Cheesecake-Term use to describe pictures of provocatively clad, sexually attractive women.

Let me try to simplify everything and begin the discussion. Here are the defendants.







The main thing is: "INFINITY has released 5 cheesecake models in the same month" That has unchained a discussion in many forums. DakkDakka cannot stay away from this question:

Cheesecake: is it is suitable for wargaming or completely inappropriate?

Can we tolerate this lack of decency in our brutal deadly war scenarios? Can we tolerate sex while enjoying war?

Discuss gently.

What does the term 'cheesecake' mean, exactly?

I see nothing wrong with these models.

It's part of Infinity IMHO, so personally I think its okay.

Yeah, what are you on about? This sounds like spam.

Thank you for the clarification.

The Dreadnote wrote:Yeah, what are you on about? This sounds like spam.

It's not, this is to save the Infinity thread from a potential flame war.

I personally love cheesecake, especially with that raspberry sauce stuff on top, or cherry pie filling.

I think only Proxy 3 is questionable and I have seen more risque models on a table than that (Ah the joys of being a young lad during the days of metal deamonettes)

Given the inspiration material for these models, and the obvious target market coupled with the artistic style and presentation of the game material, they are entirely appropriate.

EDIT: and still far more clothed/equipped than many of the inspirational materials for the game

Cheesecake is a term for girl pin-up art.

Beefacke is the male counterpart.

I had to spend some time on google to find this definition.

I apologise for the opening post. I should have clarified the term:

Cheesecake-Term use to describe pictures of provocatively clad, sexually attractive women.

I'll add this to the opening post.

Those are not the models in question.

This is what we don't like:

You have a model like this:



A fairly good model, correct? Now, imagine putting him side by side with her:



Why hello, nice fine bum.

Now, in Ariadna, you have this:



standing side by side with this:



Notice the nice see through shirt.



For a major example, look at this model:



She has half of her top armor missing, exposing most of her body; impractical? completely. Necesarry? No. Not only that, but she is wearing a shirt over it, for no reason to give her Under Boob.

Compare that to this:



Fully covered, exactly like the male counterpart.

I was once told that "Some Comments made by Wargamers really give us a bad name", nah, it's mostly the fact that women are all objects in these games.

All your pics are broken

Working on my computer.

People need to complain about things, perhaps because we do not yet in the most "interesting times".

There is nothing wrong with these models in any sense.

I know why this thread has been started, and I commend Bobbafett for doing so, especially as it saves a more important thread from this type of pointless discussion.

After living through the "nude miniatures" discussion, this just sounds like pointless moaning on a certain individuals part, who contends that they are put off from buying the miniatures for a certain faction because they are not "hardcore" enough.....well, I say keep your money, maybe spend it at GW or PP, whatever, you've made your point now lets drop it and move on....

The great thing about freedom of purchase is that you don't have to buy them, and yes, I'm sure CB will loose a whole nights sleep knowing they've lost you as a customer....don't worry, I'll buy double the miniatures to make up for your departure from the game.

There, case closed.

Infinity website does not allow to link images directly from its server.

I suggest upload to other server and... aahhhh (sigh).... allow me...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slarg232 wrote:Those are not the models in question.

This is what we don't like:

You have a model like this:



A fairly good model, correct? Now, imagine putting him side by side with her:



Why hello, nice fine bum.

Now, in Ariadna, you have this:



standing side by side with this:



Notice the nice see through shirt.



For a major example, look at this model:



She has half of her top armor missing, exposing most of her body; impractical? completely. Necesarry? No. Not only that, but she is wearing a shirt over it, for no reason to give her Under Boob.

Compare that to this:



Fully covered, exactly like the male counterpart.

I was once told that "Some Comments made by Wargamers really give us a bad name", nah, it's mostly the fact that women are all objects in these games.

Slarg232 wrote:Working on my computer.

No, your pics are broken. They are still in the cache in your computer, thus YOU can see them. Check your links and try again.

Vaktathi wrote:Given the inspiration material for these models, and the obvious target market coupled with the artistic style and presentation of the game material, they are entirely appropriate.

Agreed. It all comes down to context. And the context of Infinity as I see it is a sexy technological future inspired by everything from Blade Runner to Ghost in the Shell- I'll remind everyone that the movie version of the last one features an anatomically correct cyborg woman who must take all her clothes off in order to activate her thermoptic camoflage.

Cheescat? No, cheesecat isn't appropriate for tabletop games.

Of course it is. I can't believe people get into a tiff about these things.

One of the reasons I picked up Infinity. However not the only reason, and I'm just as eager to seem a well dressed and fully clothed female model as a sexy one.

I just like having the diversity in my forces, if a system says that nigh on 100% of the army is gender neutral, then dammit I want the same for my own armies.

Fed up of having to scrimp and search for some female models to add character to my force, when fluff says there should be loads available.

Had the issue with my Dark Elves, Guard and Eldar in the past. Heck I even wanted a male Banshee figure, book says there are male Banshees, then give me a fig, one out of seven isn't going to break the line.

Even if they just released five or six metal/finecast female Guard stand in's over the varying units, I'd be happy.

okay on typing that, it is a slight tangent to the main focus of this thread, but Its something I wanted to add in the infinity thread but did not wish to derail it.

So on-topic.. nope, no issue with them in wargamming for me.

Well I guess it's official. I'm an old guy. First thing that came to my mind was the actual cheese cake. Never heard the girl reference before.

To be fair I ony knew as it came up on Dakka before, before then I'd never heard of it either. I had assumed it was an American thing, but your country of origion puts that to bed.

Sex has no place in the fantasy world of people who rarely experience it in the real world, even though violence does and is equally not present.

Or something.

Delephont wrote:People need to complain about things, perhaps because we do not yet in the most "interesting times".

There is nothing wrong with these models in any sense.

I know why this thread has been started, and I commend Bobbafett for doing so, especially as it saves a more important thread from this type of pointless discussion.

After living through the "nude miniatures" discussion, this just sounds like pointless moaning on a certain individuals part, who contends that they are put off from buying the miniatures for a certain faction because they are not "hardcore" enough.....well, I say keep your money, maybe spend it at GW or PP, whatever, you've made your point now lets drop it and move on....

Since you clearly are hung up on the fact that it's simply the "hardcore" aspect that puts me off...it's not.
Those models for Ariadna?
They do not fit the rest of the range. They look like they belong on a pinup calendar, not as part of the army proper. They're very clearly overemphasizing the "female" aspect of the models. If there was some other option available within the range, it would not be a big deal. But there aren't other options, so it is a big deal in my eyes.
As it stands, for Ariadna, Nomads, and ALEPH you have to sacrifice part of the character/visual aspect of your force to be able to field some effective options. It's not even a question of the paint-job being a problem, it's the pose and the sculpt.

Now before you rip off on a completely fallacious assumption: I'm not saying they are poor quality or "GW does it better". I'm saying they are poor decisions on Corvus Belli's part, and the justification of "The Daktari sells well!" won't fly.

I think almost all those models are great. They're feminine but practical generally. The one in the thong sticking her ass out is a bit much but could be worse. When I read the topic title I figured it was about those anime girl models that have been popping up a lot recently. Then again, those are for an anime RPG/skirmish game so I guess they're appropriate there.

Ok let me get this straight. Models that have death,murder,gore,and cult worship on them your fine with, But models that look and act sexxy are wrong?


Maybe I'm just old but violance and sexxy woman have gone hand in hand in all genres. from She-ra to blade to star wars even to who framed roger rabbit, and G.I.Joe it has always been there.

A model can be great but not fit with the rest of the range. One does not preclude the other, despite the assumptions of some.

Lormax wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Working on my computer.

No, your pics are broken. They are still in the cache in your computer, thus YOU can see them. Check your links and try again.

They came directly from the Infinity site.

Slarg232 wrote:

Lormax wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Working on my computer.

No, your pics are broken. They are still in the cache in your computer, thus YOU can see them. Check your links and try again.

They came directly from the Infinity site.

Infinity doesn't allow hotlinking, hence why I was using URLs.

I am also trying to figure out how the posthumans are not appropriate for a line that already includes.







*scratches head*

Text redacted as inappropriate and rude. -Mannahnin

BobbaFett wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slarg232 wrote:

For a major example, look at this model:

I still dont get what is so sexy about the little robot

Kanluwen wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Lormax wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Working on my computer.

No, your pics are broken. They are still in the cache in your computer, thus YOU can see them. Check your links and try again.

They came directly from the Infinity site.

Infinity doesn't allow hotlinking, hence why I was using URLs.

Sad

Also Cannerous, not all of us can handle sex in every aspect of our life like you can

Slarg232 wrote:

Also Cannerous, not all of us can handle sex in every aspect of our life like you can

The Mistress was yelling at me for that yesterday actually But seriously, why is over the top violence okay but skin isn't?

Sometimes, I feel sorry for the Spess Mahreens and their lifes full of war and no sex at all.

If I was a Marine and face one of the Infinity females I will get rid of my armor somehow and feth that sexy chic Ultramarine style.

Well this thread was pointless from the start, considering BobbaFett here already spun it off in the wrong direction.

Kanluwen wrote:Well this thread was pointless from the start, considering BobbaFett here already spun it off in the wrong direction.

Start your own then. Correct the wrong. Go on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Also Cannerous, not all of us can handle sex in every aspect of our life like you can

The Mistress was yelling at me for that yesterday actually But seriously, why is over the top violence okay but skin isn't?

Something about a good book, a lord and sheep?

BrookM wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Well this thread was pointless from the start, considering BobbaFett here already spun it off in the wrong direction.

Start your own then. Correct the wrong. Go on.

And then have it get shut for spamming, with me getting a warning?

Yeah. That ain't happening.

Simply put: the idea that someone can object to skin on a miniature simply because of "being a prude" or "finding sex offensive" is silly.

Infinity is the closest thing we have to anime inspired scifi, these minis are superbly executed and concept wise fit like a glove into the range... and it has been happening for a long time now, I see no reason to complain about it... Someone may not like it, but that does not mean these don't fit the range... they just don't fit someone's personal tastes.

As far as I'm concerned I'm glad Corvus belli embraced mainstream anime concepts to its full extent. Humor included.

BobbaFett wrote:Cheesecake: is it is suitable for wargaming or completely inappropriate?

Why is this being raised in response to the Infinity models? I suggest you look at the Daemonettes, Slaanesh, Dark Elves, and Dark Eldar wyches (among others) in 40k.

"Cheesecake" has been around for as long as fantasy miniatures (yes, 40k is fantasy, it's just fantasy in spaaaaaaace). It's not going anywhere.

If anything, Infinity is raising the bar. Admittedly, they're making models more attractive with clothing than a lot of sculptors do without, but that speaks more to their skill, not to any creeping perversion.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Also Cannerous, not all of us can handle sex in every aspect of our life like you can

The Mistress was yelling at me for that yesterday actually But seriously, why is over the top violence okay but skin isn't?

Several reasons for me, actually.

First of all; it's impractical on the serious side of things; flesh won't protect as much as a suit of armor, and it's not like your going to impress anyone dressing like that on a battlefield. There is no reason for it, at all.

Secondly, and this is more important to the discussion; why do women have to be half naked to be seen as "Sexy"? I love sexy chicks with guns. I love http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/reverend-custodiers/ model, and I want to get it (In fact, I have already talked to Neal who has ordered it for the Warstore so I can buy it). That's a sexy female model, it has her being able to fight due to having armor, but she's fully protected and everything.

Now compare that to say http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/daktaris-campaign-doctors/. Whats wrong with this model? Exposed midriff (Impractical for battle, see the first point), and the "Sexy" pose. She's in a stripper nurse outfit...... I don't mention the tail or ears because let's face it, that's something different all together. Is it furry fanservice? Possibly, but that's not SOLELY because of the tail.....

Thats why for me.

I have no problem with the pictures in the original post; they are robots, and they aren't falling out of their clothing. But when you have to put something like that Daktaris right next to something like that Reverend Custodiers......... It's pretty ridiculous....

I don't play Infinity, nor have i read much of the source material for it, but from the figs and art I HAVE seen these seem pretty typical for the setting and seem right in line with the manga/anime vibe this game is exploiting (which traditionally is built upon this sort of imagery).

Thus I have no issue with with models like this being present in Infinity models/art.

I'm not really a fan of anime/manga so I choose not to play Infinity, its just not that interesting to me as a whole, cheesecake or not.

I see this as a totally diffeent discussion however to the one about sexualizing models in an inappropriate context such as naked commissar models intended to be used in 40k, etc. The setting does not support this asthetic, and doing so seems really forced, immature, and usually so speaks more about the person using/making said models then it does about my objection to it imho.

Then again I desire to maintain a faithful representation of the established and official visual asthetic of the game settings I play/collect.

It isnt about being upset/uptight/offended by boobs on a 40K model, it is more about the mentality and behavior of some of those that perpetuate and venerate said models that is embarrassing/sad at times...

Suitable? I suppose so, they are of approximately the correct scale and show the weapons the figure has. For wargaming that is pretty much all that is required.

That being said, few if any of these models will find a place in my growing Infinity collection.
While I can see that the figures are suited in a lot of anime/manga styles they look totally out of place on a battlefield.
Many of the Infinity ranges already have figures that look feminine without resorting to showing any more than the male soldiers.
It also risks (IMO) turning off female games to the range - if cheesecake was the universal look for Infinity why isn't the male Caledonian Volunteer showing us what is under his kilt?

I would find it much more in keeping to see a Chimera with a smoking-hot Sister of Battle painted on the side armour

First let me say yes i think its ok

Second, Russia used female snipers in ww2 and were always often better then their male counter parts.

Third it brings in a um not lack of but i forget the word.... Variety, to the table and i like variety

Now if we are talking nude female models even as a male i believe its disrespectful and tasteless not saying i wont play, i just see no reason in having females breasts hanging out ( its also not very realistic as they would undoubtedly cover themselves up and i don't need my 7 year old son asking me why her extremities are hanging out or what they are yet).

but i really dont see anything "sad" or "embarassing" at all about the figures so far.

looks like a good balance of aesthetics to me

if infinity ONLY showed mortar-boobs and thongs then I can understand the hullabaloo. Understand mind you but not agree.

and btw the models show above can be painted a lot less provocatively. If the crossbow lady didnt have a bare bottom i doubt anyone would be making a fuss.

Im more concerned about the people making an issue out of this though.

Kanluwen wrote:Simply put: the idea that someone can object to skin on a miniature simply because of "being a prude" or "finding sex offensive" is silly.

Yeah, how dare people object to things on the basis of personal beliefs that I don't share!

Sex in wargames has always been a contentious issue, and will likely remain that way for some time. Exactly where the line is drawn is going to be different for everybody.

'Cheesecake' though usually refers to models that are deliberately provocative... scantily clad, or overtly sexualised. The miniatures posted in the OP don't fit that category, IMO. They're clearly female, but that's about all. The examples presented further down, where the females are more scantily clad than their counterparts are less ideal... although for me personally, that's not so much due to being 'cheesecake' as simply because it results in an inconsistent range of models.

to add:

I will say that what is and is not appropriate should ALWAYS be agreed upon by the people who will be dealing with the subject matter and should ALWAYS be ruled by common sense

if I'm playing against a 9 year old from Poland I wont be breaking out the Quad-boobed Slaaneshi cultists in SS Fetish-wear.

Pin-up nose-art in 3D? Think I might be buying some of those there ladies right soon. Outstanding figures. I'm particularly taken by the lasiq sniper and the scots women.

And for the record, I have more than adequate contact with the fairer sex. Grubby teen nerd fapping myself stupid to figure-pr0n, I am not.

insaniak wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Simply put: the idea that someone can object to skin on a miniature simply because of "being a prude" or "finding sex offensive" is silly.

Yeah, how dare people object to things on the basis of personal beliefs that I don't share!

Sex in wargames has always been a contentious issue, and will likely remain that way for some time. Exactly where the line is drawn is going to be different for everybody.

'Cheesecake' though usually refers to models that are deliberately provocative... scantily clad, or overtly sexualised. The miniatures posted in the OP don't fit that category, IMO. They're clearly female, but that's about all. The examples presented further down, where the females are more scantily clad than their counterparts are less ideal... although for me personally, that's not so much due to being 'cheesecake' as simply because it results in an inconsistent range of models.

IMO the ones flashing panties or midriff are clearly cheesecake. I take Kan's point that these are not realistic or appropriate to be on a battlefield, and clash with the dress of more pragmatically-constumed figures in the same line and same faction.

That being said, I do seem them as thematically appropriate for many types of anime. I'm not offended by the models. They just show that the Infinity range is more about anime, including underdressed girls kicking butt, than it is about verisimiliture in presenting a credible sci-fi setting.

I can see it on their faces: Why Won't My Hips Un-Sway?!?!?!?

They probably looked at the picture of beach bikini model and sculpted based off of that lol...

Talk about sculptors who ahve no imagination.

I must admit I've read the posts on this topic and on the similar topic recently with growing horror at the puritan attitudes that people are airing. I think sometimes we are all taking ourselves and the hobby way, way too seriously. What is evident is that we are too fixated on building armies and anything that does not meet our criteria is strongly rejected. How is showing a well defined female model unacceptable?
We all watch films which to a great extent have females shall we say less than 'wrapped up'? Do we turn away from the screen until the 'offending' images disappear? NO WE DON'T. A female advertising a product like a car, do we turn away? NO. Hell even Woman's magazines are full of glamour shots of women, do they turn away? Well considering that there is nearly a new women's magazine appearing on the newstands almost every month and that they all contain glamour shots of women, I don't think they do!
C'mon people, we are playing a tabletop game with little figures. It is not the end of the world. It really isn't.

