Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

come on guys! this is a hobby! we do this to get out of non creative boring jobs (quote on quote tsoalr)
well, as long as its not TOO sexual, like models in the middle of you-know-what.
otherwise, there should be no reason to rant/whine/complain about nudity on models.
its all in the spirit of beer and pretzels and having fun. a bit of nudity doesnt hurt.

thanx alot and go roll a six.

aurelion wrote:@Emperors Faithful....

I agree with you. Sexauly explicit material doesnt belong in wargameing. Nudity can be discussed depending on the model. A naked Slayer gives the same statement as the naked celt warriors "we dont fear death".

I think the body hair pretty much acts as clothing for the Slayer. Also, no one's going to get upset over a crazy naked midget.

I am still on the younger side and i feel that peole should have the ability to but them if they want but don't over due it it's hard enough to play this game without parents freaking out and the a whole army being naked doesn't help

i'm not saying PG FOR ALL OR DIE or something just try to keep it tasteful and don't fill the store's windows all the way with it

Erm, there are allready sex slaves in 40k... Just look at that special Dark Eldar Raider.

Two sex slaves, right there also the old harlequins O_O

Yea but I voted for the first one, i'd just like to see how far GW would take it.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

aurelion wrote:@Emperors Faithful....
No one's going to get upset over a crazy naked midget.

This just about sums up the spirit of good-natured Nudity.

NO nuditiy on models... I mean it justs ruins the whole game and the figures are fine how they are. Who would be running round a futuristic battle-feild nude. It's just stupid


Automatically Appended Next Post:

deffskullz wrote:I am still on the younger side and i feel that peole should have the ability to but them if they want but don't over due it it's hard enough to play this game without parents freaking out and the a whole army being naked doesn't help

i'm not saying PG FOR ALL OR DIE or something just try to keep it tasteful and don't fill the store's windows all the way with it

See this guy has some sense also there are really little kids who play and it's not really appropiate. I mean all of the gamesworkshop's future hobbyists are little kids. But making nude figures will freak out the parents and that means the gamesworkshop could get into a bit of trouble and there will be less models being sold.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually as long as it is kept tasteful and behind the counter might be alright. Also it needs to make sense. Also no genitals.

for all the people saying to "keep it tastefull," where do you draw that line?

I draw the line at fething horsecocks.

It really isn't that hard to be tasteful, all you have to do is not intentionally be a fething slow and do stupid gak like tack a 2" long green stuff horsecock on a model for no other reason than to get a "LOLZ PENIS! LOOKITS A PENIS!" reaction. Am I really being that unreasonable?

I mean really? Did you just think the wargaming hobby wasn't already weird enough, you have to do gak like that and make passers by think there's actually something wrong with our fething heads? Kids get away with crap like that because they're stupid, but grown men should really be over that whole putting penises on everything stage don't you think?

Daemon tits are ok, but not dongs?

I knew this would come about eventually.

No, it's not about that, and it's never been about that. I don't have a problem with tits, witches (EDIT: c*nts = witches? wtf) or dongs, all I'm saying is 1) is it really appropriate to sculpt detailed genitalia on models in the first place, and 2) does doing so make any fething sense.

I'm sorry, but I don't think "It's Slaanesh!" is a good enough excuse to be crude and tasteless. If anything, a Slaaneshi army calls for the exact opposite. I really don't know where the hell people got the idea that Slaaneshi armies would only fight in the nude and use their dicks as swords or guns...

Human nudity is ok, but only if they are from a warm climate?

I'm not sure I get what you're saying here, kind of afraid to ask.

A mate of mine used to do 25mm historic battles, and he used ancent celts. He went to a tourny unpacked his army and was asked withing miniutes to pack his army, leave the building and was then banned. all becourse his army contained true celt beserkers wearing nothing but woad and there weapons, and he was accussed of being a dirty old perv for daring to bring such filth to the tourny.
damm idiots

Sounds pretty damn stupid. Were they simply "historically accurate", he didn't do anything weird with them at all? Can't believe someone would get banned for that.

But it's a double standard when you allow any display of violence you can imagine, bloody dismemberment, melting rotting flesh, decapitation, whatever, but you draw an arbitrary line when it comes to sexuality. (I thought you Brits kicked out the puritans a long time ago?)

First of all, in my case at least, there is no double standard. I'm just as put off by unnecessary gore and violence as I am crude and tasteless nudity.

Second, it's a fething war game. You kind of EXPECT some violence.

