|
Guy Goodbody posted:You're right, Raging Heroes does have some good models Point being, GW is in no way unique in its female minis and hasn't been for a while. If anything, GW might be behind other companies now.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:02 |
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Point being, GW is in no way unique in its female minis and hasn't been for a while. If anything, GW might be behind other companies now. Come on, we all know that the only way to show that a model is female and feminine at that scale is giant tit armor. There is literally NO OTHER WAY to show it. None. Zero. Tits or go home. I say this is a man, and I know tits when I see them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Remind me how "giant power armored boobplate" isn't sexualized, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Devlan Mud posted:Remind me how "giant power armored boobplate" isn't sexualized, thanks. *paints spiky fleur de lis onto face* actually,
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
space-rusade.jpg
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:He means the regular Sisters of Battle, not the Repentia I'm not a guy, but yeah Avenging Dentist posted:They're the same army. And if we're cherry picking only the best models, even Raging Heroes has some ok ones (e.g. Iron Empire or whatever they're called). I disagree and I'm not alone. I know this is all obv getting dangerously subjective, but all the other woman I know who play, played, or otherwise enjoyed the fluff of 40k were, at some point, drawn to the Sisters range. It's not perfect (and I'm happy to go into detail about why), but I love that a lot of the old concept art heavily riffs and draws on punk aesthetics (John Blanche probably went to a lot of great punk shows in the 80s). It still incorporates a lot of male gaze (power corsets*, boob plate, sister repentia), but it's about as close as I've seen to getting a female power fantasy in the weird future. Albeit a very specific one: queers in space listening to loud music while squatting in an abandoned apartment and trying to channel the things that hurt us into something resembling strength. I dunno. It speaks to me. As for other ranges? Raging heroes is gross nerd porn for straight men (there's nothing redeeming about any of it), Dreamforge only make space Nazis, and Victoria Lamb mostly (I think?) sculpts things with a subdued and modern military aesthetic. Infinity is a mixed bag, but its cardinal sins are pin-up poses and the lame af Riot Girl sculpts; that said, I'd play it it if my friends were into it - I <3 Nomads. Also, chill out. I think you're being super aggressive over something that doesn't deserve it. * the corsets are arguable maybe? I know plenty of queers that use them either as part of their daily fashion, or for something like burlesque.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
It's super hard to argue with a woman that she's not being feminist enough, so I won't try. I'll just say that it's fine and cool to like something from GW, and even say "it's not so bad" by comparison to other companies' products, while still recognizing that it could be miles better and there's not really any excuse for it not being miles better, in the year 2016. GW could be at the forefront of inclusive gaming. They have the resources to do it if they cared to. They do not care to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Sure, GW, as a company, is dog poo poo. What I'm talking about though is one particular aesthetic that, if brought back, I'd buy. Also, there really aren't any miniature game companies (at least not any mainstream ones?) that are anywhere close to inclusive or diverse in their collective output/creative properties. You see a lot more of that in small press indie rpgs, but tabletop miniatures are a toxic wasteland of boring masculinity. Anyway, GW makes a bunch of bad games, but sometimes they make something I want. So I'll buy it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
People are allowed to like whatever they want, but that doesn't make Sisters particularly nonsexual, given that they have boob armor and (especially with Repentia) a distinct S&M flavor. It's totally fine to embrace that, but GW's representation of women otherwise is practically nonexistent. It's no wonder that many women who actually do get into 40k have an affinity for Sisters, since they don't have much else for options. (Especially since Eschers are long gone.) If Sisters meet the bar of "nonsexualized", I think we need to raise our standards. There should be options for people who want to play an army containing women without having to play the corset-wearing boob armor one. (Note that this doesn't mean you can't have armies like Sisters too, but I don't think it's sufficient.