I'm always slightly intrigued by what nay-sayers of any given sculpt would prefer to see?

Logically, a good percentage of future military types could be women with as little as a severe hairstyle. Some military women are built like the lorries they drive. Others are drop-dead gorgeous stone-cold killers. I prefer to paint the second.

I vaguely recall a conversation many moons ago about female miniatures and their "features" where it was pointed out that at 3ft "wargaming" range some things have to be exaggerated in order to be visible.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I'm always slightly intrigued by what nay-sayers of any given sculpt would prefer to see?

Logically, a good percentage of future military types could be women with as little as a severe hairstyle. Some military women are built like the lorries they drive. Others are drop-dead gorgeous stone-cold killers. I prefer to paint the second.

I vaguely recall a conversation many moons ago about female miniatures and their "features" where it was pointed out that at 3ft "wargaming" range some things have to be exaggerated in order to be visible.

I would prefer the women be posed in ways which do not look painful.

You know, so that they don't have their hips shoved out past their shoulders while holding a gun taller than they are.

Standing in a more natural relaxed pose would be much better.

It's a show of utter laziness by the sculptor that they essentially use bathing suit models as their basis for poses. It's like the link I posted above, how many lazy comic book artists did the same thing and resulted in poses which looked dumb and out of context.

Slipstream wrote:I must admit I've read the posts on this topic and on the similar topic recently with growing horror at the puritan attitudes that people are airing. I think sometimes we are all taking ourselves and the hobby way, way too seriously. What is evident is that we are too fixated on building armies and anything that does not meet our criteria is strongly rejected. How is showing a well defined female model unacceptable?
We all watch films which to a great extent have females shall we say less than 'wrapped up'? Do we turn away from the screen until the 'offending' images disappear? NO WE DON'T. A female advertising a product like a car, do we turn away? NO. Hell even Woman's magazines are full of glamour shots of women, do they turn away? Well considering that there is nearly a new women's magazine appearing on the newstands almost every month and that they all contain glamour shots of women, I don't think they do!
C'mon people, we are playing a tabletop game with little figures. It is not the end of the world. It really isn't.

You've posted in the wrong thread, I think. This one is in response to comments that I made, which had nothing to do with morality or nudity. Just poorly fitting models in a range.

I'm always slightly intrigued by what nay-sayers of any given sculpt would prefer to see?

Logically, a good percentage of future military types could be women with as little as a severe hairstyle. Some military women are built like the lorries they drive. Others are drop-dead gorgeous stone-cold killers. I prefer to paint the second.

I vaguely recall a conversation many moons ago about female miniatures and their "features" where it was pointed out that at 3ft "wargaming" range some things have to be exaggerated in order to be visible.

Those are some good and reasonable points, but if I want a set of mixed male and female soldiers who look like possible combatants in a far-future war, I don't expect any of them to have their underwear showing.

Those kind of minis can be lovely and great and fun if I'm trying to game in the kind of setting some anime movies portray, but it's a direct conflict with realistic sci fi. No knock on Infinity if they've chosen their genre and they're not interested in being "realistic" sci-fi. That's fine. But it is a disappointment to folks who see some of their range as fairly realistic, and would like to use the game with a more sober and serious setting/tone.

Yeah, anime is quite frequently completely and utterly mind-blowingly stupid like that.

Especially since they complain about how teenagers tend to torrent/pirate their shows but they still market to teenagers despite the fact that adults buy their shows (and the only thing they market to adults is... well, porn). Executive stupidity is not unique to the US, that's for sure, Japan has plenty to throw around too.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:I am also trying to figure out how the posthumans are not appropriate for a line that already includes.







*scratches head*

I'm trying to figure out if that's skin or a really tight leggings... Also, why are they wearing high heels?

Surtur wrote:I'm trying to figure out if that's skin or a really tight leggings... Also, why are they wearing high heels?

Because they're sculpted by horny, lonely men who don't know anything about moving around in high heeled boots?

Mannahnin wrote:

They just show that the Infinity range is more about anime, including underdressed girls kicking butt, than it is about verisimiliture in presenting a credible sci-fi setting.

Science fiction has many faces and all are credible within their graphic codes IMO... thats why some love realistic scifi and others prefer more fantastic science fiction... Anime is just one of the many scifi faces and I dont believe it to be better or worse than others science fiction expressions. One thing is personal preferences another is looking at things in a wider perspective and accept everything as part of a bigger reality. Funny we speak about verisimilitude and credibility in Scifi settings when in its essence Scifi is the perfect excuse to project conjectures on hypothetical futures, hey?

Those three sets all appear to be wearing boots with a raised heel to give the effect of high-heeled shoes. Ie, to put the leg and the backside more on display, at the cost of impairing the wearer's balance and mobility.

Melissia wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I'm always slightly intrigued by what nay-sayers of any given sculpt would prefer to see?

Logically, a good percentage of future military types could be women with as little as a severe hairstyle. Some military women are built like the lorries they drive. Others are drop-dead gorgeous stone-cold killers. I prefer to paint the second.

I vaguely recall a conversation many moons ago about female miniatures and their "features" where it was pointed out that at 3ft "wargaming" range some things have to be exaggerated in order to be visible.

I would prefer the women be posed in ways which do not look painful.

You know, so that they don't have their hips shoved out past their shoulders while holding a gun taller than they are.

Standing in a more natural relaxed pose would be much better.

It's a show of utter laziness by the sculptor that they essentially use bathing suit models as their basis for poses. It's like the link I posted above, how many lazy comic book artists did the same thing and resulted in poses which looked dumb and out of context.

The oversized firearms are just a genre thing. One must look past those.

Is it worth noting that women can and do stand like that when posing? Including the apparently much reviled "bathing suit models"? I recall knowing at least one model who was renowned for her ability to twist so that both her boobs and her ass were 'in shot' at the same time. She managed to do that without complaining of any pain.

Without actually looking at the Infinity background or product (beyond the miniatures) I gather that they are trying for a bit of a "Heavy Metal" look to them, much like the comics. If that is the case, then the sculptors have got that look down. (Metal Hurlant, not the GW painting page.)

NAVARRO wrote:

Mannahnin wrote: They just show that the Infinity range is more about anime, including underdressed girls kicking butt, than it is about verisimiliture in presenting a credible sci-fi setting.

Science fiction has many faces and all are credible within their graphic codes IMO... thats why some love realistic scifi and others prefer more fantastic science fiction... Anime is just one of the many scifi faces and I dont believe it to be better or worse than others science fiction expressions. One thing is personal preferences another is looking at things in a wider perspective and accept everything as part of a bigger reality. Funny we speak about verisimilitude and credibility in Scifi settings when in its essence Scifi is the perfect excuse to project conjectures on hypothetical futures, hey?

Oh sure, and in fairness Anime is really a very broad category encompassing a wide range of styles. There are certainly anime and manga shows and works which consistently portray characters and costumes that DO look realistic. None of the characters in Princess Mononoke, as an example, look like pinup models or are underdressed to expose them in the interests of pulchritude.

Melissia wrote:

Surtur wrote:I'm trying to figure out if that's skin or a really tight leggings... Also, why are they wearing high heels?

Because they're sculpted by horny, lonely men who don't know anything about moving around in high heeled boots?

One of the most talented and balanced walkers in high heels that I ever met, who moved with consummate grace and perfect poise WAS a man. He did it better than half the slappers in town of a saturday night, even when he was pissed. Go figure eh?

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:It's a show of utter laziness by the sculptor that they essentially use bathing suit models as their basis for poses. It's like the link I posted above, how many lazy comic book artists did the same thing and resulted in poses which looked dumb and out of context.

Is it worth noting that women can and do stand like that when posing? Including the apparently much reviled "bathing suit models"? I recall knowing at least one model who was renowned for her ability to twist so that both her boobs and her ass were 'in shot' at the same time. She managed to do that without complaining of any pain.

Naturally. If you want a miniature which portrays a woman posing for a picture, to best display her physical assets, then such a pose is perfectly reasonable. If, OTOH, you want a miniature posed like they're in the middle of a battle, such a pose breaks verisimilitude very badly.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Without actually looking at the Infinity background or product (beyond the miniatures) I gather that they are trying for a bit of a "Heavy Metal" look to them, much like the comics. If that is the case, then the sculptors have got that look down. (Metal Hurlant, not the GW painting page.)

Depends on what story in Heavy Metal/Metal Hurlant you're talking about. The ones with pinups and pulchritude are just as much fantasies as some of these minis. But Heavy Metal had a lot of stories with more realistic art and costumes too.

Slipstream wrote:We all watch films which to a great extent have females shall we say less than 'wrapped up'? Do we turn away from the screen until the 'offending' images disappear? NO WE DON'T.

You can wind up in all sorts of strange places if you make assumptions about 'all of us' based on your own personal opinions.

I've known several people over the years (a couple of gamers amongst them) who wouldn't watch films with sex in them, and who had very strong views on nudity on film or TV.

But this isn't really about nudity specifically, but about objectification. Nudity can be appropriate... GW's previous Daemonette models, for example.... where scantily clad figures are not (female soldiers showing underwear while their male counterparts are fully and sensibly clothed).

ArbeitsSchu wrote:The oversized firearms are just a genre thing. One must look past those.

I have no problem with oversized firearms.

Rather, my complaint was that the oversized firearms made their pose look even more stupid and lazy.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Is it worth noting that women can and do stand like that when posing? Including the apparently much reviled "bathing suit models"? I recall knowing at least one model who was renowned for her ability to twist so that both her boobs and her ass were 'in shot' at the same time. She managed to do that without complaining of any pain.

There are guys whose ideas of pleasure involve shoving things down their urethras, but that's hardly a representation of the average soldier/commando in a combat situation who is trying not to get shot.

Kanluwen wrote:

Slipstream wrote:I must admit I've read the posts on this topic and on the similar topic recently with growing horror at the puritan attitudes that people are airing. I think sometimes we are all taking ourselves and the hobby way, way too seriously. What is evident is that we are too fixated on building armies and anything that does not meet our criteria is strongly rejected. How is showing a well defined female model unacceptable?
We all watch films which to a great extent have females shall we say less than 'wrapped up'? Do we turn away from the screen until the 'offending' images disappear? NO WE DON'T. A female advertising a product like a car, do we turn away? NO. Hell even Woman's magazines are full of glamour shots of women, do they turn away? Well considering that there is nearly a new women's magazine appearing on the newstands almost every month and that they all contain glamour shots of women, I don't think they do!
C'mon people, we are playing a tabletop game with little figures. It is not the end of the world. It really isn't.

You've posted in the wrong thread, I think. This one is in response to comments that I made, which had nothing to do with morality or nudity. Just poorly fitting models in a range.

I can see your point of view and I even agree with some of it, but I think that Mannahnin said it best when he said:

Mannahnin wrote:That being said, I do seem them as thematically appropriate for many types of anime. I'm not offended by the models. They just show that the Infinity range is more about anime, including underdressed girls kicking butt, than it is about verisimilitude in presenting a credible sci-fi setting.

You (and I since I don't really think those models look good standing next to the more "serious" models), are looking at Infinity in the wrong light. Obviously CB envisions Infinity's universe in a less seriuss bsnsss then you or I do, what we can is let that "vision" affect our decision to play the game or not. I still play the game (I collect Aleph), I just won't use those models that I don't find that "fit" with my vision of the setting (in my case, regarding Aleph, is basically just the Posthuman Proxy I).

insaniak wrote:

Slipstream wrote:We all watch films which to a great extent have females shall we say less than 'wrapped up'? Do we turn away from the screen until the 'offending' images disappear? NO WE DON'T.

You can wind up in all sorts of strange places if you make assumptions about 'all of us' based on your own personal opinions.

I've known several people over the years (a couple of gamers amongst them) who wouldn't watch films with sex in them, and who had very strong views on nudity on film or TV.

But this isn't really about nudity specifically, but about objectification. Nudity can be appropriate... GW's previous Daemonette models, for example.... where scantily clad figures are not (female soldiers showing underwear while their male counterparts are fully and sensibly clothed).

This, actually.

I loved them old Deamonette models, they were apropriately scantily clad. Soldiers should not be scantily clad at all.

Melissia wrote:Yeah, anime is quite frequently completely and utterly mind-blowingly stupid like that.

Especially since they complain about how teenagers tend to torrent/pirate their shows but they still market to teenagers despite the fact that adults buy their shows (and the only thing they market to adults is... well, porn). Executive stupidity is not unique to the US, that's for sure, Japan has plenty to throw around too.

All the late nation-phobic comments on dakka are not helping anyone...

Melissia wrote:

Surtur wrote:I'm trying to figure out if that's skin or a really tight leggings... Also, why are they wearing high heels?

Because they're sculpted by horny, lonely men who don't know anything about moving around in high heeled boots?

Ridiculous comment. Yes because sculptors are Horny lonely men, thanks for that... I'm a sculptor and if a client asks for sexual chicks because it sells more, guess who's the horny lonely men.

Your contribute is not appreciated IMO, in a couple posts you labeled nations and people in a very depreciative way.

Mannahnin wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:

Mannahnin wrote: They just show that the Infinity range is more about anime, including underdressed girls kicking butt, than it is about verisimiliture in presenting a credible sci-fi setting.

Science fiction has many faces and all are credible within their graphic codes IMO... thats why some love realistic scifi and others prefer more fantastic science fiction... Anime is just one of the many scifi faces and I dont believe it to be better or worse than others science fiction expressions. One thing is personal preferences another is looking at things in a wider perspective and accept everything as part of a bigger reality. Funny we speak about verisimilitude and credibility in Scifi settings when in its essence Scifi is the perfect excuse to project conjectures on hypothetical futures, hey?

Oh sure, and in fairness Anime is really a very broad category encompassing a wide range of styles. There are certainly anime and manga shows and works which consistently portray characters and costumes that DO look realistic. None of the characters in Princess Mononoke, as an example, look like pinup models or are underdressed to expose them in the interests of pulchritude.

And thats the beauty of Sci fi for me, if you don't discard a style or expression and give it a chance you may be surprised about how it can boost your imaginary.

NAVARRO wrote:

Melissia wrote:Yeah, anime is quite frequently completely and utterly mind-blowingly stupid like that.

Especially since they complain about how teenagers tend to torrent/pirate their shows but they still market to teenagers despite the fact that adults buy their shows (and the only thing they market to adults is... well, porn). Executive stupidity is not unique to the US, that's for sure, Japan has plenty to throw around too.

All the late nation-phobic comments on dakka are not helping anyone...

It's not phobic if it's true.

That's more me and Capcom, though, so take that how you may.

NAVARRO wrote:All the late nation-phobic comments on dakka are not helping anyone...

That's a stupid comment. This isn't "nation-phobic"; I'm commenting on the state of corporations today, not the state of nations.

But then again, I could point out the hilarious recent problems that Japan has had with Olympus as a good example if I had to.

Melissia wrote:Your contribute is not appreciated IMO

I don't care.

Melissia wrote:There are guys whose ideas of pleasure involve shoving things down their urethras, but that's hardly a representation of the average soldier/commando in a combat situation who is trying not to get shot.

Melissia wins the price for exagerated comment by far.

Let's take a look at some examples of Infinity armies, shall we?



Ok, so we have here an Ariadnan army. i can see a woman there, she must be one of those Infinity sluts. She has clearly get rid of her jacket and she is holding it uin a provocative pose. Who the hell she thinks she is?

Let it be known that I have not once in this thread used the term "slut" or its derivatives to refer to those models in this thread, and that anyone who accuses me of saying such is a bald-faced liar.

Melissia wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:All the late nation-phobic comments on dakka are not helping anyone...

That's a stupid comment. This isn't "nation-phobic"; I'm commenting on the state of corporations today, not the state of nations.

But then again, I could point out the hilarious recent problems that Japan has had with Olympus as a good example if I had to.

Melissia wrote:Your contribute is not appreciated IMO

I don't care.

If you dont care keep it up with the ridiculous labeling spree and calling everything you dont like stupid or other intelligent adjective... very mature of you.

BobbaFett wrote:

Melissia wrote:There are guys whose ideas of pleasure involve shoving things down their urethras, but that's hardly a representation of the average soldier/commando in a combat situation who is trying not to get shot.

Melissia wins the price for exagerated comment by far.

Let's take a look at some examples of Infinity armies, shall we?



Ok, so we have here an Ariadnan army. i can see a woman there, she must be one of those Infinity sluts. She has clearly get rid of her jacket and she is holding it uin a provocative pose. Who the hell she thinks she is?

Riiiiiight. Clearly it has NOTHING to do with the fact that her belly is completely exposed. Yup.

Keep trying, you almost made a case there.

Melissia wrote:Let it be known that I have not once in this thread used the term "slut" or its derivatives to refer to those models in this thread, and that anyone who accuses me of saying such is a bald-faced liar.

No one has, but for some reason the people who think it's ok for them to dress that way brought it up.

NAVARRO wrote:calling everything you dont like stupid

And people accuse ME of exaggeration and immaturity.



It looks stupid, it looks impractical, it doesn't fit in, it looks more like a model is wearing some of a soldier's outfit and then trying to suss it up and look sexy. It also throws off her camouflage as well. That bare midriff might as well be a target painted on her that says "I am vulnerable here, please shoot me!" Certainly she does not look anything like someone who belongs on the battlefield. It's lazy and stupid and inappropriate and there's nothing really there that I have any reason to like as far as the actual soldiers go (I do like her weapons, however, though the grip looks a bit short on her rifle).

