Melissia wrote:

JudgeShamgar wrote:But people are already buying their models so....what does that say?

I didn't buy the models in question. They suck.

Not you, you the individual but YOU as in people who buy the product. Someone must be buying these or the company would go under.

Melissia wrote:No, but I have paid attention to the plight of women in warzones, especially the brutal and nasty ones in Africa.

Have you?

Are you really asking me this question?

I've actually been to some of these places. I teach classes on the politics of these places.

Yeah, I've paid attention.

Melissia wrote:
"Being sexy" has very little power in a warzone. That's just a myth created by male fantasy.

And wearing a fireman's jacket has equally little power.

Its a wargame. A fantasy. It predicated on rule of cool.

dogma wrote:Its a wargame. A fantasy. It predicated on rule of cool.

And only you are allowed to dictate what is cool, then?

JudgeShamgar wrote:Not you, you the individual but YOU as in people who buy the product. Someone must be buying these or the company would go under.

I am not under the ludicrous opinion that just because something is popular it must be good.

PhantomViper wrote:

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?

Touché ! I'm not saying that the purpose with a cheesecake female mini is to defend the objectification of women or that the purpose of a beefcake male mini is to defend the objectification of men. That is never the less the result. What they have done though, is to follow the normative pattern for how men and women should look and behave, whether this is intentionally or not I can not say. Probably not, I believe they just want to make cool minis.

To answer your other question, I believe that for example GW is quite clear on one point and its that for example the 40k universe is totally fu#&ed up. They don't really say that for example the Imperium of man, which just pops up in to my mind , necessarily are any nice chaps. They believe so (the Imperium) but GW leave it up to us to decide really. Sure the Imperium is somewhat depicted as the good guys but I say its up to you to decide. This is something they should emphasize a little more and yes in a way I do find it somewhat disturbing ('cause the imperium is really totally evil and disgusting, if such a word as "evil" is to be used at all). The minis however are more real in a sense. How they are made is not up to debate as much as how we should perceive the fluff. Because, if women and men almost entirely are depicted in two distinctively different ways in accordance with a global pattern of normative perceptions or ideas, that is a matter of fact rather than opinion and will more directly effect you. Of course we need an overhaul on the fiction as well, women will have to be visible both in mini and in text!

Melissia wrote:I'm getting the feeling that this boils down to people saying "I want them to make models that I want to buy and play with" and then the ones that like cheesecake are basically saying "no screw you I like the models they already have!"

Meh.

They already make models that you want to buy and play with. They ALSO make models you don't want to buy or play with. So, stick to the former.

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:Its a wargame. A fantasy. It predicated on rule of cool.

And only you are allowed to dictate what is cool, then?

JudgeShamgar wrote:Not you, you the individual but YOU as in people who buy the product. Someone must be buying these or the company would go under.

I am not under the ludicrous opinion that just because something is popular it must be good.

As the reigning King High Almighty of Cool my pocket protector, suspenders, and black sock wearing with sandals am allowed to dictate what is truly cool and what is not.

Popularity is not an indication of anything other than people (not you personally, just so you know) will buy/eat/make some kind of consumable goods.

Mastiff wrote:They already make models that you want to buy and play with.

Except that they don't if I want to have a full army and play the game.

Especially if I want to have women in my army.

Absolutionis wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Isn't this debate starting to wander increasingly into strange, slightly hypocritical and badly defined concepts of acceptability based on toy soldiers? I think perhaps there is too much being read into our choices as "generals" of our tiny metal militaries. Pop psychology rubbish abounds.

Thus: Liking scantily clad, provocatively posed miniatures does not make one a proto-rapist, a sexist, or any other 'ist.'. Likewise, playing a GAME with teeny models does not mean that one is a heartless monster, a future war-criminal, or anything of the sort.

Next up: All the Flames of War players using SS units are declared to be actual Nazis and war criminals? All the Soviet players are now de facto Communists?

Aside from your complete irrelevance to the topic being discussed, you really invalidated your entire argument by downplaying everyone's hobby on a forum dedicated to that hobby.

The topic being discussed isn't whether or not "sexy" miniatures are appropriate per se or whether it makes people into rapists or whatever you misread. It's about whether sexualized models striking up pinup poses in an otherwise serious range are appropriate.
Put quite simply, people are arguing whether or not unfittingly sexualized models are fitting for a range.

JudgeShamgar wrote:You know going in that some of your units will die.

Welcome to the not-real-world where my Eldrad Ulthran has been 'killed' countless times in petty skirmishes... and that's years after he officially died in the fluff. I think I'll field him in yet another game next week for funsies.
Some of us like a bit of believability in our wargames. Believability =/= realism.

What, you didn't read the posts about how one MUST be heartless in order to play wargames to some degree or another? THE ONES YOU QUOTED? Some people are arguing this using such ridiculous pop psychology, thus my comment. Some people might be arguing about whether these figures "fit" in the range, others appear to be having a completely different argument about the appropriateness of these figures period and even the appropriateness of the players who choose them or revile them. Catch up eh?

And no, its not 'downplaying the hobby' to point out that choosing X army does not make one a Communist or a Sexist or a Nazi. Its just "the case".

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
To answer your other question, I believe that for example GW is quite clear on one point and its that for example the 40k universe is totally fu#&ed up. They don't really say that for example the Imperium of man, which just pops up in to my mind , necessarily are any nice chaps. They believe so (the Imperium) but GW leave it up to us to decide really. Sure the Imperium is somewhat depicted as the good guys but I say its up to you to decide....

To be fair, it's only recently that the the Imperium has been written in a way that allows the possibility that they might not be completely evil. They were always intended to be a totalitarian nightmare, essentially George Orwell's 1984 taken to absurd extremes. The setting was intended to be nihilistic and pitiless, where God (the emperor) was dead, but the church lived on as a corrupt political, bureaucratic force where charity and brotherhood are a weakness.

That's been softened in the last decade to appeal to a younger and international audience.

JudgeShamgar wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:The topic being discussed isn't whether or not "sexy" miniatures are appropriate per se or whether it makes people into rapists or whatever you misread. It's about whether sexualized models striking up pinup poses in an otherwise serious range are appropriate.
Put quite simply, people are arguing whether or not unfittingly sexualized models are fitting for a range.

I want to publicly apologize for bringing feelings or mental inclination into the discussion.

I'm going to quote myself on this and maybe you will see it this time.

I'm not even sure that it's been softened really so much as they've explored it more and you can't keep exploring the same boring old "life sucks and then you die" without being, well, bored.

Melissia wrote:

Mastiff wrote:They already make models that you want to buy and play with.

Except that they don't if I want to have a full army and play the game.

Especially if I want to have women in my army.

Then substitute with models you do like. I'm pretty picky about models. I don't buy the ones I don't like, I go through the range to find appropriate substitutes for critical models in my army. It's inconvenient, but I feel it's more important that I get the model I want. My reason for choosing not to buy specific models may be different than yours, but the solution remains the same.

Would you agree that Infinity has some female models that are not offensive? Or do you feel that no females would work as subs, and you don't want to use male figs to replace them either?

Mastiff wrote:[snip]

None of the above. I think that if they must do distasteful miniatures (such as cheesecake), especially ones that don't fit in with the rest of the army like these don't, they should also provide alternatives so that the buyer doesn't NEED to substitute.

Melissia wrote:I'm not even sure that it's been softened really so much as they've explored it more and you can't keep exploring the same boring old "life sucks and then you die" without being, well, bored.

No, I'd still say "softened". Read the original books. There were no heroes. They were written by young men who grew up in Thatcher's Britain. They were pretty clear in their contempt for bureaucrats who would choose the rule of law over the well-being of humanity every time. Thus they told stories of black arcs that fed a million souls (of psychers) to a dead emperor every single day. Every page of their books was saturated with quotes that dripped hypocrisy and xenophobia, and bureaucratic and fascist contempt for the common man. Every single character was irredeemably flawed, often offensively so. The point they emphasized in every line of every page was that there were no "good guys", no hope or redemption, just ruthless powers exploiting the common man.

They've given up the political and socio-economic internal dynamic (the government vs. her people) of the setting that made 40k unique to move to a more palatable external dynamic (our nation/race vs. the other nation/race).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Mastiff wrote:[snip]

None of the above. I think that if they must do distasteful miniatures (such as cheesecake), especially ones that don't fit in with the rest of the army like these don't, they should also provide alternatives so that the buyer doesn't NEED to substitute.

Fair enough. Saying they should provide you with alternatives suggests you are powerless to solve your problem.

But that's the point. Speaking for myself, there is no alternative for the ALEPH Posthumans or the Naga Sniper.

dogma wrote:Its a wargame. A fantasy. It predicated on rule of cool.

There you are wrong! A wargame isn't an isolated island from the rest of the society! In that case, is a newspaper just a media for communicating recent events, a commercial just promotion for a certain object or scervice, a movie just a random story in motion pictures, a history book just an "objective" account of history, an encyclopedia just an "summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge" and so on? In such a case does any form of inequality or oppression exist at all!?

Kanluwen wrote:But that's the point. Speaking for myself, there is no alternative for the ALEPH Posthumans or the Naga Sniper.

So rather than repaint, say, a celestial guard http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/celestial-guard-2/ in your Aleph colours, you feel that CB has a responsibility to change their product line.

Alright, let me know how that works out for you.

Kanluwen wrote:But that's the point. Speaking for myself, there is no alternative for the ALEPH Posthumans or the Naga Sniper.

You can't find female future snipers on the internet? You're not doing it right then.

Picking a very random example, Studio Mcvey do at least two figures that would make nice snipers and don't look out of place with the originals you don't like, or the rest of the range. And I found those whilst looking up what a Naga sniper IS.

I think that cheesecake is suitable as long as you don't get crumbs on the gaming board

Mastiff wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:But that's the point. Speaking for myself, there is no alternative for the ALEPH Posthumans or the Naga Sniper.

So rather than repaint, say, a celestial guard http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/celestial-guard-2/ in your Aleph colours, you feel that CB has a responsibility to change their product line.

Alright, let me know how that works out for you.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:But that's the point. Speaking for myself, there is no alternative for the ALEPH Posthumans or the Naga Sniper.

You can't find female future snipers on the internet? You're not doing it right then.

Picking a very random example, Studio Mcvey do at least two figures that would make nice snipers and don't look out of place with the originals you don't like, or the rest of the range. And I found those whilst looking up what a Naga sniper IS.

Miniatures games don't work that way and you both know this.

Using a Celestial Guard or a Studio McVey model to represent an Aleph Proxy would be like using a Chaos Space Marine model or a Cygnar Sword Knight as a Space Marine so long as you paint it up in the right colors. An outside may think it's fine, but a person that actually cares about their hobby would find it just wrong.

The world isn't as simple as you think regardless of how ignorant you choose to be on the topic you're arguing about.

I don't just have a problem with cheesecake poses, but with most implausible poses. That's not to say that people can't have "badass" or "dynamic" models in their army, but when a unit is comprised of one guy actually aiming his gun and three people striking poses, it always looks silly to me. I try to model units in plausible or plausible-ish combat or support poses whenever possible, and one problem I have with Infinity is that lots of models just don't do it for that æsthetic.

That being said, a lot of people do like the Infinity anime-esque or "cheesecake" style, and I'm not one to critique others for having different tastes and preferences. Personally, I find many Infinity models to be too unrealistic/impractically outfitted and posed, so I don't buy them, but Corvus Belli's general success shows that there are lots of people out there who don't mind. And that's good! There should be games and miniatures available for whatever style people want.

Absolutionis wrote: Miniatures games don't work that way and you both know this.

No, but the world does. Hoping that a company will make an alternative to a successful product because a minority won't buy it is unrealistic. What Kan can control is finding an alternative.

Absolutionis wrote:The world isn't as simple as you think regardless of how ignorant you choose to be on the topic you're arguing about.

Do you feel getting CB to make a more conservative alternative to a successful mini is simpler than Kan looking for a substitute among their existing line?

...but a person that actually cares about their hobby would find it just wrong.

You're adorable. Don't ever change.

Absolutionis wrote:

Mastiff wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:But that's the point. Speaking for myself, there is no alternative for the ALEPH Posthumans or the Naga Sniper.

So rather than repaint, say, a celestial guard http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/celestial-guard-2/ in your Aleph colours, you feel that CB has a responsibility to change their product line.

Alright, let me know how that works out for you.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:But that's the point. Speaking for myself, there is no alternative for the ALEPH Posthumans or the Naga Sniper.

You can't find female future snipers on the internet? You're not doing it right then.

Picking a very random example, Studio Mcvey do at least two figures that would make nice snipers and don't look out of place with the originals you don't like, or the rest of the range. And I found those whilst looking up what a Naga sniper IS.

Miniatures games don't work that way and you both know this.

Using a Celestial Guard or a Studio McVey model to represent an Aleph Proxy would be like using a Chaos Space Marine model or a Cygnar Sword Knight as a Space Marine so long as you paint it up in the right colors. An outside may think it's fine, but a person that actually cares about their hobby would find it just wrong.

The world isn't as simple as you think regardless of how ignorant you choose to be on the topic you're arguing about.

What utter toss. Miniature games have worked like this since a bunch of beardies in the 60s took a load of plastic airfix men and kitbashed Orcs out of them. Probably even before that. Just because GW and their ilk have forced the issue by demanding that players only play their games with their official men/dice/tape measures/paints/clothes, doesn't mean that anybody else in the world gives a crap for that idea. I use Rackham and Heresy figures in my Cryx army. I have PSC/Battlefront/Old Glory/QRF figures in my FOW armies. I used a 1/35 Leopard Tank conversion as a battlewagon for years.

An Aleph sniper is (apparently) a girl with a sniper rifle, some sort of goggles, and that's about it. Mcvey has a girl with a rifle. I'll add a bit of brass rod for a suppressor. She already HAS goggles. Job done. Guess what? I just bought a Haqqislam sniper to use with another ruleset!! OMG! Clearly I must be acting with act with a cavalier disegard for the Hobby and its "rules" which say I can only use a figure for the game setting it was designed for, must NOT mix manufacturers, or use a similar figure . Emperor preserve my heretical soul for painting in non-codex schemes!!!

Monster Rain wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:No actually, it doesn't. None of the objections raised by myself or Slarg or Melissia are based simply upon "Hurr sexy models are bad". They're the fact that the models don't fit within the range proper, and for some asinine reason this is considered acceptable because "Infinity has anime inspiration!".

If that is indeed true that Infinity is inspired by Anime and Manga, you realize that Anime generally has some "cheesecake" elements to it and it's not inconsistent at all.

Kanluwen wrote:It's like if the Space Marines suddenly started fielding Assault Marines in bananahammocks and rollerblades, with wifebeaters on. It ruins the whole visual tie of the army--and it's not something that can simply be fixed with a paintjob.

Why on earth would I care about that? If it was well converted and painted I think that would by hysterical.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:

Mastiff wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Mastiff: you've pretty much exemplified my point there. Why do we need the models showing skin or cheesecake poses when there's plenty of troops which look professional, yet still maintain the manga/anime aspect that Infinity is built upon?

Because people like them. Why do you object to other people liking something you don't?

I don't object to people liking them. I object to the fact that they are forced down your throat by dint of being in the range.

Who's the bad man making you buy these models?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Why they don't just err on the side of practicality(and business sense) and create a "collectors" and a "gamers" range is beyond me.

Because scantily clad women don't move product.

Oh, wait...

Yeah Monster Rain, you nailed it... Now Espect Kan to ignore your post and then a couple pages down this thread he will post the damn same complains all over again, ad eternum.

Why should one be forced to buy from a different company just to play the first company's game without buying gak models?

I read all this and my thoughts are basically, who cares? Buy the models, dont buy the models, nobody else really gives a crap what you do.

Choice is a wonderful thing, it would be a bloody boring world if everyone agreed on everything.

ArbeitsSchu wrote: OMG! Clearly I must be acting with act with a cavalier disegard for the Hobby and its "rules" which say I can only use a figure for the game setting it was designed for, must NOT mix manufacturers, or use a similar figure . Emperor preserve my heretical soul for painting in non-codex schemes!!!

Please report to your Hobby beardy judge for some serious spanking, HOW DARE YOU!? You are not "a person that cares about the hobby", Shame on you!

Melissia wrote:Why should one be forced to buy from a different company just to play the first company's game without buying gak models?

He isn't, no one is forcing him to do anything that he doesn't wan't.

If he doesn't like the model and he doesn't wan't to find / convert a replacement (and unlike "other" gaming companies, CB actively promotes the use of proxies, even from other companies), he can simply not play the game.

Miniature manufacturers don't have to cater to every single taste in every player in the world.

CB decided to make the game the way it is, you don't like it? Then don't play it.

And I actually like the Naga Sniper model, you calling it gak is again you trying to enforce your opinions on others.

Why should one be forced to purchase exclusively from a single manufacturer to field a clearly generic figure? Its just some girl with a fairly standard looking rifle and a body-suit. I could buy it a hundred times over, or the elements of it.

Am I the ONLY person in the world who scrolls through Maelstroms' catalogues looking for nice figures that might look good painted up and fielded in a given force? Or discard the 'ugly' figures and look for nicer alternatives? I don't spend all my time bemoaning that Designer X failed to exactly match my aesthetic requirements for "girl sniper two." I go out and buy a different one, often for less money than the original. Or I kitbash one. I end up with something unique. This pleases me.

For example: I like Menoth. I dislike Menoth infantry casts. So I search for suitable arabic/crusades looking miniatures to make nicer infantry which will be unique to me.

Melissia wrote:Why should one be forced to buy from a different company just to play the first company's game without buying gak models?

To play first company game you just need to download the FREE rules and play with the minis you have at home from any other game... you have options no one is forcing you to do nothing in that regard but I get the feeling you guys that assimilated the GW model biz doctrine don't have a clue what wargaming is and was... maybe a trip into 15mm realms would teach you guys some foundations about wargaming...

NAVARRO wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote: OMG! Clearly I must be acting with act with a cavalier disegard for the Hobby and its "rules" which say I can only use a figure for the game setting it was designed for, must NOT mix manufacturers, or use a similar figure . Emperor preserve my heretical soul for painting in non-codex schemes!!!

Please report to your Hobby beardy judge for some serious spanking, HOW DARE YOU!? You are not "a person that cares about the hobby", Shame on you!

My secret is out. THE SHAME! I shall fall upon my Official GW Measuring Stick in ignominy.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Why should one be forced to purchase exclusively from a single manufacturer to field a clearly generic figure?

Outside of GW you're not forced to. But again, why should I be restricted from complaining about the company's lack of ability to produce models to my taste?

They want my money, they make what I want to buy. If his offends you... sorry?

Wait, no I'm not-- I'm not sorry at all.

edit: .... Okay, so Iguess I'm going to put PhantomViper on ignore because he believes that stating one's opinion is the same as forcing it on someone else, which is a belief that so defies logic, intelligent thought, or reason that it makes me want to murder someone. This is not a pleasant fealing.

PhantomViper wrote:

And I actually like the Naga Sniper model, you calling it gak is again you trying to enforce your opinions on others.

Me too, reminds me of kerigan from starcraft.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Am I the ONLY person in the world who scrolls through Maelstroms' catalogues looking for nice figures that might look good painted up and fielded in a given force? Or discard the 'ugly' figures and look for nicer alternatives? I don't spend all my time bemoaning that Designer X failed to exactly match my aesthetic requirements for "girl sniper two." I go out and buy a different one, often for less money than the original. Or I kitbash one. I end up with something unique. This pleases me.

No my friend not only your not the only one but any seasoned war gamer or collector has embraced that many moons ago. Its the GW and FOW generation that cant seem to think outside those ridiculous boxes... A shame really because many give up wargaming without even knowing what wargames are all about.

Melissia wrote:
edit: .... Okay, so Iguess I'm going to put PhantomViper on ignore because he believes that stating one's opinion is the same as forcing it on someone else, which is a belief that so defies logic, intelligent thought, or reason that it makes me want to murder someone. This is not a pleasant fealing.]

No, I believe that continually throwing insults like calling stuff stupid and gak and calling the people who make it perverts is trying to force your opinion on others. But go right ahead and ignore me, please.

PhantomViper wrote:

Melissia wrote:Why should one be forced to buy from a different company just to play the first company's game without buying gak models?

He isn't, no one is forcing him to do anything that he doesn't wan't.

If he doesn't like the model and he doesn't wan't to find / convert a replacement (and unlike "other" gaming companies, CB actively promotes the use of proxies, even from other companies), he can simply not play the game.

Miniature manufacturers don't have to cater to every single taste in every player in the world.

CB decided to make the game the way it is, you don't like it? Then don't play it.

And I actually like the Naga Sniper model, you calling it gak is again you trying to enforce your opinions on others.

This. This so many times over.

After reading the entire thread, I can say that I've never seen such a demand for pandering to one's specific tastes.

Melissia, I truly sympathize with your dislike of the models. But then saying that someone shouldn't have to buy different models from a different company to play the game they supposedly like is bordering on a form of lethargy and a sense of entitlement I can't fathom.

NAVARRO wrote:No my friend not only your not the only one but any seasoned war gamer or collector has embraced that many moons ago. Its the GW and FOW generation that cant seem to think outside those ridiculous boxes... A shame really because many give up wargaming without even knowing what wargames are all about.

I've looked through other catalogues, but my point still remains that it is the fault of the company that their miniature range is so limited.

gunslingerpro wrote:After reading the entire thread, I can say that I've never seen such a demand for pandering to one's specific tastes.

Why not? I am the customer. If they want my money, they give me something I want to buy.

<simmer down, and get back on topic, people>

Hint: if you're posting to discuss another poster's posting habits, you're a) not on topic; and b) at risk of violating some of Dakka's posting rules.

@Melissia - They clearly intend to create further miniatures. The other factions appear to have larger ranges, and I seem to recall someone saying that its a 'new" faction, so its not nonsensical to think that there might be a Naga sniper #2 or even #3 down the line.

Its hardly a "limited" line of figures though. There are quite a few to see, in a growing range. Or do you expect a company to immediately furnish you with a complete and whole range instantly for every faction as soon as they start trading? You struck me as more sensible than that.

OH man I love this place. Two week vacation, returning to a 12 page thread on Infinity Cheesecakes. Lol you guys are great.

FTR - I'm down with those pics I saw. Great line Infinity, for every piece of Cheesecake coolness in the line there are about 3 to 5 times the amount of coolness in the line from different flavors - giant robots, big guns, mutants, cool tech. Infinity is inventive, cool, and cliche in so many directions...it's just nutty.

It's definitely a great place to spend a little money.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:@Melissia - They clearly intend to create further miniatures. The other factions appear to have larger ranges, and I seem to recall someone saying that its a 'new" faction, so its not nonsensical to think that there might be a Naga sniper #2 or even #3 down the line.

Its hardly a "limited" line of figures though. There are quite a few to see, in a growing range. Or do you expect a company to immediately furnish you with a complete and whole range instantly for every faction as soon as they start trading? You struck me as more sensible than that.

I don't expect them to do it immediately, nor did I say I did. Only that it is a failing that needs to be corrected and that I wish they would give direct alternatives to the cheesecakse instead of making the only female in the unit a crappy cheesecake model.

MightyGodzilla wrote:FTR - I'm down with those pics I saw.It's definitely a great place to spend a little money.

The original post wasn't the one with objectionable parts.

There was a model posted, for example, of a girl who was bending over sticking her ass out with it covered in nothing more than a thong. It's really trashy and to me has no redeeming qualities. Same with the one of the girl in a see-through white shirt (including erect nipples) and ultra-mini catholic schoolgirl skirt taht was flipped up to show her panties. Also trashy.

