buildings.

What products they carry is often dependent on what the local population needs in terms of their

hobby supply. To reach a wider audience besides hobbyists and get other people to come to the

store in order to create traffic, some of these stores carry comics. Miniature wargaming also

happens in private clubs where people meet. Conventions happen all over the world for

miniature wargamers to meet. Consequently, the hobby store, the conventions, and the private

clubs are vital to the community. People who play miniature wargames also participate in

discussion with other players. This discussion can happen in the hobby store, or when the hobby

store is closed online on the internet. With the rise of the internet in the early 2000’s the

miniature wargaming community, like a lot of other people, enjoyed a new found connectivity

with its global members. Discussion boards and blogs were created on the internet, allowing the

community to communicate like never before. What is unique about hobbies is that people who

have normally little to no association with each other can come together and interact despite their

social, cultural, or institutional differences that on a day-to-day basis would keep them apart

(Waskul and Lust 2004:345). The everyday identity of people is broken down and repurposed in

order to not just find relaxation, but also to facilitate new connections to people through social

interactions that are part of the hobby (Koeffel and Haller 2008:1; Williams 2017:122). These

interactions can range from asking tips about how to better paint a piece, to asking what strategy

is the best, actually taking the RC car to the track, or putting the little toy soldiers on the table

and pushing them around.

For this study, I focus on tabletop miniature wargaming. What is a tabletop game?

Tabletop games are games that are played on a table or any surface that is flat. Examples for

tabletop games are board games such as chess. Tabletop miniature wargaming refers to taking

toy soldiers and moving them across a table against someone else’s toy soldiers and playing

according to certain rules found in the respective game rule book. The miniatures in miniature

wargaming represent the military pieces that a general deploys in battle and take on the form of

soldiers, artillery, and vehicles. The miniatures used in miniature wargaming serve an aesthetic

purpose. The scale at which miniature wargaming is played makes it hard to have a realistic

representation of an actual battle. Tabletop miniature wargames evolved from wargames which

started in the 18th century in Prusia where the military and king would play out scenarios for

campaigns that they had planned (Heistand 1898). The pieces back then were made from wood

and were mostly just shapes unless great craftsmanship was applied, which was usually reserved

for the higher classes. The game has evolved over time. Nowadays, miniatures can still be just

made of wood or paper, but with new technologies and mass production tabletop miniature

games now feature highly detailed miniatures that hobbyists put together and paint. Some

hobbyists have even elected to forgo the miniature aspect of the game. They now play miniature

wargaming in the virtual world, using software to render the table they play on and the

miniatures, which allows them to play over the internet with people from all around the globe.

Currently, the biggest tabletop miniature game in the world is called Warhammer, and it

is produced by the company Games Workshop. Warhammer is a game played in a Sci-fi or in a

fantasy setting that involves different factions making up different armies that players can collect

and then pitch against each other. Both the Sci-fi version, a futuristic setting played out in the

year 40000, and the fantasy version, set in an age where elves, dwarves, and other mystical

beings stride on the world, have their own rules. Similarly, all the different factions have their

own rules to make them stand apart from each other within the game. The different factions

within the games are all depicted differently, from glorious and heroic to sinister and evil. The

central story for both games revolves around humanity holding out against the forces of evil that

besiege them from all sides. The miniatures for the different factions all have their own aesthetic

and usually have their own recommended painting style, although the hobbyists have the final

say in the end on how they wish to put models together and paint them. Hobbyists choose which

faction they wish to play when they enter into the hobby. Another possibility is to only join the

hobby to construct and paint the miniatures and not play.

The people who are hobbyists are what I would call everyday people. They go to work,

come home, and then immerse themselves in the hobby if there is time left in the day. They are

lawyers, agricultural workers, IT specialists, healthcare specialists or even famous actors.

Miniature wargaming is not just for adults. Children play miniature wargames as well. I started

playing at age 10. The oldest player I personally know is 59. One problem with miniature

wargaming is that it is expensive which is why most of the player base consists of adults.

Children who want to participate in the hobby depend on adults to finance their participation in

the hobby. When I first started in 2001, a single box of a single squad of troops had a price tag of

30 Euro. The requirements to play depend on the game, but usually you need at least a couple of

squads, which means to participate you have to spend some money. Nowadays, the price for a

single miniature can range from just $5 to $3,000.

People in the hobby distinguish between “playing” and “hobbying.” “Playing” is actively

participating and playing wargames with the miniatures. “Hobbying” is putting the models

together and painting them (Meriläinen, Stenros, and Heljakka 2020). Playing with the

miniatures is optional. Because some miniatures are worth up to $3,000, they see little to no

interaction on the table due to their status as a rare and special miniature. These two dimensions

of “playing” and “hobbying” both have a casual and a competitive aspect to them that hobbyists

can freely join. There are tournaments that people can participate in for renown within the hobby

and prizes related to the hobby, often in the form of gift cards and trophies.

People all over the world play Warhammer. Games Workshop reports that the hobby of

miniature gaming is played all around the world, with Games Workshop having over 500 retail

stores where people can go play (Warhammer Community 2018). This does not include all the

independent stores where people can come and play. In addition to Warhammer from Games

Workshop, there are many other miniature wargames that bring people together. People spend

hours every week doing this, from putting the miniatures together so that they can be painted, to

playing with them in the wargames. All this takes up time and people choose to do this over

other possible hobbies. As Meriläinen, Stenros, and Heljakka point out, miniature wargaming

and the hobbying aspect of it have become a structured and goal-driven form of leisure

(2020:13). Another reason why we should look at the hobby of miniature gaming is because

participants within the hobby are able to gain status with playing the game. While the status is

confined to the subculture of miniature wargaming, people still participate in tournaments in

order to increase their renown (Lee 2019:47). Studying the wargaming community can address

the question of how leisure or subcultural activities facilitate social cohesiveness as people from

different backgrounds interact in these hobbies.

I myself have been part of the tabletop miniature gaming hobby for 19 years,

participating in both the casual and the competitive scenes in Warhammer and in other tabletop

games. During my involvement, I had the chance to interact with a wide variety of people. It was

only when I started my studies at the University of Mississippi, I realized that all these people

were white men of different ages. Playing games as a leisure activity has been associated with

being an activity that is made solely for men since the 1980’s (Salter 2018:250). It is men who

traditionally play games (Giacomelli and Gibbert 2018:168). Furthermore, what game a person

plays seems to depend on their identity, with games that have masculine aspects drawing in those

who identify as masculine (Jun and Kyle 2012:368). The number of people of color and of

women with whom I have interacted in my hobby over the years has remained rather small. The

only increase that I have noticed since I began playing years ago is the population of people of

color in the hobby. After meeting with Dr. Velitchkova and reading about masculinity and to

some extent about leisure, questions started to form in my mind about why this was the case,

especially since hobby stores as they are described are available to all people. Hobby stores are

part of the public sphere and anyone with interest can enter. However, I found out that it is not

that case that just anyone can enter the hobby store and be part of the hobby. I had never before

considered that maybe the cost of the game, which over the years has steadily increased, might

be a reason why certain people are not able to get into the hobby. Also, I had not thought about

how the majority of men in hobby stores might have something to do with why women are not

seen there as often.

While leisure activities are supposedly available to everyone, societal or cultural norms

affect who can actually participate. For example, it can be hard for women to participate, as

women are expected to be mothers and may not have time to participate in leisure all together

(Roster 2007:445). This means that this project is concerned with the question of what

masculinity is like in spaces where people play miniature wargaming and engage in other leisure

or subcultural activities. Answering this question relates to broader theories of masculinity by

looking at the type(s) of masculinity present in wargaming and at how this type of masculinity is

structured. Furthermore, this project is also concerned with the question of why the people in the

community come together to participate in this leisure time activity.

Theoretical Framework

Theories Related to Cohesion

Field and Habitus

According to the Bourdieusian field theory, the reason why people find themselves

together in a field is because they share similar structural relations to economic and cultural

resources (Bottero & Crossley 2011:101). Bourdieu describes that fields are their own game in

which it is in the best interest to practice the necessary behaviors of the field in order to not just

gain the different capitals that the field has to offer, but also to be able to manipulate the capital

in one's favor (Friedland 2009:899-900;Toft-Nielsen & Krogager 2015:69). Bourdieu states that

symbolic interactionism is not the reason for group cohesion. In Bourdieu’s point of view people

come together in the field because they have the same goals (Bottero & Crossley 2011:101). The

relationship that forms between people due to practices within the field helps with the

reproduction of the social structure that forms (Friedland 2009:889). The habitus that forms not

only strengthens the common practices of the field but also strengthens the interactions and

relationships between players of the field (Bottero & Crossley 2011:103). It is important to take

note that habitus grows to increase capital within the field as well as facilitate recreational

activity while at the same time strengthening interactions between people (Ignatow & Robinson

2017:955). In addition to the different applications of habitus it is important to remember that

habitus still remains an indicator of class (Ignatow & Robinson 2017:955). Practice of the

actions in the field and the desire for competition are what keeps people together in cohesion.

What would group cohesion look like if dynamics related to field theory and habitus are

at play? I expect that, if cohesion is due to Bourdieu’s field dynamics, then I would observe

people trying to gain capital in order to increase their standing towards others in the community.

I expect that people will use the capital that they gain to shift the rules of the field in their favor.

In addition, I would also expect that people will have common practices that they all do which

connects them to each other.

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism explains differently why people come together and stay together

through interactions, language, and symbols. In its simplest explanation “symbolic

interactionism addresses how society is created and maintained through repeated interactions

among individuals” (Carter & Fuller 2015:1). Symbolic interactionism concerns itself more with

the meaning behind actions than it does with the structure that leads to the interaction itself. It is

based around the language and symbols used in the communication between people (Carter &

Fuller 2015:1; Chen & Duh 2007:22).

In itself there are three different schools of symbolic interactionism which are: The

Chicago school, the Iowa school, and the Indiana school (Carter & Fuller 2015:2). In the

Chicago school of thought, symbolic interaction is what makes up our social structures, and it

concerns itself with the processes that lead to the experiences that are created through

interactions. For the Chicago school cohesion comes from the interactions between people and

the language and symbols that they use to communicate (Carter & Fuller 2015:2). The Iowa

school viewed symbolic interactions as those acts that were informed by other prior events in the

social sphere (Carter & Fuller 2015:3). The Indiana school on the other hand, “emphasized that

meanings and interactions led to relatively stable patterns that create and uphold social

structures” (Carter & Fuller 2015:4). For both the Iowa and Indiana school of thought cohesion

of a group, like with the Chicago school, comes from the interaction between people and the way

they interact with others through symbols and language (Carter & Fuller 2015). Where the Iowa

and Indiana school further differ is the way on how to approach the study of symbolic

interactionism. The Iowa school turns toward quantitative methods, while the Indiana school

uses a mixed methods approach of both qualitative and quantitative methods (Carter & Fuller

2015:4).

Part of symbolic interactionism is the concept of what is known as looking-glass self, in

which the self is made up by the interactions one has with others in society. Or our sense of self

is in fact just our perception of society’s view of us (Robinson 2007:94). Goffman takes the

concept of looking glass self and breaks it down further, states that symbolic interaction and the

self that is built through the interaction with others comes from two different parts. First, obvious

signs and expressions that are open and visible and second, symbols and signs which are hidden.

(Robinson 2007:96) Chen and Duh describe how in gaming the player forms his identity through

the interaction by looking at the player's own character and how the player's character is

positioned in the game among other players (2007:23).

Through symbolic interactionism we are able to understand why people come together to

form social movements and collective behavior. Due to the symbolic interaction between people

in groups and through the construction of the self, the people of the group form an identity which

they all share (Carter & Fuller 2015:9). The group is bound together by rituals that perpetuate the

group.