Melissia wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:The oversized firearms are just a genre thing. One must look past those.

I have no problem with oversized firearms.

Rather, my complaint was that the oversized firearms made their pose look even more stupid and lazy.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Is it worth noting that women can and do stand like that when posing? Including the apparently much reviled "bathing suit models"? I recall knowing at least one model who was renowned for her ability to twist so that both her boobs and her ass were 'in shot' at the same time. She managed to do that without complaining of any pain.

There are guys whose ideas of pleasure involve shoving things down their urethras, but that's hardly a representation of the average soldier/commando in a combat situation who is trying not to get shot.

Its a very rare day when one sees ANY miniature sculpted to represent what most combat soldiers have done since they took away the red jackets and muskets. The male poses for Infinity are just as "unrealistic" for a combat situation. Even miniatures for Historical wargames tend to look like figure 11's. So the fact that a stance doesn't accurately represent a combatant in a fire-fight is neither here nor there, and probably a bit irrelevant to the whole argument.

Making a bit of a leap there between curious sexual practice and a degree of flexibility aren't you? For reference, the model of whom I speak WAS a squaddie before she did some light modelling, then moved into support work. She explained how many female soldiers have their fatigues tailored to better fit because "Otherwise it looks like you took a crap in your combats." (Direct quote.) As I said, not every lady soldier looks like the Foden they drove.

And I didn't claim they were, that was all you.

Incidentally: On high heels... they are obviously somewhat untenable when tabbing across Somme 19, future battlefield, but IMO they suit the 'Corporate Hard-line Security' image very well indeed.

Melissia wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:calling everything you dont like stupid

And people accuse ME of exaggeration and immaturity.



It looks stupid, it looks impractical, it doesn't fit in, it looks more like a model is wearing some of a soldier's outfit and then trying to suss it up and look sexy. It also throws off her camouflage as well. That bare midriff might as well be a target painted on her that says "I am vulnerable here, please shoot me!" Certainly she does not look anything like someone who belongs on the battlefield. It's lazy and stupid and inappropriate and there's nothing really there that I have any reason to like as far as the actual soldiers go (I do like her weapons, however, though the grip looks a bit short on her rifle).

You don't like anime features and called those anime manifestations "stupid" a few posts back, then japanese corporates and US ones "stupid" and finally my comment "stupid"... thats not my exaggeration thats your behavior!

edit: and a couple more "stupids" in your last post... in 3 or 4 posts calling everything stupid... jezzz. Glad you don't care

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Incidentally: On high heels... they are obviously somewhat untenable when tabbing across Somme 19, future battlefield, but IMO they suit the 'Corporate Hard-line Security' image very well indeed.

No they don't.

If security officers wore high heels in most security jobs they'd be fired for being out of uniform because they're nothing more than a hindrance in all situations and a liability in any emergency.

So is this fruitcake? (the equivalent for female gamers) We've got ripped abs and armor pecs complete with nipples a plenty while the catachans do their best village people/male stripper impressions while flexing their beefy arms.





While I agree that female models generally fill the brunt of this subgenre, it does cross the chromosomal line.

wowsmash wrote:Well I guess it's official. I'm an old guy. First thing that came to my mind was the actual cheese cake. Never heard the girl reference before.

It's quite an old term, I see it mostly used in relation to pictures from the 1940/50s.

The very first post in this thread is bizarre. Some people have some hanging in this thread, for whatever reason. These are fantasy models, ultimately if you don't like them don't buy them.

warboss wrote:So is this fruitcake? (the equivalent for female gamers) We've got ripped abs and armor pecs complete with nipples a plenty while the catachans do their best village people/male stripper impressions while flexing their beefy arms.

Yeah, I don't like those either. I dislike Catachans in general as far as looks go, and I've mocked the brass nipples more times as I can bother remembering (though not as much as I have mocked the utterly stupid looking corsets worn over power armor of the Sisters).

warboss wrote:So is this fruitcake? (the equivalent for female gamers) We've got ripped abs and armor pecs complete with nipples a plenty while the catachans do their best village people/male stripper impressions while flexing their beefy arms.

While I agree that female models generally fill the brunt of this subgenre, it does cross the chromosomal line.

I (Can't speak for everyone else) think no one likes the Bat Nipples armor.

As for the Catachans, they, and any female model they made along the same lines as the males (I.E. no miniskirts or heels) would be fine because they are jungle fighters. Jungling follows a different set of rules.

warboss wrote:So is this fruitcake?

FYI: "Fruitcake" is slang for "gay".

Melissia wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Incidentally: On high heels... they are obviously somewhat untenable when tabbing across Somme 19, future battlefield, but IMO they suit the 'Corporate Hard-line Security' image very well indeed.

No they don't.

If security officers wore high heels in most security jobs they'd be fired for being out of uniform because they're nothing more than a hindrance in all situations and a liability in any emergency.

You'll be thinking of the ultra-realistic 'Used to be SAS, wears a woolly pully and stares at cameras all day." security. Or maybe the "Wish I was a proper policeman Shopping Centre under-age skirt-chaser." security.

I'm thinking of the ones that show up in Peter F Hamilton books who look like suits but are skin-deep in combat implants and ultra-high-tech jiggery-pokery. You know, from the future and the imagination, where such unrealistic things as 'Spaceships' and 'star-drives' exist.

I suspect I know which concept fits better with the 'Infinity' vision of things.

CT GAMER wrote:

warboss wrote:So is this fruitcake?

FYI: "Fruitcake" is slang for "gay".

And I imagined it to be something like "someone crazy"

Imagination and fantasy are lovely things.

But no one who expects to need to fight or run, or whose job requires same, would wear high heels.

NAVARRO wrote:1: You don't like anime features
2: called those anime manifestations "stupid" a few posts back
3: then japanese corporates and US ones "stupid"
4: and finally my comment "stupid"

1: I never said that. You are exaggerating.

2: I said they "frequently look stupid". Not always. You are exaggerating.

3: I called them corrupt too, and if you want, I can provide sources on this.

4: You accused me of being a Japanophobe because... well, nothing really. There's no exaggeration from me, here, your statement really was nonsensical and inane.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I'm thinking of the ones that show up in Peter F Hamilton books

I dont' read those books, haven't heard of the author.

But given your description, I'm not ENTIRELY sure I want to.

NAVARRO wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

warboss wrote:So is this fruitcake?

FYI: "Fruitcake" is slang for "gay".

And I imagined it to be something like "someone crazy"

The phrase "Nuttier than a fruitcake" can denote someone who is crazy. Saying "that guy is a fruitcake" or "that guy is a fruit" usually infers something else.

So in the context of sexualized images calling a male subject "fruitcake" would refer to the later not the former would it not?

ArbeitsSchu wrote: And for the record, I have more than adequate contact with the fairer sex.

......photos, or it never happened.......

The Sanguinary Guard are a reference to ornate Roman dress armour like this, which is intended to portral an ideal, statue-like physique:

CT GAMER wrote:So in the context of sexualized images calling a male subject "fruitcake" would refer to the later not the former would it not?

Usually they use the term beefcake.

Also for "uncomfortable poses" that chap labelled as Caledonian Mormaers (with the shield) has chosen a pose that is both ridiculous AND uncomfortable for any bloke to assume, especially whilst wearing any form of trouser. He looks far more ridiculous than the girl in the back with the non-regulation vest.

Yeah, that looks uncomfortable and kinda silly for him. His legs in that position likely don't have much traction and his position is very off balance.

But he's not exactly wearing tight pants, so it isn't the problem "any bloke wearing trousers" would have... at least if my understanding of the term "trousers" is correct.

Delephont wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote: And for the record, I have more than adequate contact with the fairer sex.

......photos, or it never happened.......

The baby in the avatar is a real one. I made this mini. With a Lady. I don't think the ToS allows me to post any of the actual process of..er. .sculpting...or....casting.

I thought it was one you randomly grabbed off the internet.

The baby, not the picture.

Melissia wrote:Yeah, that looks uncomfortable and kinda silly for him. His legs in that position likely don't have much traction and his position is very off balance.

But he's not exactly wearing tight pants, so it isn't the problem "any bloke wearing trousers" would have... at least if my understanding of the term "trousers" is correct.

If he slips, then he's going to do himself a damage as well, in a most uncomfortable place.

I could probably push him and knock him down without power armor augmentation with him standing in that pose. And it's not like he can claim he's walking...

Yeah, I'm not really seeing what the problem with these models is.
Of course, if you really want it, there can always be a problem.

They are just female, manga inspired models. If anyone is offended by them, you need to stop playing with that person as soon as possible!

*edit* ive never heard the cheesecake term before, i was wondering why anyone would mind you bringing delicious cheesecake to a game.

Melissia wrote:I thought it was one you randomly grabbed off the internet.

The baby, not the picture.

From Ebaby?

No, he's a genuine little 'Schu'. I chose that pic because he busted such an awesome "knowing" face that when I post on the internets, it looks like people are arguing with a baby in a dressing gown. In the fullness of time (or when I get photoshop back up and running) I shall be adding some suitable Sci-Fant elements...perhaps a monocle and a big Genestealer Cult leader collar or some such. Or at least a medal ribbon and epaulettes.

Skippy wrote:They are just female, manga inspired models. If anyone is offended by them, you need to stop playing with that person as soon as possible!

... I don't see anyone offended by them, merely saying that they're poor quality for various reasons.

Claiming "omg they're offended!" is not really a very subtle way to insult th other side of an argument.

Mannahnin wrote:The Sanguinary Guard are a reference to ornate Roman dress armour like this, which is intended to portral an ideal, statue-like physique:

But then that is the irony: some of the same people that giggle and high five over cheesecake are the same people scoffing at Romanesque armor on male models complete with associated "homo" jokes (spoken and implied).

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Incidentally: On high heels... they are obviously somewhat untenable when tabbing across Somme 19, future battlefield, but IMO they suit the 'Corporate Hard-line Security' image very well indeed.

No they don't.

If security officers wore high heels in most security jobs they'd be fired for being out of uniform because they're nothing more than a hindrance in all situations and a liability in any emergency.

You'll be thinking of the ultra-realistic 'Used to be SAS, wears a woolly pully and stares at cameras all day." security. Or maybe the "Wish I was a proper policeman Shopping Centre under-age skirt-chaser." security.

I'm thinking of the ones that show up in Peter F Hamilton books who look like suits but are skin-deep in combat implants and ultra-high-tech jiggery-pokery. You know, from the future and the imagination, where such unrealistic things as 'Spaceships' and 'star-drives' exist.

I suspect I know which concept fits better with the 'Infinity' vision of things.

Wait a second....

If spaceships don't exist, how did we get to the moon?

Oh don't worry, I think Roman armor is pretty ugly too.

I know I couldn't stand the Skyrim rendition of Imperial Armor which looked way too damned Roman for my tastes, for example...

Slarg232 wrote:If spaceships don't exist, how did we get to the moon?

Through Jesus.

It was one of His miracles. Don't you read your bible? Why, He gave us the flag we would plant there. Sew it Himself and everything!

Slarg232 wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Incidentally: On high heels... they are obviously somewhat untenable when tabbing across Somme 19, future battlefield, but IMO they suit the 'Corporate Hard-line Security' image very well indeed.

No they don't.

If security officers wore high heels in most security jobs they'd be fired for being out of uniform because they're nothing more than a hindrance in all situations and a liability in any emergency.

You'll be thinking of the ultra-realistic 'Used to be SAS, wears a woolly pully and stares at cameras all day." security. Or maybe the "Wish I was a proper policeman Shopping Centre under-age skirt-chaser." security.

I'm thinking of the ones that show up in Peter F Hamilton books who look like suits but are skin-deep in combat implants and ultra-high-tech jiggery-pokery. You know, from the future and the imagination, where such unrealistic things as 'Spaceships' and 'star-drives' exist.

I suspect I know which concept fits better with the 'Infinity' vision of things.

Wait a second....

If spaceships don't exist, how did we get to the moon?

It's a conspiracy, now grab your tinfoil hat before the Texan oil tycoons find you.

Melissia wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:1: You don't like anime features
2: called those anime manifestations "stupid" a few posts back
3: then japanese corporates and US ones "stupid"
4: and finally my comment "stupid"

1: I never said that. You are exaggerating.

2: I said they "frequently look stupid". Not always. You are exaggerating.

3: I called them corrupt, and if you want, I can provide sources on this. You are exaggerating.

4: You accused me of being a Japanophobe because... well, nothing really. There's no exaggeration from me, here, your statement really was nonsensical and inane.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I'm thinking of the ones that show up in Peter F Hamilton books

I dont' read those books, haven't heard of the author.

But given your description, I'm not ENTIRELY sure I want to.

Sigh... 1 and 2
your quote

Yeah, anime is quite frequently completely and utterly mind-blowingly stupid like that

You are referring to the anime features you don't like as err stupid...

3 and 4
Japonophobe? your the one mentioning that now, I called your posts nation phobic because you picked US and Japan as examples of corporate stupidity and anyone with brain cells understands that EVERY country has corruption, thats being bigot towards those 2 nations... and thats something thats becoming a trend on dakka.

But since you "dont care" why are you replying and pushing this further?

But I'm probably as you say a "lonely, horny and lazy sculptor" and have better things to do than chat, I need to sculpt some stuff.

NAVARRO wrote:But since you "dont care" why are you replying and pushing this further?

I thought the reason was obvious.

CT GAMER wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

warboss wrote:So is this fruitcake?

FYI: "Fruitcake" is slang for "gay".

And I imagined it to be something like "someone crazy"

The phrase "Nuttier than a fruitcake" can denote someone who is crazy. Saying "that guy is a fruitcake" or "that guy is a fruit" usually infers something else.

So in the context of sexualized images calling a male subject "fruitcake" would refer to the later not the former would it not?

Yes I take your word for it man , its not my first language so this helps me avoiding future embarrassment

Slarg232 wrote:
Wait a second....

If spaceships don't exist, how did we get to the moon?

Pfft, it was all done in a warehouse in texas with cardboard props and actors.

Slarg232 wrote: Wait a second....

If spaceships don't exist, how did we get to the moon?

Rocketships. Duh.

Seriously guys, really. It's the new year, a day in to be fair, and you're spending your time arguing about miniature posing.

Isn't it time to step back and look at the picture. It's a fantasy game, set in the future, a place we're not at yet. That the miniatures are not realistic, well yeah, that's why it's called fantasy...if you want ultra-realism, either join the army or play historicals. The guys at CB must be laughing hard reading this rubbish (if they even give a damn).

If you really find the miniatures silly, offensive, or any other flavour of negative, just don't buy them, noone is forcing you to purchase or like the various models. If you feel that you're hard done by because you don't have alternatives, suck it up and walk it off, or take your custom elsewhere, as clearly the product line can't live up to your standards.

Of course, if you are intent to argue pointlessly about something that really isn't going to change (cause sex sells, and the guys at CB need to eat!) then by all means, ignore this "blip" in your merry making.

Delephont wrote:Seriously guys, really. It's the new year, a day in to be fair, and you're spending your time arguing about miniature posing.

Isn't it time to step back and look at the picture. It's a fantasy game, set in the future, a place we're not at yet. That the miniatures are not realistic, well yeah, that's why it's called fantasy...if you want ultra-realism, either join the army or play historicals. The guys at CB must be laughing hard reading this rubbish (if they even give a damn).

If you really find the miniatures silly, offensive, or any other flavour of negative, just don't buy them, noone is forcing you to purchase or like the various models. If you feel that you're hard done by because you don't have alternatives, suck it up and walk it off, or take your custom elsewhere, as clearly the product line can't live up to your standards.

Of course, if you are intent to argue pointlessly about something that really isn't going to change (cause sex sells, and the guys at CB need to eat!) then by all means, ignore this "blip" in your merry making.

You know I see this more like "Typical anime humor" rather than "sex", thats why I say corvus belli explores the anime concept very well.

Delephont wrote:Seriously guys, really. It's the new year, a day in to be fair, and you're spending your time arguing...

Of course, if you are intent to argue pointlessly about something...

This pretty much sums up and applies to most of Dakka's content on a a daily basis. Why would today be any different?

Melissia wrote:

Skippy wrote:They are just female, manga inspired models. If anyone is offended by them, you need to stop playing with that person as soon as possible!

... I don't see anyone offended by them, merely saying that they're poor quality for various reasons.

Claiming "omg they're offended!" is not really a very subtle way to insult th other side of an argument.

Oh wow. At this point a classical quote is appropriate.
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion man."

You can call the Infinity miniatures a lot. You can dislike them for many reasons. You can dislike them for the reasons you listed.
But calling them poor quality? I don't even have words for that.

NAVARRO wrote:You know I see this more like "Typical anime humor" rather than "sex", thats why I say corvus belli explores the anime concept very well.

I used the line "sex sells" because of the general point being made, that CB have gone down the path of making the females ultra sexy as opposed to combat effective. It's not a statement of my personal opinion.

To be honest, if I don't like a mini in their range, I don't buy it, simple as that. I may make a point on a forum that I don't like it and why, if it comes up in conversation.....others may agree or disagree, but I won't keep scratching the itch as some people are won't to do.

Some of the guys on here arn't going to be verbally swayed to change their opinions, so why bother trying either way to convince others that your view is somehow the RIGHT view.

Delephont wrote:Seriously guys, really. It's the new year, a day in to be fair, and you're spending your time arguing about miniature posing.