Melissia wrote:Why should one be forced to buy from a different company just to play the first company's game without buying gak models?

Why feel you need to buy everything from a single manufacturer? There will always be models in any line that are not universally to everyone's tastes for a range of reasons.

Have to say that I am not a fan of furries, so I will be resculpting the single furry model that will be in my Nomad army; file off the ears, file the face and replace it with a cool helmet like the rest of the models in my force, and generally change its look to be more like a) what I want, and b) the look of the rest of the models in my army.

In the same way, if the range did not cater to my aesthetic sensibilities vis a vis cheesecake levels, I would either look for alternate models, or alter existing ones.

I have no issue with nudity, partial nudity or cheesecake where appropriate (and I have several such models that I have bought over the years because I like how they look).

However, in a wargame I want slightly more "realistic" poses and outfits and a more unified look across my force.

Infinity strikes an odd line where the technology is such that bodysuit armour is common and good enough to allow soldiers to have a minimal armour "profile", but also draws heavily from the anime "small girls with funny ears showing pants with big guns" design philosophy (which is one I do not particularly want in a wargame, as noted, thus I pick other models I do like (of which there are a number) to count as the models I do not think fit with what I want).

What's so bad with cheesecake models? If you don't like 'em don't buy 'em, simple as.

Besides this model looks awesome:

Without claiming to know what the specific ranks or titles mean 'in game' a quick gander through the ariadna range (Started with 'A' see?) shows me that 'cheesecake' miniatures are hardly the only females in that force. There are several with tits in, in 'combat' poses that mimic their male counterparts. There are a few that have Foden tattooed across their foreheads. The Ariadna looks like a reasonably comprehensive range, so I assume that other smaller ranges are intended to end up similar in size, and no doubt there are new releases intended as well. Thus I gather that the Infinity people are not solely interested in creating totty in spaaaace. From that I postulate that there will be alternative minatures in the Aleph range which are not "cheesecake".

Of course its possible that "cheesecake" (or its future sister) is the theme for this faction, in which case there won't be, and you should maybe look at a different faction. That is after all why most games have more than one faction.

Melissia wrote:There was a model posted, for example, of a girl who was bending over sticking her ass out with it covered in nothing more than a thong. It's really trashy and to me has no redeeming qualities. Same with the one of the girl in a see-through white shirt (including erect nipples) and ultra-mini catholic schoolgirl skirt taht was flipped up to show her panties. Also trashy.

Out of interest, would you be objecting to the shirt element of the latter model so much if the painter hadn't decided to use it as a test-bed for a translucent cloth effect?

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Melissia wrote:Why should one be forced to buy from a different company just to play the first company's game without buying gak models?

Why feel you need to buy everything from a single manufacturer? There will always be models in any line that are not universally to everyone's tastes for a range of reasons.

I don't, but I still prefer to use models from the company that designed the game as a show of support (after all, I'm playing their game).

Arm.chair.general wrote:What's so bad with cheesecake models? If you don't like 'em don't buy 'em, simple as.

Besides this model looks awesome:

That is pretty nice!

What range / manufacturer is it from?

Dysartes wrote:Out of interest, would you be objecting to the shirt element of the latter model so much if the painter hadn't decided to use it as a test-bed for a translucent cloth effect?

If the hard nipple effect is part of the model instead of a paint job (I can't tell, but I'm guessing yes), then I would still dislike it, yes.

PhantomViper wrote:

Arm.chair.general wrote:What's so bad with cheesecake models? If you don't like 'em don't buy 'em, simple as.

Besides this model looks awesome:

That is pretty nice!

What range / manufacturer is it from?

That's Ruby, one of the Studio McVey limited edition resin sculpts.

@ Armchair: Yeah, that one is on the shopping list.

PhantomViper wrote:

Arm.chair.general wrote:What's so bad with cheesecake models? If you don't like 'em don't buy 'em, simple as.

Besides this model looks awesome:

That is pretty nice!

What range / manufacturer is it from?

Studio McIvey, they have some real nice stuff

Melissia wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:No my friend not only your not the only one but any seasoned war gamer or collector has embraced that many moons ago. Its the GW and FOW generation that cant seem to think outside those ridiculous boxes... A shame really because many give up wargaming without even knowing what wargames are all about.

I've looked through other catalogues, but my point still remains that it is the fault of the company that their miniature range is so limited.

For a skirmish game that you get something like 10 minis per "Army" the selection for each faction is quite nice atm, slowly growing to cover all entries etc... Aleph is the new race on the block so they do have less than others, give it a bit of time.

Thing is, this is the company that wants your money by offering you choices, download free or get paper Rbook with extras for a price, get models or use proxies, use the free army builter etc etc... So your claims and Style of remarks are not adjusted with this company approach to the clients in general.

Thanks for the replies. Too bad that my painting skills would never do justice to a model like that.

NAVARRO wrote:Thing is, this is the company that wants your money by offering you choices, download free or get paper Rbook with extras for a price, get models or use proxies, use the free army builter

And this is relevant, how?

(hint: it's not)

Those facts do nothing to change my opinions.

That Studio McVey model is an amazing sculpt

I usually don't post image macros on non-image boards, <and you should continue that practice; it's a good one --Janthkin>

So, after all this, do we think that sales of Infinity miniatures have gone up or down?

I reckon UP. Too many nice figs to not buy some of them.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:So, after all this, do we think that sales of Infinity miniatures have gone up or down?

I reckon UP. Too many nice figs to not buy some of them.

well i bought some after seeing them on this thread, so id say up

Lol so did I. And a Dark Ages mini I spotted whilst shopping.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:So, after all this, do we think that sales of Infinity miniatures have gone up or down?

I reckon UP. Too many nice figs to not buy some of them.

Well, I literally just bought the Myrmidon Box Set, Myrmidon Officer (who I doubt someone would call "cheesecake", even though she is a women), and Achilles (who is a bit of a "cheesecake", despite being a man), so for my part they have gone up...

My opinion does not count legally.
I buy Infinity every month. Have 4 armies.

Melissia wrote:And only you are allowed to dictate what is cool, then?

Nope, but lots of people seem to think pinup miniatures are cool.

Well, if the most badass person on this planet says they aren't you damn agree if you know what's good for you!

Much of these problems of finding another manufacturer could be solved in Corvus Belli releases weapon-packs for the different factions. It'd feel off to use the PanO Hexas models as Posthumans if I couldn't at least give them Aleph guns.

Also:

Arm.chair.general wrote:What's so bad with cheesecake models? If you don't like 'em don't buy 'em, simple as.

Besides this model looks awesome:
***Image of a model without a range***

That Studio McVey model is not part of a range. It has no 'faction' or 'uniformity' to conform to. Read the thread.

Arm.chair.general wrote:What's so bad with cheesecake models? If you don't like 'em don't buy 'em, simple as.

Read the thread.

Mastiff wrote:Hoping that a company will make an alternative to a successful product because a minority won't buy it is unrealistic. What Kan can control is finding an alternative.

There are people that voice their opinion when something is unsatisfactory, and there are people that quietly accept the problem and learn to cope with it.

Mastiff wrote:Do you feel getting CB to make a more conservative alternative to a successful mini is simpler than Kan looking for a substitute among their existing line?

The Posthumans aren't even out yet. They're hardly "successful".

Mastiff wrote:You're adorable. Don't ever change.

I love you too, dear.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:What utter toss. Miniature games have worked like this since a bunch of beardies in the 60s took a load of plastic airfix men and kitbashed Orcs out of them. Probably even before that. Just because GW and their ilk have forced the issue by demanding that players only play their games with their official men/dice/tape measures/paints/clothes, doesn't mean that anybody else in the world gives a crap for that idea. I use Rackham and Heresy figures in my Cryx army. I have PSC/Battlefront/Old Glory/QRF figures in my FOW armies. I used a 1/35 Leopard Tank conversion as a battlewagon for years.

An Aleph sniper is (apparently) a girl with a sniper rifle, some sort of goggles, and that's about it. Mcvey has a girl with a rifle. I'll add a bit of brass rod for a suppressor. She already HAS goggles. Job done. Guess what? I just bought a Haqqislam sniper to use with another ruleset!! OMG! Clearly I must be acting with act with a cavalier disegard for the Hobby and its "rules" which say I can only use a figure for the game setting it was designed for, must NOT mix manufacturers, or use a similar figure . Emperor preserve my heretical soul for painting in non-codex schemes!!!

Studio McVey models are 32mm. Infinity miniatures are 28mm realistic. That argument is invalid.

Also, nobody is demanding you play Infinity with Corvus Belli models. In fact, everyone that plays Infinity likely LOVES Corvus Belli models. They're the best metal models I've ever had the pleasure of painting. That doesn't mean I don't like some of their design choices.

15mm WWII models further deviate from that. A Tiger Tank is a Tiger Tank, the only difference between companies is the quality. Shoving a random 32mm Studio McVey girl with a gun into an Infinity army would be out of place; McVey makes some great stuff, but it doesn't fit in everyplace where guns are involved. Also, just because you sub-in Rackham models into your World of Warcraft army doesn't mean people that play other games are fans of that.

Finally, adding a brass rod to a random gun isn't good enough. Some people, most people, are fans of a bit of uniformity. If I have an army of Space Marines and three guys in it are equipped with muskets, I'd be dissatisfied.

---

As I've said, many of these conversion and counts-as problems would be greatly alleviated if CB would release faction-specific weapon packs.

I'm going to use the Haqqislam sniper in the same force as the Dark Ages chap, for a game that is neither Infinity nor Dark Ages.

I suspect that Absolutionis's head might actually implode if he reads this. Maybe I should "spoiler" it?

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I'm going to use the Haqqislam sniper in the same force as the Dark Ages chap, for a game that is neither Infinity nor Dark Ages.

I suspect that Absolutionis's head might actually implode if he reads this. Maybe I should "spoiler" it?

I think my mind is blown over how much you've completely missed the point of this thread.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:So, after all this, do we think that sales of Infinity miniatures have gone up or down?

I reckon UP. Too many nice figs to not buy some of them.

The more people that see the models, the more they will sell, if only if people want to play the game with them. With free rules, free army builder, and an average team of about 10 models, it's a pretty cheap game to get into.

Melissia wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:Thing is, this is the company that wants your money by offering you choices, download free or get paper Rbook with extras for a price, get models or use proxies, use the free army builter

And this is relevant, how?

(hint: it's not)

Those facts do nothing to change my opinions.

It should change your opinion because they never imposed you to buy anything from them even if you want to play their games.
Its like you enter a sushi restaurant, but don't like a type red sushi ( even if fresh and good quality) and complain about it ... Its ok, just don't say they need to adapt menu to your tastes and that if they want your money they better have more options that fits your palate... Next day you come in see same menu and say the chef that did red sushi you don't approve of is lonely and horny and complain again... next day you will be blocked from entering and invited to eat elsewhere NOT because of your tastes but the way you express your opinions are inappropriate...
So maybe just maybe the fact Corvus belli gives you choices even if you dislike parts of the menu and lets you bring in food from other restaurants should help you realize that sometimes companies don't just and I quote you " want my money".

Absolutionis wrote:Much of these problems of finding another manufacturer could be solved in Corvus Belli releases weapon-packs for the different factions. It'd feel off to use the PanO Hexas models as Posthumans if I couldn't at least give them Aleph guns.

Also:

Arm.chair.general wrote:What's so bad with cheesecake models? If you don't like 'em don't buy 'em, simple as.

Besides this model looks awesome:
***Image of a model without a range***

That Studio McVey model is not part of a range. It has no 'faction' or 'uniformity' to conform to. Read the thread.

Arm.chair.general wrote:What's so bad with cheesecake models? If you don't like 'em don't buy 'em, simple as.

Read the thread.

Mastiff wrote:Hoping that a company will make an alternative to a successful product because a minority won't buy it is unrealistic. What Kan can control is finding an alternative.

There are people that voice their opinion when something is unsatisfactory, and there are people that quietly accept the problem and learn to cope with it.

Mastiff wrote:Do you feel getting CB to make a more conservative alternative to a successful mini is simpler than Kan looking for a substitute among their existing line?

The Posthumans aren't even out yet. They're hardly "successful".

Mastiff wrote:You're adorable. Don't ever change.

I love you too, dear.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:What utter toss. Miniature games have worked like this since a bunch of beardies in the 60s took a load of plastic airfix men and kitbashed Orcs out of them. Probably even before that. Just because GW and their ilk have forced the issue by demanding that players only play their games with their official men/dice/tape measures/paints/clothes, doesn't mean that anybody else in the world gives a crap for that idea. I use Rackham and Heresy figures in my Cryx army. I have PSC/Battlefront/Old Glory/QRF figures in my FOW armies. I used a 1/35 Leopard Tank conversion as a battlewagon for years.

An Aleph sniper is (apparently) a girl with a sniper rifle, some sort of goggles, and that's about it. Mcvey has a girl with a rifle. I'll add a bit of brass rod for a suppressor. She already HAS goggles. Job done. Guess what? I just bought a Haqqislam sniper to use with another ruleset!! OMG! Clearly I must be acting with act with a cavalier disegard for the Hobby and its "rules" which say I can only use a figure for the game setting it was designed for, must NOT mix manufacturers, or use a similar figure . Emperor preserve my heretical soul for painting in non-codex schemes!!!

Studio McVey models are 32mm. Infinity miniatures are 28mm realistic. That argument is invalid.

Also, nobody is demanding you play Infinity with Corvus Belli models. In fact, everyone that plays Infinity likely LOVES Corvus Belli models. They're the best metal models I've ever had the pleasure of painting. That doesn't mean I don't like some of their design choices.

15mm WWII models further deviate from that. A Tiger Tank is a Tiger Tank, the only difference between companies is the quality. Shoving a random 32mm Studio McVey girl with a gun into an Infinity army would be out of place; McVey makes some great stuff, but it doesn't fit in everyplace where guns are involved. Also, just because you sub-in Rackham models into your World of Warcraft army doesn't mean people that play other games are fans of that.

Finally, adding a brass rod to a random gun isn't good enough. Some people, most people, are fans of a bit of uniformity. If I have an army of Space Marines and three guys in it are equipped with muskets, I'd be dissatisfied.

---

As I've said, many of these conversion and counts-as problems would be greatly alleviated if CB would release faction-specific weapon packs.

Conformity? I'm talking about a girl with a sniper rifle? So what if Mcvey stuff is a slightly different scale? (Besides, I've found in my decades of purchasing figures that nominal scale differences can often mean very little when taken in direct comparison.) You've clearly become too caught up with disproving the random example to understand the greater theory behind the suggested conversion. There are literally hundreds of other "girls" and thousands of other "guns" to choose from. Google "female sniper miniature" and see how many pop up.

I fail to see anything about that Naga figure that makes it so utterly different to any other body-suit model that it couldn't be reasonably proxied by another manufacturers figure, or maybe even another Aleph with a gun swap. The rifle itself isn't noteworthy or hugely different to any other sniper rifle either in the CB range or in 28mm at all. Its certainly not as different as a black powder musket (once legal in 40k anyway) and a hand-cannon firing hi-explosive mass-reactive caseless rocket-shells. Thinking about it, my old Nurgle Death Guard army HAD a champion with a musket and he fitted just fine.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I fail to see anything about that Naga figure that makes it so utterly different to any other body-suit model that it couldn't be reasonably proxied by another manufacturers figure, or maybe even another Aleph with a gun swap.

Good, I see you agree with me.
It'd be nice if CB provides a small pack of guns so we can do these conversions. Until then, I can't justify buying another $10 model that I already have only to rip off the gun.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:So what if Mcvey stuff is a slightly different scale? (Besides, I've found in my decades of purchasing figures that nominal scale differences can often mean very little when taken in direct comparison.)

Opinions. Mine differ from yours.
It's another instance of me not tolerating the drastic difference and you being totally fine with "meh, good enough".

NAVARRO wrote:Its ok, just don't say they need to adapt menu to your tastes and that if they want your money they better have more options that fits your palate...

Why not?

There is nothing at all wrong with asking for different options.

The idea that it is wrong to complain is laughable.

And really, your analogy is pretty screwed up too, as most restaurants wouldn't like it if you, say, brought in your own salad to eat alongside the meal they cooked when they have a salad to provide. In fact, in some (if not many) places that'd get you kicked out.

I agree with you saying that the figure is so faction-specific that one couldn't possibly use any other figure from anywhere else to field it, by pointing out how incredibly generic and "done" the figure already is by dozens of other manufacturers? I think your helmet must be on backwards son.

Absolutionis wrote:Studio McVey models are 32mm. Infinity miniatures are 28mm realistic. That argument is invalid.

.

Odd I would like to believe that you have CB minis, because scale on same range on same faction that I have here is all over the place so your 28mm realistic claim is NOT entirely truth... Not only that but any converter changes the base hight and voila 32mm fits right in... Speaking of mcvey minis sedition wars is factions based so there's some uniformity there for you...
In short we can stay here all day debating if it fits or not, point is it fits if you want it to fit and make it happen but if you dont you will pin point every possible hypothetical problem in the book.

NAVARRO wrote:Speaking of mcvey minis sedition wars is factions based so there's some uniformity there for you...
In short we can stay here all day debating if it fits or not, point is it fits if you want it to fit and make it happen but if you dont you will pin point every possible hypothetical problem in the book.

I do, however, own every model in the Aleph line up until the Posthumans. Sedition Wars is a great line, but they don't fit with my current figures.

Funny thing is, I used the aforementioned Naga Sniper in comparison to a 32mm model a few months ago. I see the difference, and I don't see them compatible enough for my tastes.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/318593.page#1955597

---

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I agree with you saying that the figure is so faction-specific that one couldn't possibly use any other figure from anywhere else to field it, by pointing out how incredibly generic and "done" the figure already is by dozens of other manufacturers? I think your helmet must be on backwards son.

Take the blindfold off, kid. You quoted it yourself:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:Much of these problems of finding another manufacturer could be solved in Corvus Belli releases weapon-packs for the different factions. It'd feel off to use the PanO Hexas models as Posthumans if I couldn't at least give them Aleph guns.

I say I would like to use Aleph guns with PanO models if Aleph guns were available.

You suggest using proxies and attaching the appropriate gun.

NAVARRO wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:Studio McVey models are 32mm. Infinity miniatures are 28mm realistic. That argument is invalid.

.

Odd I would like to believe that you have CB minis, because scale on same range on same faction that I have here is all over the place so your 28mm realistic claim is NOT entirely truth... Not only that but any converter changes the base hight and voila 32mm fits right in... Speaking of mcvey minis sedition wars is factions based so there's some uniformity there for you...
In short we can stay here all day debating if it fits or not, point is it fits if you want it to fit and make it happen but if you dont you will pin point every possible hypothetical problem in the book.

LOL Sedition Wars even has a sniper girl with the same damn rifle and bodysuit! I hadn't even clocked that one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Absolutionis wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I agree with you saying that the figure is so faction-specific that one couldn't possibly use any other figure from anywhere else to field it, by pointing out how incredibly generic and "done" the figure already is by dozens of other manufacturers? I think your helmet must be on backwards son.

Take the blindfold off, kid. You quoted it yourself:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:Much of these problems of finding another manufacturer could be solved in Corvus Belli releases weapon-packs for the different factions. It'd feel off to use the PanO Hexas models as Posthumans if I couldn't at least give them Aleph guns.

I say I would like to use Aleph guns with PanO models if Aleph guns were available.

You suggest using proxies and attaching the appropriate gun.

Lets just clarify this: I have suggested one can use almost ANY female miniature in a bodysuit from ANY range, and almost ANY sniper rifle from ANY range that is broadly the right scale because the Naga is so very very generic. You want a figure from IN the range (because otherwise it won't fit, and you won't care about the hobby and whatever yadda yadda) using a gun from IN the range. There is a distinct difference. You clearly believe that ONLY CB miniatures could possibly fit with other CB miniatures, I insist otherwise. That's not "agreeing" with you. Its "opposing" you.

NAVARRO wrote:[snip; restaurant analogy]

Really, to continue this, I have a far better analogy using he restaurant basis you used:

Imagine if you went to a restaurant ,and you ate their food and didn't really like a particular addition to their meals. So after you leave, you tell your friends/acquaintances that you don't like it and don't plan on eating there anymore-- unless they make additions their menu to match your tastes. Then one of your friends/acquaintances gets pissed off and starts going off on you, rabidly defending the restaurant in question, insulting you for your different taste in food.

That's what you and several other people in this thread are acting like to me. How DARE I dislike a certain model in the line and wish that they would produce something else, right?

I'm honestly flabbergasted that people get so insulting and downright mean just because not everyone likes the models they do.

Melissia wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:[snip; restaurant analogy]

Really, to continue this, I have a far better analogy using he restaurant basis you used:

Imagine if you went to a restaurant ,and you ate their food and didn't really like a particular addition to their meals. So after you leave, you tell your friends/acquaintances that you don't like it and don't plan on eating there anymore-- unless they change their menu to match your tastes. Then one of your friends/acquaintances gets pissed off and starts rabidly defending the restaurant in question, insulting you for your different taste in food.

That's what you and several other people are acting like to me.

Hey, I just suggested you could proxy in the salad instead!

Melissia wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:Its ok, just don't say they need to adapt menu to your tastes and that if they want your money they better have more options that fits your palate...

Why not?

There is nothing at all wrong with asking for different options.

The idea that it is wrong to complain is laughable.

And really, your analogy is pretty screwed up too, as most restaurants wouldn't like it if you, say, brought in your own salad to eat alongside the meal they cooked when they have a salad to provide. In fact, in some (if not many) places that'd get you kicked out.

Wrong to complain? is that all you take from the post? read again please.

Yes others restaurants/ minis companies would kick you out... Thats the point! Others just want your money! CB gives you freebies and lets you go wild with their game/menu the least you could do is complain with some respect for their work and their workers.
I dont think your inclined to even read carefully or maybe I'm just a bit tired of saying to you the same thing over and over again, even with screwed analogies to try to reach you... You just don't seem to get it.


EDIT: You edited your post 3 times no patience to continue sorry, cheers.

Navarro reminded me of a post I made in the Infinity thread a few months ago:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/318593.page#1955597

The scale difference exists. It's unsatisfactory for my tastes.

Melissia wrote:

That's what you and several other people in this thread are acting like to me. How DARE I dislike a certain model in the line and wish that they would produce something else, right?

I'm honestly flabbergasted that people get so insulting and downright mean just because not everyone likes the models they do.

Youve missed the point people have been trying to make with you by miles. No one minds that you dont like the model, but for some reason its abhorrent to you to just not buy the thing, you seem to want it gone instead. Maybe you dont mean quite this, but this is what youve been typing, over and over and over.

Melissia wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:[snip; restaurant analogy]

Really, to continue this, I have a far better analogy using he restaurant basis you used:

Imagine if you went to a restaurant ,and you ate their food and didn't really like a particular addition to their meals. So after you leave, you tell your friends/acquaintances that you don't like it and don't plan on eating there anymore-- unless they make additions their menu to match your tastes. Then one of your friends/acquaintances gets pissed off and starts going off on you, rabidly defending the restaurant in question, insulting you for your different taste in food.

That's what you and several other people in this thread are acting like to me. How DARE I dislike a certain model in the line and wish that they would produce something else, right?

I'm honestly flabbergasted that people get so insulting and downright mean just because not everyone likes the models they do.

Despite what you might believe, disagreeing with you isn't the same as insulting you. As far as insults go, you are the one throwing adjectives like "stupid", "gak" and expressions like "horny, lonely sculptors" around...