This leaves me with the question whether the cohesion that is found in the gaming

community is based on symbolic interactions between members of the community. If that were

to be the case, what I would expect is that the people create their own identity based on how they

perceive others, and also how those others perceive them. Furthermore, I expect that, if cohesion

is due to symbolic interactionism, then the people who are part of the hobby perform recurring

actions which are part of the hobby and its identity. What I expect is that these actions as rituals

in the hobby are different from the practices of Bourdieusian field theory. I expect these actions

will not be something that helps with the positioning within the hierarchy like the practices do. I

Expect that the actions which symbolic interactionism is responsible for do not emerge due to

competition between people but purely to interact with the people of the same hobby.

Marxist Theory of Deviant Subcultures

According to Marxist theory of deviant subcultures, cohesion is described as the struggle

against the dominant cultural forces of society. This cohesion comes through the creation of

subcultures as counter cultures (Pfohl 2009; Jenks 2005:117). The dominant culture of our

society tries to reproduce itself (Jenks 2005:116). While subcultures are part of the general

culture and borrow from the parent culture, they are in fact deviant from the main culture due to

their own little bubble that they create (Jenks 2005:117-118). In the gaming world we find the

geek or nerd subculture as an example (Downing 2011:752; Salter 2018:251). In one part of the

geek subculture, men with technological interests gather and try to resist the dominant cultural

interest by exclusion of people, mainly women, who do not seem as invested in their interests

(Salter 2018:250; Harrison, Drenten, and Pendarvis 2016:61). In a different part of geek

subculture, we find a resistance to class and age restrictions of the general culture (Downing

2011). In the subculture of punk music resistance manifests itself against the main culture in

many different ways. Their rebellion comes through the different topics that are addressed in the

music they play (Moran 2010:59), as well as the way people belonging to the subculture dress

(Moran 2010:62).

What would the cohesion of the miniature wargaming community look like if the

dynamics proposed by the Marxist theory on subcultures are at play? I expect that if the cohesion

occurs due to the resistance to the main culture of society, that actions taken by participants in

the subculture go against what is considered normal in general society. I would expect that they

might dress differently, or use a different language, and express opposition.

Theories of masculinity

Masculinity

Masculinity in its most general sense is the expectation of how men are supposed to act in

our society. It is the standard of what it means to be a man in a group composed of other men and

the actions associated with being a man, often associated with the suppression of non-men and

weaker men (Schrock and Schwalbe 2009:279). Manhood acts establish masculinity through

which they give status and thus a place in the hierarchy of men (Schrock and Schwalbe

2009:284). Masculinity influences people when deciding what to do in their leisure time. Persons

with masculine identities seek out masculine activities as described by Jun and Kyle (2012:358).

Assuming a masculine identity means to embrace aspects of masculinity, such as strength or

courage. But masculinity has changed over time (Horlacher: 2015) and so have the activities that

are associated with masculinity (Giacomelli and Gibbert 2018; Jun and Kyle 2012: 358; Roster

2007:444). Men are supposed to be using anger and aggression when expressing themselves in

spaces where masculinity is part of the hierarchy (McKinnon-Crowley 2020:132; Reid, O’Neil,

Blair-Loy 2018:580). Also, in masculine groups and spaces, there are only two possible options

when it comes to belonging to that group, a person is either part of the group, an insider, or they

are an outsider. Should a person choose to leave a group or space they can come back, but they

will find that they will have a hard time coming and being accepted back into the group (Reid,

O’Neil, Blair-Loy 2018:588).

What does masculinity look like in miniature wargaming? If masculinity is important for

miniature wargaming, then I expect to observe a hierarchy between the men that is built

according to the rules of the present masculinity. Furthermore, I expect this hierarchy to depend

on acts that award the status of being a man in the group of people who participate in miniature

wargaming. Additionally, I expect that men display emotions such as anger and aggressiveness

when they express themselves when it comes to manhood acts and masculinity when playing

miniature wargames. Lastly, there is also the expectation that a person is either part of the group

that is participating in miniature wargaming, or a person is not part of the group and thus faces

acceptance problems.

Every society has its own masculinity which is the hegemonic masculinity that sets the

rules of how men should act and is in constant conflict with other masculinities which are trying

to replace it as the hegemonic masculinity (Hinojosa 2010:180; Schrock & Schwalbe

2009P:280). Hegemonic masculinity is about superiority over others as well, whether they are

other men or women (Giacomelli & Gibbert 2018:170). This establishment of superiority looks

different for every social class. For lower social classes masculinity revolves around appearing

strong whereas for higher social classes masculinity revolves around knowledge (Reid, O'Neill,

and Blair-Loy 2012:581).

While hegemonic masculinity is about establishing dominance, actors have to be careful

to not give into their emotions and actions too much since being too emotional is not considered

masculine and could lead to a loss of status in the masculine hierarchy. (Hinojosa 2010:186) This

is why men have to carefully navigate manhood acts, actions that give status in the hierarchy,

using aggression and violence or their occupational status and income. (Schrock & Schwalbe

2009:282) If aggression, violence, status, and income do not work to establish dominance, men

can also fall back on coercive behavior (Schrock & Schwalbe 2009:285), all in order to signify

that they as men are something special (Schrock & Schwalbe 2009:287).

What would hegemonic masculinity look like in miniature wargaming? If there is

hegemonic masculinity in miniature wargaming, then I expect to find that men will fight for

superiority. I expect to find aggression and violent behavior in order to establish superiority. I

expect that, when someone is from a lower class, their attempt to dominate will take physical

form, while domination from higher classes will come in the form of knowledge. Furthermore, I

expect that all aggression is controlled and managed, and that any excessive use of emotions is

acknowledged as a weakness by others.

Geek Masculinity

When it comes to playing games and masculinity, masculinity takes on the form of geek

or nerd masculinity. Groups that form around geek masculinity perform activities which are not

mainstream in society. That can be playing video games (Blackburn & Scharrer 2019:319) or

participating in live action role play, LARP for short, which is dressing up as knights and such

and then fighting each other (Martin et al 2015:295). Geek masculinity is a form of masculinity

that takes aspects of the hegemonic masculinity found in society and adds their own values to it

in order to compensate for those hegemonic aspects its practitioners can’t meet. These added

aspects include: being more heroic and seeking glory (Martin et al 2015:301), being more

academically focused than athletic (Blackburn & Scharrer 2019:295; Braithwaite 2016:2;l Salter

2018:249), and having a persecution complex that manifests in fearing that people are out to

bring one back in line and normal society (Chess & Shaw 2015:216; Braithwaite 2016:3).

In groups where geek masculinity is prevalent, any actions become gendered in order to

establish who is the dominant person (Martin et al 2015:303), with completely neutral actions

such as playing music to accompany the games being played are delegated to those who appear

to be more feminine, not heroic (Martin et al 2015:305). This means that women that are part of

groups with geek masculinity are often excluded. This exclusion can be a direct exclusion from

the group or while they are part of the group they are put in the background where they gain no

recognition (Salter 2018:250, Martin et al:300). Similar to hegemonic masculinity, for geek

masculinity there are manhood acts that establish standing in the hierarchy within the group and

between the men. These manhood acts favor competitiveness over cooperation (Braithwaite

2016:3), which means that if a person does not perform manhood acts they can’t belong to the

group (Martin et al 2015:305). In addition, men display emotions such as anger, callousness, and

aggressiveness which is the same as in hegemonic masculinity (Blackburn & Scharrer

2019:310). Within the group, it is also important to be trained in what the group does, since the

interaction between people is based on specialization and on how knowledgeable a person is

about the activities that the group does (Salter 2018, P. 251). In addition, the interaction between

people will be socially awkward, which is a characteristic as well for those who are part of a

group that practices geek masculinity (Blackburn & Scharrer 2019:295; Martin et al 2015:295).

What would geek/nerd masculinity look like in wargaming? If there is geek/nerd

masculinity found in wargaming and the hobby store where the people play, then I expect to find

that the men there try to be more heroic and try to seek glory. I can also expect to find that the

people there are more academically inclined than athletic. In addition, I expect that people

playing wargaming have a victim complex where they feel pressured to join back in with the

mainstream society and culture. Furthermore, I expect to find that people will display emotions

of aggressiveness, anger, and callousness. Along with these emotions I expect that most

interactions in the game are based on being competitive and are not friendly interactions between

people. And that interaction between people can be socially awkward since in the literature

people belonging to geek masculinity are classified as socially awkward. Lastly, I expect that

knowledge of the game is highly priced between people and dictating the prestige of those

involved in miniature wargaming.

Domestic Masculinity

In the case of this project, masculinity is found in the stores where people come together

and play miniature wargaming. These stores are used to allow those who come there to separate

themselves from their professions, families, and other identities in order to reassure and reinvent

themselves. This separation of identities plays a role in what is called domestic masculinity.

Domestic masculinity revolves around the space that men are able to make their own; the setup

of the space adds to the construction of identity and habitus that the man tries to assume (Moisio

& Beruchashvili 2016:657). One way in which men perform domestic masculinity is by sharing

their space with others, either their sons (Moisio & Beruchashvili 2016:667) or other men

,friends that they invite to reproduce masculinity (Moisio & Beruchashvili 2016:669). The space

in domestic masculinity is a space in which a man can show off his possessions even if they

might not get seen by others because it still shows the status of the item and separates the space

from other spaces where the man normally can’t display his prized items to others (Moisio &

Beruchashvili 2016:663). This separation of the space for men and other spaces is created in

order to block out the feminine areas of society and establish a place only for men. While women

technically still have access to the space, they usually don’t enter in order to keep the sanctity of

the space intact (Moisio & Beruchashvili 2016:663).

What would domestic masculinity look like in hobby stores? If it is the case that domestic

masculinity is found in hobby stores, I expect to find the overall space of the store to be

separated into areas for people to gather depending on whether the people are considered

masculine or not. Furthermore, I expect that men in the hobby store will have personal

possessions that they cherish and that are off limits to non masculine people.

Militarized Masculinity

The occurrence of absence of women in masculine spaces is nothing new. Miniature

wargaming has its roots in the military (Heistand 1898), this might be the reason why there are

so few women in the hobby. Masculinity and the military have gone hand in hand for a long

time, with men directly being associated with the military (Eichler 2014:82). This connection is

far reaching in our society. Militarized masculinity is interwoven into almost every fiber of our

daily life, from how we react to foreign people to how the products we consume are made by the

actions of militarized masculinity (Eichler 2014:82; Enloe 2007). Even the personal

characteristics that militarized masculinities value relate to hegemonic masculinity with

characteristics, such as being courageous, violent, aggressive, or tought (Eichler 2014:82;

Decosta 2014:465; McCluskey 2019:34-40). The connection of masculinity, men, and the

military has been going on for so long now that it is traditional (Goldstein 2002:265) and as with

anything traditional it often excludes women (Eichler 2014:83). Even now with the restructuring

of this tradition women still are seen as outsiders (Eichler 2014:82) because the military opposes

feminism (Eichler 2014:83). When acting according to the norms of militarized masculinity, men

perform in acts of self sacrifice, glory, and heroics (Sjoberg and Via 2018:210). Another aspect

of militarized masculinity is the fact that should a woman manage to join a group where

militarized masculinity is prevalent she stays a woman; a man in such an environment becomes a

soldier (Sjoberg and Via 2018:212). Women are portrayed as beautiful peaceful souls that need to

be protected by men who are the just warriors in this environment (Eichler 2014:83). Should

personnel in groups with militarized masculinities lose, they try to shift blame to either a

different party or an interfering aspect in order to still appear strong (Dcosta 2014:463). This has

to do with the idea that in militarized masculinities those who are part of a group that practices

such a masculinity are afraid of failure, which is a drive in order to succeed (Goldstein 2002:P.

254). Furthermore, people who are part of groups with militarized masculinity do not want to

feel shame which like fear is another motivator for success (Goldstein 2002:269).