Finally, everything you listed actually makes a lot of sense for most armies. Tyranids for example, every bug is an engineered killing machine with teeth and claws, and exists only to eat the galaxy. A couple of flayed limbs here and there is fine, all things considered. Chaos Space Marines are another one, a few nasty trophies and rotting flesh fit the theme perfectly.

With all that said, I'd be just as disgusted by someone who felt the need to graphically model someone being dismembered or having holes blown in them, it's just excessive and yes, while it is a wargame (sort of) and horrible stuff happens on a battlefield, do you really need to get that god-damned realistic when painting up toys for a freaking game?

The point is, wether you consider painting miniatures "art" or not, it is designed by GW to be entirely subjective to the player how he/she wants to interpret and display his or her army. So giving players that freedom, and then pulling a carrot/stick trick on them is a little ridiculous. Same goes for other players who are "offended" by your explicit army. What if I were offended by the blatant violence, and bloody weapons you have painted on your berzerks? Could I be TFG and ask to have you banned from the store? Yeah, not likely.

So if I run into someone with an Emperor's Children army, and they felt the need to be very true to their fluff and modeled a couple of Marines raping random civilians, I have no right to be offended or question why the hell they'd do that since I'm effectively taking away their freedom to interpret and display their army the way they want? Or if someone sculpts a big horsecock for a soulgrinder's battlecannon, but doesn't do anything else to the model except paint it pink, then I have no right to be offended despite their obvious lack of effort or any real care beyond trying to get a shock reaction?

I'm getting real tired of your arguments thus far. I'm basically being told that if I have a problem with some nudity, I have a problem with ALL nudity, and I'm being painted as a fething puritan when I'm really nothing of the sort.

Creating life is horrible, but killing is A-Okay.

Oh yeah, that's not oversimplifying the issue at all, is it?

At this point I feel the need to say, just for the record, that I don't think sex is "obscene". God knows I love it, and the female body, but that doesn't mean I want it plastered all over the god-damned fething place, either. Some of you are being very close-minded in that regard. "If you don't let me sculpt rape scenes, huge tentacle-like dicks and power swords coming out of people's groins then you're just a prude and you probably are a virgin and don't even like boobs or girls lolol!"

If the blue dude had been a blue chick the whining would have been minimal.

Now that I kinda have to agree with, and it's sad. That's pretty much all I ever heard about the Watchmen movie, "LOLZ BIG BLUE PENIS!"

Just get over it! At least they were being true to the source material and didn't make him wear a damn thong.

The more tits, vaginas and penises you can cram onto a model the better!

If you dont want it, don't buy it.
If you dont like it, don't look at it.

And concerning this BS that children should not see miniatyre titties is ridiculous

Also, who the hell, in this thread, is actually saying nipples are going to warp children?

Exposed breasts are perfectly fine, I really don't understand the problems people have with them.

BUT IT'S SLAANESH PURITAN! You just don't get it lololz.

The new plastic daemonettes should have had realistic vaginas and spread legs, and even more exposed breasts! Like 8-12 breasts per model! WTF GW?!

Severed heads,piles of skulls,demons,genocide,plague...hey that's all just dandy,but >GASP< a pair of breast...>GASP< a penis..OH Lawdz no!!
C'mon,we are talking about little plastic/metal minis,if an adult wants to buy and paint those sorts of minis,then he/she should be able to.

Yet more oversimplification. Is anyone even reading the rest of the thread before they post? It's not "Oh lawdz a penis!", it's "What the feth man, that looks stupid and doesn't even make sense, why the hell did you do that?"

So I assume all you pro-nudists (even though I'm pro-nudity myself, if anyone's actually been paying attention) would have no problems whatsoever with the guy who felt it was necessary to model Marneus Calgar with a huge swinging dong between his armor-clad thighs, yeah? Because that just makes a world of fething sense doesn't it?

My definition of 'tasteful' is whether it is appropriate for the situation or not.

Exactly!

As a general rule, erect and oversized penises plastered all over models mean the person with that army is immature. It's no different to those school children who scrawl genitals (and often hitler mustache and glasses) all over the photos in magazines. Sure, glad you're entertained, sorry but I don't quite see the point.

Will you be my friend?

Slaanesh models can look alluring and attractive

For some reason though, most people seem to think that "alluring and attractive" = "completely nude all the time". It really doesn't.

NO nuditiy on models... I mean it justs ruins the whole game and the figures are fine how they are. Who would be running round a futuristic battle-feild nude

Well, a demon would. The Celts are another good example.