Skippy wrote:you seem to want it gone instead.

That is, and always has been false, no matter how many times you try to lie about it.

So please, stop lying about what I have said. It is pissing me off.

I very specifically stated taht I don't want them gone, I want the company to produce an alternative, non-cheesecake model.

NAVARRO wrote:Wrong to complain? is that all you take from the post? read again please.

I did. That is the essence of what you are saying.

NAVARRO wrote:Others just want your money!

So does this company, last I checked they aren't non-profit.

NAVARRO wrote: CB gives you freebies and lets you go wild with their game/menu the least you could do is complain with some respect for their work and their workers.

Seriously, you're complaining that I might hurt their feelings or something?

NAVARRO wrote:I'm just a bit tired of saying to you the same thing over and over again, even with screwed analogies to try to reach you... You just don't seem to get it.

Or maybe you need to understand the fact that not everyone likes the same models you do and that insulting them isn't going to change this.

GW figures are oversized and basically fat chunky types, so I'll ignore those. The closest I can see with those posts is the Malifaux figure next to the Alephs? Between the bases, heels and hats I can't honestly determine if there really is a huge size difference, or scale disparity. Nevertheless, just because there is disparity between one range and another does not mean that ALL ranges are incompatible.

Exactly ArbeitsSchu, scale disparity exists in between and within many ranges but someting around 28mm to 32mm there's not much problems for me just play with the base a bit and all fits in... But I do understand people less liberal about it.

Absolutionis wrote:

Mastiff wrote:Hoping that a company will make an alternative to a successful product because a minority won't buy it is unrealistic. What Kan can control is finding an alternative.

There are people that voice their opinion when something is unsatisfactory, and there are people that quietly accept the problem and learn to cope with it.

Cope with it, and adapt to the situation by working with the available materials. I call them "hobbyists".

Oh snap.

Mastiff just laid down the law!

Mastiff wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:

Mastiff wrote:Hoping that a company will make an alternative to a successful product because a minority won't buy it is unrealistic. What Kan can control is finding an alternative.

There are people that voice their opinion when something is unsatisfactory, and there are people that quietly accept the problem and learn to cope with it.

Cope with it, and adapt to the situation by working with the available materials. I call them "hobbyists".

What available materials? Is there a bits service somewhere I'm missing? Because I can't order the sniper rifle from the ALEPH Posthuman to use on a spare Dasyu body. I have to buy a set of Posthumans(three of the models I loathe from that range) to get one bit.

When GW does that, it's criminal. Infinity does it and it's "adapting"?

Go Go bikini armor saves!

I thought cheesecake was also called fan service.

Melissia wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Why should one be forced to purchase exclusively from a single manufacturer to field a clearly generic figure?

Outside of GW you're not forced to. But again, why should I be restricted from complaining about the company's lack of ability to produce models to my taste?

They want my money, they make what I want to buy. If his offends you... sorry?

Wait, no I'm not-- I'm not sorry at all.

edit: .... Okay, so Iguess I'm going to put PhantomViper on ignore because he believes that stating one's opinion is the same as forcing it on someone else, which is a belief that so defies logic, intelligent thought, or reason that it makes me want to murder someone. This is not a pleasant fealing.

Melissia wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:No my friend not only your not the only one but any seasoned war gamer or collector has embraced that many moons ago. Its the GW and FOW generation that cant seem to think outside those ridiculous boxes... A shame really because many give up wargaming without even knowing what wargames are all about.

I've looked through other catalogues, but my point still remains that it is the fault of the company that their miniature range is so limited.

gunslingerpro wrote:After reading the entire thread, I can say that I've never seen such a demand for pandering to one's specific tastes.

Why not? I am the customer. If they want my money, they give me something I want to buy.

These comments by Melissia illustrate a rather daft sentiment that keeps popping up in this thread, best exemplified by this;

Melissia wrote:Why should one be forced to buy from a different company just to play the first company's game without buying gak models?

What makes this so daft is that it's essentially asking CB to throw money away.

Every company of this type has gaps in their model ranges, a consequence of a limited amount of money and a limited amount of time/energy they can extract from their sculptors.

As I pointed out, yea these many moons ago regarding the Chimera model,

Buzzsaw wrote:-Infinity models are supposed to be sexy.
...
Seriously, read the article from Gutier Lusquiños I posted earlier;

After few attempts, Carlos Torres made an animalistic design, an option used before in some Nomad female troops, as the Daktari, but now it was boosted to the extreme. Those previous designs have human faces with just some animal features such as ears and tail. Now, the challenge was to design a human-animal face that keeps the characteristic attractiveness of the Infinity girls. This ended up as the “Winter Vixen” the version you can see in Concept File-2. Its name comes from the main inspiration for this design, which was the arctic fox.
...
Our other concept designer, Alberto Abal, was in charge of the Chimera’s Viral CC weapon. With this, we want to delve into the idea of an urban fighter, going beyond typical close combat weapons such as knives, swords or axes. We needed a weapon that fitted the “weird” concept of the Chimera, but would also help find a sexy pose for her. So, the final proposal was not a mere sword, but a high-tech bladed chain you can see in the Concept File-2.
...
The pose for the Chimera was suggested to the sculptor by the concept designers, as they know the style of the sexy Infinity girls. However, for the Pupniks, Pedro was totally free to decide which pose to give them, as we all know he has a special talent to sculpt beast men.

So, we know one thing for sure; CB's creative team regards "the characteristic attractiveness of the Infinity girls" as a selling point, as their "hook". So, are they correct? According to Melissia... yes.

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:Its a wargame. A fantasy. It predicated on rule of cool.

And only you are allowed to dictate what is cool, then?

JudgeShamgar wrote:Not you, you the individual but YOU as in people who buy the product. Someone must be buying these or the company would go under.

I am not under the ludicrous opinion that just because something is popular it must be good.

This is where it all just falls apart. If they consider "the characteristic attractiveness of the Infinity girls" as a selling point, and it, in fact, is a selling point (the models that display this characteristic are "popular"), then what conceivable rational is there for them to spend quite a lot of money in an attempt to capture the business of the disgruntled few? Moreover, given that funds are limited, providing this "off-company" sculpt necessarily means diverting a sculptor away from other, as yet unfilled, models in the range.

Far better, from a business point of view, to farm those customers out to smaller, more niche manufacturers...

ArbeitsSchu wrote:What utter toss. Miniature games have worked like this since a bunch of beardies in the 60s took a load of plastic airfix men and kitbashed Orcs out of them. Probably even before that. Just because GW and their ilk have forced the issue by demanding that players only play their games with their official men/dice/tape measures/paints/clothes, doesn't mean that anybody else in the world gives a crap for that idea. I use Rackham and Heresy figures in my Cryx army. I have PSC/Battlefront/Old Glory/QRF figures in my FOW armies. I used a 1/35 Leopard Tank conversion as a battlewagon for years.

An Aleph sniper is (apparently) a girl with a sniper rifle, some sort of goggles, and that's about it. Mcvey has a girl with a rifle. I'll add a bit of brass rod for a suppressor. She already HAS goggles. Job done. Guess what? I just bought a Haqqislam sniper to use with another ruleset!! OMG! Clearly I must be acting with act with a cavalier disegard for the Hobby and its "rules" which say I can only use a figure for the game setting it was designed for, must NOT mix manufacturers, or use a similar figure . Emperor preserve my heretical soul for painting in non-codex schemes!!!

You see, this is (among many places) where GW has it so boneheaded wrong in their case against CH: there is always going to be that idiosyncratic minority that doesn't want what everyone else wants, rather then chase them, let others explore that market, and see how they do.

For example, if the market for ultra-realistic female sci-fi troopers explodes, that's a pretty big hint to everyone (including CB) that they ought to get in on that sweet, sweet cheddar. What's so sad about the stance "Why should one be forced to buy from a different company" is that by boycotting the manufacturers of the models you claim to want, all makers start thinking that there really isn't a market there for the product.

See, remember above when I asked "what conceivable rational is there for them to spend quite a lot of money in an attempt to capture the business of the disgruntled few?" The rational is... that the disgruntled aren't so darned few.

Of course, the above is also where the restraunt analogy...

Melissia wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:[snip; restaurant analogy]

Really, to continue this, I have a far better analogy using he restaurant basis you used:

Imagine if you went to a restaurant ,and you ate their food and didn't really like a particular addition to their meals. So after you leave, you tell your friends/acquaintances that you don't like it and don't plan on eating there anymore-- unless they make additions their menu to match your tastes. Then one of your friends/acquaintances gets pissed off and starts going off on you, rabidly defending the restaurant in question, insulting you for your different taste in food.

That's what you and several other people in this thread are acting like to me. How DARE I dislike a certain model in the line and wish that they would produce something else, right?

I'm honestly flabbergasted that people get so insulting and downright mean just because not everyone likes the models they do.

Falls down. As pointed out above, there are real differences between the situation of a restaurant and the model maker, which make the situations fundamentally dissimilar. To wit;
-If you go into a restaurant, and say "You know, I really don't like the goat cheese on that burger, I want cheddar," or "I I'd prefer sun dried tomatoes with the pesto," these are fundamentally zero opportunity cost suggestions. That is, listening to the customer does nothing to anyone else.

-With a model maker, there is an opportunity cost. Sculpting one thing means another project gets pushed back: pursuing one artistic direction precludes pursuing the other.

So, if passions seem high, it's important to realize that, in a very real way, many of the arguments that seem to be "I want them to make what I like and what others like" in practice are really "I want them to make what I like rather then what others like."

I like the look of them but i honestly cant see them representing anything but Imperial Guard in terms of warhammer

I'm all for females joining the futuristic war effort, but I think that they would be intelligent enough to wear proper armor, just as their male counterparts would. Even those involved in espionage would wear tasteful and intelligent flexible gear that would make them stealthier, not scantily clad.

killykavekommando wrote:I'm all for females joining the futuristic war effort, but I think that they would be intelligent enough to wear proper armor, just as their male counterparts would. Even those involved in espionage would wear tasteful and intelligent flexible gear that would make them stealthier, not scantily clad.

The problem is, at this scale, females wearing combat gear look like men. Hell, from a distance you probably wouldn't even be able to tell if you actualy saw a female soldier in real life, side from maybe long hair if they didn't have it cut to fit under their helmet.

This makes a very boring miniature range if you want females in it.

then why do the female eldar don't look like men?

shadowsnip wrote:then why do the female eldar don't look like men?

Because eldar are aliens, not people.

The female eldar wear stylized "female" looking armor.

That's why they don't look like men.

Meh, I admit, that was a huge wall of text and I'm not really in the mood to respond to most of it.

But this part in particular strikes me as odd:

Buzzsaw wrote:then what conceivable rational is there for them to spend quite a lot of money in an attempt to capture the business of the disgruntled few?

So because they disagree wtih you, they must be the "disgruntled few", huh?

-Loki- wrote:

killykavekommando wrote:I'm all for females joining the futuristic war effort, but I think that they would be intelligent enough to wear proper armor, just as their male counterparts would. Even those involved in espionage would wear tasteful and intelligent flexible gear that would make them stealthier, not scantily clad.

The problem is, at this scale, females wearing combat gear look like men. Hell, from a distance you probably wouldn't even be able to tell if you actualy saw a female soldier in real life, side from maybe long hair if they didn't have it cut to fit under their helmet.

This makes a very boring miniature range if you want females in it.

If sculpted correctly, the female form can still be detected, while maintaining realistic battle armor. For example, many Imperial Guards-women have been sculpted in full armor, while still keeping a female look. Besides, does it really matter that much that we can tell which are specifically male or female without taking a closer look and not just knowing that they're there?

The hips are still wider on the woman, the shoulders are broader on the man, and good armor MUST take this in to account (poorly fitting armor is almost worse than no armor at all in the long run). So with well designed armor you'll still have the subtle differences between males and females. It just won't be of the "omg boobs boobs boobs BOOBS!" variety of difference.

If we use the original Infinity models posted, the one sticking her hind end out in a thong, IIRC has an alternate model with the same gear.. actually, IIRC she has a total of 3 different models available, so the choice really is there.


Also, I personally think that any type of model, regardless of sculpt can fit within its theme. Also the Infinity line, that female "scottish" soldier with miniskirt, and "see-through" tank top are only PAINTED that way... I know that I personally do not have the skills to paint a shirt as being partially see through. This is being used as a sales ploy. There are some companies out there, however, that I think wouldn't fit with many games, and if purchased, are really only purchased as models. Such as the Kabuki models "21st Century Pinup" line.


I think that there is, even in minis, an element of Art for Art's sake. Just because there is nudity within a miniature, or line of miniatures, does not mean that they are too taboo, or have no place in gaming. And so, if I think that a miniature is artistically produced and sculpted, I may think about purchasing and painting it.

I'm perfectly ok with cheesecake in wargaming. Also, the bigger the miniature range, the better, so having both options would be the best. And I like more erotic minis too, always understanding that they are created for the adult collector, and not for kid playing his first wargame.

Melissia wrote:

NAVARRO wrote: CB gives you freebies and lets you go wild with their game/menu the least you could do is complain with some respect for their work and their workers.

Seriously, you're complaining that I might hurt their feelings or something?

NAVARRO wrote:I'm just a bit tired of saying to you the same thing over and over again, even with screwed analogies to try to reach you... You just don't seem to get it.

Or maybe you need to understand the fact that not everyone likes the same models you do and that insulting them isn't going to change this.

Mellissia you answer your own posts now?

"I might hurt their feelings or something?"

Nope but,

"you need to understand the fact that not everyone likes the same models you do and that insulting them isn't going to change this."

Being rude to CB will not change a thing but you lose a great opportunity to have a good debate on dakka... specially when the rudeness is totally unwarranted!

Buzzsaw wrote:[
Falls down. As pointed out above, there are real differences between the situation of a restaurant and the model maker, which make the situations fundamentally dissimilar. To wit;
-If you go into a restaurant, and say "You know, I really don't like the goat cheese on that burger, I want cheddar," or "I I'd prefer sun dried tomatoes with the pesto," these are fundamentally zero opportunity cost suggestions. That is, listening to the customer does nothing to anyone else.

Just to point out that if you change the menu of a restaurant there are considerable money investments also... new supplies, maybe new chef, also the risk of losing identity.... things are more similar than you may think.

Speaking of identity well thats one of the main points why cheesecake fits infinity and has been present from day one, so yeah is a bit disingenuous to think they dont fit because your personal taste clashes with it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

killykavekommando wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

killykavekommando wrote:I'm all for females joining the futuristic war effort, but I think that they would be intelligent enough to wear proper armor, just as their male counterparts would. Even those involved in espionage would wear tasteful and intelligent flexible gear that would make them stealthier, not scantily clad.

The problem is, at this scale, females wearing combat gear look like men. Hell, from a distance you probably wouldn't even be able to tell if you actualy saw a female soldier in real life, side from maybe long hair if they didn't have it cut to fit under their helmet.

This makes a very boring miniature range if you want females in it.

If sculpted correctly, the female form can still be detected, while maintaining realistic battle armor. For example, many Imperial Guards-women have been sculpted in full armor, while still keeping a female look. Besides, does it really matter that much that we can tell which are specifically male or female without taking a closer look and not just knowing that they're there?

Bringing GW sculpts of women to this debate is like bring a fleabag to a pedigree contest

CB is a Spanish company. Andrea Miniatures, the brand of the big scale pin-ups, is a Spanish company. You can suggest them to take that cheesecake out. But they won't hear. We are not as perverted as the bad-japanese stereotype, but we still like our heat and sun. Good luck with that.

Giving more options is one thing. And they are doing it step by step, they can't work in too many things at a time. Eliminating some of the options because of complaints... that's different, and I don't see it happening.

You are free to have your opinions, you are free to share them. But ramming them down people's throats for 14 pages is a whole different story. You don't like it, we get it, message recieved. Move on already. As has been explained, there's lots of alternatives out there, from converting to other miniature lines to other games completely. Clearly CB is not catering to your tastes and doesn't feel that doing things the way YOU feel they should be done works for their game. You made your point. Stop SAYING something and go DO something, get some greenstuff, do some weapon swaps, or just use a proxy and ignore the fact that the sniper rifle form line X isn't the exact same design as from Infinity. Go to town, make it a project as expensive or cheap as you want. But get over it, or move on to greener pastures, and let the people that enjoy it have their fun.

In the meantime, sex sells. Always has. Sexy pin-up style anything has always sold to young men, and the miniature market is absolutely dominated by young men. It's almost the exact same demographic as the video game industry which caters to: the mid/late teens and early/mid-twenties males. There's lots of other people outside that demographic, but when you make a video game you know that you are either marketing to them, or marketing to fill a smaller niche. Look at the women in video games. Lara Croft was practically the Playstation icon for years, a female Indiana Jones, but with short shorts, huge tits and a skin-tight shirt to show em off. What were half the pictures of any E3 game show? the booth babes. What does any super heroine in any comic book in the last 30 years look like? A super model in a scanty costume. What character did they add to star trek voyager to pick up waning viewership? a bombshell blonde in a skin tight suit. It also happens in sports. Guess which Sports Illustrated issue sells the most each year? That's right! the one devoted to scantily clad women striking sexy poses! Sex sells to guys, and especially nerdy geeky guys, even the ones that have wives and girlfriends. Sometimes ESPECIALLY the ones with wives and girlfriends.

If you don't like it, if you think it's sexist, if you think it doesn't fit the aesthetic, well you've said so, you have your opinion and are welcome to it. You're welcome to share it, that's what forums are for. But brow beating it over and over and over and over and over isn't going to make that opinion right for anyone but you. If you're offended by the objectifying of women, well that's a far larger issue than just miniature gaming, and asking a small company in an already small market to go against the flow and to make alternatives (that won't make as much money) to things that already sell like hotcakes is the wrong arena to pick this particular fight in.

For what it's worth I don't like these kinds of models all that much, and would MUCH prefer more realistic poses and armor, but whatever. I don't play with models that I don't like. If for some reason I'm forced to or the unit is just that good, I find an alternative that looks awesome. I move on. Being offended that people tell you do stop bitching and do something about something you don't like after reading page after page after page of complaining is tiresome, it's annoying, and it undermines any legitimate complaint you have.

Kalamadea wrote:You are free to have your opinions, you are free to share them. But ramming them down people's throats for 14 pages is a whole different story.

You're free to do that too, but the law might take issue.

Kalamadea wrote:It also happens in sports. Guess which Sports Illustrated issue sells the most each year?

A better example is Kournikova.

Kalamadea wrote:But ramming them down people's throats for 14 pages is a whole different story.

And, to riff off myself: ram away Aries.

Erasoketa wrote:CB is a Spanish company. Andrea Miniatures, the brand of the big scale pin-ups, is a Spanish company. You can suggest them to take that cheesecake out. But they won't hear. We are not as perverted as the bad-japanese stereotype, but we still like our heat and sun. Good luck with that.

Giving more options is one thing. And they are doing it step by step, they can't work in too many things at a time. Eliminating some of the options because of complaints... that's different, and I don't see it happening.

Was going to say, anything that CB does pales in significance next to some of the things the Japanese have released. That innuendo heavy Transformers cartoon with the girls in it springs to mind..

Looking back over the last few pages, I think this discussion is just going in circles now. Melissa, I'm guessing you don't have the Infinity rulebook, but if you did you would see that the style/concept of the 'cheesecake' models fits perfectly with the universe that CB have created - it is a concept that stretches back many years in Anime, in sci-fi itself, and you could argue goes back to the earliest forms of visual entertainment when cavemen scratched big bosomed women on their cave walls to the appreciative grunts of their comrades.

For infinity itself, the clean lines of terrain and modern aspect are meant to revoke 'Ghost in the Shell', 'Appleseed' and many other Anime. Having 'Cheesecake' is part of that, and is no doubt why the miniatures sell so well, and CB continue to make them, because they fill that concept.

Well, I was specifically talking about ramming opinions down people's throats. Ramming physical objects down their throats is decidedly more illegal, unless you sign a waiver and set up a safe-word beforehand

A better example is Kournikova.

True enough. The only people that cared at all about tennis were people that played tennis themselves, until suddenly the entire country started watching and they started watching because she wore a short skirt when she played.

Melissia wrote:

NAVARRO wrote: CB gives you freebies and lets you go wild with their game/menu the least you could do is complain with some respect for their work and their workers.

Seriously, you're complaining that I might hurt their feelings or something?

Hehehe, yeah actually, just because someone is kind to you doesn't mean your not allowed to have an opinion about what they do.

Buzzsaw wrote:
-If you go into a restaurant, and say "You know, I really don't like the goat cheese on that burger, I want cheddar," or "I I'd prefer sun dried tomatoes with the pesto," these are fundamentally zero opportunity cost suggestions. That is, listening to the customer does nothing to anyone else.

-With a model maker, there is an opportunity cost. Sculpting one thing means another project gets pushed back: pursuing one artistic direction precludes pursuing the other.

So you can't complain to companies that manufacture expensive stuff 'cause it would cost the too much money to give the customer what they want?

-Loki- wrote:

killykavekommando wrote:I'm all for females joining the futuristic war effort, but I think that they would be intelligent enough to wear proper armor, just as their male counterparts would. Even those involved in espionage would wear tasteful and intelligent flexible gear that would make them stealthier, not scantily clad.

The problem is, at this scale, females wearing combat gear look like men. Hell, from a distance you probably wouldn't even be able to tell if you actualy saw a female soldier in real life, side from maybe long hair if they didn't have it cut to fit under their helmet.

This makes a very boring miniature range if you want females in it.

You probably wouldn't see much of a difference depending on the armor, a female cadian, the only differance would probably just be the face but that would be enough for me, though It would be cool with a unit box where all kinds of bodies are represented! But if we are talking about an ultra tight armor like most infinity minis got, yes then you probably would see a difference. But it would be a shame if females and males alike would only be represented by one body-type. And here male models have more diversity, there are beefcake ones, thin, fat, old and saggy etc. while most female miniature follow the same "mold" IE skinny with big boobs, and more often than not, in a "sexy" pose. I'd say that more diversity, both for male and female miniatures, would make most miniature collection more interesting! But one big problem is the general lack of female minis to begin with, and when present often in niche rolls.

Melissia wrote:The hips are still wider on the woman, the shoulders are broader on the man, and goodsubtelty armor MUST take this in to account (poorly fitting armor is almost worse than no armor at all in the long run). So with well designed armor you'll still have the subtle differences between males and females. It just won't be of the "omg boobs boobs boobs BOOBS!" variety of difference.

I partly agree with this, if you would sculpt an average woman in something along the lines of a full modern battlegear there would probably be only a subtle differences from a male sculpt but hey, what is wrong with subtlety? A miniature doesn't have to be 2/4 boobs 1/4 bare skin (often the belly) for me to understand that its a female miniature. And if I couldn't decide about the sex the first time but instead just saw a cool mini, so what!?

"The hips are still wider on the woman, the shoulders are broader on the man" this is what I don't fully agree with. In general, yes this would be true. But some of the women we see are supposed to represent battle conditioned, extremely well trained special forces or women that grew up in an extremely unforgiving environment/society where "only the fittest survive" and every day is a "fight for survival" (cadia as an example). I would ague that these women's physics would differ from that of an "ordinary" woman. Especially those carrying HMGs and the like!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kalamadea wrote:

A better example is Kournikova.

True enough. The only people that cared at all about tennis were people that played tennis themselves, until suddenly the entire country started watching and they started watching because she wore a short skirt when she played.

So you mean just because you can make money on something that makes it a good thing? War is a most profitable thing (for some), does that make it a good thing though?

never said it was a good thing, just a prevalent thing, and that if you're gonna pick a fight about it, miniature wargaming isn't the most effective place to do it, nor will you find much support from that community. It's a far larger issue than a few choice figs from a fairly small company in a very small industry.