Is militarized masculinity found in hobby stores where people play wargames? If that is

the case what I can expect to find is that women are not welcome due to the traditional military

aspect of the game. Furthermore, I expect that, if militarized masculinity is found in hobby

stores, then this militarized masculinity also transcends the space into other areas outside of the

hobby store. If militarized masculinity is found in the hobby store I can expect that men will

perform acts of self sacrifice, glory, and heroics when they play the game. If militarized

masculinity is found in hobby stores then what I expect to find is that men portray characteristics

such as being courageous, violent, aggressive, or tough, and that they don’t want to lose and will

shift the blame on something else should they do so. Should militarized masculinity be found in

hobby stores I can expect to find that men are afraid of losing, showing fear, and that should they

lose, the shame will drive them to succeed the next time around.

2. METHODS

With the ongoing pandemic that is raging across our nation the ability to go and observe

in person is in jeopardy at any point. Public places to observe could have shut down at any point

in time, for an unknown length. Observing people, despite distance, does not mean that the

observer can’t get sick and when the researcher interacts with his environment it is not

guaranteed that the researcher does not get others sick as well. For that reason my unit of

analysis for this thesis project are posts online by people of the community on appropriate

platforms. In the literature when it comes to gaming, researchers look online to answer their

questions (Adams 2005; Blackburn & Sharrer 2019; Chen & Duh 2007; Chess & Shaw 2015;

Gray, Buyukozturk and Hill 2017; Harrison, Drenten and Pendarvis 2016; Lau 2017; Pietersen et

al 2018; Shay 2017; Toft-Nielsen & Krogager 2015; Wilhelm 2018). Instead of going to a

physical location the research looks at multiple different online platforms to analyze comments.

Data Sources

The research site for this project are two websites: Reddit and DakkaDakka. Both

platforms, Reddit and DakkaDakka, are public websites that are accessible via the internet.

Reddit claims to be the face of the internet, allowing users to submit content to the site such as

links, text posts, and images, which are then voted up or down by other members. Posts are

organized by subject into user-created boards called "subreddits". These subreddits cover a

variety of topics such as news, politics, science, movies, video games, music, books, sports,

fitness, cooking, pets, and image-sharing. The written language in the post is dependent on the

rules of the subreddit. Some subreddits forgo all rules, allowing for what is understood to be

NSFW or “not safe for work posts” as well as racist comments to be submitted. If there are rules

they are enforced by moderators. Moderators are people who volunteer to take care of the

subreddit while adhering to a set of rules for moderators as well as the rules of the subreddit that

is moderated. There is no reward for being a moderator.

The subreddits that I looked at in this case are the subreddit Warhammer, a discussion

board for the biggest miniature wargame in the world, and the subreddit Minipainting, a

discussion board to talk about painting all sorts of miniatures.

DakkaDakka is a large, independent wargaming community that features discussion,

tutorials, and images for many games. Like Reddit, DakkaDakka has multiple subforums in

which users can post content. Likewise, content on DakkaDakka can be links, text posts, and

images - all relating to miniature wargaming.

Both platforms, Reddit and DakkaDakka, are accessible at all times, provided that the

user has internet access. The participants who post on these platforms are anonymous, employing

the use of aliases to interact with others and the platform. Signing up is free but if a person only

wishes to watch and read signing up is not necessary. Only if the participant wishes to post and

comment on both websites, they need to sign up.

This research project analyzes posts and comments on both Reddit and DakkaDakka. By

using both Reddit and DakkaDakka I was able to analyze posts and their comments that were

about hobbying aspects of miniature wargaming. A post is a submission by a member of the

platform, be it Reddit or Dakkadakka. A post usually belongs to a single subforum, in case of

Reddit a subreddit, where the post addresses a topic relevant to said subforum/subreddit. Posts

can consist of only a single word or picture or are almost written essays in length. Comments are

responses either to the post itself, or a response to another comment.

I looked at the posts and the posts’ comments and the topic they discussed. Are they

about rules, pointing out mistakes and thus threatening the standing of the person? Did the

comments portray emotions? Did the comments feminize? Another consideration was the talk

about skill and performance in the comments which I analyzed. Posts about hobbying, which

consists of, putting miniatures together and painting them, I analyzed by examining the

descriptions of skills and knowledge. Was it a hypersexualized female miniature? Was it a

masculine man? How was the miniature described in the post. As for the comments that I

analyzed for hobbying posts, I looked at was the discussion and mentioned skills and knowledge.

Furthermore, I also observed the portrayal of emotions and whether feminization occurred.

Sampling procedure

Hundreds of posts are made everyday on the two platforms Reddit and DakkaDakka. In

order to increase feasibility of obtaining meaningful data I analyzed different posts of different

weeks out of the year 2020 until I found saturation in the content and comments. All posts that I

analyzed were posted on the subreddits “Warhammer” and “Minipainting'' on Reddit, as well as

on Dakkadakka in the Most Exalted Thread section. To clarify, a thread is the original post that

starts the conversation that users have on online platforms. After gathering the data, I coded

posts and comments using qualitative analysis software, then compared findings to what the

existing literature had found.

In the end, I collected and analyzed 15 posts, with a total of 1583 comments of various

lengths. I selected posts in the manner described below in order to have some sort of

representativeness of the community as well as to have a plethora of communication happen

between people of the community that was varied. I chose to not to select posts with 30

comments or less in order to avoid selecting posts in which the conversation was singular. In a

post with only 10 comments the 10 comments might just be 10 people praising the work that was

done by the person that posted their work.

On the 31st of October I copied and pasted 2 posts from the subreddit “Warhammer”, and

copied and pasted 2 posts from the subreddit “Minipainting”, as well as 1 post from the website

Dakkadakka.com. The posts on reddit which I selected were the top post of the month for each

subreddit, as well as the top post of the year for both subreddits. On Dakkadakka.com the post I

selected was from the most recent exalted forum topics and posts. Exalted forum posts on

Dakkadakka are those that have received acknowledgement from platform participants by voting

positively on the post. On reddit when one visits a subreddit such as “Warhammer” or

“Minipainting” at the top of the page, underneath the banner one can choose to look at Hot, New,

or Top posts of the subreddit. When selecting Top the user is asked to specify which time frame

he wants to look at when looking for the Top posts. For this sample collection the top post of

both the Top of the Month and the Top of the Year was selected. I chose and analyzed a post

when it had 30 or more comments in order to make sure that there was participation happening

between users of each platform.

On the 30th of November and the 31st of December at 4pm I copied and pasted 2 posts

from the subreddit “Warhammer”, and 2 posts from the subreddit “Minipainting”. I also copied 1

post from the website Dakkadakka.com. As in October, the posts on reddit which were selected

were from the top category, with the categories being top of the month and top of the year. On

Dakkadakka.com the post was selected from the most recent exalted forum topics and posts. All

posts that were selected had at least 30 or more comments made.

When I opened a post that fulfilled the criteria, the post and all comments were copied

and pasted into a word document which was labeled with Top Post of the Month or Top Post of

the Year and which subreddit it came from. On Dakkadakka.com the post that I selected from the

forum happened by going to the forum tab which is found at the top of the page. Once the page

was loaded, at the top of the page Thread Tools was clicked on and Top Rated Topics were

selected. Once the page had loaded I selected Recent Exalted Threads to display the top posts

made not too long ago. I selected the first post with the same criteria as on reddit, which had 30

comments or more. Once selected I opened the posts and page for page copied them into a word

document which was labeled with the position the post had in the Recent Exalted Threads list

and that it came from Dakkadakka.com.

Coding

I coded the gathered sample using the Atlas.ti software. I created five groups of codes for

my data. Emotions, Identity, Masculinity, Performance/Interaction, and Subcultural. In the

process I created 150 codes which I applied using both deductive and inductive reasoning. The

codes I created through deductive reasoning came from the literature on each of the theories I

used to form my questions that guided this research. As for the inductive reasoning, I analyzed

what was in my samples and came up with codes, such as “giving thanks” to describe the action

of one person thanking another. Inductive coding is done when things are found that do not

belong to any of the theories, such as emotions that are shown that are not aggression for

example but sadness which literature on masculinity does not mention. Codes such as Academic

were coded for being part of the Identity group of codes since the academic identity is one aspect

of geek masculinity. Under the performance/interaction group I coded inductively codes such as

admitting mistakes and I deductively coded as an example correcting another user. Aspects of the

hobby, such as about hobbying (which is any talk about the hobby in general), I coded under the

Subcultural coding group. In the Masculinity coding group all theoretical codes that are related

to masculinity are put, such as the code questioning of skill or the code persecuted. See Table 1

in the Appendix for examples of codes used to analyze the data.

Reflexivity

I am a player of the game myself at the same time I am a researcher. This doesn’t just

mean I have access to the groups playing. It also means that I am accustomed to the behaviors

that are going on in the hobby and practice them myself. Both consciously and unconsciously.

This is something I have to be mindful of because I could dismiss certain things as normal and

not report them despite them being an important piece of information.

For this research I entered a space dominated by men and it's been that way. That means

that I as a white man have it easy fitting into the miniature wargaming community. With most of

the other players in the tabletop gaming community being men I was accepted from the start. I

never had a problem due to my gender and sexuality. Both gender and sexuality are important. In

addition I have to admit I don’t know the troubles that a person goes through when they aidentify

as LGBTQ or women. Do they have downplay or hide these identities from the group? Can they

be open about their gender or sexual identities within the community? I never have had to

consider what LGBTQ individuals have to go through until now. I had to pay attention to not

assume someone is straight or a man when looking at my data. I also had to make sure that I did

not assume that I know what LGBTQ individuals went through. All of this is important because

in the literature on masculinity anything other than heterosexual identity is something that is

expected to be put down and is an outlet for emotions such as the aggression that masculine men

are supposed to portray.

Before I started to think about how the hobby is portrayed by those who participate in the

hobby, I thought that others simply had no interest in the game. In my mind I would have never

thought that it was the people who participated in the hobby that kept outsiders from joining. I

had always thought that it was simply the hobby itself that others had no interest in and was the

reason for not joining the miniature wargaming community. Neither had I thought about the

game and what it stands for and how it might conflict with how different genders are brought up

in our society. This could make certain genders not want to participate in the hobby of tabletop

gaming. How some gender stereotypes also hinder leisure activities altogether was never

something I had considered before, which is something that I need to look out for. Furthermore, I

also need to consider how gender stereotypes manifest themselves in the community.

As the researcher I am an outsider that looks to dissect just what the people do when they

play the game. There is also the fact that as the researcher I am looking at things that people may

not want the public to know. An interpersonal matter that I need to be mindful of is that I have

read about what other researchers have found in the same setting. I can’t dismiss other

researchers' opinions because of what I read that other researchers have found, or only because it

doesn’t match up with what they found in their studies.

Miniature wargaming is mostly played by white men. This means I also need to consider

race of course, and the challenges that come with not being white in a society that is dominated

by white culture and the privilege of whiteness itself. I cannot simply assume that someone who

posts online is white and that what they posted was not influenced by power dynamics

surrounding race. This is especially the case should miniature wargaming be a geek masculine

space. Because in the literature on geek masculinity, minorities are targets for domination by its

practitioners, just like women and LGBTQ individuals.

3. FIELD DYNAMICS

Field and Position

The people of the miniature wargaming community see themselves as a welcoming and

open community that they think is largely ignored or overlooked. In this chapter, I talk about

how the community of miniature wargaming and the games they play can be considered a field

that is based on knowledge, skill, and competence and is defined by masculinity.

Bourdieu thought of the field as a game where players come and interact with each other

because of objective relations. In everyday language people have the same goals in the field that

they share (Bottero & Crossley 2011:101). Fields are not just made up of people who share the

same goals. Fields are structured and have mechanisms that define the boundary of the field.

These mechanisms and structures are:

(1) The agreements about what is at stake; (2) who the players are and what positions

they occupy; (3) a consensus regarding the rules by which the field works; and (4) a

shared interpretive frame that allows those in the field to make sense of what other actors

are doing in the field in a particular situation (Allbright et al 2003:8).

I found that the discussion about play and practice revolves around rules and their application, as

well as what miniatures should be used, or how to play in certain ways. Users of the platforms

Reddit and Dakkadakka discuss in length about the game of Warhammer and Warhammer

40.000. They talk about the rules and how the rules impact the performance of players. Users

also mention in their discussion how players should act when playing.