Of course, if you are intent to argue pointlessly about something that really isn't going to change (cause sex sells, and the guys at CB need to eat!) then by all means, ignore this "blip" in your merry making.

Yeah, some of us work and don't get much time for Merry Making.

Also, it would be a lot less pointless if the person who made the topic didn't sabotage the discussion in the first place. No one was complaining about those particular models....

If you go to http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/facciones/
and look at their whole range, the models in this thread don't look so out of place.

They aren't nearly as bad as all of the CMON, Freebooter, etc.. minis with exposed everything. Hell, CMON has a mini who is completely naked with fully modeled anatomy. I can't even think about trying to paint a 28mm heroic-scale vagina without feeling perverse and embarrassed . Does this mean I'm offended by the model? No, it just means I won't be buying it.

This is a hobby that spans multiple generations, nationalities, religions, sexes (So I hear, never met a female war-gamer myself) and personalities of all types in a genre that is completely imagination driven. There are minis out there that we are all gonna hate. If you don't like something don't buy it, and furthermore, if it offends you; why are you devoting time and energy into looking at and talking about it online?

The real reason all of these "offensive" minis exist is because there is a market for them. When people stop spending hard-earned money on "fleshy" female models, the modelers will stop making them. Until then, if they offend you, ignore them. If you don't want to play against them, don't.

Delephont wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:You know I see this more like "Typical anime humor" rather than "sex", thats why I say corvus belli explores the anime concept very well.

I used the line "sex sells" because of the general point being made, that CB have gone down the path of making the females ultra sexy as opposed to combat effective. It's not a statement of my personal opinion.

To be honest, if I don't like a mini in their range, I don't buy it, simple as that. I may make a point on a forum that I don't like it and why, if it comes up in conversation.....others may agree or disagree, but I won't keep scratching the itch as some people are won't to do.

Some of the guys on here arn't going to be verbally swayed to change their opinions, so why bother trying either way to convince others that your view is somehow the RIGHT view.

I don't know about you but I would like that someone persuades me STOP collecting infinity...

Cheesecake-Term use to describe pictures of provocatively clad, sexually attractive women.

Cheesecake? Who the hell comes up with these über lame terms?

Some guys in the early 20th century.

Slarg232 wrote:Also, it would be a lot less pointless if the person who made the topic didn't sabotage the discussion in the first place. No one was complaining about those particular models....

Ok, this is for me... and got me completely WTF?!

I created this thread, with images of the Infinity december releases because those are the miniatures that started this discussion in this forum, and the Infinity official forums, and warseer, and 4chan, and many other forums.

Apart from that... at least I create a thread about this particular subject, at least I spend a few minutes uploading visible images so everybody can discuss, I even did quoted a message from YOU, Slarg232, and managed to make your mentioned images visible, cause you posted all broken links. Are you living in the same reality as we all do?

And you acuse me of Sabotage?! sabotage?! Really?! Have we all gone crazy or something?


I consider myself an active user, ok, I bring contents to the forum so we can all write about stuff.
Take a look at the Infinity thread and look who brings 90 fething percent of the images, hey, it's me! Hello?

Jesus! boy, sometimes I don´t know why the feth I'm wasting my time with trolls, rude users and ungrateful people.

And this is a message to you all: Stop believing that what you think is what "everyone" is thinking. Stop believing that your opinion is everybody else's opinion, for god's sake. That's some EGO problem.

BobbaFett wrote:
Jesus! boy, sometimes I don´t know why the feth I'm wasting my time with trolls, rude users and ungrateful people.

Because one tree does not make a forest?

Melissia wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:So in the context of sexualized images calling a male subject "fruitcake" would refer to the later not the former would it not?

Usually they use the term beefcake.

I was trying to maintain the dessert motif when naming the female (or gay male as CT gamer pointed out) version of "cheesecake".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pyriel- wrote:

Cheesecake-Term use to describe pictures of provocatively clad, sexually attractive women.

Cheesecake? Who the hell comes up with these über lame terms?

No idea but its making me hungry (and I indeed have both fruitcake and cheesecake left over in the freezer/fridge from the holidays!).

He's accusing you of "sabotage" because the discussion in question had nothing to do with the Posthumans or Al Hawwa. It started off as discussing just how the Posthumans were "yet another bad design decision"(at least that's how I stated it, since people were doing a comparison of 40k and Infinity) which started with the horrendous Daktari model and continued onwards.

The Posthumans are "bad design decisions" simply because out of all 3 models, none are actively doing anything which makes sense. If those models are supposed to be fielded together it looks like you have a hopscotching schoolgirl, a woman wearing an octopus for a hairpiece on her helmet, and a sniper robot.
Whoever greenlit those three models made a poor decision. I call it that, simply put, because the ALEPH range as it stands is very much lacking in variety. Almost every female model(The Asuras, Deva, and Dasyu Hacker are pretty much the exception--and the last one is questionable, as she is still kind of striking a pose) is striking a pose, while the males are actively posed in the manner befitting the background of the Special Services Section.

When you put the two together, the females look like they're in a promotional piece put forth by the ALEPH Special Services Section and O-12 to bring in new recruits.

BobbaFett wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Also, it would be a lot less pointless if the person who made the topic didn't sabotage the discussion in the first place. No one was complaining about those particular models....

Ok, this is for me... and got me completely WTF?!

I created this thread, with images of the Infinity december releases because those are the miniatures that started this discussion in this forum, and the Infinity official forums, and warseer, and 4chan, and many other forums.

Apart from that... at least I create a thread about this particular subject, at least I spend a few minutes uploading visible images so everybody can discuss, I even did quoted a message from YOU, Slarg232, and managed to make your mentioned images visible, cause you posted all broken links. Are you living in the same reality as we all do?

And you acuse me of Sabotage?! sabotage?! Really?! Have we all gone crazy or something?


I consider myself an active user, ok, I bring contents to the forum so we can all write about stuff.
Take a look at the Infinity thread and look who brings 90 fething percent of the images, hey, it's me! Hello?

Jesus! boy, sometimes I don´t know why the feth I'm wasting my time with trolls, rude users and ungrateful people.

And this is a message to you all: Stop believing that what you think is what "everyone" is thinking. Stop believing that your opinion is everybody else's opinion, for god's sake. That's some EGO problem.

Relax. Just say, "Yo, this is my thread. Just because I'm boba-fething-fett
doesn't mean that I'm out for bounties." Unless you ARE out for bounties.
Then I'd be compelled to toss you to a sarlacc, however, it's a good topic,
so I expect good things.

I think cheesecake has been a part of Infinity since the beginning.

Kanluwen wrote:He's accusing you of "sabotage" because the discussion in question had nothing to do with the Posthumans or Al Hawwa. It started off as discussing just how the Posthumans were "yet another bad design decision"(at least that's how I stated it, since people were doing a comparison of 40k and Infinity) which started with the horrendous Daktari model and continued onwards.

The Posthumans are "bad design decisions" simply because out of all 3 models, none are actively doing anything which makes sense. If those models are supposed to be fielded together it looks like you have a hopscotching schoolgirl, a woman wearing an octopus for a hairpiece on her helmet, and a sniper robot.
Whoever greenlit those three models made a poor decision. I call it that, simply put, because the ALEPH range as it stands is very much lacking in variety. Almost every female model(The Asuras, Deva, and Dasyu Hacker are pretty much the exception--and the last one is questionable, as she is still kind of striking a pose) is striking a pose, while the males are actively posed in the manner befitting the background of the Special Services Section.

When you put the two together, the females look like they're in a promotional piece put forth by the ALEPH Special Services Section and O-12 to bring in new recruits.

What I`m reading is: -"Infinity has a poor quality range because of the Daktaris and... many others". But no one upload images to the forum to show their arguments.
Maybe someone reads this thread and thinks that the whole Infinity range is like the Daktaris.

I'm the only one here who spend a few minutes putting images, and now you, instead of uploading images that could prove your point right, are acusing me of posting "inapropiate images".

This is fething hilarious!


I`m not with you here,not agree at all.
You are throwing gak to the whole infinity range, without showing a fething picture of what you are talking about. If you want to say something about a miniature, upload the picture so we can all see what you are taliking about. Lazy people.

EDIT: By the way. The "horrendous Daktaris" is a top 10 best selling miniature of the range. Who do you think CB will pay attention to, sales or forums?

Kanluwen wrote:
Whoever greenlit those three models made a poor decision. .

I agree! Totally agree! Thats why its one of the most appealling factions from infinity atm... and I just want to resist splashing money on yet another faction! I hate them and their poor decisions.

Cheesecake may have been a part of Infinity since the beginning, but it wasn't a defining feature then(and aside from the factions that Slarg mentioned) and it isn't a defining feature now.

PanOceania, Haqqislam, the Combined Army, and Yu-Jing are pretty much free of these kinds of models. It just seems like they went overboard with the other factions to compensate.

I see nothing wrong with cheesecake in gaming.

BobbaFett wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:He's accusing you of "sabotage" because the discussion in question had nothing to do with the Posthumans or Al Hawwa. It started off as discussing just how the Posthumans were "yet another bad design decision"(at least that's how I stated it, since people were doing a comparison of 40k and Infinity) which started with the horrendous Daktari model and continued onwards.

The Posthumans are "bad design decisions" simply because out of all 3 models, none are actively doing anything which makes sense. If those models are supposed to be fielded together it looks like you have a hopscotching schoolgirl, a woman wearing an octopus for a hairpiece on her helmet, and a sniper robot.
Whoever greenlit those three models made a poor decision. I call it that, simply put, because the ALEPH range as it stands is very much lacking in variety. Almost every female model(The Asuras, Deva, and Dasyu Hacker are pretty much the exception--and the last one is questionable, as she is still kind of striking a pose) is striking a pose, while the males are actively posed in the manner befitting the background of the Special Services Section.

When you put the two together, the females look like they're in a promotional piece put forth by the ALEPH Special Services Section and O-12 to bring in new recruits.

What I`m reading is: -"Infinity has a poor quality range because of the Daktaris and... many others". But no one upload images to the forum to show their arguments.
Maybe someone reads this thread and thinks that the whole Infinity range is like the Daktaris.

Then I suggest you start taking English classes, BobbaFett.
No one whatsoever is saying anything like that.
Saying a model is bad does not mean the range is bad. And saying it does not fit does not mean that the quality is poor.

But then again, you certainly must be aware of that.

I'm the only one here who spend a few minutes putting images, and now you, instead of uploading images that could prove your point right, are acusing me of posting "inapropiate images".

This is fething hilarious!

Uh, what?

I`m not with you here,not agree at all.
You are throwing gak to the whole infinity range, without showing a fething picture of what you are talking about. If you want to say something about a miniature, upload the picture so we can all see what you are taliking about. Lazy people.

Because I totally did not provide a link in the thread where I made my original comments.
Infinity's site doesn't allow image hotlinking, so it's kind of a pain in the butt when you're trying to comment on multiple things.

EDIT: By the way. The "horrendous Daktaris" is a top 10 best selling miniature of the range. Who do you think CB will pay attention to, sales or forums?

So what? Mantic has some "best selling" miniatures, but do you see many people playing Kings of War?

Everyone kindly keep it friendly and calm.

Boba, there's no need to freak out. If someone is out of line, mistakes your intention, or is otherwise rude, the best approach is to respond in a polite way or not respond at all. If you find their post rude, hit the little yellow triangle on the post and type in what you find objectionable about it. A moderator will review and deal with as necessary.

Korraz wrote:Some guys in the early 20th century.

See also:
http://www.word-detective.com/032404.html#cheesecake

Kanluwen wrote:Cheesecake may have been a part of Infinity since the beginning, but it wasn't a defining feature then(and aside from the factions that Slarg mentioned) and it isn't a defining feature now.

PanOceania, Haqqislam, the Combined Army, and Yu-Jing are pretty much free of these kinds of models. It just seems like they went overboard with the other factions to compensate.

I can see some sexy gals in yujing in contained action poses and I don't have the time to check other factions so what are you referring to?

I looked yet again to aleph and man the poses of the gals are in action, some running some giving orders others looking imposing etc etc etc....

Well, considering the Fluff of Infinity and the Nomads especially, I think it's completely within possibility that some of the Nomad and Aleph girls are indeed striking poses. Publicity and that stuff.

Kanluwen wrote:

BobbaFett wrote:
EDIT: By the way. The "horrendous Daktaris" is a top 10 best selling miniature of the range. Who do you think CB will pay attention to, sales or forums?

So what? Mantic has some "best selling" miniatures, but do you see many people playing Kings of War?

No I don't, but I do see mantic expanding and growing... thats the point

I am not sure why anyone thinks that a robot designed with high heels on would have any more difficulty walking or running than a robot designed any other way...

Kanluwen wrote:Infinity's site doesn't allow image hotlinking, so it's kind of a pain in the butt when you're trying to comment on multiple things.

But I do, I spend a few minutes saving the images from the infinity website, uploading them to tinypic, writing the captcha and finally posting them here... so we can see the images and discuss.

Doing that allows us to have the images on the forum.
Making this a better thread.
Making this a better forum.

... a better world... ... full of happy faces...

But it seems like I'm making a sabotage to what some people is writing about, and instead of showing what the **** they are talking about, they just say I'm the bad-guy here.

Post your own images, people. I still don´t know what you are writing about.


EDIT: By the way, I also do not like high heels in the female models.

BobbaFett wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Also, it would be a lot less pointless if the person who made the topic didn't sabotage the discussion in the first place. No one was complaining about those particular models....

*snip*

Let me explain; I said sabatoge because of the way you had the OP; We were never complaining about the Cheesecake Aleph Models, just that their poses were silly. We think that the other models (Bear Bum, See-through-shirt, and the like) are Cheesecake, yes, especially when you look at armies like Haqqilslam, PanO, and YuJing, which are lacking in such areas. That's the point; the models are stupidly "Sexy" when you compare them to A) Other models in said range, and B) other females in the other armies.

The fact that you got our two arguements (The silly poses of the Aleph, and the Cheesecake nature of the females) into one (The Cheesecake nature of the Aleph Females) kind of sabotages the discussion from the get go, not that it was intentional.

Sorry I didn't explain myself thoroughly.

This is the exact same issue that has been argued for years in the comic book and video game fanbases and the critics thereof. It happens all the time in fantasy artwork, there's a reason for all the chainmail bikini jokes. It happens in every industry that is dominated by nerdy geeky males: the guys are all 6 foot, body of a greek god, tough-as-nails billy-badasses and the girls look like playboy centerfolds shooting machine guns in Daisy Dukes and high heals. It's the same argument in World of Warcraft where the male heroes have full body plate armor, but the same armor pieces on female characters suddenly have more in common with a swimsuit than an armored suit.

It's a tired argument, it's an old argument, and it's a pointless argument. For every person offended by it, there's a hundred people that love it and will buy it up all the faster. Love it or hate it, it isn't changing because it sells too much, so deal with it.

Personally, I don't mind it. I'd rather have them in more "realistic" poses and outfits, but whatever. Only ones I don't like are the exceptionally wierd action poses (male or female) and the full body heavy armor but still somehow skin tight ones like the female ORC troopers. That's not a sex thing, they just look odd. Or the ones where they tried for sexy, but failed horribly like the "catgirl" Nomad Daktaris.

BobbaFett wrote:By the way. The "horrendous Daktaris" is a top 10 best selling miniature of the range. Who do you think CB will pay attention to, sales or forums?

You do realize that the Infinity models suffer from the particular design flaw of being "not Space Marines."

In many peoples' eyes, this makes them terrible miniatures. Dakka has a fair share of these types.

If I am gonna be looking at the backside of minis for 2-3 hours per game, it might as well be a woman's.

biccat wrote:

BobbaFett wrote:By the way. The "horrendous Daktaris" is a top 10 best selling miniature of the range. Who do you think CB will pay attention to, sales or forums?

You do realize that the Infinity models suffer from the particular design flaw of being "not Space Marines."

In many peoples' eyes, this makes them terrible miniatures. Dakka has a fair share of these types.

So it is impossible to not like a non-GW miniature/game without being a fanboy?

That is a weak defense...

thehod wrote:

If I am gonna be looking at the backside of minis for 2-3 hours per game, it might as well be a woman's.

Lol. I do this with my MMORPG characters.

However, the game and genre dictate to what extent this is feasible.

World War 2 with cheesecake anyone? (Nose art aside)

Slarg232 wrote:

BobbaFett wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Also, it would be a lot less pointless if the person who made the topic didn't sabotage the discussion in the first place. No one was complaining about those particular models....

*snip*

Let me explain; I said sabatoge because of the way you had the OP; We were never complaining about the Cheesecake Aleph Models, just that their poses were silly. We think that the other models (Bear Bum, See-through-shirt, and the like) are Cheesecake, yes, especially when you look at armies like Haqqilslam, PanO, and YuJing, which are lacking in such areas. That's the point; the models are stupidly "Sexy" when you compare them to A) Other models in said range, and B) other females in the other armies.

The fact that you got our two arguements (The silly poses of the Aleph, and the Cheesecake nature of the females) into one (The Cheesecake nature of the Aleph Females) kind of sabotages the discussion from the get go, not that it was intentional.

Sorry I didn't explain myself thoroughly.

Again? I don't get were are you coming from when you say yujing is lacking of sexy ladies?! All factions have some degree of sexy ladies or baboon girls. Sexy gals is a anime thing and infinity is based on anime so were do sexy women with big guns clash with infinity? Its like some of you are struggling to prove only one or two factions have sexyness and that it clashes with the infinity core... thats just to far fetched mate.