Kanluwen wrote:No actually, it doesn't. None of the objections raised by myself or Slarg or Melissia are based simply upon "Hurr sexy models are bad". They're the fact that the models don't fit within the range proper, and for some asinine reason this is considered acceptable because "Infinity has anime inspiration!".


It's like if the Space Marines suddenly started fielding Assault Marines in bananahammocks and rollerblades, with wifebeaters on. It ruins the whole visual tie of the army--and it's not something that can simply be fixed with a paintjob.

There has almost never been a full update where a WHOLE ARMY gets new models at same time ( minus Dark Eldars )

hence there are always models that will ruin the visual tie, I can list you all the armies too, but to make it short,

and agreeing with whats said already,

deal with it.

Kalamadea wrote:never said it was a good thing, just a prevalent thing, and that if you're gonna pick a fight about it, miniature wargaming isn't the most effective place to do it, nor will you find much support from that community. It's a far larger issue than a few choice figs from a fairly small company in a very small industry.

There you are wrong! We are all active in shaping our society, so are any part of the miniature games industry hence we all have a responsibility! Change often comes from underneath not from the top, quite contrary to what you might believe!

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

Melissia wrote:

NAVARRO wrote: CB gives you freebies and lets you go wild with their game/menu the least you could do is complain with some respect for their work and their workers.

Seriously, you're complaining that I might hurt their feelings or something?

Hehehe, yeah actually, just because someone is kind to you doesn't mean your not allowed to have an opinion about what they do.

I find interesting and alarming when someone doesn't seems to grasp the basic idea that opinions should* be forwarded with respect... in fact the less respectful you are towards the receptor the less your opinion is heard...if you didn't understand that yet, let me tell you the receptor here are us dakkaites and it rubs particularly bad when your rude towards a 3rd party that in fact gives you options without asking nothing in return.

* <if you're making snarky remarks about other posters, you're violating Dakka's rules...even in footnotes --Janthkin>

No one said, just because someone treats you nicely you cant form opinions... I'm telling you express your opinions with respect (specially if they are good to you)...

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

Kalamadea wrote:never said it was a good thing, just a prevalent thing, and that if you're gonna pick a fight about it, miniature wargaming isn't the most effective place to do it, nor will you find much support from that community. It's a far larger issue than a few choice figs from a fairly small company in a very small industry.

There you are wrong! We are all active in shaping our society, so are any part of the miniature games industry hence we all have a responsibility! Change often comes from underneath not from the top, quite contrary to what you might believe!

Then I stand by my opinion that you should boycott miniature wargaming in its entirety because if you don't, by your own point of view, your are activelly supporting genocide, slavery, torture, mutilation, fascism, witchcraft and the destruction of all life forms on Earth.

I don't support this point of view since miniature wargaming is by definition a GAME and as all GAMES are, it is a FANTASY that doesn't have any grip on reality! Neither does it necessarily portray any part of the feelings of either the people that made it or the people that play it.

That you feel otherwise and are offended by a small miniature tells more about yourself than it does about all the people that sculpted, painted and designed the miniature. (not directed directly at you c0un7_z3r0, but to all the people that think that it is somehow "offensive").

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

Kalamadea wrote:never said it was a good thing, just a prevalent thing, and that if you're gonna pick a fight about it, miniature wargaming isn't the most effective place to do it, nor will you find much support from that community. It's a far larger issue than a few choice figs from a fairly small company in a very small industry.

There you are wrong! We are all active in shaping our society, so are any part of the miniature games industry hence we all have a responsibility! Change often comes from underneath not from the top, quite contrary to what you might believe!

Are we still talking about cheesecakes on a range of miniatures created with cheesecakes as part of the concept from day 1? You want to shape what? Society? What revolution are you talking about?

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:There you are wrong! We are all active in shaping our society, so are any part of the miniature games industry hence we all have a responsibility! Change often comes from underneath not from the top, quite contrary to what you might believe!

I'm wrong? Really? Change does indeed start small, sure. And if indeed this issue needed changing (I don't believe it does, at all) you would indeed HAVE to start small. But change definitely wouldn't happen on a 3rd party message board that is mostly devoted warhammer. And it definitely won't happen when you're actively supporting the company that is doing these things. Hell, If complaining on dakka made any difference whatsoever, GW would charge half of what they do for models, all of the specialist games would be fully supported again, and LotR would have been stricken from White Dwarf years ago. You want to know what's more effective than a 14 page thread on dakka? A thread on the official infinity forums. More effective than that? A single email to Corvus Belli. A thousand times more effective than an email? Shipping your old figs to the company with a hand-written note saying how offended you are at the direction the game has been heading the last few years and how you can no longer support it in good conscience. It wouldn't even have to be your entire collection, just a half painted starter pack and you'd get their attention, I guarantee it. But arguing the same point over and over and over to people that play and enjoy the thing you're railing against is just annoying, it's not activism. And doubly so if the those people were mostly indifferant to begin with. I hate seeing people make a big stink over something so minor as a metal figure in a sexy pose catering to a niche market within a niche market. It's a miniature. If you don't like it, the point of the hobby is to use all those fancy skills you've been developing and turn it into something you DO like, and lead by example if it's so important to you.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

Melissia wrote:

NAVARRO wrote: CB gives you freebies and lets you go wild with their game/menu the least you could do is complain with some respect for their work and their workers.

Seriously, you're complaining that I might hurt their feelings or something?

Hehehe, yeah actually, just because someone is kind to you doesn't mean your not allowed to have an opinion about what they do.

NAVARRO - I never meant to offend you and I never claimed that you said anything. My answer was to Melissas post more that yours, I found her post funny hence "hehehe". I'm sorry if I made you think that I was making fun out of you! But no, I'm not afraid of having a deviant opinion and express it. If other people find it offensive well there aren't much I can do about that is it? I won't keep quiet just to spare someones piece of mind.

PhantomViper wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

Kalamadea wrote:never said it was a good thing, just a prevalent thing, and that if you're gonna pick a fight about it, miniature wargaming isn't the most effective place to do it, nor will you find much support from that community. It's a far larger issue than a few choice figs from a fairly small company in a very small industry.

There you are wrong! We are all active in shaping our society, so are any part of the miniature games industry hence we all have a responsibility! Change often comes from underneath not from the top, quite contrary to what you might believe!

Then I stand by my opinion that you should boycott miniature wargaming in its entirety because if you don't, by your own point of view, your are activelly supporting genocide, slavery, torture, mutilation, fascism, witchcraft and the destruction of all life forms on Earth..

We already had this discussion and I already gave you my answer but got non back so I'll give you the same answer this time as well.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:To answer your other question, I believe that for example GW is quite clear on one point and its that for example the 40k universe is totally fu#&ed up. They don't really say that for example the Imperium of man, which just pops up in to my mind , necessarily are any nice chaps. They believe so (the Imperium) but GW leave it up to us to decide really. Sure the Imperium is somewhat depicted as the good guys but I say its up to you to decide. This is something they should emphasize a little more and yes in a way I do find it somewhat disturbing ('cause the imperium is really totally evil and disgusting, if such a word as "evil" is to be used at all). The minis however are more real in a sense. How they are made is not up to debate as much as how we should perceive the fluff. Because, if women and men almost entirely are depicted in two distinctively different ways in accordance with a global pattern of normative perceptions or ideas, that is a matter of fact rather than opinion and will more directly effect you. Of course we need an overhaul on the fiction as well, women will have to be visible both in mini and in text!

PhantomViper wrote:That you feel otherwise and are offended by a small miniature tells more about yourself than it does about all the people that sculpted, painted and designed the miniature. (not directed directly at you c0un7_z3r0, but to all the people that think that it is somehow "offensive")

I agree to a point, my stance in this question does tell a whole lot of myself, just as any opinion about it does as well as manufacturing it. I am not offended by the miniatures per se though, its the fact that there are few other options, its how men and women are constantly portrayed in certain ways after certain values that bother me, not the portrays themselves. Its the system behind I'm out to get, so to speak, but it have to be fought at all fronts.

NAVARRO wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

Kalamadea wrote:never said it was a good thing, just a prevalent thing, and that if you're gonna pick a fight about it, miniature wargaming isn't the most effective place to do it, nor will you find much support from that community. It's a far larger issue than a few choice figs from a fairly small company in a very small industry.

There you are wrong! We are all active in shaping our society, so are any part of the miniature games industry hence we all have a responsibility! Change often comes from underneath not from the top, quite contrary to what you might believe!

Are we still talking about cheesecakes on a range of miniatures created with cheesecakes as part of the concept from day 1? You want to shape what? Society? What revolution are you talking about?

NAVARRO, Kalamadea & others - I am talking about how cheesecake minis are a part of a greater picture and indirectly leads to different kinds of abusive behavior and social problems. I can understand if this seem a little far fetched but every day could be a mini-revolution in a way, depending on how you spend it. We shape our surroundings by how we act, and how other act shapes us, "every action has a reaction" and so our way of acting spreads like rings on water through out society. Cheesecake minis are a part of a sexist view on men and women which leads to a whole lot of suffering for men as well as women. There is nothing you can say to alter this, its a fact, even though infinity, 40k. etc is "just a game"! Anyone ever heard the expression "the personal is political"? And if you have, did you grasp the idea behind it?

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
NAVARRO, Kalamadea & others - I am talking about how cheesecake minis are a part of a greater picture and indirectly leads to different kinds of abusive behavior and social problems. I can understand if this seem a little far fetched but every day could be a mini-revolution in a way, depending on how you spend it. We shape our surroundings by how we act, and how other act shapes us, "every action has a reaction" and so our way of acting spreads like rings on water through out society. Cheesecake minis are a part of a sexist view on men and women which leads to a whole lot of suffering for men as well as women. There is nothing you can say to alter this, its a fact, even though infinity, 40k. etc is "just a game"! Anyone ever heard the expression "the personal is political"? And if you have, did you grasp the idea behind it?

Even discounting the fluff, when you play a miniature wargaming you are activelly roleplaying violence, dismemberment, torture and ultimatelly homicide, by YOUR reasoning you are contributing to the continual glorification of violence and desensitization of suffering that is arguably prevalent on our society. That this doesn't seem to bother you as much as the amount of "skin" that a miniature is displaying as it happilly beheads other depictions of human beings strikes me as a fundamentally flawed reasoning.

PhantomViper wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
NAVARRO, Kalamadea & others - I am talking about how cheesecake minis are a part of a greater picture and indirectly leads to different kinds of abusive behavior and social problems. I can understand if this seem a little far fetched but every day could be a mini-revolution in a way, depending on how you spend it. We shape our surroundings by how we act, and how other act shapes us, "every action has a reaction" and so our way of acting spreads like rings on water through out society. Cheesecake minis are a part of a sexist view on men and women which leads to a whole lot of suffering for men as well as women. There is nothing you can say to alter this, its a fact, even though infinity, 40k. etc is "just a game"! Anyone ever heard the expression "the personal is political"? And if you have, did you grasp the idea behind it?

Even discounting the fluff, when you play a miniature wargaming you are activelly roleplaying violence, dismemberment, torture and ultimatelly homicide, by YOUR reasoning you are contributing to the continual glorification of violence and desensitization of suffering that is arguably prevalent on our society. That this doesn't seem to bother you as much as the amount of "skin" that a miniature is displaying as it happilly beheads other depictions of human beings strikes me as a fundamentally flawed reasoning.

That is your words not mine! A naked woman is a naked woman, a hundred naked woman is a hundred naked woman, if every woman were naked at all times, fictitious as well as real, we would think every woman would have to be naked. A dressed woman would seem quite odd to us if things were this way, real or not. So a female miniature effects our way of perceiving the world as much as a fictional one. When it comes to the the fiction of a wargame you can not be so general, you'll have to deconstruct it into its core(/cores) as well as considering the authors intention and so on. I won't do this here. However, the "subtitle" to 40k is "in the grim darkness of the far future there is only war". This gives me an impression that this is universe not to be perceived as a an ideal place to live in, and through out the fiction we are constantly met by the same message "things are going downwards fort most creatures involved" in other words, it's an dystopian setting not an utopian setting. Its an image of how we do not want things to be, hence a "manifesto" against violence, mass murder, genocide etc. This doesn't mean every 40K player are against violence, mass murder, genocide etc. but the general setting is by no doubt. And about the gamin itself, its a strategic game, it could just as well be colored squares of plastic instead of warrior miniatures. I've played countless of 40k battles using only round and square pieces och cardboard and it worked just fine!

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
NAVARRO, Kalamadea & others - I am talking about how cheesecake minis are a part of a greater picture and indirectly leads to different kinds of abusive behavior and social problems. I can understand if this seem a little far fetched but every day could be a mini-revolution in a way, depending on how you spend it. We shape our surroundings by how we act, and how other act shapes us, "every action has a reaction" and so our way of acting spreads like rings on water through out society. Cheesecake minis are a part of a sexist view on men and women which leads to a whole lot of suffering for men as well as women. There is nothing you can say to alter this, its a fact, even though infinity, 40k. etc is "just a game"! Anyone ever heard the expression "the personal is political"? And if you have, did you grasp the idea behind it?

Even discounting the fluff, when you play a miniature wargaming you are activelly roleplaying violence, dismemberment, torture and ultimatelly homicide, by YOUR reasoning you are contributing to the continual glorification of violence and desensitization of suffering that is arguably prevalent on our society. That this doesn't seem to bother you as much as the amount of "skin" that a miniature is displaying as it happilly beheads other depictions of human beings strikes me as a fundamentally flawed reasoning.

That is your words not mine! A naked woman is a naked woman, a hundred naked woman is a hundred naked woman, if every woman were naked at all times, fictitious as well as real, we would think every woman would have to be naked. A dressed woman would seem quite odd to us if things were this way, real or not. So a female miniature effects our way of perceiving the world as much as a fictional one. When it comes to the the fiction of a wargame you can not be so general, you'll have to deconstruct it into its core(/cores) as well as considering the authors intention and so on. I won't do this here. However, the "subtitle" to 40k is "in the grim darkness of the far future there is only war". This gives me an impression that this is universe not to be perceived as a an ideal place to live in, and through out the fiction we are constantly met by the same message "things are going downwards fort most creatures involved" in other words, it's an dystopian setting not an utopian setting. Its an image of how we do not want things to be, hence a "manifesto" against violence, mass murder, genocide etc. This doesn't mean every 40K player are against violence, mass murder, genocide etc. but the general setting is by no doubt. And about the gamin itself, its a strategic game, it could just as well be colored squares of plastic instead of warrior miniatures. I've played countless of 40k battles using only round and square pieces och cardboard and it worked just fine!

I was not talking about fluff or the autors intentions in the setting, I was talking about the fact that miniature wargames are supposed to represent battles between two armies. More often then not, armies composed entirelly of human beings that are supposedly killing each other in some pretty horrifying ways.

So for all the violence that is represented as part of the game "its just a strategic game", but if one of the miniatures shows some skin then its a reflection of our societies objectification of women? Sorry, I don't buy it, you can't use an argument as a defence of one of your view points and then dismiss it completely when that same argument is used to counter your other points.

Kalamadea wrote:You are free to have your opinions, you are free to share them. But ramming them down people's throats for 14 pages is a whole different story.

So why are you doing that then?

PhantomViper - The violence in the miniature games I've played takes place in a context where violence is seen as something negative, so no I do not agree and that is a vital point. But the big difference is that there is no violence taking place, no bullets are fired, swords swung and bombs dropped, its all in your head and most people gets this! A miniature showing skin is in fact showing skin, its not up to debate! The more common a certain representation of something is, the more real it will seem! That's how our brain works, its basic psychology! If we only see slim women with big breasts posing for a male heterosexual audience as passive objects of desire that will effect our way of perceiving women, it will lead to expectations on behavior and so on. Unless, that is, there are alternative representations, and for female miniatures in the miniature gaming world those are few and far between, as well as in main stream media and so on! It's all connected and needs to be changed!

<general warning, because some posters don't seem to get it - do NOT attack other posters>

It is not required that the other poster agree with you, and disagreeing with you is does not mean the other poster hasn't read your post or is in some way ignoring your infallible logic. This is an opinion thread; other posters can have a different opinion. They can even maintain that opinion across many pages.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:PhantomViper - The violence in the miniature games I've played takes place in a context where violence is seen as something negative, so no I do not agree and that is a vital point. But the big difference is that there is no violence taking place, no bullets are fired, swords swung and bombs dropped, its all in your head and most people gets this!

Ok, so when you play you assume that all those guns shoot rainbows and the blades are feathers for tickling... But how about physical representations of that violence? Models holding the decapitated heads of their enemies? Human bodies lying on the floor with their entrails spread around them? The proliferation of desiccated human skulls in practically everything that GW does (and other companies as well, this is not a stab at GW)? Isn't there any violence being represented in those models?

Violence is not seen as negative in ANY piece of background set in the 40K universe, if fact it is glorified in almost everyone of them. You are trying to twist the setting to justify your personal views.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
A miniature showing skin is in fact showing skin, its not up to debate! The more common a certain representation of something is, the more real it will seem! That's how our brain works, its basic psychology! If we only see slim women with big breasts posing for a male heterosexual audience as passive objects of desire that will effect our way of perceiving women, it will lead to expectations on behavior and so on. Unless, that is, there are alternative representations, and for female miniatures in the miniature gaming world those are few and far between, as well as in main stream media and so on! It's all connected and needs to be changed!

Nope, to me a miniature showing skin is an inanimate piece of metal / plastic / resin that was cast that way. It doesn't have a personality attached and certainly doesn't affect the way that I see or interact with women in any way!

TBH, after looking at the models that were deemed cheesecake, I don't know why some people are making a big fuss,,, it's sci fi animé miniatures game, it's make believe. They make cheesecake models because cheesecake sells, if you want to point a finger at somebody, point it at the media, the media is the root for everything being oversexualised and cheesecake

And of course the media says that it only does taht because it sells.

PhantomViper wrote:Ok, so when you play you assume that all those guns shoot rainbows and the blades are feathers for tickling... But how about physical representations of that violence?

I honestly seldom think of violence when I play, more on countering my opponents move and so on. But still there are no violence taking place, it really isn't.

PhantomViper wrote:Models holding the decapitated heads of their enemies? Human bodies lying on the floor with their entrails spread around them? The proliferation of desiccated human skulls in practically everything that GW does (and other companies as well, this is not a stab at GW)? Isn't there any violence being represented in those models?

It could also be seen as a way of displaying the horrors of war and as such displays signs of violent behavior. But yes, you are right in one way, these representations of violence will give you an expectation of how violence is. Just as a representation of a person gives you an expectation of how that person is. And I believe that, considering most representations of violence are quite cruel and horrible, we can't expect it to be pleasant do we? It doesn't make me want to go to war anyhow. But I guess that's a matter of opinion.

PhantomViper wrote:Violence is not seen as negative in ANY piece of background set in the 40K universe, if fact it is glorified in almost everyone of them. You are trying to twist the setting to justify your personal views.

Well here we simply disagree.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
A miniature showing skin is in fact showing skin, its not up to debate! The more common a certain representation of something is, the more real it will seem! That's how our brain works, its basic psychology! If we only see slim women with big breasts posing for a male heterosexual audience as passive objects of desire that will effect our way of perceiving women, it will lead to expectations on behavior and so on. Unless, that is, there are alternative representations, and for female miniatures in the miniature gaming world those are few and far between, as well as in main stream media and so on! It's all connected and needs to be changed!

Nope, to me a miniature showing skin is an inanimate piece of metal / plastic / resin that was cast that way. It doesn't have a personality attached and certainly doesn't affect the way that I see or interact with women in any way!

Arm.chair.general wrote:TBH, after looking at the models that were deemed cheesecake, I don't know why some people are making a big fuss,,, it's sci fi animé miniatures game, it's make believe. They make cheesecake models because cheesecake sells, if you want to point a finger at somebody, point it at the media, the media is the root for everything being oversexualised and cheesecake

[RANT] I don't blame the media, I blame modern western society for its twisted moral values. Violence, often times extreme violence is condoned and glorified, while nudity and sex which is a perfectly natural thing is considered "damaging" and "imoral".

For example a few weeks ago one of our TV stations was finned 150.000 euros because it showed two contestants from one of its reality shows having sex (basically a set of bed sheets moving up and down in a very dark room).

But the same station showed Khadaffi's bullet ridden and mutilated corpse being dragged trough the streets by a mob during prime time news and no one complained!

Wich one of those scenes do you guys think I had more trouble explaining to my 3 year old son? [/RANT]

What I learned in this thread
1.People have strong opinions.
2.Cheesecake is a form of art/photography that mostly involves women in provocative poses.

Strangely enough the, Yu Jing, Chinese (with Japan thrown in?) themed army doesn't have any cheesecake models in it. As far as I can see.

Unless I'm not looking hard enough or failing to be titillated by a model...

Arm.chair.general wrote:TBH, after looking at the models that were deemed cheesecake, I don't know why some people are making a big fuss,,, it's sci fi animé miniatures game, it's make believe. They make cheesecake models because cheesecake sells, if you want to point a finger at somebody, point it at the media, the media is the root for everything being oversexualised and cheesecake

Unless we take up action against oversexualisation, we are all contributing to it. To do do nothing is to agree with the majority, to consume oversexualised products is to throw fuel on the fire. And you cant use animé or manga as an excuse for all kinds of dodgy stuff, besides there are lots of great anime and manga without nudity!

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:PhantomViper - The violence in the miniature games I've played takes place in a context where violence is seen as something negative, so no I do not agree and that is a vital point. But the big difference is that there is no violence taking place, no bullets are fired, swords swung and bombs dropped, its all in your head and most people gets this! A miniature showing skin is in fact showing skin, its not up to debate! The more common a certain representation of something is, the more real it will seem! That's how our brain works, its basic psychology! If we only see slim women with big breasts posing for a male heterosexual audience as passive objects of desire that will effect our way of perceiving women, it will lead to expectations on behavior and so on. Unless, that is, there are alternative representations, and for female miniatures in the miniature gaming world those are few and far between, as well as in main stream media and so on! It's all connected and needs to be changed!

If your standards are this high, I'm going to recommend that you not dabble in this hobby. I don't think my toy soldiers are real people. By the time my dude has a tentacle that a dark god gave him for beating the living crap out of enough people, I'm pretty sure it stops being real to me. Dark themes are everywhere in stories or else there would never be conflict, so I'm having trouble grasping why something that is morally neutral (many women choose to show skin of their own free will and receive nothing worse than creepy guys using bad pick-up lines) is so much worse than things that are fairly objectively wrong, like rape, slavery or murder?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

Arm.chair.general wrote:TBH, after looking at the models that were deemed cheesecake, I don't know why some people are making a big fuss,,, it's sci fi animé miniatures game, it's make believe. They make cheesecake models because cheesecake sells, if you want to point a finger at somebody, point it at the media, the media is the root for everything being oversexualised and cheesecake

Unless we take up action against oversexualisation, we are all contributing to it. Do do nothing is to agree with the majority, to consume oversexualised products is to throw fuel on the fire. And you cant use animé or manga as an excuse for all kinds of dodgy stuff, besides there are lots of great anime and manga without nudity!

Why is nudity bad? You were born naked.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Models holding the decapitated heads of their enemies? Human bodies lying on the floor with their entrails spread around them? The proliferation of desiccated human skulls in practically everything that GW does (and other companies as well, this is not a stab at GW)? Isn't there any violence being represented in those models?