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Actually we've surveyed this before, but: a lot of eldar are (exaggeratedly) female, including some dark eldar, and in the fantasy range, there's lots of women in the elf factions. Because elves are skinny but can still have huge boobs. And are sometimes half naked. There's also the old Damsels the Brettonian faction uses as mages, but they at least are more arthurian - riding side-saddle, conical damsel hats, the works. There are a few other women scattered through various factions - the tomb kings have a Queen character (she's a mummy and not at all sexualized), the vampires have some women vampires (I think they're Vampirella inspired but don't really remember), etc. But the elves (dark, light, wood) and space elves (dark and light) plus the Sisters covers like 95% of female representation in GW's fantasy and 40k lines. In theory, imperial guard are completely inclusive, and IG-related products produced by third parties - perhaps most notably FFG - are pretty inclusive about depicting women within the ranks. But GW has only rarely produced female guard sculpts, and none in a very long time. Anyway it's fine to say "I like the Sisters and if they made plastic ones I'd buy them" while also not rejecting the idea that GW knows perfectly well that it's making these mostly to target its preferred adolescent male demographic, puts huge boobs on them and uses combined S&M and catholic church themes to appeal to that adolescent male audience, and does little or nothing else to appeal to girls and women as potential customers. That sucks, even if it's totally par for the tabletop gaming arena. Of course being a woman does not oblige you to "Represent" whenever you buy stuff or talk about buying stuff either. I think all anyone takes issue with is the statement that the Sisters aren't "sexualized:" they are, albeit in a rated-PG way. That doesn't have to be defended. We can and do buy things that we like despite their being some problematic aspects, and shouldn't feel like we have to constantly defend those choices. But once you go ahead and choose to actively defend the company for making those problematic choices, you're contributing to the obstacles to a possible future where someday companies depict women in their sci fi tabletop miniatures games in a reasonable, inclusive, non-sexualized way. GW doesn't need or deserve to be excused for "merely" stocking their token female space warriors faction with rated-PG boob plate ladies (and half-naked ladies in bondage with whips, and angelic flying ladies, all of whom are super-pure idealized probably virginal women), just because there's tons of companies making minis and games that are way, way worse. Especially since, unlike most of those other companies, GW cannot fall back on an excuse that this is what sells and if they don't make their game this way, they might not survive as a company, because GW is a firmly established profitable company with no debt and plenty of spare cash, so they could totally "take a risk" and make most or all of their games and factions inclusive and depict women in a reasonable, nonsexualized way, without actually risking their bottom line much or at all. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:GW could be at the forefront of inclusive gaming. They have the resources to do it if they cared to. They do not care to. Remembering the non-executive chairman just spent much of an annual report preamble railing against inclusiveness in company boards
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
Yeah, FFG has shown that you can represent women at least decently in 40k and people will still buy it. Granted, they didn't produce plastic models for Dark Hershey, so it's not a perfect comparison, but I think it's enough evidence for them to give it a shot and make some mixed-gender Guard models. But then we're talking about a company that only paints their minis as racially diverse when they're the bad guys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Yeah, FFG has shown that you can represent women at least decently in 40k and people will still buy it. Granted, they didn't produce plastic models for Dark Hershey, so it's not a perfect comparison, but I think it's enough evidence for them to give it a shot and make some mixed-gender Guard models. To be fair to FFG on the Dark Heresy end, they weren't allowed to. That's the reason why the models in Relic had to be busts instead of actual minis like Talisman.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
S.J. posted:To be fair to FFG on the Dark Heresy end, they weren't allowed to. That's the reason why the models in Relic had to be busts instead of actual minis like Talisman. Yeah, I just meant that there's way more cost in making a new set of sprues than in commissioning a few drawings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Xarbala posted:Because in both cases, even if you decide to buy in, the only game you'll be playing with the assets you're buying is a hot mess. But at least you'll have something nice to put on your Why can't you use them with other games? I think most of the Antares and Warpath minis look bad and boring. But if the rules are good and you like sisters, why not do that. The concept that minis are proprietary to specific games is retarded, and is exactly what leads to GW style stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