Really nothing wrong with the nudity itself, the only nudity I hate on models is the immature kind.

As a general rule, erect and oversized penises plastered all over models mean the person with that army is immature. It's no different to those school children who scrawl genitals (and often hitler mustache and glasses) all over the photos in magazines. Sure, glad you're entertained, sorry but I don't quite see the point.

Will you be my friend?

Slaanesh models can look alluring and attractive

For some reason though, most people seem to think that "alluring and attractive" = "completely nude all the time". It really doesn't.

Don't misunderstand me, I feel no need to model horsecocks, or any other nudity. But I still don't see why, if somebody paid good money, and is encouraged by the company to be as creative as he can, why then he can't model the army as he sees fit.
Dr.Thunder's femmarines are agood example (not to start that argument here.) I think female sm's are slowed. But it's his army, and he spent alot of time/money making them.
It's debatable how much this hobby can actually be defined as "art." But it is still entirely subjective to the creator/painter how he/she wants to do it. After all it's your personal army.
I said it before, that I can see tourney's and all ages stores not letting you play with your bonerific models. But if your playing at a friends house and he's got an army that you find "distastefull" don't be such a dick, have a laugh, and play the game. I mean, really? Does it really bother you that much? Were you raped with a tentacle when you were younger? Really? It's not that big a deal.

Btw, have you considered that people don't create over-the-top nude models because they are immature, but they do it to provoke reactions, and see the look on your face?

Lint wrote:
Btw, have you considered that people don't create over-the-top nude models because they are immature, but they do it to provoke reactions, and see the look on your face?

QFT. They probably do it just to hear you say "OMG BEWBS!!!"
That or they really do have a problem.

Lint wrote:Mostly I was in a pissy mood yesterday. I honestly don't care about nudity on models. But I absolutely hate censorship.

Ah, well I can certainly agree with you there.

Lint wrote:Were you raped with a tentacle when you were younger?

Actually, yes I was. Thanks for bringing back that memory, you insensitive jackass.

I've never gone to the aquarium since. Can't even look at fish again.



Anyway, you're one to talk about "misunderstanding"...once again, thanks for deliberately missing the point. This is the kind of person arguing for nudity on models, ladies and gentleman: "Durr, your daddy must have touched you when you were younger, that's why you don't like boobies! Hurr hurr hurr!" Ignoring the fact yet again that I've stated numerous times that I'm a-okay with nudity on models so long as it has a point. I'm not trying to get anyone's army banned because of an exposed breast FFS, all I'm saying is that, like it or not, there is a line drawn, albeit a line that you have to be trying very hard to cross.

But no, for some reason I'm not allowed to be pro-model-nudity if I don't support ALL nudity, even pointless, gratuitous nudity or even graphic depictions of sexual acts. Why is the daemonette giving someone a blowjob in the middle of a battlefield? I dunno, can't really question it I guess because I don't want to look like a "prude" or anything, or be accused of stifling someone's creativity/taking away someone's right to freedom of speech/expression or whatever other bs excuse people come up with to put dildos on tanks...

Lint wrote:Btw, have you considered that people don't create over-the-top nude models because they are immature, but they do it to provoke reactions, and see the look on your face?

Yes, I have considered that, and personally I think the need to do stupid things simply to provoke a negative reaction reeks of immaturity, as well. You're not going to convince me otherwise.

I can take a joke, like I've said before. I certainly wouldn't bite someone's head off if they showed up to the table with Pretty Marines or Angry Marines, for instance, or a jokey conversion or two. But I find it insulting to my intelligence, and me personally, when the guy across from me isn't trying to get anything out of the game itself but just trying to get some laughs with his friends at my expense with his overcompensating soulgrinder. feth that, I have better things to do with my time if that's the case. I'm here to play the game, not to act as the punchline to your fething joke.

I don't want to stifle creativity, I'm not telling people what they can or can't do with their models, obviously I personally have no right to. But I think I deserve more respect than that, don't you? And also, just because I personally don't like the stuff doesn't mean I'm going to confront anyone about it. The most I'll do is sigh and shake my head, the only way I would react any stronger is if YOU were the one pushing the issue.

Sidstyler wrote:
Actually, yes I was. Thanks for bringing back that memory, you insensitive jackass.