CT GAMER wrote:

biccat wrote:

BobbaFett wrote:By the way. The "horrendous Daktaris" is a top 10 best selling miniature of the range. Who do you think CB will pay attention to, sales or forums?

You do realize that the Infinity models suffer from the particular design flaw of being "not Space Marines."

In many peoples' eyes, this makes them terrible miniatures. Dakka has a fair share of these types.

So it is impossible to not like a non-GW miniature/game without being a fanboy?

That is a weak defense...

That was obviously an attempt to get a rise out of us......

malfred wrote:
World War 2 with cheesecake anyone?

Dont get me started, I will put my horny lonely sculptor hat and this thread will be doomed

NAVARRO wrote:

malfred wrote:
World War 2 with cheesecake anyone?

Dont get me started, I will put my horny lonely sculptor hat and this thread will be doomed

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying that a faithful re-enactment
will not include such models. Also no beefcake.

Mannahnin wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:It's a show of utter laziness by the sculptor that they essentially use bathing suit models as their basis for poses. It's like the link I posted above, how many lazy comic book artists did the same thing and resulted in poses which looked dumb and out of context.

Is it worth noting that women can and do stand like that when posing? Including the apparently much reviled "bathing suit models"? I recall knowing at least one model who was renowned for her ability to twist so that both her boobs and her ass were 'in shot' at the same time. She managed to do that without complaining of any pain.

Naturally. If you want a miniature which portrays a woman posing for a picture, to best display her physical assets, then such a pose is perfectly reasonable. If, OTOH, you want a miniature posed like they're in the middle of a battle, such a pose breaks verisimilitude very badly.

I personally like the cyberpunk/oldschool anime look to some of the models. They look alright and if I decide to to Tomorrow's War in 28mm I might pick some up. If they are supposed to be super secret agents or super hackers ( I don't know, i've never looked at Infinity's backstory) then mission accomplished. They look like they could be hanging out with Motoko Kusinagi in Newport city or riding in the back of a Tachikoma. Which is a plus in my deptartment. YMMV.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Without actually looking at the Infinity background or product (beyond the miniatures) I gather that they are trying for a bit of a "Heavy Metal" look to them, much like the comics. If that is the case, then the sculptors have got that look down. (Metal Hurlant, not the GW painting page.)

Depends on what story in Heavy Metal/Metal Hurlant you're talking about. The ones with pinups and pulchritude are just as much fantasies as some of these minis. But Heavy Metal had a lot of stories with more realistic art and costumes too.

malfred wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:

malfred wrote:
World War 2 with cheesecake anyone?

Dont get me started, I will put my horny lonely sculptor hat and this thread will be doomed

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying that a faithful re-enactment
will not include such models. Also no beefcake.

She looks faithful to me



Joking aside, everyone has its limits, mine is called wet nurse...

All this thread made me want to do is buy an Al-Hawwa model to paint, because it looks totally boss.

Fabricator-General Mike, please fix your quote tags. You've got stuff I didn't write appearing as quoted of me.

-Loki- wrote:All this thread made me want to do is buy an Al-Hawwa model to paint, because it looks totally boss.

I personally want a Hassassin Lasaqs (Male).

Dude looks like Gun Druid.

Cheese cake is really nice ....

I am not opposed to the cheesecake models in infinity, however I am not happy with the latest sculpts based on their lack of adequate poses. I feel some of the new aleph models appear to be more of a pinup photo shoot than a battle field. One of the three scultps from the new aleph is at least directing by pointing instead of is some silly pose. The overall aesthetics of the new models do fit the faction hey are in, I mean if you were a girl and had a choice of your looks: "hey you have a new body ready for your cube to be downloaded, you can choose from our line of sexy female cyborgs or from our line of people of walmart, if you are a dude, we have an Achilles body for you, or what we call the Homer Simpson..." Clearly the whole line is not scantily clad posing females, just as GW would not be represented proportionality if I post up old daemonettes or dark eldar models like Lilith. I guess even GW panders to a all sects of war gamers.

Korraz wrote:But calling them poor quality? I don't even have words for that.

An otherwise well crafted miniature of poor composition and posing isn't a very good miniature.

Bearing in mind that the quality of a pose may be a matter of subjective taste.

If the intent of the sculptor is to portray a realistic model in the middle of battle, many of these poses are poor quality.

If the intent of the sculptor is to evoke a scene out of an anime involving a scantly-clad woman on a battlefield, then the same pose may be of high quality.

Pretty much all of the complaints regarding 'cheesecake' are based purely on design choices, not poor composition and posing. The posing is quite deliberate, and it's mostly a matter of taste.

Nobody is saying Infinity minis are of poor quality.

*eyerolls at the whole thread*

Since when has cheesecake -not- been a part of SF/Fantasy art....

Kanluwen wrote:Cheesecake may have been a part of Infinity since the beginning, but it wasn't a defining feature then(and aside from the factions that Slarg mentioned) and it isn't a defining feature now.

Have you by chance ever opened the rule book and had a look inside?

JOHIRA wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Cheesecake may have been a part of Infinity since the beginning, but it wasn't a defining feature then(and aside from the factions that Slarg mentioned) and it isn't a defining feature now.

Have you by chance ever opened the rule book and had a look inside?

Yes, I have.


That's the inside front cover of mine, courtesy of the Corvus Belli guys. I've had it since January of 2009. It's currently off of my bookshelf, along with "The Human Sphere" while I use some of the art as references for painting my brother's Combined Army and my own ALEPH Naga/Dasyus.

And you know what? Unless we have very different copies, I've not seen too much in the way of cheesecake outside of the armies that Slarg mentioned. If you've got some page references though--I'd love them so I can have some more "proof".

Second Edition Revised:
13 (Pan O), 43 (Ariadna), 51 (Ariadna), 54 (Ariadna), 59 (Haqqislam (in the background)), 60 (Haqqislam), 61 (Haqqislam), 73 (Nomads), 77 (Nomads), 79 (Nomads), 81 (Nomads), 82 (Nomads), 85 (Nomads), 101 (Mercs), 107 (Unkown faction art), 124 (Aleph), 173 (Unsure, maybe Ariadna?), 176 (Ariadna), 185 (Nomads),

That's every page with an image depicting a female character with highlighted sexual features, including the very first image representing Aleph. And that's also every faction except for Yu Jing and Combined depicted with enhanced sexuality for female characters in the core rulebook (I'd argue that many males are also depicted with enhanced sexuality, only that in Infinity as in any forms of entertainment male sexuality is depicted in combat proficiency).

Face it, you're wrong. Cheesecake isn't out of place in Infinity- it's part of what Infinity is all about. The only faction with nothing along those lines I can think of is Yu Jing (site's down so I can't look at their catalog).

Now, you're welcome to dislike that aspect of Infinity. Just like anyone is welcome to dislike any aspect of any game. But when you say the sexy characters don't fit the game, you are flat out wrong. They are part of the game. The game and miniature designers aren't wrong, you just don't like something they did. Move on with your life.

Well I'll be damned...

Cheescake
Informal. Also called leg art. photographs featuring scantily clothed attractive women.

You learn something every day. I thought this was going to be a thread about common gaming snacks...

As did I when I opened it.

JOHIRA wrote:Second Edition Revised:
13 (Pan O), 43 (Ariadna), 51 (Ariadna), 54 (Ariadna), 59 (Haqqislam (in the background)), 60 (Haqqislam), 61 (Haqqislam), 73 (Nomads), 77 (Nomads), 79 (Nomads), 81 (Nomads), 82 (Nomads), 85 (Nomads), 101 (Mercs), 107 (Unkown faction art), 124 (Aleph), 173 (Unsure, maybe Ariadna?), 176 (Ariadna), 185 (Nomads),

That's every page with an image depicting a female character with highlighted sexual features, including the very first image representing Aleph. And that's also every faction except for Yu Jing and Combined depicted with enhanced sexuality for female characters in the core rulebook (I'd argue that many males are also depicted with enhanced sexuality, only that in Infinity as in any forms of entertainment male sexuality is depicted in combat proficiency).

You basically picked out, seemingly, almost every piece of art with a female.
Page 13 is a generic shot of Joan of Arc, with the sun and a church behind her.
Page 43 isn't really questionable.
I agree on 51+54.
59 I disagree with. The entire piece makes it look like the force is moving--and she's caught in a snapshot.
60 I agree with, but that's just the bizarre posing.
61 I agree with, but the Kum Motorized Troops just have something "off" about them.
The Nomads I agree with, but p77 is of a Yu-Jing testing facility. I'd also say that 82 is okay except for the nipples poking through the body armor.
What are you saying is "cheesecake" about the art on p101? They're all sitting inside a VTOL of some sort, and she's wearing armor like the rest of the squad.
Again, what's going on with p107?
P124 I agree with.
The Scout with E/Mauler on 173 I'm iffy on.
176 I agree with.
185 I agree with.

You do realize though, that several of these were things that Slarg mentioned yeah?

Face it, you're wrong. Cheesecake isn't out of place in Infinity- it's part of what Infinity is all about. The only faction with nothing along those lines I can think of is Yu Jing (site's down so I can't look at their catalog).

Now, you're welcome to dislike that aspect of Infinity. Just like anyone is welcome to dislike any aspect of any game. But when you say the sexy characters don't fit the game, you are flat out wrong. They are part of the game. The game and miniature designers aren't wrong, you just don't like something they did. Move on with your life.

Yu Jing, PanOceania, Haqqislam, and Combined Army have practically nothing in the way of this. There's like one or two models at tops for each of these factions which fall under that category.

I've said nothing about them "not fitting the game". I've said they don't fit the ranges they've been put into.

Mannahnin wrote:Fabricator-General Mike, please fix your quote tags. You've got stuff I didn't write appearing as quoted of me.

Sorry about that, should be fixed =o]

Kanluwen wrote:I've said they don't fit the ranges they've been put into.

Or, to put it slightly differently:

You don't think they fit the ranges they've been put into.

No HBMC, they really just don't fit.
Unless you really are going to argue that this "fits" into the same range as this.
There's quite a few more within the Ariadna group alone which I could do these "comparisons" to, but when the range can make a fireman with a shotgun look like a professional soldier yet make a professional soldier look like pin-up art, something has gone awry.

Yeah... I've never looked at a model in 'that way' (ignoring the fact that I didn't know what 'Cheesecaking' was until today).

I mean, I never looked at any of my old Escher models and went "Gasp! This is to scandalous and doesn't fit at all!"

Nothing seems wrong to me. They're just models...

Absolutionis wrote:The posing is quite deliberate

Just because it's deliberate doesn't make it good.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yeah... I've never looked at a model in 'that way' (ignoring the fact that I didn't know what 'Cheesecaking' was until today).

I mean, I never looked at any of my old Escher models and went "Gasp! This is to scandalous and doesn't fit at all!"

Nothing seems wrong to me. They're just models...

And that's the point. They're just models, but for some reason rather than continue the aesthetics they put forth in the rest of the range--they disregard it for these pin-up style pieces.

If they want to do stuff like that, I'd rather they put it up in its own separate range and give an option to buy it or not. As it stands, the Dozer is an important part of an Ariadna list--yet it looks completely out of place in either Sectorial(which is saying a lot considering one of the Sectorials has troopers wearing kilts) armies and/or the "vanilla" Ariadna army.

Kanluwen wrote:No HBMC, they really just don't fit.
Unless you really are going to argue that this "fits" into the same range as this.
There's quite a few more within the Ariadna group alone which I could do these "comparisons" to, but when the range can make a fireman with a shotgun look like a professional soldier yet make a professional soldier look like pin-up art, something has gone awry.

Are the Wyches out of place? Are the Space Marines?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
If they want to do stuff like that, I'd rather they put it up in its own separate range and give an option to buy it or not. As it stands, the Dozer is an important part of an Ariadna list--yet it looks completely out of place in either Sectorial(which is saying a lot considering one of the Sectorials has troopers wearing kilts) armies and/or the "vanilla" Ariadna army.

Its probably been said before, but its not about realism, its about style. The "seductively intimidating" trope has been used for years in order to denote exceptional skill in the violent arts. The idea being that everyone else has to run for cover, but this man/woman can just do what she wants.

I don't think that's really fair, dogma. I'd say if you were going to do a fair comparison it would be more like mixing wyches with the Space Marines (if there were female Space Marines, anyway), so the males would be bulky and look like actual soldiers, but all the women are running around nearly naked for reasons never explained: stats and rules are the same, the background never mentions it, etc. The DE wyches belong to a different army and were given reasons for why they dress like that (reasons that some people might find sketchy but a reason nonetheless...also not sure why you linked the old models, the new ones don't look anywhere near as bad, proving [to me at least] that GW acknowledged that the old ones looked stupid even in context and tried to "fix" them...guess it helps the argument more though to use examples which are outdated and no longer applicable). Female Infinity models are meant to be variants of the males and be identical in every way, but are "sexed up" for no real reason, and it's made apparent in the side-by-sides you sometimes see in the gallery on their website: the males look like regular soldiers, whereas the females seem more interested in accentuating their tits and asses and "posing" with their guns rather than actually using them.

Fair enough if that's their "style", but I'm not a big fan of it. The few times they do a female model "right" I think it looks awesome (the female Hassassin Lasiq is my favorite Infinity model, and one of the few who isn't just posing with her fething gun and sticking her tits out, she's actually aiming the damn rifle like she intends to use it and is covered up like one would expect a soldier to be), but those models are few and far between, their interest clearly lies elsewhere.

Sidstyler wrote:The DE wyches belong to a different army and were given reasons for why they dress like that (reasons that some people might find sketchy but a reason nonetheless...

Why are the reasons provided less "sketchy" (I really hate that term.) than "We though people would like to look at attractive human bodies with minimal clothing."?

Sidstyler wrote:
...also not sure why you linked the old models, the new ones don't look anywhere near as bad, proving [to me at least] that GW acknowledged that the old ones looked stupid even in context and tried to "fix" them...guess it helps the argument more though to use examples which are outdated and no longer applicable).

The argument was that game X included model Y, and model Z, and that either model Y or model Z must be considered as exceptional in order for the position being argued against to be tenable. This is an argument which does not turn on proximity to the current date.

Putting that aside, one of the new models has a tentacle penis.

Sidstyler wrote:Female Infinity models are meant to be variants of the males and be identical in every way, but are "sexed up" for no real reason, and it's made apparent in the side-by-sides you sometimes see in the gallery on their website: the males look like regular soldiers, whereas the females seem more interested in accentuating their tits and asses and "posing" with their guns rather than actually using them.

Well, not identical, they are female after all.

I mean, do you object to women wearing skirts, while men in the same socioeconomic position wear pants?

dogma wrote:**Picture of Space Marines**

**Picture of Dark Eldar**

Are the Wyches out of place? Are the Space Marines?.

Kanluwen's examples are across the same army and the same era.
The time difference between the Loup-Garous and the Dozer is four months, and the Garous alone came out last month.
The difference between those Assault Marines and Wyches is measured in years.

Plus, Kan's example is from the same army/faction.

Absolutionis wrote:Kanluwen's examples are across the same army and the same era.

The army objection I can understand, though I disagree with it*, the era argument (as presented) is just nonsense though.

How many times has GW depicted a Space Marine wearing a thong?





*As it basically entails the argument "Cheesecake is fine in game X, so long as game X includes armies with no cheesecake." which has blatant problems.

I don't know how people can still be saying "X miniature doesn't fit into the range / game".....you're just a player, you own no part of the I.P. and have absolutely no creative input into the system or the setting. The I.P. belongs to the creative minds at Corvus Belli, what fits or doesn't fit is their decision.

That you think their choices are less then optimal is just your opinion as a customer, as I've said before, it carries no weight.

If I create a fantasy story / setting, and decide to have 12ft Androids being love slaves for 2 inch fairies then that's may call, you may think it's a great idea or you may hate it, but how can you say "it doesn't fit"? It fit's because it's my fantasy and I want it that way, don't like it....go seek your fix somewhere else.

dogma wrote:Why are the reasons provided less "sketchy" (I really hate that term.) than "We though people would like to look at attractive human bodies with minimal clothing."?

Because Infinity is more blatantly sexist. That's what bothers me the most about them, they objectify the gak out of women and act so shameless about it. It tells me that their idea of women is that they aren't meant to be combatants, that they exist only as "pretty bodies" and little else.

I concede that "We want them to look that way" is a good enough reason for them to make them like that, but I don't think it's wrong to criticize them for making that choice. I personally don't think they look good, I think they're pandering by doing stuff like this, and honestly I'm not going to be convinced otherwise. All that really means is I won't be playing Infinity or I'll only be buying the "good" models (like the Hassassin Lasiq I mentioned before), I don't really care if Infinity keeps making cheesecake or if other people like it, it's just not my thing and I don't expect them to change on my behalf.

dogma wrote:Putting that aside, one of the new models has a tentacle penis.

...wait, what? Can you elaborate please, which new model are you talking about?

dogma wrote:Well, not identical, they are female after all.

I mean, do you object to women wearing skirts, while men in the same socioeconomic position wear pants?

I was talking less about the obvious physical differences between men and women and more about game stats and equipment, where I imagine men and women probably don't differ too much to make a difference. In every game I've played, both on the tabletop or PC/console, gender doesn't make any difference in game terms and is purely cosmetic. Hence I assumed male and female models in Infinity would be no different and would simply be variants for the same unit, so that you wouldn't have a bunch of models in the exact same pose.