HardCoil posted:Why can't you use them with other games? I think most of the Antares and Warpath minis look bad and boring. But if the rules are good and you like sisters, why not do that. The concept that minis are proprietary to specific games is retarded, and is exactly what leads to GW style stupidity. Agreed, using stuff from GW's sci-fi range with a different ruleset isn't any different or worse than using stuff from their fantasy range with Kings of War or some other ruleset. I've got a bunch of Space Marines and other stuff I've bought over the years that I'll have absolutely no qualms about putting to use in games like Warpath, Rogue Stars, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
HardCoil posted:Why can't you use them with other games? I think most of the Antares and Warpath minis look bad and boring. But if the rules are good and you like sisters, why not do that. The concept that minis are proprietary to specific games is retarded, and is exactly what leads to GW style stupidity. Yeah I got nothin, go ahead
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
It also bears repeating that Mantic actually have been fairly inclusive with their Scifi models.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
I've been thinking of taking that attitude with my own minis. Like, taking the 5Men In Normandy (Now in the new edition on rpgdrivethru it's 5 Men At Kursk!) ruleset, and then throwing my imperial guard into the ring as suitable minis to play with. Possibly against someone running traitor guard, chaos cultists, eldar guardians, dark eldar raiders, tau pathfinders, etc etc etc. Ditto Warpath or Firefight, or maybe even Deadzone if I ever get around to it. Maybe Infinity, for shits and giggles, if I can find suitable and comparable units that my GW minis could stand in for. (Marines could be PanO, or maybe the nomad HI guys, for example, and guard make excellent grunt-level troops for ariadna, say, or just about any human faction, really). And I don't know poo poo about Anatares, other than that the minis aren't inspiring at all to me, but maybe the rules are good? I like Infinity rules (they remind me of an alternative Necromunda, really), and I like battletech's initiative, and alternative movement rules, for example (also used by GW, sort of, for LotR, albeit in a limited and GW-style manner, sadly). 5Core rules also seem interesting for small scale stuff, so we'll see how that pans out. So, models question: Bolt Action 28mm, if I want to get a US Airborne trooper carrying a sniper rifle, are the parts from other plastic box sets in the US range compatible? Could I grab the sniper from the standard US Infantry plastic box, and throw it onto one of the plastic minis from the US airborne box? And does anyone have/know of a good/thread recommended trip report for painting/building the Bolt Action minis?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
On a similar note, is there a good thread somewhere to post my friend's miniatures-agnostic post apocalyptic skirmish game? I posted it in the "making warhams" thread but that's sort of dead. It's in alpha testing and he'd appreciate feedback.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
mcjomar posted:So, models question:
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:On a similar note, is there a good thread somewhere to post my friend's miniatures-agnostic post apocalyptic skirmish game? I posted it in the "making warhams" thread but that's sort of dead. It's in alpha testing and he'd appreciate feedback. Here? We've had very good games design discussions a few derails ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 10:12
|
|
|
Just a note, but the 5Core system also includes a sci-fi version called 5 Parsecs which largely works the same way as core I think (again, don't have the rules, except for an old version of 5 Men In Normandy PDF, so can't really give a real trip report yet). The 5 Core system could be a good Kill Team replacement maybe(?), if you don't feel like using GW or the Heralds of Ruin work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 10:56
|
|
|
HardCoil posted:Why can't you use them with other games? I think most of the Antares and Warpath minis look bad and boring. But if the rules are good and you like sisters, why not do that. The concept that minis are proprietary to specific games is retarded, and is exactly what leads to GW style stupidity. It's kind of amazing how dull most of the Antares models are. I really loved the Ghar's weird mecha but the Ghar themselves look terrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