Users and players try to position themselves through the discussions they have on the

platforms. Users in the online community of miniature wargaming try to position themselves in a

higher position by stating that they and others should be taking the high road. I identified this in

the one data sample that shows a woman showing off a dress that is related to the lore of the

game Warhammer 40.000. People try to position themselves over others in both the masculinity

literature, and literature on Bourdieu’s field theory (Bottero & Crossley 2011: 101; Albright et al

2003:2-3). Not only are women a rarity, but what makes this situation even more special is that

the woman that is showing off the dress also frequently posting pictures of her in nude on the

reddit platform in other subreddits. Since individuals identifying as women are something

unusual in the miniature wargaming community, some users ask others to behave and act normal

due to the nature of the content: “I was gonna say lets not be weird about a women in the hobby

and then I saw the slaanesh level chaos of her profile.” Or “Let's still not be weird though lol.”

And “the Tau'va approves, lets not be weird.” The users are trying to be inclusive, but also to be

seen as someone who is upstanding and trustworthy. What is meant in the first example is that

the content of the woman’s profile contains sexual content. Because they mention the chaos god

slaanesh they are talking about perversion, which the community understands as something

sexual. Not only did users of the platform try to place themselves above others with this attempt,

but they also established that men should protect women.

Users also self-promoted themselves in order to increase their standing. Users on the

platform Dakkadakka have a signature. This signature is posted along with what users comment

on, and the signature can contain anything that is TOS (Terms of Service) friendly. In some cases

users will self promote their blogs in which they show off their skills such as:

“https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and

Heretics blog.” Or “Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog” This is an embedded link accessible

by clicking the signature that promotes the player. As well as

“https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My

progress/failblog painting blog thingy." Other signatures include a link to their own versions of

the game like Homebrew oldhammer project:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267” that they have

come up with in order to fix perceived flaws of the game in its current state. When clicked the

link will direct a person to the user’s blog where their work is shared, showing off what the user

can do with the skills and the knowledge they have acquired in the hobby. Users self promote

which allows them to stand out among others to set them apart in the competition. Being set

apart from others means one has a better chance of recognition and increase of status (Schrock &

Schwalbe 2009).

Knowledge/Competence

In order to participate in playing and practicing in the field a person has to have

knowledge - competence - of the game. Without that knowledge a player can’t enter since the

field is made up of a consensus of rules which are made by the players overall in order to achieve

the goals laid out in the field. Knowledge in field theory can be thought of as cultural capital as is

explained by Bourdieu (2018). Cultural capitals, such as knowledge of the game and the rules for

all the different factions, are accessible to all players and openly shared with one another. In my

findings, players go out of their way pointing out how to use the cultural capital in order to be

competitive within the field. “You need to know what's in other codexes to play intelligently.” or

“You bunched up, you lost. [...] it was a noob trap that veteran players could exploit to

curb-stomp people for easy victories.” as well as “Practice playing on a chess clock” are

examples of people sharing their knowledge (their cultural capital) with others so that they may

improve. In the first example a user points out that as a player you have to know what other

players and their armies are capable of by being knowledgeable about their rules, which is found

in what is called a codex - the official rule book of the faction. In the second example, a user

points out how to act in certain situations and that as a player you should avoid putting yourself

into said situation. The last comment is an example of another user giving tips on how to

improve in playing the game faster and more competitively. The users actively teach other users

how to be more effective within the game:

There are tricks to moving and attack with lots of models. Have your dice arranged so

you can grab 10, 20, 30, etc. all in one go and reroll as needed to get your 60/90/120

shots or attacks. When moving it helps to measure out the critical models on the edge of

the unit, then you can just double hand dart up the rest of the models within that boundary

you know to by 6". If you want to pick up the horde, I say go for it. It's a lot of fun.

In this example, the user is sharing a trick on how to perform tasks faster while playing.

Time management is important in miniature wargaming because games can last many hours, and

in tournaments the time limit for a game is on average 2hours and 30 minutes. Depending on the

army a person plays, actions such as rolling dice or moving miniatures can be time consuming

and need to be managed efficiently. Knowledge is not just shared to teach other users, but also to

point out mistakes that others make when it comes to playing. Players tell others just what and

how capital (both economic and cultural) have to be utilized in order to get what they, as the

player, want out of the hobby:

If you are a tournament player and don't mind prioritizing rules over models or playing

the same king-of-the-hill knockoff Steamroller scenarios over and over again 9th is great

and probably is the best edition ever. The breadth of stuff at the top tournament tables is

as great as it's ever been, and the stratagem card-combo game makes for a much more

engaging competitive environment than earlier editions.

In this example, the user writes about how the current version of the game of Warhammer

40.000 is a good game for tournament players due to its elements, noting that if one is not a

tournament player one’s opinion on how good the game is might differ. And what people want

out of the hobby is an important aspect of the hobby that is different for each individual player.

Community Goals

Players enter the field with their goal in mind. It is one of the prerequisites to participate

in a field as a player (Bottero & Crossley 2011:101). In my findings, what it comes down to is

that a player either participates competitively, or they are part of the casual side of the miniature

wargame. This means that two sides are also fighting over the hobby and what miniature

wargaming represents, which leads back to the idea of players trying to change the rules of the

field. For example “I dispute your claim that tournament win rate data is the only data that

matters, and that I cannot possibly not be having fun because the tournament win rates prove that

this is the bestest 40k ever.” Or “Perhaps you should have a discussion with the dudes you play

against, and try to get a nice casual game going.” is an example of an argument made by those

who wish for the game to become more casual and changing it in that direction. Where the

competitive side argues “9th generally it's fine if you're a tournament player.” stating that the

game itself is already geared to be competitive in nature and has been for a while:

If playing with what you want was never a good idea, and GW put focus on tournament

play since 3ed , then it is more then 20 years focusing on on the gaming aspect on the

game. You can't say that w40k isn't focused on it, if GW has focused on it for that long.

Or rather you can, but if you do you are wrong.

The players of the game are constantly driven to be competitive with each other in order

to gain recognition (Friedland 2009:894). And in order to gain that recognition they use any and

all capital that they have available to them in the field of miniature wargaming. One thing absent

from this field is the limited availability of resources to people. Normally those who participate

in a field compete for the resources in order to trump over other players (Friedland

2009:900;Toft-Nielsen & Krogager 2015:58). But in the case of miniature wargaming, players

describe on the online platforms that you don’t have to play what everyone else is playing in

order to participate. Even to compete in tournaments it seems that players do not have to

compete by bringing the same capital. Which is exemplified in the comment Jidmah makes:

Well, in a balanced environment that competitive players strive for, that would be none.

Currently roughly 2-3 codices can be considered "garbage", I doubt that you will find any

edition where you had a "garbage tier" as small as this.

Oh, and this is also easily proven wrong by data. All codices are played in great number,

the least played one is chaos knights - a fairly powerful codex, judging from its win rates.

It's also worth noting that pretty much every other codex has already placed in the top 3

of a major event more than once.

Where he points out exactly how all capital that is available - all the factions within the game-

seems to be competitive, and only a few available options need to work harder (practice?) in

order to compete. On one end of the spectrum users point out that the game is meant to be played

in a competitive setting: “As to 9th generally it's fine if you're a tournament player, or don't mind

spam lists, or don't mind having to netlist to play even basic pick-up games[...]” Or “[I]f

everyone thinks in terms of "it's definitely more important to play the competitive

tournament-standard than to have fun or use models I like", then sure, everyone will stick to

9th.” One user even goes as far as to state that the game due to its mechanics is competitive no

matter what: “If you ditch the whole card-game support-stack mechanism 9th makes for really,

really dull pick-up games.” Which leads back to the idea that the game is meant to be played in a

competitive setting. On the other hand, other users stand in conflict with this idea stating that

Warhammer 40.000 as a game is casual to begin with. “Most balance can be fixed just by

tweaking the point costs. And balance only matters at all in a "competitive play style" which I

would argue hardly makes any sense at all for a game like 40k.” Or “GW never intended it to be

a competitive game. It makes no sense at all for it to be competitive.”

Utilization of Capital

While users were discussing whether the game was competitive or not there were some

users who mentioned capital. The discussion of use of capital and what capital is worth using is a

part of the discussion about whether the game is competitive or not, and is used as an argument

against the idea that Warhammer 40.000 is competitive. A user makes the argument:

To be a tournament player I have to a) play spam lists, b) only play the Codexes that

aren't garbage, c) buy models based on their rules, d) play unfluffy, bizarre, and

counterintuitive things to maximize the impact of my stratagems, and e) buy a new army

every six months because my last one got nerfed into unplayability in a tournament

setting.

This means that players of the game need to be able to acquire certain capital at certain times in

order to stay in the competitive scene. To be exact, the user is pointing out that in their opinion

only a few factions within the game are competitive, and that to compete you have to play those.

And if you as a player don’t, your only other option is to play spam lists, which are lists built

around having huge amounts of miniatures on the table in order to overwhelm the opponent. This

is refuted by users who see the game as competitive:

Well, in a balanced environment that competitive players strive for, that would be none.

Currently roughly 2-3 codices can be considered "garbage", I doubt that you will find any

edition where you had a "garbage tier" as small as this.

What the user means by this is that all the factions, with all their differences are balanced and can

compete with each other, without one faction being proportionally stronger than others. Users

point to the idea that almost anything is usable within the game and that people can use whatever

they wish when it comes to playing the game of Warhammer 40.000. The argument here is that

everything in a competitive setting is viable to use and this applies to the game of Warhammer

40.000. That if you want to have a good time playing that you need to make sure that your

opponent knows that: “Perhaps you should have a discussion with the dudes you play against,

and try to get a nice casual game going on that isn't full of your average space marine army.” The

user in this example suggests that the player should ask their opponent to go easy on them and

not play a tournament geared army in their game. Among this discussion of whether the game is

competitive or casual I found once more that users resort to discrediting other users, hoping to

place them in a lower standing in the hierarchy of masculinity, but also the field itself (Reid,

O’Neil, Blair-Loy 2018:581; Bottero & Crossley 2011:101). Attempts that I found are simply

insults thrown at another user: “I do blame Jidmah for being an ass about people who might want

to play the game differently than he does[.]'' Users also attempted to make the other users seem

like an abnormality within the field:

“You have weird interests. This isn't about liking. Your story simply doesn't match up. That is not

how the game works.” I also found attempts to simply discredit the opinion of another user in

order to influence their standing: “If someone is so casual, and so painting or converting focused,

why does he care what is good and what is bad?”

Furthermore, other users call out other users on the lack of evidence in support of their argument:

“[Y]ou keep referring to netlists run by tournament players without actually being able to

provide any or knowing anything about tournaments. We're done here.” This questions the

competence and knowledge of the user in order to influence the standing in the hierarchy.

One thing that the literature mentions about fields is that agents who participate in the

same field do so because they share economic and cultural resources. They also have the same

goals for why they participate in the field (Bottero & Crossley 2011:101). But how does one

participate effectively in a field when access is open but at the same time limited through

economic resources? In the case of miniature wargaming, players can buy and use miniatures

how they please. As long as it is not for competitive play. A player needs to play by the official

rules of the competitive setting. One thing noted within the community is the significant amount

of money needed to buy such rules. Players complain that they have to spend more money for a

book from which they only need a few pages. CEO Kasen wrote:

I will not drop $50 for a clunky physical edition of a handful of rules whose tacked-on

full-color fluff and unnecessary model showcase I may or may not care about and whose

rules will be so much arsepaper in between two months and two weeks.

Here the user is talking about how they don’t agree with the idea that it costs them

money, and a lot at that, describing how hard it is to competitively play in the field due to costs.

This is acknowledged by player Type40: “GW is already a gatekeeper... they just aren't doing the

convenience thing.” who actively calls out the company that makes the miniature wargame,

Warhammer 40.000, Games Workshop being its own gatekeeper. Making it harder for players to

participate.