It could also be seen as a way of displaying the horrors of war and as such displays signs of violent behavior. But yes, you are right in one way, these representations of violence will give you an expectation of how violence is. Just as a representation of a person gives you an expectation of how that person is. And I believe that, considering most representations of violence are quite cruel and horrible, we can't expect it to be pleasant do we? It doesn't make me want to go to war anyhow. But I guess that's a matter of opinion.

It doesn't just give you an expectation of violence, it is supposed to represent the actions of the models during the game, to show the players that violence does exist in the game as a direct consequence of their actions!

We will have to agree to disagree on this, but I still think that you are using double standards when you choose to focus on the sexual nature of some miniatures while ignoring the extremely violent nature of the game(s) itself.

Of course, I couldn't care less either way, like I've said before, these games are all fantasies and shouldn't be taken as a representation of anything in the real world, one way or the other.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:PhantomViper - The violence in the miniature games I've played takes place in a context where violence is seen as something negative, so no I do not agree and that is a vital point. But the big difference is that there is no violence taking place, no bullets are fired, swords swung and bombs dropped, its all in your head and most people gets this! A miniature showing skin is in fact showing skin, its not up to debate! The more common a certain representation of something is, the more real it will seem! That's how our brain works, its basic psychology! If we only see slim women with big breasts posing for a male heterosexual audience as passive objects of desire that will effect our way of perceiving women, it will lead to expectations on behavior and so on. Unless, that is, there are alternative representations, and for female miniatures in the miniature gaming world those are few and far between, as well as in main stream media and so on! It's all connected and needs to be changed!

If your standards are this high, I'm going to recommend that you not dabble in this hobby. I don't think my toy soldiers are real people. By the time my dude has a tentacle that a dark god gave him for beating the living crap out of enough people, I'm pretty sure it stops being real to me. Dark themes are everywhere in stories or else there would never be conflict, so I'm having trouble grasping why something that is morally neutral (many women choose to show skin of their own free will and receive nothing worse than creepy guys using bad pick-up lines) is so much worse than things that are fairly objectively wrong, like rape, slavery or murder?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

Arm.chair.general wrote:TBH, after looking at the models that were deemed cheesecake, I don't know why some people are making a big fuss,,, it's sci fi animé miniatures game, it's make believe. They make cheesecake models because cheesecake sells, if you want to point a finger at somebody, point it at the media, the media is the root for everything being oversexualised and cheesecake

Unless we take up action against oversexualisation, we are all contributing to it. Do do nothing is to agree with the majority, to consume oversexualised products is to throw fuel on the fire. And you cant use animé or manga as an excuse for all kinds of dodgy stuff, besides there are lots of great anime and manga without nudity!

Why is nudity bad? You were born naked.

Oddly enough, I agree with Cannerus here. Having been in Europe for the past 2 and a half years (I'm American), I can honestly say that much of the world is extremely prudish in regards to the female form, and the showing of skin. Often times, the excuses run from Children, to "the good ole days" for why we shouldn't show skin. In fact, things are much more strict now than they have ever been, if you know where to look into the past

As the miniatures come unpainted, it is too easy to paint them in non-skin tones and thus make them less "scantily clad" as it were.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

Kalamadea wrote:A better example is Kournikova.

So you mean just because you can make money on something that makes it a good thing? War is a most profitable thing (for some), does that make it a good thing though?

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

Kalamadea wrote:never said it was a good thing, just a prevalent thing, and that if you're gonna pick a fight about it, miniature wargaming isn't the most effective place to do it, nor will you find much support from that community. It's a far larger issue than a few choice figs from a fairly small company in a very small industry.

There you are wrong! We are all active in shaping our society, so are any part of the miniature games industry hence we all have a responsibility! Change often comes from underneath not from the top, quite contrary to what you might believe!

Keeping the discussion relevant to the topic at hand, are you suggesting society has a responsibility to remove cheesecake? Society doesn't use these products, a small portion of society does. War affects everyone in society. Aesthetics in miniatures does not.

So, does the small portion of society engaged in sci-fi wargaming have an obligation to remove cheesecake? No. It's offensive is based on personal values and taste. It's one thing for an individual to choose not to support a mini they find personally offensive. It's another thing entirely to say that mini should not be available to anyone, despite the fact that others have shown an appreciation for the product.

Melissia wrote:

MightyGodzilla wrote:FTR - I'm down with those pics I saw.It's definitely a great place to spend a little money.

The original post wasn't the one with objectionable parts.

There was a model posted, for example, of a girl who was bending over sticking her ass out with it covered in nothing more than a thong. It's really trashy and to me has no redeeming qualities. Same with the one of the girl in a see-through white shirt (including erect nipples) and ultra-mini catholic schoolgirl skirt taht was flipped up to show her panties. Also trashy.

I think that first model you're talking about is the one dressed like the nun...Sister Moira I believe. I own that one, one of two models from the Infinity line I do have ( the redeeming quality for me was it was a nun with an assault rifle). I plan to paint her with pants (black with grey instead of skintone)...It's not always about the original paintjob, it's about what we players/buyers do with what we buy. Case in point the Dark Eldar line from 2000, Kruellah the Vile. For laughs, everyone paints her skin colored when original vision was for her to be in tights.

I'm not saying there isn't a shortage of dirty old men in the world. You say it's trashy, I can't say you're wrong, but I like a little trash from time to time, and there's always going to be a little trash here and there. Sculptors like to have a little fun with a line...breaks up their monatomy. Vote with your dollars.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

Arm.chair.general wrote:TBH, after looking at the models that were deemed cheesecake, I don't know why some people are making a big fuss,,, it's sci fi animé miniatures game, it's make believe. They make cheesecake models because cheesecake sells, if you want to point a finger at somebody, point it at the media, the media is the root for everything being oversexualised and cheesecake

Unless we take up action against oversexualisation, we are all contributing to it. To do do nothing is to agree with the majority, to consume oversexualised products is to throw fuel on the fire. And you cant use animé or manga as an excuse for all kinds of dodgy stuff, besides there are lots of great anime and manga without nudity!

I agree with you, and I personally don't buy cheese cake minis, I as just stating that there are worse models out there on the miniatures range, and instead of taking it out on minis companies, people should take it out on the root of the cause which in my opinion is western media. And I agree with you thst there are great some great anime out there without nudity, I like Naruto and yu-gi-oh

Except it's also another thing entirely to interpret "This model should not be part of the 'general' range, but rather a separate range dedicated to models in that style" as "This mini should not be available to anyone!".

It's also another thing entirely to suggest that something which does not fit the visual aesthetic of the army fits because anime.

I agree with Cannerus, too.

Kanluwen wrote:Except it's also another thing entirely to interpret "This model should not be part of the 'general' range, but rather a separate range dedicated to models in that style" as "This mini should not be available to anyone!".

I don't know who you are replying to Kan, but I think you'll find that c0un7_z3r0 is advocating exactly that, that those type of models shouldn't be available to anyone.

PhantomViper wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Except it's also another thing entirely to interpret "This model should not be part of the 'general' range, but rather a separate range dedicated to models in that style" as "This mini should not be available to anyone!".

I don't know who you are replying to Kan, but I think you'll find that c0un7_z3r0 is advocating exactly that, that those type of models shouldn't be available to anyone.

You can't figure out who I'm replying to?
I thought it was fairly obvious I was replying to Mastiff.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
Unless we take up action against oversexualisation, we are all contributing to it. To do do nothing is to agree with the majority, to consume oversexualised products is to throw fuel on the fire. And you cant use animé or manga as an excuse for all kinds of dodgy stuff, besides there are lots of great anime and manga without nudity!

The problem I have with your line of reasoning is that you don't believe individuals to hold valid and worthwhile reasons for appreciating these miniatures. A man who enjoys the female form must be suspect, and cannot be trusted. But rather than risk individuals making a choice of how how they view these models; as artistic renderings of the female form separate from any game, as sexist mis-representations of females, cool sci-fi playing pieces or impractical representations of warriors, you're suggesting each of us has a responsibility as citizens to reject these models.

My wife laughs at how much of a prude I can be. The only minis I paint that she's particularly interested in are the females. She's confident that I'm not a pervert by dint of actually knowing who I am. Why can't you give others the same benefit of the doubt?

Kanluwen wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Except it's also another thing entirely to interpret "This model should not be part of the 'general' range, but rather a separate range dedicated to models in that style" as "This mini should not be available to anyone!".

I don't know who you are replying to Kan, but I think you'll find that c0un7_z3r0 is advocating exactly that, that those type of models shouldn't be available to anyone.

You can't figure out who I'm replying to?
I thought it was fairly obvious I was replying to Mastiff.

And Mastiff was replying to c0un7_z3r0 that was advocating exactly that.

And again, why is being a pervert a bad thing? What if someone likes the mini for what it is and also happens to think it's a sexy representation (while also fully recognizing that it's not a living, breathing human being)? Suppose someone who was a nudist said they were offended by all these miniatures wearing clothes, would their opinion cancel anyone else's out or just "not matter" because majority rules? Nobody is being told that real, actual women are lesser beings at any point of this transaction. About the only thing being acknowledged is that men often like when women wear skimpy things, which we do, and is why so many get so adamant trying to deny it.

PhantomViper wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Except it's also another thing entirely to interpret "This model should not be part of the 'general' range, but rather a separate range dedicated to models in that style" as "This mini should not be available to anyone!".

I don't know who you are replying to Kan, but I think you'll find that c0un7_z3r0 is advocating exactly that, that those type of models shouldn't be available to anyone.

You can't figure out who I'm replying to?
I thought it was fairly obvious I was replying to Mastiff.

And Mastiff was replying to c0un7_z3r0 that was advocating exactly that.

Correct. Sorry Kanluwen, can't spend all my time talking about you

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:And again, why is being a pervert a bad thing?.

The "pervert" and "lonely gamer" stuff was just more trollish hyperbole from the usual suspects, I think.

Appreciating the form of the opposite sex isn't generally considered a negative thing.

To directly answer your point: As long as you're not involving anyone who doesn't want to be involved, I'd say it isn't a bad thing at all.

It seems we've wandered into a farm, complete with straw men...

Melissia wrote:Meh, I admit, that was a huge wall of text and I'm not really in the mood to respond to most of it.

But this part in particular strikes me as odd:

Buzzsaw wrote:then what conceivable rational is there for them to spend quite a lot of money in an attempt to capture the business of the disgruntled few?

So because they disagree wtih you, they must be the "disgruntled few", huh?

Nooo... they're not the disgruntled few "because they disagree wtih[sic]" me, but because, by the testimony of your own mouth, as is implicit in "I am not under the ludicrous opinion that just because something is popular it must be good" the goods in question are popular.

Moreover, there is very little evidence being presented that women gamers actually dislike some sexiness in female characters: there is a lot of assertion that hot female characters exist solely to pander to men, but that would seem very much at odds with the discussions being held in other, more robust industries.

For example;

"There are some common misconceptions about how female gamers feel about female characters and the first one is that we hate sexiness," Susan Arendt said. "[We don't feel] that if there is a character that is physically attractive - that if she is sexy - then that is automatically sexist."
...
Tracey John wasn't sure that Bayonetta was empowering for female gamers, to which Susan Arendt responded, "I think what makes Bayonetta appealing is that she very much owns her sexuality. She's hot, but she ain't hot for you." Bayonetta exists in a world where sex is normal, but that doesn't mean she does it for your approval.

Now, my involvement in the world of Anime has waxed and waned over the last 15 odd years, but I would say without hesitation that there has always been a strong element of sexuality, especially of the playful kind, that is well and fully exemplified in the Infinity range of models (with certain exceptions for earlier, less well realized figures, of course).

Anecdotally, I have observed among the many women I play MMOs with, when given the choice between male and female, and then between ugly, unremarkable, and attractive, there is a near uniform bias among them to chose attractive female avatars. I know this isn't universal, but I think the notion that what women are really looking for is a "manly/realistically rugged woman" is extremely suspect. Or, to quote again from the above mentioned article: "A second misconception is that female gamers want all female characters to be as tough as the males."

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:
-If you go into a restaurant, and say "You know, I really don't like the goat cheese on that burger, I want cheddar," or "I I'd prefer sun dried tomatoes with the pesto," these are fundamentally zero opportunity cost suggestions. That is, listening to the customer does nothing to anyone else.

-With a model maker, there is an opportunity cost. Sculpting one thing means another project gets pushed back: pursuing one artistic direction precludes pursuing the other.

So you can't complain to companies that manufacture expensive stuff 'cause it would cost the too much money to give the customer what they want?

Nooooot exactly.

Can you complain? Yes. But as I pointed out 6 months ago (and reiterated 3 pages ago), when your complaint is, simply put: "we don't like what you see as the selling point of your product", you should be prepared muster robust arguments, and, more importantly, robust cash.

You should further be prepared for push-back from people that do like what the company is doing, because, again as I mentioned earlier, when the company in question is a small and struggling concern with tight budgets, their finite resources mean pursuing one aesthetic line necessarily means not pursuing another line.

Or as I put it earlier; it's important to realize that, in a very real way, many of the arguments that seem to be "I want them to make what I like and what others like" in practice are really "I want them to make what I like rather then what others like."

Remember, my initial point wasn't that you can't complain, it was that if there is a specific look that you want, and that look is available, it's completely self-defeating to not support (financially) the product that you claim to want.

And if you're going to use the argument of "it sells well", you'd better be able to muster a robust argument that "it sells well" for usage in the game system to justify the whole crux of this thread:

These cheesecake models should not be in the main game range, but rather their own separate range dedicated to cheesecake models. Call it Girls of the Human Sphere, Infinity Ladies, whatever--just don't put it in the main range. There's limited models as it is--don't clutter it up with pieces which are really only selling to people who want to paint them.

Monster Rain wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:And again, why is being a pervert a bad thing?.

The "pervert" and "lonely gamer" stuff was just more trollish hyperbole from the usual suspects, I think.

Appreciating the form of the opposite sex isn't generally considered a negative thing.

To directly answer your point: As long as you're not involving anyone who doesn't want to be involved, I'd say it isn't a bad thing at all.

TBF my last post was somewhere around 85% valid point, 15% trolling It was still an attempt to open minds though. I suspect the only ultimate answer we'll get is that sex is bad for some sort of religious or social standard, and I just like making people feel uncomfortable for having that opinion to the point that they have to question it.

Melissia, you still haven't said when we're hanging out. I feel like you're just trying to blow me off at this point and that makes me sad. Am I not pretty enough for you?

Well to answer some of your questions (I've tried to keep it short).

In my view we are influenced by our surroundings, the people we meet, the culture we come from, and the culture of the people we meet and so on. This should not be a controversial strain of thought. Miniature war-games, although fantasy creations derives from its surroundings and adds to this a set of representations of human (and other beings) behavior. The more representations or images of a certain kind that we meet during the course of our life the more we take it for granted, it become true in a sense. As an example, most of us associate pink with girls and blue with boys. Why is this, because its in our genetic's? Hardly, we have been taught this in several ways through our life and this will probably continue. There have been experiments about this where an infant have been placed in a cradle with a blue or a pink blanket, if the blanket was blue people assumed it was a boy and if it was a pink blanket people assumed it was a girl. So, all these images that we are constantly bombarded with, affects our way of perceiving things. If i draw a picture of a man chopping wood an observer will see "ah its a man and he chops wood" (hopefully, unless my drawing skillz fail me). If this observer only sees picture of men chopping wood he or she would eventually assume that only men are chopping wood. If this observer were a woman she would probably begin to believe that she either is unable to chop wood or aren't allowed or both. So to produce an image of something along the line of an existing strain of thoughts is to increase that strain of thoughts validity, its like saying "I agree with this". But if enough images were produced that contradict this strain of thoughts that strain of thought would loose validity. Hence, producing a sexist image along the lines of a universal sexist view on men an women will enhance this sexist views validity. Hence, producing an model whose appeal rests on a sexist view on women will enhance this view.

Why all this fuss about sexism, well rape, domestic violence, eating disorders, sexual harassment etc are all linked to our ways of perceiving gender and sex which in general are more or less colored by a very sexist world view.

Kanluwen wrote:And if you're going to use the argument of "it sells well", you'd better be able to muster a robust argument that "it sells well" for usage in the game system to justify the whole crux of this thread:

These cheesecake models should not be in the main game range, but rather their own separate range dedicated to cheesecake models. Call it Girls of the Human Sphere, Infinity Ladies, whatever--just don't put it in the main range. There's limited models as it is--don't clutter it up with pieces which are really only selling to people who want to paint them.

Quick question, Kan:

What would you consider a "robust argument" that the models sell well "for usage in the game system"? (Alternatively, what form of evidence would you be looking for?)

I've never called anyone here a pervert or anything derogatory, and have never meant to either. My ways of argumentation might have been a little rough at times though.

And yeah, I've never said that nudity is a bad thing or that it disturbs me. I haven't said that cheesecake minis is a bad thing in itself either. It's the lack of contradictory representation of the normative images of women and men, both within the world of miniature games and in the world in general, that bothers me. That is a big difference.

Dysartes wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:And if you're going to use the argument of "it sells well", you'd better be able to muster a robust argument that "it sells well" for usage in the game system to justify the whole crux of this thread:

These cheesecake models should not be in the main game range, but rather their own separate range dedicated to cheesecake models. Call it Girls of the Human Sphere, Infinity Ladies, whatever--just don't put it in the main range. There's limited models as it is--don't clutter it up with pieces which are really only selling to people who want to paint them.

Quick question, Kan:

What would you consider a "robust argument" that the models sell well "for usage in the game system"? (Alternatively, what form of evidence would you be looking for?)

The two actually go hand in hand.
How many people are buying these models and actually using them in the game system, gripefree?
From what I've seen on the Infinity forum, I'm not alone in complaining about it because the model "just doesn't fit, but there's no real alternative".

One of the things which is ignored is that Infinity stuff is hard enough to find stocked in most places stateside. Much less at a decent enough price where you can justify buying multiples to do conversions.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:Well to answer some of your questions (I've tried to keep it short).

In my view we are influenced by our surroundings, the people we meet, the culture we come from, and the culture of the people we meet and so on. This should not be a controversial strain of thought. Miniature war-games, although fantasy creations derives from its surroundings and adds to this a set of representations of human (and other beings) behavior. The more representations or images of a certain kind that we meet during the course of our life the more we take it for granted, it become true in a sense. As an example, most of us associate pink with girls and blue with boys. Why is this, because its in our genetic's? Hardly, we have been taught this in several ways through our life and this will probably continue. There have been experiments about this where an infant have been placed in a cradle with a blue or a pink blanket, if the blanket was blue people assumed it was a boy and if it was a pink blanket people assumed it was a girl. So, all these images that we are constantly bombarded with, affects our way of perceiving things. If i draw a picture of a man chopping wood an observer will see "ah its a man and he chops wood" (hopefully, unless my drawing skillz fail me). If this observer only sees picture of men chopping wood he or she would eventually assume that only men are chopping wood. If this observer were a woman she would probably begin to believe that she either is unable to chop wood or aren't allowed or both. So to produce an image of something along the line of an existing strain of thoughts is to increase that strain of thoughts validity, its like saying "I agree with this". But if enough images were produced that contradict this strain of thoughts that strain of thought would loose validity. Hence, producing a sexist image along the lines of a universal sexist view on men an women will enhance this sexist views validity. Hence, producing an model whose appeal rests on a sexist view on women will enhance this view.

Why all this fuss about sexism, well rape, domestic violence, eating disorders, sexual harassment etc are all linked to our ways of perceiving gender and sex which in general are more or less colored by a very sexist world view.

I agree with the majority of your line of thought. People are a part of their environment and affected by what they see. Here (as you might expect) are my disagreements with how that philosophy interacts with the discussion at hand:

1) Infinity also produces female figures that are warriors nearly indistinguishable from their male counterparts.

http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/keisotsu-butai-2/
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/keisotsu-butai-4/
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/haqqislam-starter-pack/

They rely on facial features, wider hips and slimmer limbs to differentiate from the males, rather than overtly sexual visual cues. They are warriors first, and female second.

In effect, they are also providing the sketch of a woman chopping wood.

2) Wargames glorify violence. We trust people to not carry this over to their day-to-day life. Some people here have said that play wargames while understanding the horrors of war.. This is because people are complex animals, and can hold complex dichotomies in their brains. I can say "pew-pew" while I imagine my armoured warriors leaping over the terrain to crush the enemies' skulls, while at the very same instant I can abhor the violence of amputations in the Cote d'Ivoire. People are intelligent enough to separate the two.

Likewise, I can differentiate between a sexy representation of a woman or man, and an actual human being. I can understand the logic of why people find sexy models appealing, without it affecting my perceptions or relationships with real people. I can accept that no man in my world will ever be as suave and dangerous as James Bond, and the same with female equivalents.

Essentially, my issue with your stance is that you don't trust individuals to make that difference. In some individual cases that may be true. But that does not mean that as an individual I have an obligation to act in a way that compensates for the weaknesses of other individuals. My appreciation for the female form does not prevent me from understanding the issues they face. I don't measure this by how I am perceived as a gamer or painter, but by how I am perceived as a husband and a father.

If you feel avoiding sexy minis makes the world a better place, more power to you. That fits your perception of your place in society, your upbringing and relationships. Mine is different, and I feel I have a right to support the makers of a product that reflects this.

(Kanluwen, I am not referring or responding to your positions in any of this).

See Corvus Belli listened to us. A Reverend Moira with no tushy sticking out.

I dont really care. Maybe Its because of my servitude to Khorne and the fact that Im a dragon, but sexy female miniatures are perfectly OK with me. If its not "NSFW" then Im happy with it. If it is then it makes me feel uncomfortable (also little excited )

MightyGodzilla wrote:See Corvus Belli listened to us. A Reverend Moira with no tushy sticking out.

Though by far not ideal (the outfit makes it something I'd still not want to use), that's certainly a better pose for her than "hey gaiz luk at mah azz!"

I think that this is the best female mini from Infinity because it looks like she is actually fighting instead of posing. The model is called a Halqa if you want to find a better picture.

This is a good example of how lady soldiers can be done properly. Is she the snazziest thing to look at, nah. But she's proportionate, in a realistic pose, and discernable from her male counterpart in a squad setting. NAO BRING ON DA CATTGURLZ!!!

Beany10 wrote:

I think that this is the best female mini from Infinity because it looks like she is actually fighting instead of posing. The model is called a Halqa if you want to find a better picture.

I like those models.

Someone has mentioned the miniature companies' target market somewhere in these 16 pages, right?

Melissia wrote:

Beany10 wrote:

I think that this is the best female mini from Infinity because it looks like she is actually fighting instead of posing. The model is called a Halqa if you want to find a better picture.

I like those models.

Yeah, it seems to be one of the only models by infinity which doesn't degrade women, which is sufficiently covered up for war and a proper pose, it is a shame that there is only one in a pack.

Melissia wrote:that's certainly a better pose for her than "hey gaiz luk at mah azz!"

Wonder which pose sells more . .

puma713 wrote:Someone has mentioned the miniature companies' target market somewhere in these 16 pages, right?

"People with money who like wargaming" is my assumption.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:

Melissia wrote:that's certainly a better pose for her than "hey gaiz luk at mah azz!"

Wonder which pose sells more . .

I have no doubt which one will sell more given the most popular Infinity model. And very little faith in humanity.

Melissia wrote:

puma713 wrote:Someone has mentioned the miniature companies' target market somewhere in these 16 pages, right?

"Men (age ranges 14-54) with money who like wargaming" is my assumption.

Fixed that for you.

puma713 wrote:

Melissia wrote:

puma713 wrote:Someone has mentioned the miniature companies' target market somewhere in these 16 pages, right?