HardCoil posted:The concept that minis are proprietary to specific games is retarded, and is exactly what leads to GW style stupidity. Plus it tickles my fancy to use GW minis for games that are NOT a goddamn dumpster fire. The fact that their encouragement to buy a ton of tiny mans has enabled me to reach escape velocity away from them is delicious irony.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:It also bears repeating that Mantic actually have been fairly inclusive with their Scifi models. Malifaux as well. Sure it has the Jack-the-Ripper inspired character that creates undead prostitutes that everyone points out, but the Fates book introduces a mostly female reporter set, and a Union layer who look awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
Ilor posted:
This is the best/worst thing about getting away from GW. On the one hand, GW got money (hopefully back when GW were less poo poo) for whatever was bought. On the other hand, the amount of stuff owned means you can easily play other rulesets without necessarily needing to burn money into getting minis for a ruleset that may or may not be horrific poo poo (or in some cases, without needing to get minis at all, especially if you don't like the "official" minis in the first place). This very readily covers my current situation as it is. Though I may want to keep some amount of GW stuff, as my local club is very heavy on the GW stuff, and light on everything else. Thankfully there are people who play infinity, wangs, historicals, specialist games, warmahordes, etc, so I can enjoy that stuff quite easily instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
Sisters of Battle were pretty cool and good when they were first conceived/appeared in the 80s/90s, because at that time the female presence in miniatures was an even worse wasteland, and you were extremely lucky if you could find a female model that wasn't either a Red Sonja ripoff, some sort of nymph, or a sexy enchantress stand in. That point it was pretty interesting to see a whole faction of women, and even if they had boob armor they at least had armor (not to mention sensible shoes!) Also they were shown as being pretty badass in pretty much every regard, they were unaugmented humans who were overall better than the largely-male-appearing Imperial Guard. The problem is that they have stayed in exactly the same spot for twenty years (literally, seeing as we have the exact same models and no additional ones) while overall views have hauled the rest of the industry onward. So now there are a good number of ranges where you find women passably represented, and even some where they appear without the benefit of boob armor or whatever. So from being 'oh wow this is cool and different', Sisters are now more or less 'eh' and just hit a middle mark in the industry. Leperflesh posted:Anyway it's fine to say "I like the Sisters and if they made plastic ones I'd buy them" while also not rejecting the idea that GW knows perfectly well that it's making these mostly to target its preferred adolescent male demographic, puts huge boobs on them and uses combined S&M and catholic church themes to appeal to that adolescent male audience, and does little or nothing else to appeal to girls and women as potential customers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:Sisters of Battle were pretty cool and good when they were first conceived/appeared in the 80s/90s, because at that time the female presence in miniatures was an even worse wasteland, and you were extremely lucky if you could find a female model that wasn't either a Red Sonja ripoff, some sort of nymph, or a sexy enchantress stand in. That point it was pretty interesting to see a whole faction of women, and even if they had boob armor they at least had armor (not to mention sensible shoes!) Also they were shown as being pretty badass in pretty much every regard, they were unaugmented humans who were overall better than the largely-male-appearing Imperial Guard. It's also worth mentioning that the Repentia didn't show up until the second incarnation of the Sisters range in the mid-2000s, until then yeah, the entire range was a relative utopia of progressive inclusive attitudes because pretty much every other female wargaming miniature in the world was an unambiguous adolescent wank-fantasy of battle-bikinis and camo-pattern underboob croptops. GW being GW, of course they had to then miss the point and give us SEMI-NEKKID CHAINSAW WIMMEN to bulk out the range for the Witch-Hunters codex.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
OMG sriracha pudding! posted:Ehhh, the Sisters of Battle are unique sculpts. They're heavily armored sf-punk-warrior women that aren't sexualized; I don't think there's anything else out there that's even remotely like them. If GW finally produces cool women sculpts in space, then I'm sure as gently caress going to give them money for it. if you're talking about the Burnign of Prospero set, then note that the Sisters in there aren't Sisters of Battle, they are Sisters of Silence; a weird negapsychic battle cult who aren't remotely the same as SoBs. I guess you could use them as SoBs in the same way as you could use Custodes as Marines, but they are going to look out of place with other miniatures in the army and there's no indication that they'll be expanded into a full range beyond the options in the box.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