I don't object because women are free to choose to wear whatever they want: they aren't being "forced" to wear skirts or expose any more skin than they want to. But in my experience women usually have a little bit of dignity and use common sense when deciding what to wear before they go out. They don't have problems looking sexy and wearing clothes that accentuate that, but probably aren't going to be a fan of anything that blatantly puts them on display: pants that make their ass look good is one thing, walking around with a little strip of red cloth that barely covers their underwear and exposes half of their ass when they bend over slightly is something else. I've seen women wear cropped shirts that expose their midriff, but not many that wear a "shirt" so small it's only slightly larger than a bikini top and stops about right underneath their breasts. Based on all that I'd expect a woman going into a warzone would be less concerned with looking sexy and more with giving herself adequate protection and not being a walking target.

Ultimately it's all just my opinion. I'm not saying Infinity needs to be more realistic or that they need to change. I'll fully admit that Infinity probably isn't my game, although it's disappointing because there are a lot of good models, but a lot of cheesecake stuff sprinkled everywhere that I'm not fond of (for that matter I'm not even fond of DE wyches...the warrior models are so much better, the wyches would have to be considerably better than they are for me to feel like using them). I'm kind of limited on what factions I can play if I want a "super serious" army that doesn't have some token pin-up girl in it that's just there to look pretty while the men do all the work...I think Yu Jing and Haqqislam are probably the only two, and that's assuming that the cheesecake models aren't "auto-includes" that are vastly better than everything else (I wouldn't be surprised honestly, lol).

dogma wrote:*As it basically entails the argument "Cheesecake is fine in game X, so long as game X includes armies with no cheesecake." which has blatant problems.

I'm not saying that. I object to you labeling the DE wyches "cheesecake" in the first place, because if it is it's not very good cheesecake...the models are so ugly, even the new ones apparently, that many people have actually been put off doing an army of them because they aren't "sexy" enough, whereas Infinity's cheesecake models are apparently their best sellers (IIRC the Daktari is the highest selling figure isn't it?). There's also the fact that the kit is made up of almost as many male wyches as females and that they're all dressed the same, so it's not objectifying one more than the other: female wyches aren't wearing inexplicably less clothing just because they're female. They're also all posed so that they're running forwards with weapons brandished, not really in a pin-up style. Pretty much the only thing cheesecake about them is that some of them have exposed midriffs.

This thread might as well be "Cheescake: is it ever suitable?"

Or "Is sex-symbolism ever suitable in any situation ever?"

separating "Wargaming" from "anything and everything else," makes it seem as if it is something different and somehow "special/weird/odd/unique/whatever."

it is not, but continuing to treat it as such will only reinforce the image that wargaming is not "normal."

Wow. Never thought I'd see Sidstyler take dogma apart in a debate. Makes me wonder if D is just playing devil's advocate.

Mannahnin wrote:Never thought I'd see Sidstyler take dogma apart in a debate

Only when it comes to toys, I guess. If you bet on me when it comes to any other topic you're throwing your money away, lol.

Mannahnin wrote:Makes me wonder if D is just playing devil's advocate.

I just assumed he was. I have no idea what the penis thing is about, though. I haven't seen any models like that from GW or Infinity...maybe I haven't been paying enough attention, lol.

Personally I think the Infinity models are mostly of excellent, even exceptional, quality.

I think the issue, as we've touched on before, comes with conflicting hopes/expectations.

Some gamers apparently are hoping to use Infinity as a "hard sci-fi" alternative to GW. 40k is not really sci-fi, it's Space Opera. An epic-scale fantasy writ large across a future which is a GRIMDARK (tm) dystopian mix of future and past ideas. Many, really most, of the Infinity models, on the other hand, look much more credible and plausible as belonging to a sci-fi universe which might, conceivably, happen.

If one is inspired by the possibility of a "realistic" sci-fi/speculative fiction skirmish wargame, and one wants to use the models for that, the cheesecake models become a problem. They clash with that concept.

Which is okay, and not Infinity's fault, by any means, even if it does limit part of their audience. It's evident that they're not really looking to be the "hard sci-fi" game, they're looking to match that niche of anime which uses great and realistic and cool designs in part as a backdrop against which scantily-glad girls can POP, in greater contrast, from the battlefield and show to better advantage.

Delephont wrote:I don't know how people can still be saying "X miniature doesn't fit into the range / game"...

In infinity particular case they say that because they do not understand the style infinity miniatures are based in, if they do not understand the concept, what does and does not fit it's simply a sad hostage of personal random opinions...

Mannahnin wrote:Personally I think the Infinity models are mostly of excellent, even exceptional, quality.

I think the issue, as we've touched on before, comes with conflicting hopes/expectations.

Some gamers apparently are hoping to use Infinity as a "hard sci-fi" alternative to GW. 40k is not really sci-fi, it's Space Opera. An epic-scale fantasy writ large across a future which is a GRIMDARK (tm) dystopian mix of future and past ideas. Many, really most, of the Infinity models, on the other hand, look much more credible and plausible as belonging to a sci-fi universe which might, conceivably, happen.

If one is inspired by the possibility of a "realistic" sci-fi/speculative fiction skirmish wargame, and one wants to use the models for that, the cheesecake models become a problem. They clash with that concept.

Which is okay, and not Infinity's fault, by any means, even if it does limit part of their audience. It's evident that they're not really looking to be the "hard sci-fi" game, they're looking to match that niche of anime which uses great and realistic and cool designs in part as a backdrop against which scantily-glad girls can POP, in greater contrast, from the battlefield and show to better advantage.

I 100% agree with this.

Mannahnin wrote:
If one is inspired by the possibility of a "realistic" sci-fi/speculative fiction skirmish wargame, and one wants to use the models for that, the cheesecake models become a problem. They clash with that concept.
.

That concept you mention is only half of the deal, anime has 50% chance to pend to fantastic or to realism... its a very diverse concept and crosses a lot of areas but one thing you cannot say is that the sexy ladies dont fit in... not only they fit but they are like a big chunk of animes genetic codes, just like humor, weapon sizes, small mascots, perv old mans, outburst of feelings, atomic bombs etc

NAVARRO wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:
If one is inspired by the possibility of a "realistic" sci-fi/speculative fiction skirmish wargame, and one wants to use the models for that, the cheesecake models become a problem. They clash with that concept.
.

That concept you mention is only half of the deal, anime has 50% chance to pend to fantastic or to realism... its a very diverse concept and crosses a lot of areas but one thing you cannot say is that the sexy ladies dont fit in... not only they fit but they are like a big chunk of animes genetic codes, just like humor, weapon sizes, small mascots, perv old mans, outburst of feelings, atomic bombs etc

You are misunderstanding Navarro, its not that the sexy ladies don't fit the concept of anime, everyone knows that they are prevalent in that stylle, its that they don't fit the "serious" and "plausible" sci-fi setting that some people hoped Infinity to be, myself included. Obviously this was not what CB envisioned for their setting and as far as I go, I won't let that stop me from enjoying the game, I just won't use any miniatures that don't fit into my personal view of the setting.

The thread should really have been titled:

"Infinity, the game I wish it was".

Then I would have countered with:

"WH40K, WHFB, War-Machine, Anima Tactics, Malifaux.....the games I wish they were".

Or perhaps, "How to learn to say no to spending your money on the next "big" game to hit the shelves.....and then complaining about it"

CT GAMER wrote:

biccat wrote:

BobbaFett wrote:By the way. The "horrendous Daktaris" is a top 10 best selling miniature of the range. Who do you think CB will pay attention to, sales or forums?

You do realize that the Infinity models suffer from the particular design flaw of being "not Space Marines."

In many peoples' eyes, this makes them terrible miniatures. Dakka has a fair share of these types.

So it is impossible to not like a non-GW miniature/game without being a fanboy?

That is a weak defense...

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.

In fact, I've quoted my post above to make sure.

There are plenty of GW fanboys here who love anything GW makes because it's a GW product. They hate any other miniatures because they're not GW products.

You can tell because they're the ones who mail-order GW Green Stuff, GW Super Glue, and GW knife blades (for use with their Official Games Workshop Hobby Knife).

Delephont wrote:The thread should really have been titled:

"Infinity, the game I wish it was".

Then I would have countered with:

"WH40K, WHFB, War-Machine, Anima Tactics, Malifaux.....the games I wish they were".

Or perhaps, "How to learn to say no to spending your money on the next "big" game to hit the shelves.....and then complaining about it"

You are being way too confrontational and defensive for absolutely no reason.

People don't have to agree 100% with everything about a game to enjoy it. There isn't a single game from your "list" that I'm 100% behind every decision that their creators made and yet I activelly play and enjoy the majority of them.

PhantomViper wrote: its that they don't fit the "serious" and "plausible" sci-fi setting that some people hoped Infinity to be, myself included.

Serious and plausible are also features quite present in anime, just because the expression of something follows a particular code it does not mean the style lacks plausibility or seriousness... in Infinity debate IMO its like you walk into a bar and don't expect them to sell alcoholic drinks and say they don't fit... In your particular case you are saying you don't like martini but its still a serious drink and plausible to be sold on a bar. See my point?

Just because anime has sexy gals it doesn't discard the fact that it can be packed with very serious scifi universes/ themes/ subjects etc... Besides anime is popular by its extreme contrasts and the way they manage to balance between each others and create a much more plausible fantasy world.

Navarro, the problem is that it's not "like walking into a bar" that serves martinis.

For the models in question(which are not the Posthumans, except for the Mark 1 really), it's like walking into an establishment which bills itself as a bar...which only sells tap water and soda.

PhantomViper wrote:You are being way too confrontational and defensive for absolutely no reason.

People don't have to agree 100% with everything about a game to enjoy it. There isn't a single game from your "list" that I'm 100% behind every decision that their creators made and yet I activelly play and enjoy the majority of them.

I'm not being confrontational or defensive, that's just the way you interpret my post.

What I'm about to post is my final post on this thread. Nobody expects a gamer to support EVERY decision a company makes reagrding it's I.P. The issue I have with this thread, and indeed many threads like this, is that there is no real meaningful discussion taking place here. Both sides have dug in their heels and the "debate" rages back and forth with no real outcome possible.

What I have tried to "inject" at several points, is that the setting is what it is, accept it or reject it, but don't keep harping on about it.

Kan kicked all of this off in the Infinity sub forum, and when (in general) the point was rejected by the majority that posted there, he felt a need to continue to press the point.....to what end I do not know. Perhaps he was hoping to sway the other posters to agree and also refuse to buy the offending miniatures, perhaps he thought the guys from CB would read the post and decide to completely rethink their setting and the miniatures they produce....truth be told, both of those outcomes were more unrealistic than high heels on power armour. Perhaps he simply thought that he needed to justify why he thought the miniatures were "silly", which he did again, and again, and again......

The end effect is this circular debate that really is on a one way trip to nowhere.

Enjoy the ride.

The end effect is that yourself and several others interpreted the original point wrong and proceeded from there, harping on some idea that it's all about some idea of "being a prude" rather than getting the point that it's silly for a company to alter a range's dynamic simply based upon the change from male to female.

If it were present in EVERY SINGLE RANGE they produce--you would have a point. But it's not. PanOceania is not full of models wearing cut-off shirts because they're female, or posing like they're on a photoshoot for a calendar. Yu-Jing and Haqqislam are not full of that either, despite Haqqislam having artwork(note: artwork) showing the same.

dogma wrote:Its probably been said before, but its not about realism, its about style.

What style?

Kanluwen wrote:You basically picked out, seemingly, almost every piece of art with a female.

Yes, I did. Because nearly every piece of art with a female in it in Infinity has enhanced sexuality. Even Joan of Arc has an enormous, unnecessarily form-fitting breast plate as she gives a sultry look over her shoulder and beckons you to follow.

What are you saying is "cheesecake" about the art on p101? They're all sitting inside a VTOL of some sort, and she's wearing armor like the rest of the squad.

Armour that unnecessarily follows the contours of her breasts exactly, complete with mold-lines running straight down the nipple line in case you needed help remembering where they are. And oh, gee, non of the men have nipple-finding mold lines on their armor. I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Maybe the added material of putting form-fitting boob-plates in the armor requires that armor to be cast in three pieces, eh? Then there's the fact that she is apparently wearing white spandex for pants, with the composition of the page arranged just so you can see her butt sticking out. I'm sure that's just a coincidence too.

You do realize though, that several of these were things that Slarg mentioned yeah?

Well, it's great that Slarg agrees with me then, but I don't really care. My point is that hyper-sexualized characters has been part of all Infinity ranges (apart from perhaps Yu Jing, though they do put high heels on the Hsien, and the Combined, though they've had Zerat with boobs for a while which is not too shocking as the Morat appear to be mammilian) from the get-go. It's absurd that you keep trying to pretend these figures don't fit. You are wrong. Get over it.

JOHIRA wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:You basically picked out, seemingly, almost every piece of art with a female.

Yes, I did. Because nearly every piece of art with a female in it in Infinity has enhanced sexuality. Even Joan of Arc has an enormous, unnecessarily form-fitting breast plate as she gives a sultry look over her shoulder and beckons you to follow.

I'm not really getting a "sultry look" from that artwork, but okay. I'll give you the breastplate bit but I don't know exactly what kind of armor they're having these people wear. All I remember is she's supposed to be wearing some form of powered armor, but I highly doubt that it's going to be like Astartes plate where a "normal" human being is swallowed up within it.

What are you saying is "cheesecake" about the art on p101? They're all sitting inside a VTOL of some sort, and she's wearing armor like the rest of the squad.

Armour that unnecessarily follows the contours of her breasts exactly, complete with mold-lines running straight down the nipple line in case you needed help remembering where they are. And oh, gee, non of the men have nipple-finding mold lines on their armor. I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Maybe the added material of putting form-fitting boob-plates in the armor requires that armor to be cast in three pieces, eh? Then there's the fact that she is apparently wearing white spandex for pants, with the composition of the page arranged just so you can see her butt sticking out. I'm sure that's just a coincidence too.

Out of those squadmates:
One is wearing what appears to be modified Nomad gear, specifically that of a Bakunin Zero with some kind of comms aerial attached to it.
One is wearing a tunic and what looks like leather or faux leather pants.
The other two are wearing the same style of armor plate as the female and the same kind of pants. They're white on the front with a dark blue or black on the underside. You can see it on the guy sitting in the foreground.

I think that's kind of causing it to look like "her butt sticking out". But I don't know for certain.

You do realize though, that several of these were things that Slarg mentioned yeah?

Well, it's great that Slarg agrees with me then, but I don't really care. My point is that hyper-sexualized characters has been part of all Infinity ranges (apart from perhaps Yu Jing, though they do put high heels on the Hsien, and the Combined, though they've had Zerat with boobs for a while which is not too shocking as the Morat appear to be mammilian) from the get-go. It's absurd that you keep trying to pretend these figures don't fit. You are wrong. Get over it.

Except I'm not saying the figures don't fit in the game.
I'm saying they don't fit in the ranges they are put into nor do they fit when put into comparison with females from the other armies.

Kanluwen wrote:If it were present in EVERY SINGLE RANGE they produce--you would have a point. But it's not. PanOceania is not full of models wearing cut-off shirts because they're female, or posing like they're on a photoshoot for a calendar.

But they do have Acontecimento Regulars with bare midriffs and the Kamau certainly is in a stick-out-her-butt pose, but I'm sure that's just the most efficient position to hack from.

Haqqislam are not full of that either, despite Haqqislam having artwork(note: artwork) showing the same.

Perhaps you've not looked at the Kum Motorized troops, Ghulam Infantry, the Odalisques, Hassassin Muyibs, Hassassin Fiday, or the other Odalisque.

Now you're just reaching.

Of those, only the Kum Motorized Troop and the Kamau are really "objectifying" the person. The rest are certainly not combat poses, but they're not exactly something you'd see for a pinup calendar either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Should also add that most of the Hackers(male and female) have silly poses.

Hello all, as a neutral on the subject (old enough to not care if I encounter cheesecake, but not old enough to have kids that encounter it), I find the arguements bland an redacted.

1. Arguing plausibility of a fantasy is silly and redundant, as plausibility is a subjective concept within the artists framework. (I find it plausible that there might be a few people in the vast universe that want to dress sexy in the future, rules be damned)
2. This is a fantasy setting, in a real war everyone would look roughly the same and be wearing helmets (have you ever seen a 'feminine' soldier?)... Thus the only differance would be hair... Which would probably be cut down to fit in the helmet... So boom, all your male models now double as female. Now if there is a desire for distinctly female models we arrive at an impasse...
3. No one gives a hoot that all men have huge bulging arms (an overtly masculine feature), or chiseled abs (also a feature that is considered 'sexy'). Why should only women be criticized for overdone features?
4. Much like modern times weapons outevolve armor... That's why we have flak jackets, or bullet proof vests... You protect the most vital organs, while admitting it is impractical or flat out impossible to make the bearer impervious to harm. Once someone is aclimated to the dangers around them they often cut corners in regards to personal safety.
5. It's fiction. If you arnt a fan, and you have every right not to be, then don't consume. Learn to model, learn to greenstuff over the things you don't enjoy, paint them in a way to take the emphasis off parts you don't like, proxy from another range. Anything past this makes one seem like a hater who is too lazy to do anything past complain, which again everyone is entitled to, but should at least have the awareness of self to realize it is happening.

Kiwidru wrote:as plausibility is a subjective concept within the artists framework

It's the artist's/writer's/director's job to make the framework actually work.