"Men (age ranges 14-54) with money who like wargaming" is my assumption.

Fixed that for you.

Yeah, it's one of the company's many, many flaws.

Melissia wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Melissia wrote:

puma713 wrote:Someone has mentioned the miniature companies' target market somewhere in these 16 pages, right?

"Men (age ranges 14-54) with money who like wargaming" is my assumption.

Fixed that for you.

Yeah, it's one of the company's many, many flaws.

Hmm well I am male and LOVE wargaming, but the company doesn't seem to be producing miniatures to my taste, so I guess you are wrong Puma.

Beany10 wrote:[Hmm well I am male and LOVE wargaming, but the company doesn't seem to be producing miniatures to my taste, so I guess you are wrong

I originally said "people with money who like wargaming". That dude switched it to "men".

Melissia wrote:
Yeah, it's one of the company's many, many flaws.

And it is understandable that you feel that way. But from a company's standpoint, they probably don't see it as a flaw at all. It would be like them building a car for people that are 3 feet tall, then the 7 foot tall person complains that they don't fit in it. It's not built for them.

When 90-95% of your target market is enticed, even turned on, by those models, you keep making them. If 90-95% of your target market are 3-foot-tall people, then you keep making your tiny cars.

I enjoy them, not because I get off looking at them, but because I appreciate the female form in any medium. Now, if I can do that and play the wargame at the same time, it is win-win.

I could complain that Barbie's boobs aren't big enough, or her legs aren't long enough, or her she doesn't show enough of her backyard out of her tennis skirt, but I doubt Mattel is going to change their line because of what I want (first of all, those demands are unreasonable, but second of all, I am not their target market - they couldn't care less what I want).

Melissia wrote:

Beany10 wrote:[Hmm well I am male and LOVE wargaming, but the company doesn't seem to be producing miniatures to my taste, so I guess you are wrong

I originally said "people with money who like wargaming". That dude switched it to "men".

Sorry I didn't mean to direct it at you, it was towards Puma, I fixed my original post now.

Beany10 wrote:

Hmm well I am male and LOVE wargaming, but the company doesn't seem to be producing miniatures to my taste, so I guess you are wrong Puma.

You are the target market, but they didn't appeal to you. See my post above. It doesn't mean I'm wrong that you're in the minority. You're still what they're after.

When 90-95% of your target market is enticed, even turned on, by those models, you keep making them.

This is not a very good reflection of our Wargaming community, and frankly anyone who gets turned on by miniatures is one strange, sad person.

Beany10 wrote:

When 90-95% of your target market is enticed, even turned on, by those models, you keep making them.

This is not a very good reflection of our Wargaming community, and frankly anyone who gets turned on by miniatures is one strange, sad person.

That may be so, but if they weren't selling, then they wouldn't be making them.

@all: please to leave aside flame bait comments regarding how anyone who is different from you in some way simply must be bad, defective, etc

Thanks very much

puma713 wrote:

Beany10 wrote:

When 90-95% of your target market is enticed, even turned on, by those models, you keep making them.

This is not a very good reflection of our Wargaming community, and frankly anyone who gets turned on by miniatures is one strange, sad person.

That may be so, but if they weren't selling, then they wouldn't be making them.

Well that may be true, but it's a shame they cannot make appropriate female minis to appeal to me and other like-minded men, women and so children can get into alternate games from he likes of 40k. I mean how would a parent react upon seeing those minis? They could actually grow their market if they made appropriate minis.

Beany10 wrote:

Well that may be true, but it's a shame they cannot make appropriate female minis to appeal to me and other like-minded men, women and so children can get into alternate games from he likes of 40k. I mean how would a parent react upon seeing those minis? They could actually grow their market if they made appropriate minis.

You're also assuming that those other women and children are as put off by these miniatures as you are. They may not be at all. They may like the look as much as the next male. And where they lose you in their target market, they gain one of them out of their target market.

The point is, if the sales of their current line is sustaining them, even creating a profit, then they've no need to try to appeal to other markets as well. If they create a few androgynous models and they don't sell nearly as well as their sexualized models, then what was the point? To try to grab a few more people into playing their games - and all they are looking for are those androgynous models of which you don't make that many. You could probably create the same effect by making another model showing underboob or posed provocatively - what you'd push away from outside of your target market, more interested folks would say, "Wow, look at her! I think I might start an army of those."

So, in short, what you're asking them is to change their whole line, or don't change at all.

In regards to riliculous posing, I bought this last night. Not that I mind - I'll enjoy painting it.



For me, ridiculous posing like this is far more preferable to horribly static posing.

-Loki- wrote:In regards to riliculous posing, I bought this last night. Not that I mind - I'll enjoy painting it.

broken image link there for me

Should be fixed now.

puma713 wrote:So, in short, what you're asking them is to change their whole line, or don't change at all.

False dichotomy, <text redacted; if you're commenting on another poster, rather than on their argument, then you're doing it wrong --Janthkin>>

Beany10 wrote:
Well that may be true, but it's a shame they cannot make appropriate female minis to appeal to me and other like-minded men, women and so children can get into alternate games from he likes of 40k. I mean how would a parent react upon seeing those minis? They could actually grow their market if they made appropriate minis.

I'm a parent and I have all the female miniatures from the Aleph line bar the new Post human (that I'm not going to get because I personally don't like them), oddly enough they are all currently sitting in my living room table where they have been for the past 2-3 weeks waiting for me to get some time to prime them.

They have been seen by my son, my wife, my sister in law, my niece, my wife's female cousin, her daughter, my mother and one of my female neighbours. Do you care to take a guess at how many of those women felt offended by the miniatures or even made any comment on them being somehow inappropriate or "degrading to women" as you put it? None.

Stop trying to impose your morals on other people, the only thing wrong with most of those miniatures are the things going on in your head.

Mastiff wrote:I agree with the majority of your line of thought. People are a part of their environment and affected by what they see. Here (as you might expect) are my disagreements with how that philosophy interacts with the discussion at hand:

1) Infinity also produces female figures that are warriors nearly indistinguishable from their male counterparts.

http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/keisotsu-butai-2/
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/keisotsu-butai-4/
http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/miniatures/haqqislam-starter-pack/

They rely on facial features, wider hips and slimmer limbs to differentiate from the males, rather than overtly sexual visual cues. They are warriors first, and female second.

In effect, they are also providing the sketch of a woman chopping wood.

I partially agree, Infinity got some of the most kick ass female miniatures available in the world of miniature gaming! But, and feel free to call me ridiculous now but before you do I'll actually want to celebrate CB for having such a great range of female minis and I've always thought so, so down to the business, I won't be satisfied before I see an equal amount of male minis doing the same silly manga poses in minimal clothing as there are female minis doing so. (Sorry terribly long sentence there.)

Mastiff wrote:2) Wargames glorify violence. We trust people to not carry this over to their day-to-day life. Some people here have said that play wargames while understanding the horrors of war.. This is because people are complex animals, and can hold complex dichotomies in their brains. I can say "pew-pew" while I imagine my armoured warriors leaping over the terrain to crush the enemies' skulls, while at the very same instant I can abhor the violence of amputations in the Cote d'Ivoire. People are intelligent enough to separate the two.

Its a tricky question to answer this one and I'll undoubtedly be accused of using double standards. But like I said before, the more often you are exposed to an image of a certain thing the more likely it is that it will influence your way of thinking about the object depicted, it will lead to certain expectations etc. Unless there is an equally valid or more valid image that contradicts this that is. So the violent content of a miniature game will affect your way of perceiving violence (good/bad, pleasant/unpleasant and so on) but will not make you commit violence. If you would experience violence in real life, the image supplied by mainstream culture (to which the world of miniature wargaming adhere) affect how you cope with this violence. According too research, male victims of assault often find themselves in a difficult position since they feel shame for feeling bad over being assaulted. This is because they believe people expect men to just brush it of their shoulders and forget about it. This shame stops them from getting help, press charges and so on. So yes the way violence is portrayed does have an impact on us and yes that is bad. But there is also a stronger consensus in most societies that violence is a very bad thing, that it only leads to suffering. In other words, violence as entertainment is enjoyed with the pre-understanding that in reality this is bad. There isn't however an equally strong consensus about rape and domestic violence, most of us would agree that it is bad but about what for instance rape really is or when it has occurred then there isn't as much of a consensus. As an example, if you would have sex with a girl so drunk she had passed out, is that rape? I don't know about other countries but in Sweden it was not considered rape until quite recently and yet I believe it is, very much so, not to forget how the victim would feel about it. And if there were any consensus, why does a rape trial evolve more about how the woman dressed and behaved instead of what the perpetrator did? There was a case in Sweden a few years ago where a woman was gang raped quite brutally and the men were freed since she had group-sex in the past (!?). And yet, in Sweden its against the law to in court ask a rape-victim about clothing and previous sexual affairs and to take it into consideration when reaching to a verdict, and yet it happens over and over again. To me that speaks a clear language concerning consensus in this matter, there are non. That rape is bad, yes there is, what rape is, no, whose to blame for the crime, no. So you can't really compare sexism to violence, most people don't seem to believe that sexism does any harm any way or that their way of thinking is affected by a sexist point of view. So you can't really compare sexist imagery and violence in the purpose of entertainment, they have totally different preconditions to start with. And according to my reasoning playing a violent game does not make you more inclined to violent act but it effects how you perceive violence and that's a totally different story while potentially a negative thing non the less. But comparable to rape or domestic violence which are greater problems than those media violence contributes to are small (but not to be trivialized of course!). Also, there is no serious documented case that supports the notion that media violence leads to real violence. But there is enough research to support the notion about how norms are created and how they affect us.

Mastiff wrote:Likewise, I can differentiate between a sexy representation of a woman or man, and an actual human being. I can understand the logic of why people find sexy models appealing, without it affecting my perceptions or relationships with real people. I can accept that no man in my world will ever be as suave and dangerous as James Bond, and the same with female equivalents.

So can I, and I don't say people that likes cheesecake minis are perverts by default (I haven't called anyone a pervert and I don't intend to either), it is legitimate to enjoy female physique, most heterosexuals and lesbians do. But one should be aware about how sexist imagery affects our societies, what a one sided image of our sexes and genders leads to. Then its up to you to decided where you stand and what you want to go from there.

Mastiff wrote:Essentially, my issue with your stance is that you don't trust individuals to make that difference. In some individual cases that may be true. But that does not mean that as an individual I have an obligation to act in a way that compensates for the weaknesses of other individuals. My appreciation for the female form does not prevent me from understanding the issues they face. I don't measure this by how I am perceived as a gamer or painter, but by how I am perceived as a husband and a father.

I do believe that people can make a difference between a real woman and a fictional one. But considering which images of women and men we are bombarded with daily and how the world looks like, I do not believe that people have grasped the idea of what sexism is, what inequality between the sexes are about or how extensive it is. And yes, if you agree with the notion of the inequality between the sexes and the mechanisms behind it, then I do believe that its your responsibility to fight this oppression. Just as I believe that its everyone's duty to fight racism, antisemitism, ageism and so on. Not necessarily by protesting in the streets but by our way of acting towards other people, and that is much harder than it sounds. But that is truly my opinion and I respect you for not sharing it.

Beany10 wrote:Yeah, it seems to be one of the only models by infinity which doesn't degrade women, which is sufficiently covered up for war and a proper pose, it is a shame that there is only one in a pack.

Excuse me... let me put these pics here, showing INFINITY female miniatures that are actually fighting, running, in a decent combat pose...

This is a Ninja girl running, she is going to draw her katana.


I call this: "Female Zhanshi running with other male Zhanshis without beeing cheesecake."


The figure on the left is female, and she is holding her Sniper Rifle looking for some objective, I supose.


This is a female Kempeitai, I guess she is going to use her sword to kill some enemies.


Female at the right, using her rifle. She is not in the kitchen, she has some of the best troops profiles of the Aridna army, she basically shoots better than any other male figure.


INFINITY released a manly female figure once, it is a bad selling miniature. It's a black woman so I guess trolls can say now that CB is racist or soemthing.


In the center, female figure holding a Panzerfaust. Not very feminine or sexy, but it is a female figure.


Odalisques. Firing their guns while still being sexy and feminine. We should all sue CB for this.


Female Bashi Bazouk holding a huge Boarding Shotgun. I think this is very offensive because it is an ugly miniature, so: It is an insult to women because they have portrayed a ugly woman, so all women are offended now. But... How can CB be so cruel and give this little lady such a BIG gun, she can barely hold it.. and is she suposed to work using that?! Now all working women are offended.


Seriously... Should I go on?

Kanluwen wrote:It's also another thing entirely to suggest that something which does not fit the visual aesthetic of the army fits because anime.

You keep saying that, but they DO fit the aesthetic. Not becuase the game is based on anime, but because the game is based on very specific animes, namely Appleseed and Ghost in the Shell. These two animes were specifically cited many times as a tremendous influence when Infinity was just starting out and the developers and sculpters were very active on the official forums (they still post, just not nearly so much). The influences are quite obvious:

Appleseed:


Ghost in the Shell (last image NSFW, but that was the movie poster)


The argument that the cheesecake models (whether you think they are appropriate or not) do not fit the theme is just incorrect, they absolutely fit the theme. Not because "oh, it's anime and anime has that kind of thing" but becuase it was so heavily influenced by THESE SPECIFIC animes, in which the super oversexualized women in skimpy clothes fight next to the oversexualized men in full combat gear. And generally, they kick more ass than the men, becuase in both cases they are the main characters. In Appleseed, Duenan (the blonde girl) is often fighting in full ESWAT gear, but it is always form fitting to show off the fact that she's a woman, and you have many female soldiers in Infinity that fight in form fitting full combat armor that match that look. The TAGs are based on these animes, the drones are based on these animes, much of the tech like TO camoflauge is based on these animes, then entire aesthetic is derived from these. Infinity isn't Appleseed: The Game and it has many other influences besides these 2 animes, but you can't say the cheesecake doesn't fit the theme without completely ignoring a large portion of what led to the game in the first place.

You can say you don't like it and that's perfectly fine, I even agree to a point despite my arguments for it. It does nothing for me (I've seen too much actual sex and nudity to blink an eye at this kind of thing) and I'd rather just have cool models than sexy models, but it certainly FITS and is absolutely consistent, and again there's other avenues to go down to get a model you want. The pickier you are, the more it's going to cost you to get exactly what you want, that isn't something unique to Infinity or even wargaming.

BobbaFett wrote:

Female at the right, using her rifle. She is not in the kitchen, she has some of the best troops profiles of the Aridna army, she basically shoots better than any other male figure.

The wolf on the left could even be female.

Please refrain from posting this pic or any other like it ever again.

Every time I see an Aragoto I get an almost irresistible urge to start a Japanese Sectorial Army, and my wallet can't afford another project right now!

Kalamadea wrote:Ghost in the Shell (last image NSFW, but that was the movie poster)

Actually, that was a point of character developement for her. Her outfits changed as she did and IIRC she was dressing more conservatively near the end of the series. It wasn't just in tehre to titilate viewers (I'm sure that was a reason, just not the only one). Mind you, I'm talking about the series, not the movie... the series was definitely better.

For example, Motoko's outfits later in the series (left is dress uniform, right is combat uniform IIRC):



No, I don't hate all anime despite what has been claimed

Kalamadea wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:It's also another thing entirely to suggest that something which does not fit the visual aesthetic of the army fits because anime.

You keep saying that, but they DO fit the aesthetic. Not becuase the game is based on anime, but because the game is based on very specific animes, namely Appleseed and Ghost in the Shell. These two animes were specifically cited many times as a tremendous influence when Infinity was just starting out and the developers and sculpters were very active on the official forums (they still post, just not nearly so much). The influences are quite obvious:

Except the models that Slarg, Melissia, and I have pointed out repeatedly do not fit the aesthetic of the armies they are in. The Ariadna models that were linked(the Chasseur with ADHL, the Dozers, Caledonian Volunteer female, the 7th Foxtrot Ranger and the Line Kazak) are nothing but women showing skin or striking poses for the sake of doing it.

Bobbafett even proves my point with several of the female models he links, which are Ariadnan. Why do we have 5 models showing skin or strikin' poses offsetting the 10 female models which look professionally clothed or posed to look like they're not on the cover of Babes and Guns?

I would argue that all of the Infinity models posted fit within the aesthetic of their respective ranges.


http://www.kabukimodels.com/index.php?go=produkt&id=30 Take a look at the models on this page, and explain to me how Infinity is deemed so horribly bad.

I said earlier, that I enjoy models of all shapes and sizes, however miniatures are, most typically used within a gaming context, and I fail to see how ANY of the Kabuki line, at least in the female ranges are designed with a game aesthetic in mind... They are pretty good sculpts, but at the same time, designed to be provocative, and ultimately not in my taste. If you (you being the general miniatures collector) enjoy these sorts of models, who am I to judge that? Do I think that Kabuki should not offer this range?? No, I don't run the company, and if I did, and saw that this line makes more money than any other line, I would probably stick with it too.

This is pointless.

No one is saying they are "horribly bad". People are saying there is no reason, whatsoever, that these models should be the primary models of the range. There's not enough alternatives produced by Corvus Belli for these pieces to be the PRIMARY MODELS FOR SEVERAL VERY GOOD OPTIONS.

Kanluwen wrote:This is pointless.

No one is saying they are "horribly bad".

They have been called "gak" so that's not really true at all.

Kanluwen wrote:This is pointless.

No one is saying they are "horribly bad". People are saying there is no reason, whatsoever, that these models should be the primary models of the range. There's not enough alternatives produced by Corvus Belli for these pieces to be the PRIMARY MODELS FOR SEVERAL VERY GOOD OPTIONS.

But, in saying that there is no place in the range for them, to me, is saying that their existence is horrible.. It's also quite obvious that CB is pretty small compared to other companies, and to make "alternates" for something someone of a more prudish disposition would in all probability break the company.


There are tasteful ways to portray "cheesecake", and I think CB do much better than other companies, but ultimately it is my opinion that there IS a place for it within the miniatures industry.

Kanluwen wrote:People are saying there is no reason, whatsoever, that these models should be the primary models of the range. There's not enough alternatives produced by Corvus Belli for these pieces to be the PRIMARY MODELS FOR SEVERAL VERY GOOD OPTIONS.

This is based solely on your own opinion, which is no more valid than those with whom you disagree.

Ninja'd by Ensis. Damn, you're fast.

Kanluwen wrote:Why do we have 5 models showing skin or strikin' poses offsetting the 10 female models which look professionally clothed or posed to look like they're not on the cover of Babes and Guns?

Because "sexy" is a perfectly reasonable stylistic choice in a game about science fiction warfare?

I regard myself as a feminist. I'm very much aware of feminism both in academia and among my circle of friends, and I've read plenty of classic feminist literature, from Wollstonecraft to Dworkin and beyond.

I still find this thread weird. Anime in general has a sexual content. The specific influences for Infinity have lots of sexy women, who are arguably objectified according to many approaches to feminism (the awesome Bad Reputation blog would probably call a lot of them "sex assassins", even the supposedly empowering ones).

And yet if you go to any anime or cosplay convention, you will see hundreds of women emulating those supposedly objectified characters. Actually talk to those women, and you'll find that many of them are feminists (I know several hardcore feminist academics who are also obsessive cosplayers). Are they just deluded? I'm not actually that huge an anime fan myself -- my son is, more -- but it seems to me that anime fandom is probably more accepting of, welcoming to, and empowering to women than most other geeky hobbies, and certainly more so than miniatures wargaming. So, on balance, I see Infinity as one of the best minis companies out there, in t erms of making the hobby more accessible to women. I suspect that many of the minis that are claimed by some to be cheesecake are bought by a higher proportion of women than the more macho power fantasy type minis that other companies sell (seriously, most of the heroes from both 40K and Warhammer Fantasy could have come right out of Spinrad's _The Iron Dream_, only without the irony).

Are the women in this video just, you know, having the wrong kind of fun, like the women who buy and love Infinity minis? (Awesome Inquisitor cosplay at the end BTW.)

http://kotaku.com/5872884/some-of-the-best-cosplay-of-2011-turned-into-a-beautiful-little-movie

So supposedly, everyone is fine with catachans with muscle the size of their already over sized head.
we have pretty much naked male models running around in nothing but loin cloth.

We see an Infinity sculpt with midrift and its the end of the world?

Its going to be very hard to not sound insulting from that you know? kanluwen?

I mean, when did dakka dakka turn into middle east where only the eyes can be exposed?

also, i like how you deny other's opinion that are against yours regarding whether the aesthetics fit or not.
The last time I checked, your opinions are no more qualified than others, so quit treating it like so, please.

Oh yes Straken you and your CYBERNETIC NIPPLE BECAUSE WE KNOW THE LAST TIME YOU PLAYED WITH IT, THE LAND SHARK BIT IT OFF AND YOU MUST GET A REPLACEMENT!


Oh Harker you BIG beast!


And er.... ya you get the point




Its simple. All those I have shown ( oh there are more but this should be enough ) are nothing but gratuitous display of OH MANLY MAN IM ARNOLD I BUFF HUR HUR HUR HURRRRR
Why is the moment the gender changes, its any different? Explain to me kanluwen


OH YES BABY LOOK AT THAT **** WHAT ON EARTH CAN THAT BULGE BE I WONDER! SEXEH!


And look at that! DAT ASS!

Melissia wrote:

Kalamadea wrote:Ghost in the Shell (last image NSFW, but that was the movie poster)

Actually, that was a point of character developement for her. Her outfits changed as she did and IIRC she was dressing more conservatively near the end of the series. It wasn't just in tehre to titilate viewers (I'm sure that was a reason, just not the only one). Mind you, I'm talking about the series, not the movie... the series was definitely better.

For example, Motoko's outfits later in the series (left is dress uniform, right is combat uniform IIRC):



No, I don't hate all anime despite what has been claimed

Well yeah, she did look like she was wearing a sexy swimsuit in Stand Alone Complex. They did tone down the 'fanservice' in 2nd GiG. Although personally I like the the first movie alot as it followed the Manga rather well. In the move she had to be fully nude to use her 'thermoptic cammo' eventhough the guys didn't have to. They usully had some kind of suit or poncho (Kyo-Re invisible cape * Name of a all weather,thermo-optical camouflage suit. Kyo-Re is the manufacturer's name)

In the manga she didn't have to be nude, it seemed like they just wanted to show some fan survice or Mamurii Oshii just liked motoko nude better. I must admit the first scene in the origional GitS movie was rather awsome. If you really want to see old 'crotch shot shirow' at his best check out Ghost in the Shell 2 Man machine interface. Even in his notes he thinks he was drawing 'to much skin' on Motoko arimaki especially when she was in 'cyber space'

If you would like to read a really good story check out Black Magic M-66. It's rather awsome check around on youtube also there is a animated version of it.

OT Come on people, can we please get back to the GW hate??!! Sex sells, the sky is blue, water is wet and satan clause is out there, and hes just getting stronger. =o]

I believe there are a lot of misconceptions going on here!

I want to start by saying that the infinity range got some of the most awesome female minis out there, I'm very well aware about this and I have never claimed anything else. This does not alter the fact that they go some of the more sexist models as well and in the end of the day men and women are portrayed by different standards as a whole. Not every miniature, I know that and its all well and good, but generally. And what do I mean by this then, when is something equal in my eyes? Well, in this case I won't be satisfied until there are as many men as there are women doing the same silly manga-poses in silly minimal clothing. When they do ridicule men the same way they do with women, then I won't care whether someone is wearing school uniforms and showing of panties.