I found when it came to the discussion about whether and how to be competitive between

players was the fact that some users were being reflexive. They were trying to put themselves in

the other players’ position. Users asked questions in order to identify how others had come to

experience what influenced their view on whether the game of Warhammer 40.000 as a miniature

wargame is competitive or not. One such comment found in the sample was “How many games?

Which army? What exactly was terrible? How much experience did your most experienced unit

gather? What unit was it? What agenda was the worst one?” where one user was trying to

understand another user and their point of view and how they had gotten there. This reflexivity is

unusual in my review of these online posts where players were often in competition with each

other, trying to cement their position and defend their point of view as right.

Change

The subject of the discussion that users had was not limited to whether the game was

competitive or casual. Users also discussed rules and their applications and whether they should

reject certain rules. Comments such as “I'd say the 9th Edition works for pick-up games if you

decide to ditch CP and stratagems altogether.”, “If you ditch the whole card-game support-stack

mechanism 9th makes for really, really dull pick-up games.” highlight this discussion about

rules, their application, and how one would want to play the game in order to achieve the goal of

having good pick up games (called pugs). With the goal of having a good pick up game being the

reason these players entered the field, and their discussion about how to apply rules is an attempt

to establish how the field should look, as Allbright et al (2003) explains. An example in regards

to what people should play with is “Can you provide that lists that are doing this? I'm quite

curious.” where a user is asking another user what army is capable of tabling opponents in a

single turn, meaning that the game is won in one turn of play.

Changing the rules of the field is another aspect which often overlaps with play and

practice in the gathered data. Changing the rules of the field is something that is attempted once

someone is in a position of power in a field (Friedland 2009:899-900; Toft-Nielsen & Krogager

2015:69). In the data, users are calling for others to change the edition that they play Warhammer

40.000 in. The current edition is 9th, meaning it's the 9th version of rules that the manufacturer

of the game has brought out. One example that points to this is from user SolarCross who states:

Skip 9th and go to Oldhammer. There is no narrative (Space Marines with knives can and

will kill a tank by stabbing it because the right people shouted at them), if you goof

around you will get tabled in a turn (the lethality of the game makes "durability" more

about avoiding LOS than anything else), the army rules are set up to make conversions

pointless ("no option in the box? no rules!"), and the line of sight rules are set up to

punish people who try ("My antenna can see the tip of your spear, I can shoot you!").

In this example, SolarCross advertises a different version of the game that they think is superior

to that of the current edition of rules in Warhammer 40.000. They complain that the lore and

gameplay are not in synchronization, allowing for things to happen on the table that make no

sense lore wise, and that the current edition hinders the creative aspect of putting miniatures

together. Users are wanting to change editions because they feel as if it would make the game

more competitive and increase desire to participate in the hobby overall. This interestingly is a

position that puts them in a non dominant position because playing becomes easier making the

competition harder. Their proposed change is an inversion of the rules of the field, which is how

dominated groups fight in fields (Friedland 2009). I interpreted this breaking of rules as a

suggestion of new things within the hobby of miniature wargaming that are not official. Many

players on the platforms voice suggestions when it comes to how to change the rules. Examples

from the gathered data consists of “My personal proposition is make -1D standard to Monster

and Vehicle keywords, with the trade off that you have +1 to hit against such target.” or “ just

give each vehicles a base and mark it in 4 places and now it has 4 sides.” More often than not

these suggestions are in order to gain an advantage for a players own faction(s) to be more

competitive within the game. Players want to master the rules of the game in order to perform

more efficiently than others who are just starting out. It also allows them to get to positions

where they can challenge the rules and break them, which allows them to distinguish themselves

further. It also means that they are not stuck in a routine of just executing the rules that are

expected of them (Hilgers 2019).

Competition in the field: Competence Questioned

When players enter the field with their goal in mind they have to face off against other

players. This competition takes on many forms. One of the forms of competition for a higher

standing in the field is in the shape of questioning of another player's competence (Allbright et al

2003; Friedland 2009; Hilgers & Mangez 2014). Users throughout the samples call out other

users for how they play the game wrong due to what they are saying. One example from the data

is:

If you are getting tabled within two turns and people with dozens of games on record

aren't, despite losing every single game they have recorded, you are either actively

working towards losing that fast or making up stuff.

In this example one user questions the competence of another user due to them saying that when

they play they lose the game within the first turn. The user points out what they think the other

person is doing wrong and that they are either hindering themselves while playing, or that they

are lying about their situation. The questioning of the competence happens because a player’s

actions go against the framework that is used to understand actions normally taken by players in

the field, as Allbright et al (2003) explains. Normally a game does not end in the second turn of

play. A game of Warhammer usually goes 6 turns which makes losing in the first or second turn

something of an anomaly. The argument that the user is making is that either the player does not

have the experience to play or that he is incompetent and playing bad on purpose. It is in this

argument that playing and practice is the main reason for this discord. This leads to further

discussion about play and practice and how that may be amended. An additional example from

the discussion of how not to lose in turn one is:

Perhaps you should have a discussion with the dudes you play against, and try to get a

nice casual game going on that isn't full of your average space marine army. Something

like this: "Hey look, I know I'm playing Alpha Legion CSM and knights but I'm after a

nice casual game, I swears it, please don't place spacemarines or necrons. Or if you are

don't touch them in melee with your filthy kniveses. Thanks!

In this example the user is talking about how in order to avoid losing games very fast that one

has to communicate that with the opponent. Specifically that a player should ask their opponent

to play something non-competitive in order to not have their competence questioned.

The questioning of competence - the questioning of a person's knowledge - happens in

the field because agents are in competition with each other over standing within the field

(Allbright et al 2003:7; Friedland 2009:902; Hilgers & Mangez 2014:6). The competition is

based on the framework of the field, which in the case of the miniature wargaming community is

competence or knowledge, and skill - specific abilities - in order to increase one's status and

decrease others. Users blamed other users that seemed to have influenced the game in ways that

people disapprove of when it comes to their hobby - that it was their incompetence that had led

to a change within the game:

No, it's fault of brainless 4chan grade imbeciles who screeched one competent rule writer

(who was giving armies the stuff they needed, not what the models had, and telling

people to convert their own cool models) out of GW just because the whiners didn't like

two lines of fluff he wrote.

Here the user points to the party they think is at fault for what is happening to the game. In their

mind, people from the discussion board 4chan managed to get one of the rule writers to leave the

company due to their whining. I found further questioning of competence in relation to

questioning of skill. Users are discussing a painting. The painting in question was done bad on

purpose to be compared with a more than average painting. Comments questioned the

competence and the skill of the user: “It's straight up cursed.” pointing out just how bad the

terrible painting is, or: “THIN YOUR PAINTS.” which I interpreted as a direct and aggressive

command to improve one's painting technique, which to me showed multiple aspects of

masculinity: aggression, trying to take command, and pointing out the mistakes of another. I

observed and coded further contest when it comes to posts and comments that are related to

playing or practicing the game. Users of the community question what people are doing, their

knowledge, skill, and overall competence. User TyranMade questions the math of Mezmorki in

his post:

May I ask how you got that math? Heavy bolter: 3 shots. BS 3+: 2 hits. S5 vs T8, 5+ to

wound: 0.67 wounds. AP -1 vs Sv 2+, 3+ to save: 0.22 failed wounds. 2 Damage: 0.44

damage suffered. Lascannon: 1 shot. BS 3+: 0.67 hits. S9 vs T8, 3+ to wound, 0.44

wounds. AP -3 vs Sv 2+, 5+ to save: 0.30 failed wounds. D6 Damage, average 3.5: 1.04

damage suffered. 1.04/0.44 = 2.33. The lascannon is 2.33 times better than a heavy bolter

against Land Raiders.

In this case TyranMade’s conflict with Mezmorki is about the use of a gun during a game and its

probability of doing something during play, questioning the method and knowledge of

Mezmorki. TyranMade looks at the math done by Mezmorki and questions it. The numbers in

this example all relate to weapons within the game, as well as the miniature carrying it, and the

probability of it doing damage during play. While looking like a polite interaction TyranMade is

questioning the math that Mezmorki did and thus questions his competence which makes the two

stand opposed to each other going by the definition of what conflict is.

Skill is questioned in contests between users in the community since skill is important to

how one performs in the field. I found this questioning of skill when it came to playing or

practicing the game, but also to hobbying aspects such as painting. As for playing the game users

who want to participate in the hobby of miniature wargaming need to be vigilant as to how they

play their miniatures less they get called out for not playing the game right:

That wasn't a choice. You bunched up, you lost. Spacing out all my orks 2" was a

mandatory part of the game that wasted a lot of my time. At best it was a noob trap that

veteran players could exploit to curb-stomp people for easy victories.

In this example the user calls out the positioning of the models on the table. Miniatures in

Warhammer 40.000 have to be in what is called unit cohesion. Miniatures have to be at

maximum 2 inches away from another miniature that is part of the same squad. In this case the

user points out that instead of having the maximum range of unit cohesion the other player just

had all their miniatures bunched up, which was the reason they lost. The attack on the skill

comes in the form of calling the other user a noob or falling for a noob trap, with noob

translating as someone new to the hobby without a lot of knowledge. When it comes to the

questioning of skill in painting, what users revealed is that the questioning happens in regards to

the male body. Unless everything on a miniature is painted perfectly the community questions

the skill of the artist. This questioning of skill was done despite the piece that was painted and

shared with the community being flawless in every other aspect.

First of all, wow. That must really require some impressive skills! Just a suggestion

though, I would either redo or completely remove the nipples. Your dad should look at

reference to check the positioning. Other than that it's absolutely stunning, the level of

finish is fantastic. Congrats to your old man!

or “Amazing. Fix the nipples and send it to competition.” and “Rework those nipples dude.” The

male body's perfection is necessary in the eyes of those who participate on the online platforms.

This could be due to making sure that the male body is seen as perfect at all times since any

signs of imperfection could be used against the masculinity of the group.

This competition based on knowledge and skill between the players of miniature

wargames turns into a conflict between the two parties. Conflict is defined as a serious

disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one, as well as being incompatible, or clashing

with someone else. On the online platforms those who post and comment find themselves in a

verbal conflict due to difference of opinion about something regarding the hobby. In that

situation players want to look superior in comparison to others when there is a situation where

failure could be an option. The conflict between players of the field in this case is based on

knowledge and skill. One example is the argument about the different gods of chaos and their

nature in regards to a post about a woman that is showing off a dress that relates to the hobby.

The argument is about where the power of these fictional gods comes from starting with “Every

bit of power Slaanesh has is at the behest of Tzeentch. All Chaos gods are slaves to the

machinations of Change.” This in return is countered by a post stating “Except nurgle.” A third

party which was uninvolved posted:

You could argue him concocting and improving his diseases embodies the natural change

in nature. He may be the epitome of it. I know he is supposed to be stagnant and lord of

decay but honestly just how he works is basically change. Things can't stay the same;

they always rot and degrade. That's change that's not stasis.

This example shows how users use their knowledge in an argument. It also showcases how

people who are not involved in the discussion will enter the conflict in order to show off the

knowledge they possess. The question then becomes whether the involvement is meant as an act

to position oneself on a higher level than the others involved, or is it to simply point out mistakes

and correct other users.

I coded other contest or conflict in posts regarding the hobbying aspect of miniature

wargaming. Users get in conflict with other users because of the difference in opinion on rules

and lore, which is based on the knowledge that people have:

But isn't that the entire point of having the main studio write the rules for fw units in

40K? If it's written by the same people who write the codexes then they should be taken

into account in the rules. That's why I mentioned keywords: I'd bet that, for example, the

Astreus will get the keyword that lets it use the repulsor field stratagem like the other

primaris repulsor tanks. Likewise, any loyalist vehicle with smoke launchers will get the

Smoke Screen keyword so that they can use the Smoke Screen stratagem. If we see that

same keyword on other factions vehicles datasheets then we'll know that those factions

will have that stratagem as well. At minimum we'll see what's CORE or not.