Kiwidru wrote:Hello all, as a neutral on the subject (old enough to not care if I encounter cheesecake, but not old enough to have kids that encounter it), I find the arguements bland an redacted.

1. Arguing plausibility of a fantasy is silly and redundant, as plausibility is a subjective concept within the artists framework. (I find it plausible that there might be a few people in the vast universe that want to dress sexy in the future, rules be damned)
2. This is a fantasy setting, in a real war everyone would look roughly the same and be wearing helmets (have you ever seen a 'feminine' soldier?)... Thus the only differance would be hair... Which would probably be cut down to fit in the helmet... So boom, all your male models now double as female. Now if there is a desire for distinctly female models we arrive at an impasse...
3. No one gives a hoot that all men have huge bulging arms (an overtly masculine feature), or chiseled abs (also a feature that is considered 'sexy'). Why should only women be criticized for overdone features?
4. Much like modern times weapons outevolve armor... That's why we have flak jackets, or bullet proof vests... You protect the most vital organs, while admitting it is impractical or flat out impossible to make the bearer impervious to harm. Once someone is aclimated to the dangers around them they often cut corners in regards to personal safety.
5. It's fiction. If you arnt a fan, and you have every right not to be, then don't consume. Learn to model, learn to greenstuff over the things you don't enjoy, paint them in a way to take the emphasis off parts you don't like, proxy from another range. Anything past this makes one seem like a hater who is too lazy to do anything past complain, which again everyone is entitled to, but should at least have the awareness of self to realize it is happening.

I said I wasn't going to post again, but this post ^^ makes me happy inside! Finally someone who get's it.

Best post of the thread if you ask me!

I'm wondering exactly how sexually repressed the first person to use the term cheesecake in relation to minis really is.

NAVARRO wrote:
Joking aside, everyone has its limits, mine is called wet nurse...

Ill agree with that. It takes a lot to make me "ugh" at a miniature...and that one did it.

However, I dont care if its made/sold, and its presence on a board would not make me leave the game...but all in all its a bit too much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Now you're just reaching.

Of those, only the Kum Motorized Troop and the Kamau are really "objectifying" the person.

IMO the Kamau is far too mechanical to be sexual. The curves/lines arent smooth (broken by panels/gaps), the face is quite alien looking, etc. If thats enough to get someones soldier at attention then perhaps it is time to leave the gaming and date a bit.

Kanluwen wrote:Navarro, the problem is that it's not "like walking into a bar" that serves martinis.

For the models in question(which are not the Posthumans, except for the Mark 1 really), it's like walking into an establishment which bills itself as a bar...which only sells tap water and soda.

hehe... that would only be the case if corvus belli introduced space marines in infinity.

That has absolutely nothing to do with anything being brought up here.

Kanluwen wrote:That has absolutely nothing to do with anything being brought up here.

Ah glad to see that relaxed chat is not appreciated, you do seem a bit to inclined to judge what fits and does not fit both within infinity and also on this chat... glad the world is not only your playground and in this case you don't even own the ball so...

Kanluwen wrote:Now you're just reaching.

Of those, only the Kum Motorized Troop and the Kamau are really "objectifying" the person.

We're not talking about objectification. If we are, then it is only because you are shifting the goal posts to avoid admitting you were wrong when you claimed sexualized female minis don't fit Infinity.

Every one of those minis I posted shows a sexualized female component, be it a bare midriff on an otherwise armored mini, a pose adopted for sex appeal rather than battle-field practicality, or unnecessarily form-fitting armor. Every one. Don't start trying to make this subjective by slipping in unquantifiable aspects of sexuality that you personally judge "acceptable". Sexualized female minis are a valid part of Infinity. Fact. Quit trying to pretend that you know the game's aesthetic better than the people who freaking made the game. You don't like like the sexualized aspects of Infinity. That's fine. That doesn't make them invalid.

warboss wrote:So is this fruitcake? (the equivalent for female gamers) We've got ripped abs and armor pecs complete with nipples a plenty while the catachans do their best village people/male stripper impressions while flexing their beefy arms.



While I agree that female models generally fill the brunt of this subgenre, it does cross the chromosomal line.

I don't mean to derail this thread, but why do people dislike the bare torso armour? This is intended to be romanticised and angelic. If this is sexualised, could the same be said of the renaissance paintings and sculptures that are widely respected and admired today?

After reading through 7 pages of this discussion/argument one thing has struck me.

I really, really want a piece of cheesecake now...

Kanluwen wrote:

The Posthumans are "bad design decisions" simply because out of all 3 models, none are actively doing anything which makes sense...
Whoever greenlit those three models made a poor decision...

Whoever greenlit these made a great business decision. You're assuming only gamers buy their models. Infinity also has a huge painter/hobbyist market, much like Confrontation did, or McVey miniatures, or Smog or Raging Heroes etc.

Minature-based game aside, Infinity minis are known for crisp detail, realistic, consistent proportions (given the material and scale), and a range of individual, dynamic poses that make any piece worthy of painting up as a display piece. On top of all that they have a cleaner "high" sci-fi aesthetic that's so different from the popular bulky, grim-dark low-tech sci-fi.

Point is, assuming these are only gaming minis, and should therefore sacrifice aesthetics for practicality, misses out on a big piece of their hobbyist market. It's quite easy to build a complete army several times over without having to resort to a single cheesecake model, so I think CV's doing just fine catering to more than a single market.

It's nowhere near as easy as you'd suggest for three specific factions to build an army without "having to resort to a single cheesecake model".

Especially when you consider things like ALEPH, where they have very little in the way of the models in the army range since it's new.

Kanluwen wrote:It's nowhere near as easy as you'd suggest for three specific factions to build an army without "having to resort to a single cheesecake model".

Especially when you consider things like ALEPH, where they have very little in the way of the models in the army range since it's new.

Then play a different faction. Or substitute models from a line you prefer. Or convert your models. That's par for the course in 40k, why does that stop being an option in Infinity?

Choosing to play ALEPH, and complaining that you object to the models, is silly. The sculptors at CV have chosen "sexy" females as their guiding aesthetic for that army. This doesn't suit you. Pick another.

CB, Corvus Belli....I'm not sure where CV fits in.

Delephont wrote:CB, Corvus Belli....I'm not sure where CV fits in.

Yep, just hit the wrong key, meant to say CB.

Lots of good conversation in here, mostly on topic and polite - sort of!

The bottom line is that, shockingly, tastes differ!

I know this is the internet and it is tough but we've got to avoid being so confident in our opinions that we're willing to take our personal preferences as universal truth.

Other than that - well done!

I am grateful for everyone's contributions to the site - and I am especially grateful for everyone who keeps the INFINITY news and rumors thread up to date!

Aleph doesn't only have 'sexy' females. It also has oversexualized males.
Look at the male Deva in comparison to the female Deva. They're both posing for the camera with their well-contoured torsos that show through their clothing.
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/devas/
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/devas-2/

Look at the male Daysu in comparison to the female Daysu.
The male is practically shoving his butt out in a compromising position. If the crouching model had been female, people would be using it as an example of 'cheesecake'.
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/dasyus/
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/dasyus-2/

Look at a female Myrmidon Officer in comparison to the male Myrmidon Achilles. The female features are rather subtle and she looks competent whereas Achilles looks like Fabio.
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/myrmidon-officers/
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/achilles/


My main complaint about the Posthumans is not their sexualization but their poses in terms of believability. The entire Aleph line looks like ideal and attractive bodies because that's what they are. Those bodies are manufactured. Regardless, each model looks competent and confident. They all have an alien oddness about them... it's a sort of robotic-Eldar thing. Even the not-sniping Naga Sniper is doing something incomprehensible yet deliberate with a soulless expression.
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/nagas-2/

The Posthumans just look incompetent. Two are tripping over nothing and one is slouching with a sniper rifle (while posing for a photoshoot.
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/posthumans/

Even the hyper-sexualized Asura model looks competent. It's not wearing clothing, it is staring soullessly, and it's standing confidently with a large gun.
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/asuras-2/
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/asuras-2/

Cheesecake is completely fine in wargaming, but I doubt many casual onlookers will take anything seriously with gratuitous amounts of pointless cleavage and skin tight outfits on females with huge guns.

Infinity has gone a decent way in making guns more sensibly-sized. Large weapons such as HMGs and Panzerfausts are shown on newer models to either be showing a bit of weight or the carrier is abnormally strong/armored/teched.

Thankfully, nobody carries Anime-sized swords. Even the Highlanders' claymores are shown to have a bit of weight and not carried by ambiguously male 12-year-olds named after weather phenomena.

Sidstyler wrote:
Because Infinity is more blatantly sexist. That's what bothers me the most about them, they objectify the gak out of women and act so shameless about it.

Well, of course its sexist, it delineates its portrayal of men and women according to their sex. It certainly objectifies women, but it also objectifies men. The appeal of the badass in the longcoat with the sawed-off shotgun isn't any less about the object of that person than the woman in the tight pants and midriff baring top.

Sidstyler wrote:
It tells me that their idea of women is that they aren't meant to be combatants, that they exist only as "pretty bodies" and little else.

Are you telling me that this...



...guy is meant to be a combatant in any realistic setting?

Sidstyler wrote:
I personally don't think they look good, I think they're pandering by doing stuff like this, and honestly I'm not going to be convinced otherwise.

I think that the entire line, and essentially every other miniature line, is pandering to some segment of the population. I also think that much of the objection to the cheesecake is based on squeamishness regarding sex.

Sidstyler wrote:
...wait, what? Can you elaborate please, which new model are you talking about?

Top right.

Its a weapon, but I doubt that the placement, and design, are accidental.

Sidstyler wrote:
I was talking less about the obvious physical differences between men and women and more about game stats and equipment, where I imagine men and women probably don't differ too much to make a difference.

I'm not familiar with the rules, but if Infinity portrays women as being significantly weaker (in terms of physical strength) than men, then they are being both sexist and accurate.

Sidstyler wrote:
Based on all that I'd expect a woman going into a warzone would be less concerned with looking sexy and more with giving herself adequate protection and not being a walking target.

I would also expect a man going into a warzone in which advanced projectile weapons are prevalent to avoid burdening himself with a sword, or a longcoat for that matter.

Sidstyler wrote:
I'm not saying that. I object to you labeling the DE wyches "cheesecake" in the first place, because if it is it's not very good cheesecake...the models are so ugly, even the new ones apparently, that many people have actually been put off doing an army of them because they aren't "sexy" enough, whereas Infinity's cheesecake models are apparently their best sellers (IIRC the Daktari is the highest selling figure isn't it?).

Being bad cheesecake doesn't make something not cheesecake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Wow. Never thought I'd see Sidstyler take dogma apart in a debate. Makes me wonder if D is just playing devil's advocate.

Sort of. I'm generally of the mind that people overemphasize the the degree to which women are objectified, and ignore how men are portrayed in a similar fashion. Its much like Brad Pitt's line in Fight Club regarding, to paraphrase, "Is this a man?" And further consider most positive, cultural depictions of gender to be about objectification (the badass longcoat I mentioned to Sid).

The critical difference, and I fully acknowledge this, is that women have a long history of being relegated to a status of second class citizens. But still, it strikes me that we aren't terribly concerned about objectifying people so much as objectifying women, regardless of whether or not that said objectification is bad. We objectify, collectively, Angelina Jolie and that gives her quite a bit of personal power and, while that's not good, it certainly doesn't hurt Angelina.

Kiwidru wrote:Hello all, as a neutral on the subject (old enough to not care if I encounter cheesecake, but not old enough to have kids that encounter it), I find the arguements bland an redacted.

1. Arguing plausibility of a fantasy is silly and redundant, as plausibility is a subjective concept within the artists framework. (I find it plausible that there might be a few people in the vast universe that want to dress sexy in the future, rules be damned)
2. This is a fantasy setting, in a real war everyone would look roughly the same and be wearing helmets (have you ever seen a 'feminine' soldier?)... Thus the only differance would be hair... Which would probably be cut down to fit in the helmet... So boom, all your male models now double as female. Now if there is a desire for distinctly female models we arrive at an impasse...
3. No one gives a hoot that all men have huge bulging arms (an overtly masculine feature), or chiseled abs (also a feature that is considered 'sexy'). Why should only women be criticized for overdone features?
4. Much like modern times weapons outevolve armor... That's why we have flak jackets, or bullet proof vests... You protect the most vital organs, while admitting it is impractical or flat out impossible to make the bearer impervious to harm. Once someone is aclimated to the dangers around them they often cut corners in regards to personal safety.
5. It's fiction. If you arnt a fan, and you have every right not to be, then don't consume. Learn to model, learn to greenstuff over the things you don't enjoy, paint them in a way to take the emphasis off parts you don't like, proxy from another range. Anything past this makes one seem like a hater who is too lazy to do anything past complain, which again everyone is entitled to, but should at least have the awareness of self to realize it is happening.

This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say. But I'll add just a bit more so that this isn't just a me too post.

The most important word found in any rule book for any war game is in the title. Game. This isn't war reality, war simulation, war practice. Its a war game. If you want everyone to wear the same unisex armor then play historicals. Where realistic weapon ranges, motorized armor speed, actual ammo count etc. is taken into account.

I play war games because its fun. I like looking at skimpy dressed girls with guns and swords. The more the merrier. Why, because again, its a game. I enjoy painting the female form. I've painted over 300 orks, 100 or so Space marines/CSM, 100 or so Firewarriors/Necrons/Kroot/etc. However, that which I really enjoyed if only to break the monotony of all that sameness is my 20 metal damonettes. I took great pleasure in painting Feora for my Menoth Warmachine army and am really looking forward to painting my Daughters of the Flame. Simply because they are not another male model in bulky armor.

So yeah, bring on the sexy ladies with laser guns and katanas in my war games, they are welcome there. And as for it not being realistic, I live by a High School, doesn't matter what time of year it is, the girls dress in what I call fashion before function. Lots of bare skin and thats in the winter. Come summer and spring, well, lets just say I have to get my dirty old man card punched and am ever so glad that I have a son.

I have to agree with you Jayden but after reading your post I imagined you doing something like:

NAVARRO wrote:I have to agree with you Jayden but after reading your post I imagined you doing something like:

lol

I tell ya, if I go home for a late lunch and don't leave until 2:30 I get stuck in my truck outside the school at one of the three cross walks. Sometimes I seriously don't know where to put my eyes. You have to watch for traffic or holes in the lines so you can move forward, but damn I tell you what, its easy to get distracted.

And since I now have a somewhat off topic post, let me just add that this thread has made me break out my wallet and I'm gonna pick up some of these inifinity models. There is just some really cool looking stuff here. Don't care if I never play the game, I just really like the look of some of the models and think that they will be a joy to paint up.

Deathly Angel wrote:

warboss wrote:So is this fruitcake? (the equivalent for female gamers) We've got ripped abs and armor pecs complete with nipples a plenty while the catachans do their best village people/male stripper impressions while flexing their beefy arms.



While I agree that female models generally fill the brunt of this subgenre, it does cross the chromosomal line.

I don't mean to derail this thread, but why do people dislike the bare torso armour? This is intended to be romanticised and angelic. If this is sexualised, could the same be said of the renaissance paintings and sculptures that are widely respected and admired today?

I personally find the sculpted chests the least silly aspect of those minis. I'm more opposed to the very clunky and completely unnecessary wings, the over-sized weapons, and the silly masks. Because GW's proportions make everything squat and over-broad in order to look more "heroic", they don't so much say "elegant ornateness" to me as they scream, "I JUST BOLTED 200 LBS OF UNNECESSARY STEEL TO MY ELITE JUMP TROOPS LOLOLOLOL!"

Its in pretty much every part of popular culture so why not wargaming?

Entered thread thinking it was a discussion on eating cheesecake while playing warhams
I am dissapoint

If you find the figures offensive then you need to stop being so Your choice of language and it's influence on the tone of your message are unacceptable. Please review Rule #1 - MT11

Sovspot wrote:Please do not quote content that breaks Rule #1 - MT11

You missed the point more than the people admitting they came here for cheesecake (and ignoring prior posts to post about it).

I am fairly indifferent about cheesecake in miniature wargames - if people like it, that's fine. I personally don't much care for it, but to each their own.

What annoys me about it though isn't the presence of cheesecake - it's the lack of BEEFCAKE. Where are my half-naked, overly sexualised MALE models, hmm? If companies or whatever are going to go the cheesecake route, they could at least have some equality and do a similar amount of beefcake!

Heres what I say. I don't care. You see it everyday in real life. I mean I see alot of girls that cut off parts of their clothes to expose their belly. If you are catching my drift. There is no real problem with it. It is not against the federal laws, it is really not that big of a deal. Just means I will slap on some greenstuff onto my Sisters if i ever buy any and make it look like they are wearing gear that should be reasonable for men and women alike. I don't care about it. But I will post about

Absolutionis wrote:

Sovspot wrote:Please do not quote content that breaks Rule #1 - MT11

You missed the point more than the people admitting they came here for cheesecake (and ignoring prior posts to post about it).

I didn't understand most of your post. My post wasn't particularly directed to the people in this because I see most of saying it isn't a big deal.

Sovspot, a pm has been sent explaining things further. Do not address your warning here, if you wish to discuss, we keep it to PMs please.

Skits wrote:I am fairly indifferent about cheesecake in miniature wargames - if people like it, that's fine. I personally don't much care for it, but to each their own.

What annoys me about it though isn't the presence of cheesecake - it's the lack of BEEFCAKE. Where are my half-naked, overly sexualised MALE models, hmm? If companies or whatever are going to go the cheesecake route, they could at least have some equality and do a similar amount of beefcake!