The upcoming Raging Heroes' eternal sisters of mercy line will beat any SOB offerings if the rest of the models look as good as the concept art. The Knights on horses look great and depending on how the Arch Papess sculpt comes out, I'll probably buy that one. The Angels with window wings look terrible, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Did anyone notice how Dark Eldary the sisters of silence look? Their armor looks very similar to kabalite armor, and the shaved heads with the topknots are very dark eldary. All they need is pointy ears and they'd pass for one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Hra Mormo posted:Did anyone notice how Dark Eldary the sisters of silence look? Their armor looks very similar to kabalite armor, and the shaved heads with the topknots are very dark eldary. All they need is pointy ears and they'd pass for one. They are very heavily based on an old Geoff Taylor illustration from about 1995 - predating the DE visual design by about 3 years. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
I hate top knots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Oh boy are you in the wrong hobby!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Top knots > man buns any day
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
This conversation made me look up the leaks of the Sisters of Silence sprues, and I think that the sculptors mistook the rondels in those images for boobplates? At least I always assumed those were rondels, maybe I was giving the artist too much credit. They should have just gone with the same silhouette without sculpting boobs, a regularly shaped cuirass with the same profile would have been fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Always thought the Necromunda Escher gang was the only time GW managed to do punk women that weren't overly sexualised. Yes, they are well endowed. But the clothing doesn't go beyond punk stylings and their poses are badass rather than anything else. The eye is drawn to the hair and the guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
The Escher gang are all really good, and even though they are mostly in short tops and leggings they look boss, largely thanks to the solid poses and just some skilled work in the sculpting. They actually hold up pretty well even if you take them out of context. In context they are even better though, because there are loads of crazy looking people in Necromunda, so the fact they have ridiculous hair and questionable dress code doesn't register in world that's basically Warriors dialed up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:02 |
|
|
Ashcans posted:I don't know man, saying that GW 'knows' to 'target' a 'demographic' sounds suspiciously like actually doing some research on your market and applying that to what you produce. I am pretty comfortable rejecting that idea and betting that Sisters were originally made because a bunch of people working at GW thought they were a cool thing, and it struck that note because they had similar interests and views to adolescent boys, and hardly considered that women might be playing too. And GW has stuck with it because they haven't even bothered to treat them to the cursory review and dusting that most of their updates involve. From GW's 2015 annual report(PDF): quote:Our customers tend to be teenage boys and male adults with some spare money to spend and time to enjoy hobbies. I'd like to think our Hobby - modelling, painting, collecting, gaming - is for any one. Our customers are found everywhere . Our job is to, on a day to day basis, find them, commercially, wherever they are. That's Kevin Rountree's "Strategic Report" section, which is always more thorough and less batshit than the stuff Kirby prefixes to the reports. They may do no market research, but the company is acutely aware that its core audience is boys and young men, and that's who it tries to appeal to. But also claims in the same paragraph that the "hobby" is "for any one" which implies that they'd actually want to appeal to girls and women too. I'm sure Sisters are supposed to be cool. Everything GW makes is supposed to just be cool and rad and badass, that's the aesthetic. Sisters are battle nuns: it's tough not to associate that with the "sexy nun" thing, which I think is itself a phenomenon born from pubescent boys going to catholic school + catholic girls' school uniforms + Rule 34. A religious tradition of sexual repression, the supposed authority and power of virginal women in charge, all that stuff gets wrapped up into visual themes of sexy ladies in battle nun outfits who kick rear end (and you want to gently caress them). Is that what everyone puts into them or what everyone gets out of them? Of course not. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But I don't think it's helpful to just ignore that aspect of it. Especially when that's the most prominent use of women in GW's entire 40k line.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:22
|
|