Which is a response to:

Considering it is fully GW rulesteam this time, that would just exemplify their lack of

quality control and competence. I'm very cautious when I hear "it's GW rulesteam". We

don't know how their team works. It might be divided into smaller units and if there is

bad communication or no communication at all between them, we can still end up with

datasheets written without Codexes in mind (or the other way around) or with dated

informations and as a result, incredibly stupid combos.

One user states their idea about how things go which is questioned by the other user. The

discussion in these two quotes revolves around how rules are created by the dedicated team at

Games Workshop, the company that makes Warhammer 40.000. The conflict challenges what

one user says, but it does not discredit the opinion or character of the other person, which can

happen too.

Competition in the field: Decreasing of Status

When standing is important, those who are in conflict will try to lower the standing of

other competitors (Giacomelli & Gibbert 2018). In my data I found the decrease of status by

users is in comments that decrease the status of another party directly. For example “They feel

threatened because my toys are models while they are too ugly to be models.” While the user

does not decrease the status of another user within the thread, the user decreases the status of

another group - women - directly. Those who identify as women are who this user is addressing

by “They” and the decrease of the status of women comes through comparing women to

miniatures. Miniatures are often referred to as models, but not as in models who walk the

runway. In this case, however, the user is trying to make that association. Another example is:

“Poor OP. “Is 9th fun?” they ask, unknowingly waking the Salt Demons. “It’s not a

game!” “In making my own ruleset!” “God tournament minmaxers suck!” “It’s

impossible to use 9th for pickup games!” All this and other straight up bad takes and side

spats to boot. Yep, there’s that salt I was on about. Honestly people, what did any of the

above actually add to the thread and the OP’s question? Some of you have fought these

fights to thread lock before. Why again?

Here the user decreases the status of other users on the platform Dakkadakka.com for their

opinion on the newest edition of Warhammer 40.000.

Beyond the questioning of competence, I also found contest between users in the

conversations users had when users were trying to point out ways another user had done

something wrong that needed correction. I found contest through correction of other users in all

aspects of the hobby. From lore and rule discussion to painting miniatures as the following

conversation shows:

Arseypoowank: “Nice dress but show us your painting skills! Tits are temporary, EDGE

HIGHLIGHTING IS ETERNAL.”

El_f3n1x187: ”[N]ope, edge highlights are temporary too, specially with minis that get

handled all the time.”

Arseypoowank: “That’s why you clear coat.”

El_f3n1x187: “[C]ome on man clear coat is mandatory but its not permanent.”

The decrease of status here comes from the lack of knowledge and the need to correct the other

user’s statements. When Arseypoowank talks about edge highlights and how they are eternal, he

is talking about a painting technique where the painter applies paint to the edges of objects,

making it seem as if light is reflected from them. El_f3n1x187 points out that, due to tear and

wear of miniatures, edge highlights fade away. Arseypoowank counters this statement by

mentioning clear coat. Clear coating a miniature means to spray them in a protective layer of

vanish. The argument is then taken apart by El_f3n1x187 when he states that clear coats also

fade away after some time. Correcting another user leads to conflict because a mistake is pointed

out which is exploited as a weakness. Being weak or showing weakness in masculinity can lead

to loss of status, which no man wants. In these examples Users deploy their knowledge as a tool

to correct others. Another example for this comes from a post about whether the newest edition

of Warhammer 40.000 is good and worth getting back into. In a response to the post:

So.... if you kept everything exactly the same but shrunk it down to 10mm or 15mm scale

you'd then say 40k is a game?If you enlarged your Go set to 3' pieces etc would it no

longer qualify as a game? I'm sorry, but I find your idea that scale determines what a

game to be sillier than 40ks current terrain rules.

Another user writes:

I will clarify my point. A pure game piece just has to communicate its game identity and

something of its game state which usually comes from its position on the board. [...]

Now wargames, any wargame is not an abstract game like chess they are more like

simulations. So looks matter somewhat but a simulation should simulate and for a

tabletop wargame that should mean having a model scale that is not too distorted from

the table ground scale. For that 6mm is closest, with 10mm and 15mm being fairly

reasonable distortions. So 28mm is too big on that count. But more than that 28mm

makes the game more expensive and logistically more awkward. The ONLY benefit to

28mm is that it makes a nice big canvas for painters to freehand tattoos and freckles and

whatever else.

In the response the second user points out, using his own knowledge, how the other user is

wrong about their statement. He ridiculed the other’s idea by pointing out how what he thinks is

actually correct. This sort of contest between users closely resembles another sort of conflict that

happens when users complain about things within the hobby of miniature wargaming. As for

playing the game users who want to participate in the hobby of miniature wargaming need to be

vigilant as to how they play their miniatures lest they get called out for not playing the game

right. When it comes to the questioning of skill in painting, what users revealed is that the

questioning happens in regards to the man’s body. Unless everything on a miniature is painted

perfectly the community questions the skill of the artist. This questioning of skill was done

despite the piece that was painted and shared with the community being flawless in every other

aspect:.

First of all, wow. That must really require some impressive skills! Just a suggestion

though, I would either redo or completely remove the nipples. Your dad should look at

reference to check the positioning. Other than that it's absolutely stunning, the level of

finish is fantastic. Congrats to your old man!

or “Amazing. Fix the nipples and send it to competition.” and “Rework those nipples dude.” The

man’s body perfection is necessary in the eyes of those who participate on the online platforms.

This could be due to making sure that the male body is seen as perfect at all times since any signs

of imperfection could be used against the masculinity of the group.

All these examples of conflict are not just about users correcting other users or

complaining, or trying to simply position themselves higher in the field, but also portrayals of

superiority by one user over another. Superiority is defined as the quality or state of being

superior also to others, as well as having a superior characteristic compared to others.

Other portrayals of superiority took the form of making sure to not just point out that

another commenter was either exaggerating, or making a mistake. In the example “1) No model,

no rules. 2) A 20-page complaints thread on Dakka.” I found one user of dakkadakka pointing

out how ridiculous their thread is by saying that it is unnecessary to make a complaint on Dakka

in response to what change the game of Warhammer 40.000 is going through due to the change

of editions. Another example found in the sample was “No, "ruin" it. Not ruined. Ruin is correct.

https://www.wordwebonline.com/en/RUIN” where one user corrects another user on the

platform. These instances of superiority were all found in regards to conflict and contest between

users.

Higher status means to have command over others. I found in the data some instances

where users try to assert control and take command. In some instances users talk about how they

already have asserted control and taken command. “My wife calls them figurines, and one time...

dollies (!?) I had to put my foot down! She now denies it haha!” Or “Danke! My partner thought

it was cute and while she resists 40k this may be in the future of stockholming her lol” In other

instances users try to take control of another user by binding the other user to them through

language or action. “I’m new to Reddit, is there a “propose” button?” And “It suits you well my

little nerd!” These are examples of taking control or command over another person. But users

also make the point that they are taking control or command of the game when playing. “I'm not

getting tabled within two turns by actively working towards doing that. I'm getting tabled within

two turns and tabling other people within two turns using the same list.” In this example the user

was trying to take command of the conversation that was being held. The argument between

users of the platform was how to best avoid being tabled (defeated in a short amount of time) in

the game of Warhammer 40.000. The user is trying to take command by invalidating other users

comments by trying to make the point that it is the game itself - “ the same list” - that allows for

players to be defeated easily, and that it is not the players themself. This also relates to the next

section which is in regards to complaining.

I found users calling other users out for being awkward, weird, and sexual in unnecessary ways.

“But if you want to be weird, you can pay to see her NSFW content on onlyfans.”As well as

“Congrats. You made the most cringe comment so far.” Or “Y'all are simps.” Users call other

users out for the sexualization in their posts and place the others on a lower standing while

elevating themselves in the masculine hierarchy. Hegemonic masculinity is about how men,

through manhood acts, position themselves higher in the hierarchy of men. Such manhood acts

transform boys into men and are meant to help men dominate those who are in competition with

them - other men, as well as women (Schrock & Schwalbe 2009:281; Wolkomir 2012:413). In

this case a man puts himself above other men by pointing out how the other men are being

dominated by a woman. In addition, the work of the women is devalued compared to the work of

men, arguing that she did not put in as much work in her post as men do in their posts because

the post in question is NSFW (nude content). According to the norms of hegemonic masculinity,

men are supposed to be disciplined and always in control, not following their emotions, unless

those emotions are used to put other men or women in their place (Goldstein 2002:267; Hinojosa

2010:181-182; Welland 2013, P. 889). In addition, according to masculinity norms, women are

seen as something inferior to men (Horlacher 2015:21). In this case, men who do not show

restraint and fall for the women are being called out for having lost control, which turns them

into simps - being weak for a woman- which is not something a man should be.

Competition in the field: Complaining

Complaining can be seen as an indication that there is a conflict between two parties.

When players complain it makes others aware that there was an interference with the goals that

the men had tried to achieve. I observed contest when users complained about certain things

from within the hobby. The difference of opinion is what gives users ground to argue with each

other:

You have weird interests. This isn't about liking. Your story simply doesn't match up.

That is not how the game works.The only reason why I can see you getting tabled in two

turns with an army that is as durable as alpha legion infantry is because there is indeed an

extreme gap in player skill or because rules are being played wrong. In either case you

would be having the same issues in any edition.

This user is addressing the complaint of another user who describes the current edition of the

game warhammer 40.000 as a place where people can’t play past turn one due to how destructive

the rules have made the game. This is not fun to him and thus he complains. The quoted

comment addresses that complaint and tries to find fault with the other user. Another example is

“ignore baconcatbug, some people's hobby is 40k, his hobby is complaining about 40k.” In this

example one user responds to another who was offering his point of view about the most current

edition of the game and challenges their opinion, knowledge, and standing within the

community. Complaints about playing also relate to playing in the most current edition of

Warhammer 40.000. Part of the discussion between users in the data collected is related to how

users argue whether the newest edition, 9th edition, is good or bad. These arguments are as much

a conflict between users and their opinions as well as the users voicing their complaints about the

newest edition. Posts like:

Skip 9th. The way GW wrote the 9e missions Tau are nigh-unplayable and likely going to

remain so unless GW changes so much about the new Codex they're unrecognizable,

which is unlikely given their established pattern of barely touching statlines and trying to

fix everything with stratagems.” are made discrediting the edition and stating how it is

problematic to to play.

This sentiment is repeated in other posts such as:

Skip 9th and go to Oldhammer. There is no narrative (Space Marines with knives can and

will kill a tank by stabbing it because the right people shouted at them), if you goof

around you will get tabled in a turn (the lethality of the game makes "durability" more

about avoiding LOS than anything else), the army rules are set up to make conversions

pointless ("no option in the box? no rules!"), and the line of sight rules are set up to

punish people who try ("My antenna can see the tip of your spear, I can shoot you!").

In both of these examples the users complain about the current rules of the game Warhammer

40.000. In its 9th form the game for them is unplayable due to multiple reasons, such as that the

narrative of the lore is not represented by the rules of the game, or that the faction Tau is not fun

to play. Users are complaining about the same thing because of different reasons. They defend

each other's position either on purpose or unknowingly.

When it comes to playing or practicing, complaints of users on these platforms are mostly

about not being able to play with certain miniatures. In this case the complaining is due to a

conflict with the party that does not allow players to use certain miniatures that the players

possess and want to utilize. Miniatures get replaced or phased out with newer editions of the

game. This is also related to complaints about rules as discussed earlier. “Hey man, it was the

Astra Militarum Stormhammer for all of 8th, and I even took 3 to NOVA 2017. But you're right,

they moved it on the webstore so I guess that means it can't have a datasheet now.” or “I expect

more cut units and more nerfs to render all my FW units even more unplayable than they already

were. And still no Taghmata content.” Furthermore, users complained about rules that have

changed or are in the process of changing with the release of a new book. Complaints are about

the disappearance of units that previously had rules: “Wow Eldar Corsairs just scrubbed from

existence.” or:

Stuff I can see now… Chinork Warkopta gone. Lamenters chapter master still gone.