I've never gone to the aquarium since. Can't even look at fish again.

lolz. We're having a good heated debate, but this did make me smile

Anyway, you're one to talk about "misunderstanding"...once again, thanks for deliberately missing the point. This is the kind of person arguing for nudity on models, ladies and gentleman: "Durr, your daddy must have touched you when you were younger, that's why you don't like boobies! Hurr hurr hurr!" Ignoring

I think you missed the point brohem. I was simply using juvenile humor to say that you should probably calm down, and stop using the Feth-word. It really shouldn't make you this mad.

Lint wrote:Btw, have you considered that people don't create over-the-top nude models because they are immature, but they do it to provoke reactions, and see the look on your face?

Yes, I have considered that, and personally I think the need to do stupid things simply to provoke a negative reaction reeks of immaturity, as well. You're not going to convince me otherwise.

You make a good point, it probably is immature, but while I seem to be the one pushing your button today you're just giving me free rent in your head. Immature on my part? Perhaps, but it's the internet, and it's funny as hell.

I can take a joke, like I've said before. I certainly wouldn't bite someone's head off if they showed up to the table with Pretty Marines or Angry Marines, for instance, or a jokey conversion or two. But I find it insulting to my intelligence, and me personally, when the guy across from me isn't trying to get anything out of the game itself but just trying to get some laughs with his friends at my expense with his overcompensating soulgrinder.

Seriously, why does it have to be at your expense? What is it that makes you take it so personally? So some guy is an idiot who crudely slapped an erection on his chapter master? Why is this a personal affront to you?

I don't want to stifle creativity, I'm not telling people what they can or can't do with their models, obviously I personally have no right to. But I think I deserve more respect than that, don't you? And also, just because I personally don't like the stuff doesn't mean I'm going to confront anyone about it. The most I'll do is sigh and shake my head, the only way I would react any stronger is if YOU were the one pushing the issue.

So you can flame all over this forum, but when push comes to shove you won't speak up about something that has so obviously touched a nerve? Unless it's me? Like I said thanks for the free rent, but sadly I can't stay in your head any longer. Go ahead and make your rebuttal, just try to keep it civil, and we can agree to disagree.

I think it's fine, but it spawns immaturity. People should play slaanesh armies because it's their style. /rant

@ Sidstyler
Despite your many points,the matter still boils down to one of personal choice.
If one chooses to model his/her army,that he/she paid for,in a sexauly provocitive or even explicit manner,then that is their choice,just as it would be your choice to not interact with them.

As long as they don't make figs of hardcore scenes, I'm fine.

So you can flame all over this forum

Who am I flaming?

but when push comes to shove you won't speak up about something that has so obviously touched a nerve?

"Touched a nerve"?

Anyway, no, I won't "speak up" about it in real life because I honestly don't care that much. Just because I spend a few minutes debating about it on the internet does not mean that my whole life revolves around this one issue. All I did was state my opinion on the matter, that was it. Like I said, I'm not trying to ban anyone's army, I'm not trying to cause any trouble myself, I have an opinion about excessive or pointless nudity on toys and that's that. What exactly are you trying to imply, that I should be confronting people and going to blows over crude conversions or dick armies?

Unless it's me?

"Don't be a dick, just play the game."

All I was saying is that that's what I fully intended to do. I wasn't targeting you specifically, I meant "you" as if you were the one who brought said "offensive" army to the table. Maybe it's just a poor choice of words, I don't know, but I wasn't trying to imply that you or anyone else posting here was a special case.

Sidstyler wrote:

So you can flame all over this forum

Who am I flaming?

but when push comes to shove you won't speak up about something that has so obviously touched a nerve?

"Touched a nerve"?

Anyway, no, I won't "speak up" about it in real life because I honestly don't care that much. Just because I spend a few minutes debating about it on the internet does not mean that my whole life revolves around this one issue. All I did was state my opinion on the matter, that was it.

At the risk of sounding like a dick or being confrontational...
I feel the need to point out that, counting quotes, you have posted 117 lines of text on this page alone about something you allegedly don't really care about.

Just sayin'.

Although you claim this isn't a big issue for you, your fixating on the subject gives the impression that it is, that nudity and sexuality really offends you and you won't put up with it. Could be this is completely wrong and that you're just trying to explain you're point of view in detail. In fact I believe that's probably the case. In which case, no prob. Just be aware that you might be giving the wrong impression, and that when you write at such length about your opinions it may seem like you're ranting even if you're not.

Samus666 wrote:At the risk of sounding like a dick or being confrontational...
I feel the need to point out that, counting quotes, you have posted 117 lines of text on this page alone about something you allegedly don't really care about.

Just sayin'.

...wait, you actually counted?