You haven't seen the Catachan line? There's enough beefcake in there for the whole industry. It's a whole army of beefcake.

Check dem guns.

I'm still thrown by the idea that quasi-porn is somehow worse than war-porn.

Did anyone say that, though? I think one of the obstructions to the reasonable exchange of ideas in this thread has been people getting too defensive and talking about prudery.

With maybe one or two exceptions, the people objecting to the cheesecake models haven't been saying that cheesecake is inherently bad or wrong.

From my position, and I know its odd that I'm taking an explicit position, many people have been doing exactly that. Not to pick on Sid, as he is really just the guy I've read the most of (also he has expressed himself well), but I'm left wondering why blatantly impractical male poses are somehow less objectionable than blatantly impractical female poses. I am certainly being obtuse in calling these things war-porn and quasi-porn, respectively, but still. Why is shotgun-fireaxe man less unusual in a warzone than midriff girl? And, if neither is unusual, then why is the objectification of both not equivalent?

If GW can sculpt females anywhere worthy as Infinity, GW fans will be making songs and praises. So nope, Infinity is fine, and classy as well!

-Loki- wrote:

Skits wrote:I am fairly indifferent about cheesecake in miniature wargames - if people like it, that's fine. I personally don't much care for it, but to each their own.

What annoys me about it though isn't the presence of cheesecake - it's the lack of BEEFCAKE. Where are my half-naked, overly sexualised MALE models, hmm? If companies or whatever are going to go the cheesecake route, they could at least have some equality and do a similar amount of beefcake!

You haven't seen the Catachan line? There's enough beefcake in there for the whole industry. It's a whole army of beefcake.

Check dem guns.

Spoiler:

Unfortunately, they're not attractive beefcake, at least not IMO. Nor are they in provocative poses, or just generally catering to "sex sells". They're so macho it hurts, heh.

dogma wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:
Because Infinity is more blatantly sexist. That's what bothers me the most about them, they objectify the gak out of women and act so shameless about it.

Well, of course its sexist, it delineates its portrayal of men and women according to their sex. It certainly objectifies women, but it also objectifies men. The appeal of the badass in the longcoat with the sawed-off shotgun isn't any less about the object of that person than the woman in the tight pants and midriff baring top.

Good point. I now notice there are a lot of male models in Infinity that are guilty of the same thing. I guess I was just doing what a lot of people and ignoring the male objectification entirely.

dogma wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:
I personally don't think they look good, I think they're pandering by doing stuff like this, and honestly I'm not going to be convinced otherwise.

I think that the entire line, and essentially every other miniature line, is pandering to some segment of the population. I also think that much of the objection to the cheesecake is based on squeamishness regarding sex.

Also a good point, one that I admittedly didn't think of. In the end most of these companies are pandering to someone, I guess. As for the latter, I can only really speak for myself but that's not why I object to it. I'm not squeamish about sex, it just seems like there are a lot of these cheesecake minis (not just Infinity) and not enough "serious" female soldier minis to balance it out. I mean there are a lot of male models in the range that are just as guilty of blatant sexism, but there are also a lot of male models that aren't, whereas with the female models it seems the ones that aren't are a lot rarer.

dogma wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:
...wait, what? Can you elaborate please, which new model are you talking about?

Top right.

Its a weapon, but I doubt that the placement, and design, are accidental.

...I never noticed that before. You've got a point about the design, too.

I kinda hope that's an accident, personally. I don't want to think that GW could be that damn immature. In any case that's all I'll be able to think about now every time I see that weapon: a big whippy penis.

dogma wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:
Based on all that I'd expect a woman going into a warzone would be less concerned with looking sexy and more with giving herself adequate protection and not being a walking target.

I would also expect a man going into a warzone in which advanced projectile weapons are prevalent to avoid burdening himself with a sword, or a longcoat for that matter.

Touche.

Kanluwen wrote:
Except I'm not saying the figures don't fit in the game.
I'm saying they don't fit in the ranges they are put into nor do they fit when put into comparison with females from the other armies.

And this is worth all the whinging that you've put into it, why?

Face it, they threw in some T&A to attract folks who don't go for unremitting realism, so what? I really fail to see how this spoils the game or mini range...

In short...



Deal with it....

dogma wrote:[snip]

If I may wax philosophical for a moment dogma, I would go so far as to say that this is because the sexualization of men and women goes in entirely different directions because of societal differences in what the ideal is for each gender.

The average artist attempting to sexualize women make them look vulnerable and weak, whiel the average artist attempting to sexualize men make them look powerful and badass.

First and foremost about cheesecake, I'm in principle fine with it as long as it goes both ways. If both sexes are equally displayed as passive sexual objects, OK. But as it is now, males are more commonly displayed as active and competent while female are displayed more as passive objects of desire. That said, this doesn't mean that the way males are portrayed is less sexist! Its the pattern in who is displayed how and why that is the problem IMO not the portrays in themselves.

Steel Angel wrote:Maybe I'm just old but violance and sexxy woman have gone hand in hand in all genres. from She-ra to blade to star wars even to who framed roger rabbit, and G.I.Joe it has always been there.

biccat wrote:"Cheesecake" has been around for as long as fantasy miniatures (yes, 40k is fantasy, it's just fantasy in spaaaaaaace). It's not going anywhere.

ChocolateGork wrote:Its in pretty much every part of popular culture so why not wargaming?

Hmmm, so we should tolerate racism as well, it's been around for long as well, should we have kept apartheid with the same notion "well guys its been around for ages now so why change anything now?" Antisemitism and the idea of a certain peoples superiority to others has been around for god knows how long, so with that kind of reasoning (its always been this way so why change it), Hitler should be considered a nice chap and his doings nothing out of the ordinary. Sexism, racism, ageism etc. conserves inequality and inequality leads to and/or worsen major social problems. So its not just something to brush aside as a petty cause.

Sidstyler wrote:
Sort of. I'm generally of the mind that people overemphasize the the degree to which women are objectified, and ignore how men are portrayed in a similar fashion. Its much like Brad Pitt's line in Fight Club regarding, to paraphrase, "Is this a man?" And further consider most positive, cultural depictions of gender to be about objectification (the badass longcoat I mentioned to Sid).

The critical difference, and I fully acknowledge this, is that women have a long history of being relegated to a status of second class citizens. But still, it strikes me that we aren't terribly concerned about objectifying people so much as objectifying women, regardless of whether or not that said objectification is bad. We objectify, collectively, Angelina Jolie and that gives her quite a bit of personal power and, while that's not good, it certainly doesn't hurt Angelina.

You raise some interesting questions here. Yes, the objectification of males is equally important to problematize! However, male minis do have a wider range of appearances and "roles" due to being the standard against which everything is compared to. As a consequence, most minis are male or have a male physical attributes. In that sense male minis don't "suffer" as much from the sexism like the female minis. Things are getting better however (and worse in some occasions) but we still have a looooong way to go.

I would say that objectifying people isn't bad in itself, its how it is done and again not just by you and me but how it is done nationally, internationally and globally, the normative patterns so to speak. Who is portrayed how, why, when and how often compared to other beings, to put it more exactly. This doesn't put the heat of you and me and everybody else as individuals, we all must do our part as well if there is to be any change and it's a change we all will profit from! Equality isn't just socioeconomically beneficial, it makes the society a better one to live in for us all!

Absolutionis wrote:My main complaint about the Posthumans is not their sexualization but their poses in terms of believability./

I should say this concerns many of the female minis in general and not just to those in the Infinity range. But keeping it to infinity, I would agree, but I'd say that females in other factions suffer from the same poses. Their tight bodysuits doesn't bother me much since both sexes got the same outfits. What bothers me it that some female minis look like strippers in the middle of an act with but in full body-armor, grinding guns instead of poles. That said, I love the infinity range in general it's awesome and it does include some of the coolest female minis available! But it would be a shame if "cheesecake" would be their future and only motto for female miniature design...

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
Hmmm, so we should tolerate racism as well, it's been around for long as well, should we have kept apartheid with the same notion "well guys its been around for ages now so why change anything now?" Antisemitism and the idea of a certain peoples superiority to others has been around for god knows how long, so with that kind of reasoning (its always been this way so why change it), Hitler should be considered a nice chap and his doings nothing out of the ordinary. Sexism, racism, ageism etc. conserves inequality and inequality leads to and/or worsen major social problems. So its not just something to brush aside as a petty cause.

Aaaaand you lost whatever point you were trying to make in the first place!

So playing any WW2 miniature game where the german player doesn't loose every game automatically is glorifying nazi Germany to you, right?

Same for ACW games where the Confederates should auto-loose because doing anything diferently is being in favour of slavery?

How about FoF players that choose to play with the Taliban, should they be arrested for supporting terrorism?

How about 40K games and players that choose to collect Tyrannids? They clearly are advocating the demise and consuption of all organic matter in this planet and should be shunned for it!

These are war games, the way that the miniatures are sculpted doesn't reflect anything other than that the creators of the setting think looks cool or ultimatelly will sell more miniatures.

PhantomViper wrote:So playing any WW2 miniature game where the german player doesn't loose every game automatically is glorifying nazi Germany to you, right?

Stupid hyperbole is stupid. And also stupid.

Comparing sexism to racism is perfectly valid, it is discrimination between groups of humans either way.


edit: and no, I'm not supporting any accusations of sexism (at least, I don't believe it was intentional). Just denying his claim that they aren't similar in nature.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:so with that kind of reasoning (its always been this way so why change it), Hitler should be considered a nice chap and his doings nothing out of the ordinary.

...and we're done. Thanks for playing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:So playing any WW2 miniature game where the german player doesn't loose every game automatically is glorifying nazi Germany to you, right?

Stupid hyperbole is stupid. And also stupid.

Comparing sexism to racism is perfectly valid, it is discrimination between groups of humans either way.


edit: and no, I'm not supporting any accusations of sexism (at least, I don't believe it was intentional). Just denying his claim that they aren't similar in nature.

Melissa, read the post PhantomViper is responding to. I've included the relevant quote above.

Sidstyler wrote: I'm not squeamish about sex, it just seems like there are a lot of these cheesecake minis (not just Infinity) and not enough "serious" female soldier minis to balance it out. I mean there are a lot of male models in the range that are just as guilty of blatant sexism, but there are also a lot of male models that aren't, whereas with the female models it seems the ones that aren't are a lot rarer.

I'm not, per se, arguing that you're squeamish about sex, but rather that Western, especially American, culture is squeamish about sex. Its a taboo, to be obtuse, and that's why we notice it. Its also, arguably, why we're so titillated by it.

Well, and its awesome, we can't forget that.

Sidstyler wrote:
I kinda hope that's an accident, personally. I don't want to think that GW could be that damn immature.

I mean, Leman Russ wrestled with the one-eyed monster that was Magnus.

Sidstyler wrote:
In any case that's all I'll be able to think about now every time I see that weapon: a big whippy penis.

My work here is done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:If I may wax philosophical for a moment dogma, I would go so far as to say that this is because the sexualization of men and women goes in entirely different directions because of societal differences in what the ideal is for each gender.

The average artist attempting to sexualize women make them look vulnerable and weak, whiel the average artist attempting to sexualize men make them look powerful and badass.

I would agree with that, but also note that highly sexualized women can be viewed as extremely powerful. Whedon played with the "vulnerable cheerleader" trope in Buffy, but the femme fatale is a well established trope.

dogma wrote:I would agree with that, but also note that highly sexualized women can be viewed as extremely powerful. Whedon played with the "vulnerable cheerleader" trope in Buffy, but the femme fatale is a well established trope.

The femme fatale is very easy to mess up.

If you don't do it right she looks like a pathetic twit (see Metroid Other M).

A femme fatale should be sexy because she is powerful, not the other way around.

That's one of the reasons that Sisters are popular despite not being nude.

I think some people get lost in the sexiness of the pose and forget the other parts. The big ass gun. Who is to say that the girl grinding on the gun, as someone above stated, isn't skilled enough to knock the wings off a fly at 1000 yards with it.

Nothing wrong with looking sexy and being good at your job at the same time.

As for male figures not looking sexy, GW is a bad company to look at for inspiration. 90% of their male models are covered in some sort of bulky body armor. Those that are not seem to have very defined muscles, abs, pecs, biceps, etc. And I've seen just as many useless, unbalanced poses come from them as any girl bending over her gun. But look at Anima Tactics, Reaper fantasy warriors, confrontation, etc. You will see just as many out of position male figures as female figures.

I think the real issue is that we just don't notice the ott male figures as easily as the female ones. I think the reason is that the vast majority of wargamers are male. And truthfully probably hetrosexual males at that, as such we just don't take notice of a well scultpted and alluring male physicque. Now throw in a scantally clad female in a somewhat feature enhancing pose, yeah, we take notice because something in our brain goes "click".

I think if you stop and really look at what is available you will find this sexism alive and well for both genders in every model range. After all, when was the last time you saw a male model with a plumbers crack, or the steriotypical fat nerd hacker type (that wasn't done deliberately). Those figures just don't exist for the most part.

PhantomViper wrote:So playing any WW2 miniature game where the german player doesn't loose every game automatically is glorifying nazi Germany to you, right?

Dued, I play SM which are the worst Nazis ever, if they were for real, Hitler would seem as an armature-ish puppy in comparison, so consider that one more time please.

PhantomViper wrote:These are war games, the way that the miniatures are sculpted doesn't reflect anything other than that the creators of the setting think looks cool or ultimatelly will sell more miniatures.

There you are wrong, it does reflect the creators personal stance in a whole lot of issues, very much so. Sure If you look at one mini that looks a certain way, you can't say very much but when you look at a whole miniature range and a whole world of miniature gaming you sure can, especially when compared to the real world! The world of miniature-gaming isn't an isolated island by itself, its very much an active agent in shaping our society!

Sidstyler wrote:
... I'm not squeamish about sex, it just seems like there are a lot of these cheesecake minis (not just Infinity) and not enough "serious" female soldier minis to balance it out. I mean there are a lot of male models in the range that are just as guilty of blatant sexism, but there are also a lot of male models that aren't, whereas with the female models it seems the ones that aren't are a lot rarer.

To be fair, Infininity has a lot of female models that aren't cheesecake. The models that are blatant in showing skin or cheesecake poses may catch your attention, but there are a lot of troops that need a second glance to determine which are male and which are female:






The females definitely have slimmer builds, and the power armoured figure has heels (yeah, I agree, silly in warfare) but otherwise don't rely on skin or jutting body parts to differentiate.


If those don't work, here are the links:
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/celestial-guard-2/
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/keisotsu-butai-2/
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/invincibles-2/

Melissia wrote:
A femme fatale should be sexy because she is powerful, not the other way around.

I think you're underestimating the power of being sexy.

Certainly power is sexy, but sex is also power. Its like money in that way.

dogma wrote:I think you're underestimating the power of being sexy.

No, I am not.

There is no power to "looking sexy" when your enemy wants to kill you.

Even daemonettes don't manage that much and they're supernaturally sexy. They only manage their effects through soporific gas released by their bodies-- basically a form of chemical warfare.

"Looking sexy" by itself (instead of being attractive through the power you wield) in a warzone is basically synonymous with "being a victim".

I want more cheesecake so i can paint more buns and boobies!

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:]There you are wrong, it does reflect the creators personal stance in a whole lot of issues, very much so. Sure If you look at one mini that looks a certain way, you can't say very much but when you look at a whole miniature range and a whole world of miniature gaming you sure can, especially when compared to the real world! The world of miniature-gaming isn't an isolated island by itself, its very much an active agent in shaping our society!

So if creating models that display females in more sensual poses is defending the objectification of women, what do you think about creating a whole setting that glorifies slavery, genocide, racism, etc? And what do you think about the people that activelly choose to play with said armies? Aren't they supporting those views with their choices?

Don't you think that that line of reasoning is a little bit flawed and extremist?

Melissia wrote:A femme fatale should be sexy because she is powerful, not the other way around.

Disagree.
The whole trope of a "femme fatale" derives in that she uses her sexuality to gain power. She is powerful in great part due to her being sexy.
A powerful woman that may be sexy but doesn't use sexuality as a tool/weapon isn't a femme fatale.
Sisters of Battle aren't femmes fatales, they're just warriors that just so happen to be female.

---

That being said, the only models in Infinity that would make sense as a "femme fatale" are the Haqqislam Odalisques and for good reason. A sniper with thermoptic camouflage such as that Proxy Mk2 has no business trying to be sexy and striking such a pose (especially in a faction that prides itself on secrecy and subterfuge).

The Mk2 Proxy is awkwardly striking a pose when it should be sniping/hiding. Not femme fatale; just absurd.
The Aleph Asura is "sexy" in that it doesn't care that it's not wearing clothes. It's going to shoot you. Maybe "femme fatale" may fit here even.

As an amusing aside, I green-stuffed my Spitfire Asura's butt crack slightly to reduce the absurdity.

Melissia wrote:
There is no power to "looking sexy" when your enemy wants to kill you.

But it does make you enemy less likely to want to kill you.

Melissia wrote:
"Looking sexy" by itself (instead of being attractive through the power you wield) in a warzone is basically synonymous with "being a victim".

Being attractive due to power is no more likely to influence someone that wants you dead than being sexy.

People don't look at their mugger and think "Meh, he's ok." and then when he pulls out a gun think "Damn!"

Well, some people probably do.

Absolutionis wrote:
The whole trope of a "femme fatale" derives in that she uses her sexuality to gain power. She is powerful in great part due to her being sexy.

Yep.