Inquisition land raider gone. Mechanicum stuff still not in 40k - frustrating given that so

much 30k marine stuff has rules...including units that are canonically not supposed to

exist anymore like the jetbikes XD. GK Psycannon dread seems gone. Chaos Sonic

Dreadnought seems gone.

or “Why on earth are they taking models they are currently making and switching them to

legends rules only?” In the first and second example users are talking about the disappearance of

units from a new rulebook. The book that is talked about contains units for the game Warhammer

40.000 that are produced by the company ForgeWorld, the sister company of GamesWorkshop.

The last complaint is about miniatures that are being actively produced by GamesWorkshop but

their ruleset is changing into what is called legends, which means that they are not able to be

used in certain settings, for example tournaments, unless otherwise specified.

Forgiving or Forgetful Community?

Despite the competitive nature of users' discourse, I also found a surprising lack of

attention to mistakes other users made or to admissions of lack of knowledge. Mistakes range

from simple spelling errors such as “indescribabley” or “choas” to grammatical errors like the

use of then when it should be than. No attacks on another user's intelligence are made. No

weakness is exploited in order to gain a competitive edge over another person. Other mistakes

that users make include the lack of knowledge: “What model is that in the bottom image?” Or

“Wait that bottom model actually looks so sick, does anyone know where it came from?” This is

in regard to the composition of miniatures that are being used in the hobby. These mistakes or

lack of basic knowledge of the game are ignored and the users receive answers to their questions

without their lack of knowledge being questioned. Another user admits to not having any idea

about the hobby at all but that he wanted to give his opinion on a piece that was posted in the

Warhammer subreddit: “Just passing through from r/all, just wanted to say I really like this even

though I don't know anything about Warhammer.” And again in this situation other users do not

question the lack of knowledge of the user despite them stating that something is good, without

actually having knowledge about it. Furthermore, there are instances where users of the

platforms admit that they made mistakes outright and no other user is calling them out about it in

order to attack the position that they hold. Users say things like “never heard of that term before,

I’ll have to use it in the future going forward.” admitting to not knowing certain slang used

within the community. Another example is “Maybe I need movement trays too.” where the user

admits that he could do better than he is doing right now. Other users even go as far as to defend

mistakes that others made. In the top post of the year in the minipainting subreddit users come to

the defense of the poster. In the post in question, users argue about the painted nipples on a

miniature. Some users defend what the artist did in his painting:“I think they represent bruises,

not nipples... not only because of the look of them, but because of the position.” Or “They’ve got

to be wounds or something. I can’t seem to figure out why the nipples would be orange.” This

deflects the perceived mistake of having painted the nipples wrong on the miniature as called out

by other users. According to the literature on Field Theory, cooperation between people who are

in competition with each other is unusual because it eliminates advantages that one player has

over the other, making it harder to gain a better position in the field.

A Masculine Field

When looking at the field that makes up the game of miniature wargaming it becomes

clear that it is a field that is masculine due to the practices of the members of the community.

What I found in the data I collected was that the interactions revolved around the interaction

between men as well as men and women. Masculinity revolves around having a standing within

the group, and the higher one’s standing is the more respect they command (Reid, O’Neil,

Blair-Loy 2018). Because of this, conflict or contest is part of masculinity. What we understand

as masculinity is a fight between men for status among men (Reid, O’Neil, Blair-Loy 2018).

Furthermore, any masculinity is in constant battle with other masculinities that wish to replace it

as the dominant masculinity (Reid, O’Neil, Blair-Loy 2018). Group insiders fight with others

belonging to the group constantly, as well as with outsiders (Braithwaite 2016). Masculinity is

about competition and men are more competitive than those who assume a feminine identity “In

terms of gender-typing of these play styles, masculinity is more in line with competitive play

practices, whereas femininity is more in line with cooperative play styles” (Wilhelm 2018:227).

When it comes to men and their actions, masculinity theory argues that it is never the man who

was the reason for their loss (Dcosta 2014:463). By complaining, men blame and shift

responsibility onto other things that influenced them and made them lose which frequently

happened in the miniature wargaming community. In geek masculinity in particular knowledge

and skill are important in order to compete with other men and gain standing within the

masculine hierarchy (Blackburn & Scharrer 2019:295, Braithwaite 2016:2-3, Salter

2018:249-250). And the use of knowledge and the theoretical application of skill was found in a

lot of the discussion between users on the different platforms. Furthermore, in the findings there

is a staggering amount of violence in the interactions between users. Violence is another aspect

of masculinity and often found in manhood acts that establish masculinity (Schrock & Schwalbe

2009). In the following chapter subsections I examine my findings in regards to the masculine

aspects that I found within the field.

Masculine Hierarchy

Like with Field Theory, in theories on masculinity people are described trying to position

themselves over others (Bottero & Crossley 2011: 101; Albright et al 2003:2-3). I found users

established positions within the masculine community of the field. In order to position

themselves men do what is called manhood acts. Manhood acts look different depending on

where the competition takes place, and where the men come from - class and profession for

example (Schrock & Schwalbe 2009:284). In case of the miniature wargaming community

manhood acts took on the form of sexualization, violence, and the use of knowledge and skills.

The users on the platform tried to position themselves by stating that they and others

should be taking the high road. I identified this in the one data sample that shows a woman

showing off a dress that is related to the lore of the game Warhammer 40.000. Not only are

women a rarity in the community, but what makes this situation even more special is that the

woman who is showing off the dress also frequently posts pictures of herself nude on other

subreddits. People of the warhammer subreddit have found out about the nude posts by looking

at her profile and reacting to them in the comments to the post. As women’s presence is

something unusual in the miniature wargaming community, some users ask others to behave and

act normal due to the nature of the content: “I was gonna say lets not be weird about a women in

the hobby and then I saw the slaanesh level chaos of her profile.” Or “Let's still not be weird

though lol.” And “the Tau'va approves, lets not be weird.” The users are trying to be inclusive,

but also to be seen as someone who is upstanding and trustworthy. Not only did users of the

platform try to place themselves above others with this attempt, but they also established that

men should protect women. Men protecting women and taking charge is something that is

discussed in Giacomelli and Gibbert (2018). This protection of women also outlines how

different genders are supposed to act in certain fields (164). Increasing one's standing is part of

all masculinities. Increasing the standing means one is more respected among one’s peers that

share the same masculinity (McKinnon-Crowley 2020:129; Reid, O’Neil, Blair-Loy 2018:581).

Users of the platforms shamed other users in an attempt to lower the competitions standing

among those who participated in the discussion at hand. In one example from the sample:

“You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the

wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures. Please report to

your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.” We have one user shame

another about the way they want to play the game, calling them out. Decreasing the status of

another participant in the masculine hierarchy is a common practice, which is often achieved

through sexualization, unless it is geek masculinity, where knowledge about the groups activity

is questioned in order to decrease status (Salter 2018). Similar examples relate to the newest

edition of Warhammer 40.000 and playing the game. In this example the user calls out another

user for his play style and lack of knowledge within the hobby decreasing their standing within

the game and the masculine hierarchy:

Because that's the default way to play 9th?But you wouldn't know, you have thoroughly

proven that you clearly have no notable experience whatsoever with this edition and are

just running your mouth based on your experience with 8th. You not knowing about

crusade despite claiming to be a narrative player really says it all.

This example shows how one user attacks another. Pointing out that the other does not know how

to play the game because of an overall lack of experience. In response to this the accused user

does not just defend themself, but also tries to increase their standing by providing knowledge,

which is one aspect of geek masculinity and its hierarchy.

I know plenty about Crusade. I've tried to play Crusade. It's terrible. (Level-ups have a

wildly disproportionate effect on armies with more expensive units, if you don't keep up

with the tournament meta to build your Crusade roster you'll still build a list that'll get

accidentally tabled a lot, and if you don't min/max for the missions you'll run into

missions you can't play.

The response describes how the user knows how to play, trying to defend their status by claiming

that they in fact do have knowledge about the game. In this case they are talking about Crusade

gameplay, which is a narrative way to play the game of Warhammer 40.000.When it came to

femininity within the data I gathered it showed that if femininity was present that it became

sexualized. There were two posts that I collected that had been posted by users that said that they

were women. One post was about a woman that had painted a miniature and in the other was a

post of a women showcasing a dress that was related to the lore behind the miniature wargame

Warhammer 40.000. In the post with the woman in the dress, which presented femininity, users

in the community sexualized her and her actions on the platform Reddit. This was not found in

the post of the miniature which was painted by a woman. That users sexualized the woman in the

dress is in line with manhood acts that establish images of heterosexuality (Osgerby 2003:60),

the importance of sex (Blackburn & Scharrer 2019:311), and the importance of womens sexual

behavior (Braithwaite 2016:5). Since masculinity is built upon what are called manhood acts,

one kind of manhood act is the sexualization of women as a way to signify heterosexuality,

which also establishes gender boundaries (Schrock & Schwalbe 2009:285). This is why users

sexualized the post in ways such as “Pretty girl in a stunning dress. Clicked on your profile

looking for minis and stayed for the sexyness!” or “Fuck! You're so adorable!” and “Time to sin

and bless slannesh”. The first two examples are straight forward about how they sexualize the

woman. In the last example the sexualization is hidden behind the symbolic language of the

community. Slannesh is the god of perversion within the Warhammer universe and by blessing

slannesh what is understood is that the person is going to perform a sexual act. The other post by

another member who identifies as a woman in the community was not sexualized, which makes

sense since there was nothing feminie involved except that the artist was a woman.

Of Women entering the Field

When women did join the hobby they were scrutinized by the whole community trying to

gain favor with them, and if that did not work out there was only conflict to be found. Men trying

to gain favor with women when they enter the field of miniature wargaming is why the tone of

the conversation starts off differently. In the data, right of the start, men called for civility in

comments such as “Let's still not be weird though lol” to which other users agree to “Yes

everyone please heed this person's words.” or “Let's not indeed.” One interesting thing that I

noted in the data was that users called for civility but as soon as they found out about the NSFW

(Not Safe For Work) aspect of the content the women posted that civility became a joke. “I was

gonna say lets not be weird about a women in the hobby and then I saw the slaanesh level chaos

of her profile.” The user starts by asking everyone to be civil with the woman, but he has seen

what the woman posts (nudes on other subreddits) and it seems that it invalidates civility. This

sort of exclusion is opposite of what Thea Miller (2018) found. In Miller’s study women who

participate in a game like magic the gathering without having the support of men participants are

the target for sexism and exclusion which forces the women to leave the game in the end.

Furthermore, the behavior of being welcoming to the women in the miniature wargaming

community can be seen as coercive, given that men are only doing it to further their goal of

dominating others. Coerciveness is one aspect of masculinity according to Schrock & Schwalbe

(2009).

Women hide themselves online in order to avoid bringing forth a feeling of insecurity in

men which men complain about. The woman, in the post that I collected in which the woman

displays her warhammer related dress, writes in a comment: “I usually post my mini stuff on a

sfw account not linked to this one but I might shift stuff over to this one.” Since her post in this

case is about her in a dress, she thought to post it with her account that also posts nude on other

subreddits. Women are rare within the hobby of miniature wargaming. Men confirm the rarity of

women in the hobby with comments such as:“Girls that are interested this hobby are like hens

teeth.” Women take precautions before revealing themselves. Users, who are men, give the

reason why. “I only made the mistake of bringing my girlfriend to a WH store one time. The way

some players respond to a girl in the room is gross” or “Its true what you say though some

groups/shops are very unwelcoming to girls” as well as “My SO got swarmed” and “She liked

the display case models but it was the players who were very clingy and uncomfortable” are

examples of men acting when women enter the field of miniature wargaming. This reflects what

McKinnon-Crowley (2020) experienced when she entered the field as part of the “Magic: The

Gathering” card game community, which is a community that practices geek masculinity, as a

woman. But before women were scrutinized by men for rejecting their advances, men were

trying to gain favor with women when they entered the field of miniature wargaming.