Samus666 wrote:Could be this is completely wrong and that you're just trying to explain you're point of view in detail. In fact I believe that's probably the case. In which case, no prob.

Well I'm glad you realized that, because I literally laughed out loud when I read the line about being offended by nudity and sexuality and not tolerating it. It's just so far off the mark it's not funny...even though I laughed about it...you know what I mean.

Samus666 wrote:Just be aware that you might be giving the wrong impression, and that when you write at such length about your opinions it may seem like you're ranting even if you're not.

Well if what you said before is true then I really must be, because that's not what I think at all.

I do have a tendency to rant, but it's the internet, who doesn't?

Lol very true, I love a good rant. But I hate it when people think I'm ranting when I'm not. Leads to all sorts of hassle.
There seemed to be a bit of a misunderstanding emerging between you and Lint, Lint seemed think that you were getting all worked up, when actually you were just explaining at length. And I thought maybe an outside perspective could help avert a needless flame-war

And yeh I counted lol. It served a purpose. Plus it was late here, and I was bored and drunk.

FITZZ wrote: @ Sidstyler
Despite your many points,the matter still boils down to one of personal choice.
If one chooses to model his/her army,that he/she paid for,in a sexauly provocitive or even explicit manner,then that is their choice,just as it would be your choice to not interact with them.

And should said person with models having a battlefied orgy be allowed to place his army on the board in a store or tourney for all to see? What kind of parent wants thier kids to see pink/purple deamon soul-grinder with massive c*cks? In fact, what mature person does?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, just noticed the @Sidstyler. Oh, well. Anyway, if you want to buy those models and convert them in 'that' way, that's fun. But don't bring that junk(substitute fouler word) in here and show it to the little kids, okay?

Ok , thats it.. I now know what my next WIP is.

Thanks Dakka

Here's a question I guess we haven't asked... What circumstances are we talking about these nude models being displayed? I don't think anybody wants to expose little kids (besides the dubious legality) to explicit material. But if it's just a private game would you still have a problem?

Orcs need boobies... yup

I vote anything goes. My first soulgrinder is a tad risque but it'll be nothing compared to what i have planned for the second one. Let's just say lamprey tongues will be involved...

Emperors Faithful wrote:

FITZZ wrote: @ Sidstyler
Despite your many points,the matter still boils down to one of personal choice.
If one chooses to model his/her army,that he/she paid for,in a sexauly provocitive or even explicit manner,then that is their choice,just as it would be your choice to not interact with them.

And should said person with models having a battlefied orgy be allowed to place his army on the board in a store or tourney for all to see? What kind of parent wants thier kids to see pink/purple deamon soul-grinder with massive c*cks? In fact, what mature person does?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, just noticed the @Sidstyler. Oh, well. Anyway, if you want to buy those models and convert them in 'that' way, that's fun. But don't bring that junk(substitute fouler word) in here and show it to the little kids, okay?

If you've read this complete thread, then you should have read that I myself have 2 children, so of course I'm not saying that sexauly explicit material (be it mini or magazine) would be appropriate for children,nor am I saying that one should bring his "battlefield orgy" to a location that would be questionable.
I am simply saying that modeling ones army,in any fasion,is a matter of personal choice & freedom, and while there are certianly people who would choose not to play against such an army,there are those who wouldn't bat an eyelash about it as well.
As for the question of maturity,I think that anyone who could be tantilized by a 2 inch plastic figure,nude or other wise,is in need of a great deal more contact with the opposite sex.

FITZZ wrote: As for the question of maturity,I think that anyone who could be tantilized by a 2 inch plastic figure,nude or other wise,is in need of a great deal more contact with the opposite sex.

What?!? I always have my models getting naked and pretend they're doing it. Tastefully of course.

Its stupid to be blunt

Lint wrote:Here's a question I guess we haven't asked... What circumstances are we talking about these nude models being displayed? I don't think anybody wants to expose little kids (besides the dubious legality) to explicit material. But if it's just a private game would you still have a problem?

Our local historics group has a 12-year old who plays DBA. His main armies are Celts, Vikings, and Egyptians. There's nudity - duh. Evidently, that nudity's OK, even though he's a little kid, because it's accurate to the source material.

He also has a WFB Slanessh-themed Chaos army (and Skaven and Empire for god measure). There are nude minis, which are accurate to the source material. Why would these NOT be OK in light of the preceeding observation? Or, more to the point, if you're OK with nude minis in one game, you should be OK with them in another, right?

Buttlerthepug wrote:Orcs need boobies... yup

that just makes me feel sick