My point have been that there must be an equal representation of contradicting images of our genders, that is not to say "there shouldn't be cheesecake miniatures", rather "there should also be fat and ugly women and men, thin and sissy men, old and saggy woman and men and so on". I'm not just talking about the infinity range now, and yes there are some models out there to fill all these boxes to, but far from enough. There must be room for far more diversity, cheesecake or not.

Ian Sturrock wrote:Anime in general has a sexual content. The specific influences for Infinity have lots of sexy women, who are arguably objectified according to many approaches to feminism (the awesome Bad Reputation blog would probably call a lot of them "sex assassins", even the supposedly empowering ones).

Feminist or not, I still don't believe that you can justify things with manga. A) a sexist image is a sexist image, cultural context is irrelevant since most of us does not seem to live in Japan. B) there are a lot of manga/anime without this imagery of men and women which people are trying to defend with being "manga or anime" in this thread. So to defend this with being manga/anime is to only choose a potion of it. C) Japan (from which the stuff originally comes) is hardly a good example of a country with equality between sexes, plus that they allow media in Japan that in at least Sweden would be considered child pornography. And you cant say that these two got nothing to do with each other since they spring from the same cultural source (as well as some of it actually being manga/anime).

Ian Sturrock wrote:And yet if you go to any anime or cosplay convention, you will see hundreds of women emulating those supposedly objectified characters. Actually talk to those women, and you'll find that many of them are feminists (I know several hardcore feminist academics who are also obsessive cosplayers). Are they just deluded? I'm not actually that huge an anime fan myself -- my son is, more -- but it seems to me that anime fandom is probably more accepting of, welcoming to, and empowering to women than most other geeky hobbies, and certainly more so than miniatures wargaming. So, on balance, I see Infinity as one of the best minis companies out there, in t erms of making the hobby more accessible to women. I suspect that many of the minis that are claimed by some to be cheesecake are bought by a higher proportion of women than the more macho power fantasy type minis that other companies sell (seriously, most of the heroes from both 40K and Warhammer Fantasy could have come right out of Spinrad's _The Iron Dream_, only without the irony).

Are the women in this video just, you know, having the wrong kind of fun, like the women who buy and love Infinity minis? (Awesome Inquisitor cosplay at the end BTW.)

Cute, video. If people want to dress like anime-characters its their business and no one should call them deluded for doing so. And yes, there are some really great manga out there that empowers women, but often at the same time place women in certain distinctive roles. There are of course exceptions to this, but on a general note, I find this to be true. But at the same time I would agree with Infinity being one of the best games for promoting women in miniature war-gaming, I'm not saying all manga or anime is bad, you just can't use it as a means to justify whats obviously derogatory for certain groups of people (and no I'm not just talking about women).



Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound - Yes I believe that we have to problematize the image of men/male miniatures as well. Though as I believe your pictures show, male minis are more diverse than woman/female minis. But to problematize does not mean to eradicate certain miniatures from miniature ranges here and there, rather to add diversity to them.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:Lots of stuff...

Your points are wrong.

People have already gone to great lengths to try and explain to you the inspirations and context behind those minis. That you don't agree with them is irrelevant because you aren't the creator of the game. When you have your own miniature line, then you can sculpt how many fat ugly miniatures as you like, or muscled men in thongs, or whatever else kind of nonsense you seem to wan't CB to produce to "offset" their "cheesecake".

On top of that you are using extremly hipocritical arguments by dismissing the violence inherent in these kinds of games with the "its just a game" argument, but refusing the same argument in relation to the miniatures themselves.

And the cherry on top of the cake is your constant innuendo that because someone appreciates these types of miniatures, they will then automatically objectify and demean every women they meet, because apparently people can't distinguish from a representation of the female form and an actual living breathing women (and even then, I can't think of anyone over the age of 15 that would be aroused by a 28mm miniature, no matter how undressed it is).

Breasts are natural ocurrences in the wild, so are womens rear ends, legs and every other part of the female (and male) anatomy. Heck, go to a damn beach and you'll see plenty of women proudly displaying every part that I just mentioned! There is nothing wrong, or imoral, or damaging or even demeaning with either the human body or the depiction of consensual sex. You all strike me like the type of people that defaced all those statues in the Vatican because they had their genitals showing...

You're all wrong who go on that the miniatures are sexist in any way.

Not calling sexism on male models with overexposed muscles and skin while doing so on similar female models is what you're apparently fighting against.

When you go to a swimming pool is all you see women degrading themselves?

Hey infinity, you're only allowed to make ugly mannish cow looking women for your miniatures, because <insert pointlessly feministic extremist garbage>.

Oh, and they can't be white either, they all have to be some mix otherwise it would be RACIST.

Everyone has its limits concerning nudity, women, cheesecakes... etc What differentiates something acceptable and appropriate from something that its not is the context.

So lets see the context here... tokens for a wargame called Infinity that is based on anime... This alone would auto detach these miniatures from any moral judgement because its importance is irrelevant to real life issues. When you bring your moral limits into wargaming you are the one breaking the context and giving meanings to things that do not bear relevance towards the real moral issues.

Its a question of perspective I guess, some of you seem to want to impose your moral values on others and also on some tokens for a game. I find that disproportionate.

I find disturbing the parallels ( child porn? Anime? Japanese culture?) people are willing to establish just to impose their own moral concepts and limits... You only control yourself so if you think such irrelevant thing like a wargame token is against your values vote with your money... there are many companies and ranges for you to support.

Someone said what's wrong with being a perv? A bit funny but I guess as long as your actions don't limit other people liberty its all good... as is good a 100% feminist person... the problems start when you try to limit others choices. That age is over on a part of the world.

Infinity is a private company that makes a fantasy game and some tokens for that fantasy universe, reality has little bearing to the concepts and this context is good enough for me. If I wanted a real life experience I would not play fantasy games and alternative universes.

PhantomViper wrote:People have already gone to great lengths to try and explain to you the inspirations and context behind those minis. That you don't agree with them is irrelevant because you aren't the creator of the game. When you have your own miniature line, then you can sculpt how many fat ugly miniatures as you like, or muscled men in thongs, or whatever else kind of nonsense you seem to wan't CB to produce to "offset" their "cheesecake".

If the source of inspiration is sexist and they choose to conserve this, then so are they in their actions. Simple logic. And yes I don't agree with them and my opinion is as relevant as yours. And if a man in thong is nonsense why isn't a woman in thongs nonsens? They are not born with thongs you know.

PhantomViper wrote:On top of that you are using extremly hipocritical arguments by dismissing the violence inherent in these kinds of games with the "its just a game" argument, but refusing the same argument in relation to the miniatures themselves.

Read my last post at page 16, there you have an better explanation. I'm sorry I couldn't supply you with at better one. But saying that my only argument was "it's just a game" is a lie in an attempt do discredit me and you should know that. I never said those words"It's just a game" to begin with, and even if you would care to get the real quote it would be taken out of its context.

PhantomViper wrote:And the cherry on top of the cake is your constant innuendo that because someone appreciates these types of miniatures, they will then automatically objectify and demean every women they meet, because apparently people can't distinguish from a representation of the female form and an actual living breathing women (and even then, I can't think of anyone over the age of 15 that would be aroused by a 28mm miniature, no matter how undressed it is).

This is not true either. What I've said is that the human mind can't differ from the way a real life woman an a fictional woman are depicted. If you were to grow up isolated from humans and you would only see highly stereotypical hand drawn pictures of woman and men only doing highly stereotypical things, then if you were to come in contact with real people, these picture would give you certain expectations. The same goes for all the stereotypical images on men and women that we are exposed to daily, theses miniatures adhere to these stereotypical images. I know that most people knows the difference between a real person and a fictional one. And I have not said that consuming products that objectify women (or men for that matter) automatically will make you objectify women. But being exposed to a one-sided images of women and men will affect the way you perceive women and men as any one-sided image of anything will affect your way of thinking about that certain person, group of people, object, event and so on.

PhantomViper wrote:Breasts are natural ocurrences in the wild, so are womens rear ends, legs and every other part of the female (and male) anatomy. Heck, go to a damn beach and you'll see plenty of women proudly displaying every part that I just mentioned! There is nothing wrong, or imoral, or damaging or even demeaning with either the human body or the depiction of consensual sex. You all strike me like the type of people that defaced all those statues in the Vatican because they had their genitals showing...

Now you are jumping conclusions again, what I've said is quite the contrary to this.

BronzeJon wrote:You're all wrong who go on that the miniatures are sexist in any way.
Not calling sexism on male models with overexposed muscles and skin while doing so on similar female models is what you're apparently fighting against.

Read last post, all of it, I do state that that we have to problematize the image of men supplied to us through these miniatures. So yes they are sexist as well.

BronzeJon wrote:When you go to a swimming pool is all you see women degrading themselves?

Hey infinity, you're only allowed to make ugly mannish cow looking women for your miniatures, because <insert pointlessly feministic extremist garbage>.

I've never said any of this, I was advocating adding diversity to a rather one-sided way of representing men as well as women. And no, to wear swim wear at a swimming pool ain't necessarily degrading, but you can't say that it never is either.

BronzeJon wrote:Oh, and they can't be white either, they all have to be some mix otherwise it would be RACIST.

Exclusion is one form of oppression and that is widely acknowledged, so yes,

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

BronzeJon wrote:When you go to a swimming pool is all you see women degrading themselves?

Hey infinity, you're only allowed to make ugly mannish cow looking women for your miniatures, because <insert pointlessly feministic extremist garbage>.

I've never said any of this, I was advocating adding diversity to a rather one-sided way of representing men as well as women. And no, to wear swim wear at a swimming pool ain't necessarily degrading, but you can't say that it never is either.

BronzeJon wrote:Oh, and they can't be white either, they all have to be some mix otherwise it would be RACIST.

Exclusion is one form of oppression and that is widely acknowledged, so yes,

If you wear a swim suit while going to your office then yes its degrading because on the beach yes i can say its never degrading. Its that thing called context.

I dont think your perspective is adjusted to the fact Infinity is a international game catering to a wide range of people, corvus belli is not a company imposing any morality to anything anywhere, they only sell you a fantasy universe... you just can't enter a private fictitious experience and expect it to be tuned to your particular social economic reality. Well you can but it makes no sense to call them racists or sexists for not addresing your personal moral values on their private alternative reality. If you cant separate the two just don't buy what shocks you.

NAVARRO wrote:
So lets see the context here... tokens for a wargame called Infinity that is based on anime... This alone would auto detach these miniatures from any moral judgement because its importance is irrelevant to real life issues. When you bring your moral limits into wargaming you are the one breaking the context and giving meanings to things that do not bear relevance towards the real moral issues.

Just because our miniatures aren't actually killing peoples it doesn't mean miniature war-gaming has no relevance to the real world and vise versa.

NAVARRO wrote:Its a question of perspective I guess, some of you seem to want to impose your moral values on others and also on some tokens for a game. I find that disproportionate.

You yourself are trying to impose your values on me and other people, you do know that I hope. But since you adhere to the ruling idea of how things should be, it might seem like your "only defending the right of choice" or whatever you think you are doing.

NAVARRO wrote:I find disturbing the parallels ( child porn? Anime? Japanese culture?) people are willing to establish just to impose their own moral concepts and limits... You only control yourself so if you think such irrelevant thing like a wargame token is against your values vote with your money... there are many companies and ranges for you to support.

In Japan, you can buy videos of sparsely dressed children sucking different objects like bananas with a clearly sexual purpose in the same stores where you buy porn. Yes that is disturbing. Or hentai imagery where what is clearly children is being sexually abused in quite horrible ways, that is also disturbing. But I'm not saying all manga/anime is child-porn, just that it isn't an excuse for for displaying things that otherwise isn't OK.

NAVARRO wrote:Someone said what's wrong with being a perv? A bit funny but I guess as long as your actions don't limit other people liberty its all good... as is good a 100% feminist person... the problems start when you try to limit others choices. That age is over on a part of the world.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote: LunaHound - Yes I believe that we have to problematize the image of men/male miniatures as well. Though as I believe your pictures show, male minis are more diverse than woman/female minis. But to problematize does not mean to eradicate certain miniatures from miniature ranges here and there, rather to add diversity to them.

Does it seem like I'm advocating limiting peoples choices?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

NAVARRO wrote:If you wear a swim suit while going to your office then yes its degrading because on the beach yes i can say its never degrading. Its that thing called context.

If women were forced of felt like they were being forced to wear swimsuits at office hence wore them against their will, yes that would be degrading. And while context matters the word "beach" refers to a whole lot of contexts. Generally, no wearing swim-wear at a beach is not degrading, its perfectly normal.

NAVARRO wrote:I dont think your perspective is adjusted to the fact Infinity is a international game catering to a wide range of people, corvus belli is not a company imposing any morality to anything anywhere, they only sell you a fantasy universe... you just can't enter a private fictitious experience and expect it to be tuned to your particular social economic reality. Well you can but it makes no sense to call them racists or sexists for not addresing your personal moral values on their private alternative reality. If you cant separate the two just don't buy what shocks you.

CB is in fact imposing morality on its surroundings. We are imposing values in our every action, this is widely recognized throughout the world of psychology and social science. I'm not really calling anyone a racist, but the system of values to which Infinity adheres is by no doubt racist, sexist and what not.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:People have already gone to great lengths to try and explain to you the inspirations and context behind those minis. That you don't agree with them is irrelevant because you aren't the creator of the game. When you have your own miniature line, then you can sculpt how many fat ugly miniatures as you like, or muscled men in thongs, or whatever else kind of nonsense you seem to wan't CB to produce to "offset" their "cheesecake".

If the source of inspiration is sexist and they choose to conserve this, then so are they in their actions. Simple logic. And yes I don't agree with them and my opinion is as relevant as yours. And if a man in thong is nonsense why isn't a woman in thongs nonsens? They are not born with thongs you know.

No, your opinion isn't as relevant as mine, because my opinion is the same as those that make the game.

And I didn't said that a man in thong was nonsense, I said that your idea that CB are somehow obligated to make complementary miniatures is nonsense. There is a diference.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:On top of that you are using extremly hipocritical arguments by dismissing the violence inherent in these kinds of games with the "its just a game" argument, but refusing the same argument in relation to the miniatures themselves.

Read my last post at page 16, there you have an better explanation. I'm sorry I couldn't supply you with at better one. But saying that my only argument was "it's just a game" is a lie in an attempt do discredit me and you should know that. I never said those words"It's just a game" to begin with, and even if you would care to get the real quote it would be taken out of its context.

Yes, because the justification for that context only exists in your head.

We play miniature WARGAMES set on fictional universes that glorify violence and bloodshed and where physical depictions of human beeings are murdering other physical depictions of human beeings in the most graphical way possible.

That you defend or condone this FACT but choose to take offence that a piece of lead is painted with some flesh tones in certain places is baffling.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:And the cherry on top of the cake is your constant innuendo that because someone appreciates these types of miniatures, they will then automatically objectify and demean every women they meet, because apparently people can't distinguish from a representation of the female form and an actual living breathing women (and even then, I can't think of anyone over the age of 15 that would be aroused by a 28mm miniature, no matter how undressed it is).

This is not true either. What I've said is that the human mind can't differ from the way a real life woman an a fictional woman are depicted. If you were to grow up isolated from humans and you would only see highly stereotypical hand drawn pictures of woman and men only doing highly stereotypical things, then if you were to come in contact with real people, these picture would give you certain expectations. The same goes for all the stereotypical images on men and women that we are exposed to daily, theses miniatures adhere to these stereotypical images. I know that most people knows the difference between a real person and a fictional one. And I have not said that consuming products that objectify women (or men for that matter) automatically will make you objectify women. But being exposed to a one-sided images of women and men will affect the way you perceive women and men as any one-sided image of anything will affect your way of thinking about that certain person, group of people, object, event and so on.

Bollocks, the human mind can diferentiate from an inanimate representation and an actual person just fine after it leaves its infancy, only small childs have problems distinguishing reality from fantasy, adults who can't should seek mental help as fast as possible.

You seem to be the one having serious dificulties diferentiating between an inanimate object in a fantasy alternate universe and real women. If you wan't to really help real women then go to Iran protest against the women that is set to be stoned to death for the crime of being raped. If you wan't to help real women, then go to China and protest against the hundreds of babies that are killed for the crime of being born a women. If you wan't to help real women then go to Africa and protest against the clitorial mutilations of baby girls, or the rape of virgin girls because it cures AIDS, or the raping of lesbians because that cures Homosexuality (in the lesbian, not in the rapists)!

There are hundreds of causes around the world that would help real women and would really fight for women's rights to equalitty, demanding that a miniature company changes their business model to conform to your twisted view of morality isn't one of them.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:
So lets see the context here... tokens for a wargame called Infinity that is based on anime... This alone would auto detach these miniatures from any moral judgement because its importance is irrelevant to real life issues. When you bring your moral limits into wargaming you are the one breaking the context and giving meanings to things that do not bear relevance towards the real moral issues.

1- Just because our miniatures aren't actually killing peoples it doesn't mean miniature war-gaming has no relevance to the real world and vise versa.

NAVARRO wrote:Its a question of perspective I guess, some of you seem to want to impose your moral values on others and also on some tokens for a game. I find that disproportionate.

2- You yourself are trying to impose your values on me and other people, you do know that I hope. But since you adhere to the ruling idea of how things should be, it might seem like your "only defending the right of choice" or whatever you think you are doing.

NAVARRO wrote:I find disturbing the parallels ( child porn? Anime? Japanese culture?) people are willing to establish just to impose their own moral concepts and limits... You only control yourself so if you think such irrelevant thing like a wargame token is against your values vote with your money... there are many companies and ranges for you to support.

3- In Japan, you can buy videos of sparsely dressed children sucking different objects like bananas with a clearly sexual purpose in the same stores where you buy porn. Yes that is disturbing. Or hentai imagery where what is clearly children is being sexually abused in quite horrible ways, that is also disturbing. But I'm not saying all manga/anime is child-porn, just that it isn't an excuse for for displaying things that otherwise isn't OK.

NAVARRO wrote:Someone said what's wrong with being a perv? A bit funny but I guess as long as your actions don't limit other people liberty its all good... as is good a 100% feminist person... the problems start when you try to limit others choices. That age is over on a part of the world.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote: LunaHound - Yes I believe that we have to problematize the image of men/male miniatures as well. Though as I believe your pictures show, male minis are more diverse than woman/female minis. But to problematize does not mean to eradicate certain miniatures from miniature ranges here and there, rather to add diversity to them.

4- Does it seem like I'm advocating limiting peoples choices?

I put some numbers on your quote for clarity sake and simplify debate, I hope you dont mind?
Before we start you replied with quotes assuming my post was directed at you in all its extent, It was not, I posted my opinion regarding several arguments raised by several different people so its nothing aimed at you directly.

1- Actually it has no relevance if you compare societies very complex, very deep and very problematic moral issues to some gaming tokens of a fantasy game. Your measuring fantasy by your reality standarts... thats ok to some extent but when you attach SERIOUS society problems to that measurement you are destroying the essence of that fantasy universe... In short you just cant do that and enjoy these games... Thats why I say if you dont enjoy X game dont buy it.

2- I really missed were I tried to impose you anything and inverting arguments isnt your best bet here... I'm not Corvus belli I did not produce these minis they are totally ok and on target for me and I enjoy painting them...as a sculptor I can admire their very professional sculpts... I like anime and scifi. They didnt imposed anything on me and I have a good experience surfing their enjoyable fictitious universe... Some people dont like it, its OK, some people complain, its OK, some demand changes, Not OK, some people think they know better about Corvus belli creations than Corvus belli itself its a bit nonsense but OK I guess... So no I dont impose anything to anyone and I dont know nothing besides the place for gaming miniatures is on the wartable or painting displays not a tool to vent away my morality preferences and surely not a banner to my life standarts. Its not THAT context mate.

3- There are many branches to anime... all of them to some extent display sexy gals, some for humor, some for cuteness sake to appeal to kids some for adults softporn Hentai some etc etc etc... Like any artistic language there are plenty of manifestations... Down to planet earth, spain, infinity/ anime... child porn has no place there or on this debate, period. Again the context seems to escape your comments and your inserting problematic themes and things that are not meant to be.

4- When you consider a game token on a scifi universe created for your enjoyment sexist and if the armies don't display all racial minorities racist then yes your imposing your morality into this debate, into a wargame and finally into us that only want to enjoy miniatures for wargames for what they really are... irrelevant game tokens.

PhantomViper wrote:No, your opinion isn't as relevant as mine, because my opinion is the same as those that make the game.

Is that so? What makes it so? Are you suggesting that the opinion of those that think differently from the majority is of less value? That would be deeply disturbing.

PhantomViper wrote:And I didn't said that a man in thong was nonsense, I said that your idea that CB are somehow obligated to make complementary miniatures is nonsense. There is a diference.

OK fair enough.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:On top of that you are using extremly hipocritical arguments by dismissing the violence inherent in these kinds of games with the "its just a game" argument, but refusing the same argument in relation to the miniatures themselves.

Read my last post at page 16, there you have an better explanation. I'm sorry I couldn't supply you with at better one. But saying that my only argument was "it's just a game" is a lie in an attempt do discredit me and you should know that. I never said those words"It's just a game" to begin with, and even if you would care to get the real quote it would be taken out of its context.

PhantomViper wrote:Yes, because the justification for that context only exists in your head.

We play miniature WARGAMES set on fictional universes that glorify violence and bloodshed and where physical depictions of human beeings are murdering other physical depictions of human beeings in the most graphical way possible.

That you defend or condone this FACT but choose to take offence that a piece of lead is painted with some flesh tones in certain places is baffling.

PhantomViper wrote:Bollocks, the human mind can diferentiate from an inanimate representation and an actual person just fine after it leaves its infancy, only small childs have problems distinguishing reality from fantasy, adults who can't should seek mental help as fast as possible.

You seem to be the one having serious dificulties diferentiating between an inanimate object in a fantasy alternate universe and real women. If you wan't to really help real women then go to Iran protest against the women that is set to be stoned to death for the crime of being raped. If you wan't to help real women, then go to China and protest against the hundreds of babies that are killed for the crime of being born a women. If you wan't to help real women then go to Africa and protest against the clitorial mutilations of baby girls, or the rape of virgin girls because it cures AIDS, or the raping of lesbians because that cures Homosexuality (in the lesbian, not in the rapists)!

There are hundreds of causes around the world that would help real women and would really fight for women's rights to equalitty, demanding that a miniature company changes their business model to conform to your twisted view of morality isn't one of them.

I have no difficulties in separating facts from fiction. But you doesn't seem to grasp basic social science that most scientists agree on. There sure are, a lot of initiatives to enforce women rights and a whole lot of different rights, but still do you find the world an place of equal rights?

PhantomViper, as a general note you know this thing called science, it sometimes makes us understand what is beyond "common sense" like laws of gravity, the earth is round and so on. There is something called social science and psychology, you might want to look in to that.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NAVARRO wrote:If you wear a swim suit while going to your office then yes its degrading because on the beach yes i can say its never degrading. Its that thing called context.

If women were forced of felt like they were being forced to wear swimsuits at office hence wore them against their will, yes that would be degrading. And while context matters the word "beach" refers to a whole lot of contexts. Generally, no wearing swim-wear at a beach is not degrading, its perfectly normal.

NAVARRO wrote:I dont think your perspective is adjusted to the fact Infinity is a international game catering to a wide range of people, corvus belli is not a company imposing any morality to anything anywhere, they only sell you a fantasy universe... you just can't enter a private fictitious experience and expect it to be tuned to your particular social economic reality. Well you can but it makes no sense to call them racists or sexists for not addresing your personal moral values on their private alternative reality. If you cant separate the two just don't buy what shocks you.