Feminine Effects

The appearance of a woman within the community enabled other users to shame users

who they deemed as what would be called “thirsty”. In one instance a user posts “It is though a

thousand neckbeard mouths cry out in pain.” in response to when the woman reveals that she and

her boyfriend work on projects together. In this case he is shaming those in the community who

were interacting with the woman in order to gain sexual favors by calling them neckbeards, or

men who are virgins seeking to interact with women in order to lose that trait.. The same sort of

shaming is found in the comment “3.0k upvotes. Of course. I mean this clearly took so much

more effort than all those amazing minis we see posted everyday which get a fraction of the

likes. Lmao. Downvote away.” where the user is shaming the other users who upvote the post

because a woman was the one who posted it. This sort of shaming would make sense looking at

it from the perspective of geek masculinity, where men should be dominating women (Blackburn

& Scharrer 2019:311) and women’s work should be part of only the background within the

hobby (Martin et al 2015:305).

Being feminine was not just negative but in certain cases came with approval of others

within the community. The two users who identified themselves as women through their post

received a lot of positive feedback about their actions. Users commented “Suits you. Talk about

getting yourself trending :)” giving their approval or “You could still repent and join his Sisters

of Silence! Cool dress tho!” In the first example the user simply approves the post of the woman,

stating that what the woman had posted was approved of. In the second example the user doesn’t

just comment that they approve of the dress but also makes a reference to a faction within the

game of Warhammer 40.000. The faction Sisters of Silence is a personal army of the Emperor of

Mankind, the leader of the Imperium, and only acts on his command. The user is playfully

suggesting that the woman is playing the wrong faction - the forces of chaos, since that is what

her dress represents - and could always make the switch to the good guys (the Imperium).

Femininity is also met with inclusion. One example of inclusion is “That’s hella cool sist[er]!” In

this example the user includes the woman user in the hobby by placing her in the universe of

Warhammer 40.000 as part of the Sisters of Silence or Sisters of Battle which are both forces of

the Imperium which is one of the 3 main factions of the game. Another example of inclusion of

femininity would be “Probably weirder then us.” In this case a user places the feminine user

among them due to their association with the hobby and that the hobby is a niche activity. Going

by already existing literature, receiving such an inclusive welcome and approval of your work as

a woman by men in the community, like is the case in my data, might actually come with

coercive motives. Both McKinnon-Cowley (2020) and Miller (2018) mention that men are

friendly and welcoming in order to gain a sexual advantage over other men with the woman.

One thing that stood out to me was that a lot of users were asking how they could

reproduce what the woman had achieved. Whether it was where to buy a dress in comments like

“Fuck yeah, that's grouse! Can I ask where you got it?” or “Can I ask what paints she uses? I am

new to mini painting and I really like how bright her colours are! She did so well!!” or how to

recreate the paint scheme. Normally women are delegated to do background work while men are

doing the only work that is truly important (Martin et al 2015). So that men were trying to

reproduce the work of a woman was different from the literature.

I also found that in some instances femininity was transformed into something masculine.

Women can do masculine things like fighting but in the end will always remain a woman. They

can be soldiers but are still women. Men on the other hand become and are soldiers. (Eichler

2014) I interpreted the following example:

[T]hats a sister of battle. her hands are behind her back because she is hiding a dagger

that she is using to cut the bindings. then presumably she will stab vect in the dick, which

is why he has been absent from the tabletop for years.

In this example the user points out that the miniature is not just a soldier, but a woman soldier at

that, making sure to distinguish between the two. The piece the user is talking about is a

miniature that is part of the Asdrubael Vect miniature pack which is painted and shown in the

sample from Warhammer Subreddit and was the top post of the month in october. The miniature

in question is that of a suggestively modeled woman as a slave. This sort of making the women

somewhat masculine but still feminine at the same time is what Eichler (2014) observed when

looking at women soldiers and their reported actions in combat.

In addition the data revealed that the presence of women lets other users bond over their

engagement with the other gender. Users share their experiences that they have had. Comments

such as “My SO supported me getting back into it, showed interest in some of the nighthaunt

models and now we paint together and it's hella fucking cute.” or “Hell to the yeah! My wife has

no interest in the hobby. Yet, she knows the zen place it give me. So she lets me be the geeky

manly man I am. I fucking love this hobby.” In both examples the interaction with women in

their experience is shared and positive. Some users do also share negative experiences that they

have had when it came to interactions with women in the hobby. One user states “My ex once

said if I brought any models home she would "stomp on them".” The presence of femininity

makes users share these experiences with others on the platform. Bonding between men in a

masculine space is attributed to domestic masculinity.

Violence

I mentioned that manhood acts consist of either sexualization or violence. In masculinity

violence is part of manhood (Schrock & Schwalbe 2009:282). In the literature on geek

masculinity, violence is described as an important part of what is enjoyed by the community. If

something has violence in it it has a higher participation rate (Blackburn & Scharrer 2019:320;

Salter 2018:249). In the case of my data a lot of talk about violence that was found came in the

form of symbolic language related to the game of Warhammer 40.000. Users on the platform use

phrases directly copied from books and texts that are officially published by Games Workshop -

the maker of Warhammer 40.000. Violent phrases range from: “SKULLS FOR THE SKULL

THRONE!” or a different variation “BLOOD FOR BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE

SKULL THRONE!” This is an offering to one of the (hopefully) fictional gods of the

Warhammer 40.000 universe which is the patron of war and destruction and is only pleased by

offerings of skulls for the god to sit on, and blood flowing in rivers. Another phrase that comes

straight from the books and texts is: “Death to the corpse emperor!” This one is a rallying cry for

the factions of chaos who are engaged in eternal war against the forces of the Imperium, which

calls for the death of their already dead leader. In opposition to this rallying cry stands the call

“For the Emperor.” who is the leader of the Imperial forces. Both phrases are used to give

allegiance within the hobby to their respective faction. Other calls for violence are found in the

form of calling for a commissar: “This commissioner right here, commissar…” Or “[P]lease

report to your local commissar so he can give you a reward.” Calling for a commissar in the

context of Warhammer 40.000 is asking for someone who works for HR. A commissar in

Warhammer 40.000 investigates breaches in moral, leadership, and faith in the Emperor. In

Warhammer 40.000 any breaches found are punished, which the commissar is also responsible

for executing. The normal punishment in the fictional universe of Warhammer 40.000 is dead by

being shot. So in these cases users are talking about how the other user needs to be shot for their

heretic action against the Emperor. While this is talk of violence, at the same time it means that

the users approve of what the other user has posted.

I observed approval from users in the form of talk about violence when users

complimented others users for the paint job they had done in one of the samples collected. “This

is pleasant... unsettlingly pleasant. It's like a vintage "Little People" toy strapped into a

mechanical murder suit.” Or “Oh it's dark allright. A murder machine with a happy little smile

burning the heretics…” And “Come along with me, With the magos and skitarii. We can wander

through the rad wastes, And murder our enemies.” In this case the approval comes in the form of

how well the users work fits in the violent setting of the Warhammer 40.000 which is an abstract

example of how violence leads to a higher participation. (Blackburn & Scharrer 2019:320; Salter

2018:249) In this case the participation is the approval of the community because of the violence

the model incarnates.

Furthermore, I found further talk about violence when the miniature gaming community

combines their culture with the culture of society. This combining of the subculture with the

main culture hints to that this community is not built upon the idea of resistance, as is the case

with Marxist subcultures (Woo 2009:24). In the post with the giant Space Marine statue which

was discussed when it came to bonding between users, there were also instances of users talking

about violence. This talk of violence came in the form of transforming christmas carols into the

universe of Warhammer 40.000. “Dashing through their lines, Chainsword at my side!”

This is taken further by another user who continues: “Through their flesh I tear, laughing all the

time!” In this case we have the Christmas carol jingle bells being transformed to suit the brutal

nature of Warhammer 40.000. While at the same time also being festitive in relation to the

Warhammer 40.000 community. Other such examples of main cultural transformation with

violence are: “Deck the Halls with filthy Xenos.” Or “We wish you a merry purging, we wish

you a merry purging, We wish you a merry purging, For the Glory of the Emperor”

Other users instead of transforming Christmas carols simply transformed certain rituals that are

associated with Christmas to match the violent atmosphere of Warhammer 40.000

“Heretic children get burning promethium in their stockings.” And “I've made my list, checked it

twice and guess what? YOU'RE NOT ON IT![Purging intensifies].” As well as “Ahh the

Krampus Chapter. They mysteriously appear once a Terran cycle. To deal out vengeance on the

heretic, and enjoy cookies and milk.” This showcases the combination of subculture and main

culture. All these examples in their different context show that violence plays a huge part in

miniature wargaming. It's part of its fictional lore and has been incorporated into the language

that is used by those who participate in this leisure activity. Violence is part of many

masculinities, which would suggest that the world of miniature wargaming is a masculine space

indeed. In addition, users participate in the violent transformation of the christmas charrols due

to the idea that violence brings forth participation in masculinity (Blackburn & Scharrer

2019:320; Salter 2018:249).

Masculinity, Skill, and Knowledge

In masculinity knowledge and skill are important to what the literature calls geek

masculinity (Roster 2007). Knowledge and skills are used to establish the hierarchy in geek

masculinity since the interactions between men are based on them (Salter 2018:251). I found that

men in the field relied heavily on what they know and the skills that they had learned while being

part of the miniature wargaming community. In the following examples, knowledge is used to

point out flaws in the rules themselves and how that influences the aspect of playing:

As to 9th generally it's fine if you're a tournament player, or don't mind spam lists, or

don't mind having to netlist to play even basic pick-up games, but I really dislike it due to

the emphasis on tournament play and the masses of bloat GW constructed to make up for

the fact that they pulled all the interesting gameplay out of the core rules.

If you haven't played 40k before, there is no reason to start another edition than 9th -

older editions have different aspects that people (rightfully) miss today, but you also can't

deny that the quality of the ruleset itself, the balance between armies, the balance

between units within an army and the support from GW was much, much worse in older

editions.

The interaction between men here is the user giving feedback using their knowledge and

understanding of the game. They are pointing out how their opinion is that of someone that is

part of the masculine hierarchy and has the necessary knowledge to understand the game. In

particular, the users are discussing the 9th edition - the 9th version of rules - for the game

Warhammer 40.000. In geek masculinity spaces men use their knowledge in order to compete

with their adversaries. The knowledge they use to compete is the knowledge of the game.

Manhood acts revolve around the use of knowledge to compete in conflicts with other men. One

example is the argument about the different gods of chaos and their nature in regards to a post

about a woman that is showing off a dress that relates to the hobby. The argument is about where

the power of these fictional gods comes from starting with “Every bit of power Slaanesh has is at

the behest of Tzeentch. All Chaos gods are slaves to the machinations of Change.” This in return

is countered by a post stating “Except nurgle.” A third party which was uninvolved posted:

You could argue him concocting and improving his diseases embodies the natural change

in nature. He may be the epitome of it. I know he is supposed to be stagnant and lord of

decay but honestly just how he works is basically change. Things can't stay the same;

they always rot and degrade. That's change that's not stasis.

This example shows how users use their knowledge in an argument. What the user is talking

about is how the chaos god Nurgle gains their power and how it has to do with the aspect of

change. Change within the game of Warhammer 40.000 is usually associated with the god of

chaos Tzeentch who in the lore is a rival to Nurgle. It also showcases how people who are not

involved in the discussion will enter the conflict in order to show off the knowledge they

possess. The question then becomes whether the involvement is meant as an act to position

oneself on a higher level than the others involved, or is it to simply point out mistakes and

correct other users.

Since manhood acts are based on knowledge, competition between men is also settled

through the correction of mistakes, which is just like the correction of the competition in field

theory. In most cases when one user corrects another in their post the use of knowledge is made

to discredit their statement. An example for this is found in a thread about whether the newest

edition of Warhammer 40.000 is good and worth getting back into. In a response to the post:

So.... if you kept everything exactly the same but shrunk it down to 10mm or 15mm scale

you'd then say 40k is a game?If you enlarged your Go set to 3' pieces etc would it no

longer qualify as a game? I'm sorry, but I find your idea that scale determines whats a