CB is in fact imposing morality on its surroundings. We are imposing values in our every action, this is widely recognized throughout the world of psychology and social science. I'm not really calling anyone a racist, but the system of values to which Infinity adheres is by no doubt racist, sexist and what not.

These last two appended quotes were aimed at you so yes the full extent of my post was for you.

Your swimsuit illustrates a bit of your line of arguments towards CB behaviour... We talk about swimsuits and normal situations were does and he does not fit and you insert Forcing against your will... see what you did? Its the same with infinity, we talk about game tokens looks and you insert, racism, sexist etc... Its to extreme and doesnt help to illustrate IMO whats going on.

If you feel 'm not really calling anyone a racist, but the system of values to which Infinity adheres is by no doubt racist, sexist and what not" then you really should not collect these game tokens, I'm sorry to say that maybe you should look elsewhere for something you take enjoyment... I doubt 90% of the wargames is for you to be honest.

NAVARRO wrote:
2- I really missed were I tried to impose you anything and inverting arguments isnt your best bet here... I'm not Corvus belli I did not produce these minis they are totally ok and on target for me and I enjoy painting them...as a sculptor I can admire their very professional sculpts... I like anime and scifi. They didnt imposed anything on me and I have a good experience surfing their enjoyable fictitious universe... Some people dont like it, its OK, some people complain, its OK, some demand changes, Not OK, some people think they know better about Corvus belli creations than Corvus belli itself its a bit nonsense but OK I guess... So no I dont impose anything to anyone and I dont know nothing besides the place for gaming miniatures is on the wartable or painting displays not a tool to vent away my morality preferences and surely not a banner to my life standarts. Its not THAT context mate.

You just stated what was OK and not OK, as an argument in a discussion I might add, how is that not an attempt at imposing your values on me?

And I'm generally sorry for taking the jam out of your donut but the world is a nasty business and I can't alter that fact.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:A miniature showing skin is in fact showing skin, its not up to debate!

Actually, it's showing a coat of paint over primer, over sculpted metal, don't like the idea that the figure is half dressed, paint it green, or black or brown, or some other color to show that they're wearing a bodysuit...

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:[

PhantomViper, as a general note you know this thing called science, it sometimes makes us understand what is beyond "common sense" like laws of gravity, the earth is round and so on. There is something called social science and psychology, you might want to look in to that.

So to fully understand what your saying we need to take a degree in Psychology and Sciences? maybe you should just take a degree in art in order to comment corvusbelli alternative fantasy world, or maybe a degree in JUST playing a fantasy wargame, because thats the topic here

NAVARRO wrote:Your swimsuit illustrates a bit of your line of arguments towards CB behaviour... We talk about swimsuits and normal situations were does and he does not fit and you insert Forcing against your will... see what you did? Its the same with infinity, we talk about game tokens looks and you insert, racism, sexist etc... Its to extreme and doesnt help to illustrate IMO whats going on.

If you are suggesting that I said that all women are forced to wear certain swim wear, then you terribly misunderstood me.

NAVARRO wrote:If you feel 'm not really calling anyone a racist, but the system of values to which Infinity adheres is by no doubt racist, sexist and what not" then you really should not collect these game tokens, I'm sorry to say that maybe you should look elsewhere for something you take enjoyment... I doubt 90% of the wargames is for you to be honest.

The system as in the whole society, its a bit hard to escape from that. And I'm not saying that everything in it are racist and so on, but much of what we take for granted rests on dodgy values. I want to change that, hence my part in this discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanceradvanced wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:A miniature showing skin is in fact showing skin, its not up to debate!

Actually, it's showing a coat of paint over primer, over sculpted metal, don't like the idea that the figure is half dressed, paint it green, or black or brown, or some other color to show that they're wearing a bodysuit...

That was not what I mean and I did clarify what I did mean. But it did come out the wrong way yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NAVARRO wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:[

PhantomViper, as a general note you know this thing called science, it sometimes makes us understand what is beyond "common sense" like laws of gravity, the earth is round and so on. There is something called social science and psychology, you might want to look in to that.

So to fully understand what your saying we need to take a degree in Psychology and Sciences? maybe you should just take a degree in art in order to comment corvusbelli alternative fantasy world, or maybe a degree in JUST playing a fantasy wargame, because thats the topic here

No the topic is whether cheesecake minis are appropriate or not.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:
2- I really missed were I tried to impose you anything and inverting arguments isnt your best bet here... I'm not Corvus belli I did not produce these minis they are totally ok and on target for me and I enjoy painting them...as a sculptor I can admire their very professional sculpts... I like anime and scifi. They didnt imposed anything on me and I have a good experience surfing their enjoyable fictitious universe... Some people dont like it, its OK, some people complain, its OK, some demand changes, Not OK, some people think they know better about Corvus belli creations than Corvus belli itself its a bit nonsense but OK I guess... So no I dont impose anything to anyone and I dont know nothing besides the place for gaming miniatures is on the wartable or painting displays not a tool to vent away my morality preferences and surely not a banner to my life standarts. Its not THAT context mate.

You just stated what was OK and not OK, as an argument in a discussion I might add, how is that not an attempt at imposing your values on me?

And I'm generally sorry for taking the jam out of your donut but the world is a nasty business and I can't alter that fact.

Your trying to reach something to hard, its not really there I dont really have a problem with you and could care less if you like the minis or not, if I express my opinion in disagreement to some of your points is not imposing you something. While you inserting your moral values into a wargame is in fact you imposing something out of context in peoples hobbies.

Thing is its indeed a nasty world thats why people like to play alternative universes because both are detached from another... you may want to try it its good and relaxing.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:No, your opinion isn't as relevant as mine, because my opinion is the same as those that make the game.

Is that so? What makes it so? Are you suggesting that the opinion of those that think differently from the majority is of less value? That would be deeply disturbing.

No, I'm saying that in the context of the fictional universe called infinity, created by CB, the opinion of the creators of the setting has more value than yours. You are consistently forgeting that what we are discussing is in the context of a comercial miniature game.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Bollocks, the human mind can diferentiate from an inanimate representation and an actual person just fine after it leaves its infancy, only small childs have problems distinguishing reality from fantasy, adults who can't should seek mental help as fast as possible.

You seem to be the one having serious dificulties diferentiating between an inanimate object in a fantasy alternate universe and real women. If you wan't to really help real women then go to Iran protest against the women that is set to be stoned to death for the crime of being raped. If you wan't to help real women, then go to China and protest against the hundreds of babies that are killed for the crime of being born a women. If you wan't to help real women then go to Africa and protest against the clitorial mutilations of baby girls, or the rape of virgin girls because it cures AIDS, or the raping of lesbians because that cures Homosexuality (in the lesbian, not in the rapists)!

There are hundreds of causes around the world that would help real women and would really fight for women's rights to equalitty, demanding that a miniature company changes their business model to conform to your twisted view of morality isn't one of them.

I have no difficulties in separating facts from fiction. But you doesn't seem to grasp basic social science that most scientists agree on. There sure are, a lot of initiatives to enforce women rights and a whole lot of different rights, but still do you find the world an place of equal rights?

PhantomViper, as a general note you know this thing called science, it sometimes makes us understand what is beyond "common sense" like laws of gravity, the earth is round and so on. There is something called social science and psychology, you might want to look in to that.

"Social Science" is an oxymoron, talk to 10 diferent psychologists about one thing and you are very likelly to get 7 or 8 diferent answers... And trying to compare Psychology with a true science like Physics is laughable.

What my studies in psychology tell me for example is that you must have been brought up in a very controling environment (possibly religious), which repressed all views on sexuality other than for breeding purposes and where women were often relegated to secondary roles compared to man (i.e. a stay at home mom, or something similar), which led to your latent desire to protect them, even from themselves. Am I close?

And no, I don't find the world a place of equal rights for man and women, but I do find western societies to be places of equal rights, the living proof of that is that the most powerfull person in the entire EU right now is a women...

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:Your swimsuit illustrates a bit of your line of arguments towards CB behaviour... We talk about swimsuits and normal situations were does and he does not fit and you insert Forcing against your will... see what you did? Its the same with infinity, we talk about game tokens looks and you insert, racism, sexist etc... Its to extreme and doesnt help to illustrate IMO whats going on.

1- If you are suggesting that I said that all women are forced to wear certain swim wear, then you terribly misunderstood me.

NAVARRO wrote:If you feel 'm not really calling anyone a racist, but the system of values to which Infinity adheres is by no doubt racist, sexist and what not" then you really should not collect these game tokens, I'm sorry to say that maybe you should look elsewhere for something you take enjoyment... I doubt 90% of the wargames is for you to be honest.

2 -The system as in the whole society, its a bit hard to escape from that. And I'm not saying that everything in it are racist and so on, but much of what we take for granted rests on dodgy values. I want to change that, hence my part in this discussion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NAVARRO wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:[

PhantomViper, as a general note you know this thing called science, it sometimes makes us understand what is beyond "common sense" like laws of gravity, the earth is round and so on. There is something called social science and psychology, you might want to look in to that.

So to fully understand what your saying we need to take a degree in Psychology and Sciences? maybe you should just take a degree in art in order to comment corvusbelli alternative fantasy world, or maybe a degree in JUST playing a fantasy wargame, because thats the topic here

3- No the topic is whether cheesecake minis are appropriate or not.

More numbers ok?

1- No I'm saying that you insert extreme ideas in the debates to dodge what's on the table.
2- You can change the world by doing something about it. You cant change other person imaginary fantasy worlds even if you want to do something about it. Wargames are not the real world
3- Appropriate for wargames not appropriate as the beacon of virtue in the real world.

NAVARRO wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:
2- I really missed were I tried to impose you anything and inverting arguments isnt your best bet here... I'm not Corvus belli I did not produce these minis they are totally ok and on target for me and I enjoy painting them...as a sculptor I can admire their very professional sculpts... I like anime and scifi. They didnt imposed anything on me and I have a good experience surfing their enjoyable fictitious universe... Some people dont like it, its OK, some people complain, its OK, some demand changes, Not OK, some people think they know better about Corvus belli creations than Corvus belli itself its a bit nonsense but OK I guess... So no I dont impose anything to anyone and I dont know nothing besides the place for gaming miniatures is on the wartable or painting displays not a tool to vent away my morality preferences and surely not a banner to my life standarts. Its not THAT context mate.

You just stated what was OK and not OK, as an argument in a discussion I might add, how is that not an attempt at imposing your values on me?

And I'm generally sorry for taking the jam out of your donut but the world is a nasty business and I can't alter that fact.

Your trying to reach something to hard, its not really there I dont really have a problem with you and could care less if you like the minis or not, if I express my opinion in disagreement to some of your points is not imposing you something. While you inserting your moral values into a wargame is in fact you imposing something out of context in peoples hobbies.

Thing is its indeed a nasty world thats why people like to play alternative universes because both are detached from another... you may want to try it its good and relaxing.

To argument for something is by default imposing ones opinion on someone. Now you are using double standards here. I have as much of a right as you to express my opinion.

I quite enjoy playing miniature games and my view of the world seldom takes the fun out of it or the fun of participating in the real world for that matter. Try it, you might like it.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:
2- I really missed were I tried to impose you anything and inverting arguments isnt your best bet here... I'm not Corvus belli I did not produce these minis they are totally ok and on target for me and I enjoy painting them...as a sculptor I can admire their very professional sculpts... I like anime and scifi. They didnt imposed anything on me and I have a good experience surfing their enjoyable fictitious universe... Some people dont like it, its OK, some people complain, its OK, some demand changes, Not OK, some people think they know better about Corvus belli creations than Corvus belli itself its a bit nonsense but OK I guess... So no I dont impose anything to anyone and I dont know nothing besides the place for gaming miniatures is on the wartable or painting displays not a tool to vent away my morality preferences and surely not a banner to my life standarts. Its not THAT context mate.

You just stated what was OK and not OK, as an argument in a discussion I might add, how is that not an attempt at imposing your values on me?

And I'm generally sorry for taking the jam out of your donut but the world is a nasty business and I can't alter that fact.

Your trying to reach something to hard, its not really there I dont really have a problem with you and could care less if you like the minis or not, if I express my opinion in disagreement to some of your points is not imposing you something. While you inserting your moral values into a wargame is in fact you imposing something out of context in peoples hobbies.

Thing is its indeed a nasty world thats why people like to play alternative universes because both are detached from another... you may want to try it its good and relaxing.

To argument for something is by default imposing ones opinion on someone. Now you are using double standards here. I have as much of a right as you to express my opinion.

I quite enjoy playing miniature games and my view of the world seldom takes the fun out of it or the fun of participating in the real world for that matter. Try it, you might like it.

My friend if you consider argumentation by default imposition you dont have a clue what is to impose something, in fact its the opposite... Arguments and the liberty to express yourself is something some of us consider liberating... But lets not go there, please. Again and for the last time I never said you are not entitled to your opinion so WHY do you keep bring it?

What games do you play?

NAVARRO wrote:
More numbers ok?

1- No I'm saying that you insert extreme ideas in the debates to dodge what's on the table.
2- You can change the world by doing something about it. You cant change other person imaginary fantasy worlds even if you want to do something about it. Wargames are not the real world
3- Appropriate for wargames not appropriate as the beacon of virtue in the real world.

Numbers are fine, I wish I'd thought of it.

1. Well I don't try to dodge what's on the table, I'm pointing at what I find is obvious and I do know it might sound extreme. My goal have never been to make anyone feel bad about playing miniature games or buying cheesecake minis and I've been trying to say so god knows how many times.
2. Wargames are not real, true, are they as phenomenon isolated from the rest of the world, no.
3. Since you terribly misunderstood everything I've been trying to say I can't really give you an answer to this one.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
To argument for something is by default imposing ones opinion on someone. Now you are using double standards here. I have as much of a right as you to express my opinion.

I quite enjoy playing miniature games and my view of the world seldom takes the fun out of it or the fun of participating in the real world for that matter. Try it, you might like it.

Hmmm, no.

Saying that you don't like something because of reason X or Y and that you will not be buyng it because of it, is having your personal opinion.

Saying that you don't like something because of reason X or Y and that the COMPANY should change to acomodate your reasons (therefore also changing for every other customer that they have and that possibly do not agree with your reasons), is trying to impose your opinion on others.

See the diference?

I have never deprived anyone the right to buy cheesecake minis or any other mini or to discredit someone to for doing so. I have tried to be very clear about this.

I have however tried to raise awareness about certain subjects and have tried to explain why these are relevant even to war-gaming.

And I have never said that playing any game makes you abuse woman or any other group of people, that has nothing to do with it.

And yeah, I believe that you guys are referring to "discussing" rather than "to argument".

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:
More numbers ok?

1- No I'm saying that you insert extreme ideas in the debates to dodge what's on the table.
2- You can change the world by doing something about it. You cant change other person imaginary fantasy worlds even if you want to do something about it. Wargames are not the real world
3- Appropriate for wargames not appropriate as the beacon of virtue in the real world.

Numbers are fine, I wish I'd thought of it.

1. Well I don't try to dodge what's on the table, I'm pointing at what I find is obvious and I do know it might sound extreme. My goal have never been to make anyone feel bad about playing miniature games or buying cheesecake minis and I've been trying to say so god knows how many times.
2. Wargames are not real, true, are they as phenomenon isolated from the rest of the world, no.
3. Since you terribly misunderstood everything I've been trying to say I can't really give you an answer to this one.

1. How would you feel if you collected a esher gang ( you seem to like your necromunda?) went to a game and someone starts telling you that punk with huge silicone breast gals are not appropriate for wargaming and its kind of sexist?

I think that sums a bit of all we have been talking here

Melissia wrote: Outside of GW you're not forced to. But again, why should I be restricted from complaining about the company's lack of ability to produce models to my taste?

We're not restricting you from complaining, but but people will react to your complaint if they think it's over the top.. and they have just as much right to do so as you do..

Folks buy minis for games for a -lot- of reasons. About 1/3 of my models are ones from no particular game system, that I picked up simply because they "look cool" a fair number of those are in fact cheese/beef/fruitcake, When it comes to what folks choose to actually -play- with that's a diffrent matter, Some go for looks, others go for play style, others for the genre, To paraphrase IIRC Lincoln,- you just can't find the perfect fit for all of the people, all of the time- the best bet for a company is to have a little bit of something for everyone in every faction, perhaps hiliting one or two aspect over others,and most people will overlook the things that -don't- float their boat...

And then you have the folks who won't....

And there we get to the sticky bit here, where we have a debate over who should have to do the work to please those outliers, Weather the company should produce more models to fill out all the niche's that folks want, or the gamer who's unhappy should come up with their own solution. . Me, I'll say outright, that the onus is on the hobbist, Find an model alternitave, buy a couple extra models from the range you -do- like, break out the greenstuff and sculpt a jacket on the bared midriff or repose her so her gun isn't pointed at the sky or.. play another game. To whinge for 16 pages that the models are being forced down one's throat, and that the company should take the extraordiary steps of making a seperate range is a bit much, since it hasn't 'been shown that the problem so extraordinary to merit that solution...

NAVARRO wrote:

1. How would you feel if you collected a esher gang ( you seem to like your necromunda?) went to a game and someone starts telling you that punk with huge silicone breast gals are not appropriate for wargaming and its kind of sexist?

I think that sums a bit of all we have been talking here

I play orlock and not escher, the escher minis are their to add women to my Orlock gang and I'm also "dressing" them in an attempt to enhance their kick-ass-ness instead or their femininity.

But no that is not what this is all about, I would never do that myself and that is not what in advocating. I have never called anyone anything for liking anything in this thread and that have never been my goal either. I have been saying this repeatedly.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:

1. How would you feel if you collected a esher gang ( you seem to like your necromunda?) went to a game and someone starts telling you that punk with huge silicone breast gals are not appropriate for wargaming and its kind of sexist?

I think that sums a bit of all we have been talking here

I play orlock and not escher, the escher minis are their to add women to my Orlock gang and I'm also "dressing" them in an attempt to enhance their kick-ass-ness instead or their femininity.

But no that is not what this is all about, I would never do that myself and that is not what in advocating. I have never called anyone anything for liking anything in this thread and that have never been my goal either. I have been saying this repeatedly.

You say many things, here's one of them:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
CB is in fact imposing morality on its surroundings. We are imposing values in our every action, this is widely recognized throughout the world of psychology and social science. I'm not really calling anyone a racist, but the system of values to which Infinity adheres is by no doubt racist, sexist and what not.

Sarcasm/ Im not a racist but I like to play a game that is sexist, racist and etc... I feel so good now Your not sexist for playing with esher but the company that made those esher created a damn sexist game... no place for those kind of minis in wargaming and are totally inappropriate /

Lets not drag this mate, I think I get what your trying to say but I believe your choosing the wrong context to express your concerns.

The topic made me think this was about food. Jerks :p

NAVARRO wrote:

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
CB is in fact imposing morality on its surroundings. We are imposing values in our every action, this is widely recognized throughout the world of psychology and social science. I'm not really calling anyone a racist, but the system of values to which Infinity adheres is by no doubt racist, sexist and what not.

Sarcasm/ Im not a racist but I like to play a game that is sexist, racist and etc... I feel so good now Your not sexist for playing with esher but the company that made those esher created a damn sexist game... no place for those kind of minis in wargaming and are totally inappropriate /

Lets not drag this mate, I think I get what your trying to say but I believe your choosing the wrong context to express your concerns.

What I tried to say is that CB reflects its own "context" or surrounding society/world, as most fiction do, but do little to question some of those values inherited in that context. This does not necessarily make them anything but they do never the less reproduce a set of values. And I agree, we do not have to drag this any longer, I don't believe that we will overcome anything by that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BTNeophyte wrote:The topic made me think this was about food. Jerks :p

Haha, yeah it does make me want a piece of delicious cheesecake every time I read the "headline"!

Hello,
From a painters stand point, ( I don't tend to wargame as much as paint) I believe the "cheesecake" is great, it gets me to purchase models that I enjoy painting, as for is it appropriate, we are playing a game, as long as I know what it is from a glance or three, and it is not pornographic then I see no problems. That said I would like to purchase the vixen model on its own I know once painted it will sell for a nice chunk, to the anime/gamer crowd that hangs at the game store. If you dont like a model because of cheesecake then trade it for another that has the same function, problem solved.

Regards,
Carl

Kanluwen wrote:This is pointless.

No one is saying they are "horribly bad". People are saying there is no reason, whatsoever, that these models should be the primary models of the range...

Except for people, who are not you, that do enjoy them. These other people are willing to pay CB for them, and keep the sculptors a sculptin'.

I don't disagree that this is pointless, but continuously railing against a company's business model based on your own opinions generally is.

Except their business model also incorporates plenty of models which I do like. My opinion is formatted based upon the entirety of their range, not one or two models.

I like how you left out though that double the amount of cheesecake is in that one range.

c0un7_z3r0 wrote:My point have been that there must be an equal representation of contradicting images of our genders, that is not to say "there shouldn't be cheesecake miniatures", rather "there should also be fat and ugly women and men, thin and sissy men, old and saggy woman and men and so on". I'm not just talking about the infinity range now, and yes there are some models out there to fill all these boxes to, but far from enough. There must be room for far more diversity, cheesecake or not

But is it a business's responsibility to provide those alternative body types if that product does not sell as well? Should any company take that financial risk to satisfy an inclusive world view?

I'd have to say no. The sculptors do what they do because they enjoy it. They have some degree of freedom to create what appeals to them personally (depending completely on the company environment). The company is producing a product that needs to pay everyone's salaries. Ideally they can produce a socially-redeeming product, but that won't happen if it conflicts with a) design goals, and b) profitability.

Your philosophy (companies should provide a diverse sampling of humanity) conflicts with the reality (businesses must provide a product or service that people want to stay profitable). If the state were to provide minis, I would agree with the diversity, but I don't feel private individuals have an obligation to take financial risks to better serve society.

PS. I haven't responded to your long post responding to me yet. I respect your opinion, and think where we are farthest apart is whether the individual has a responsibility to sacrifice for society for symbolic reasons. In some cases I would agree the answer is yes. In the topic of minis, I would say no. I doubt we're going to move any much closer to agreement, but for what it's worth I do understand your argument if not entirely agree with it.

This is entirely separate from our miniatures discussion, and I believe supports your beliefs more than invalidate them. I don't include them to debate, but because I think it would be of interest to you:
Google "FBI's definiton of rape updated". The FBI's archaic definition of rape was finally "modernized" last month. The US (and Canada as well, to a lesser degree) has also had the same problem as Sweden, where defense lawyers use victim-blaming to excuse their client's deplorable actions. The new definition weakens those arguments, though unlikely to end them.

Anyways, that's going pretty far off-topic, so feel free to PM me if you want to discuss further.

Aleph is totally not cheesecake. It's not even made of organic matter. At best it's clunkie-cake. Can you have clunkie-cake? Maybe clunkie-oil, or clunkie-fuel-cells. Whatever it is that robot fetishists think that robots use for fuel.

Anyway, it doesn't objectify women! It objectifies robots. Which are objects. So that's fine then.

Ian Sturrock wrote:Anyway, it doesn't objectify women! It objectifies robots.

... this is just... I... bluh...

I don't think I can politely respond to this.

My mind.

She has exploded.

Kanluwen wrote:

I like how you left out though that double the amount of cheesecake is in that one range.

My apologies. ALEPH is over-the-top cheesecake. I suggest you avoid it for the moment, let the people who do like the models play it, and A) wait for the alternate models to be sculpted or B) convert your own. If you are unhappy with the raw materials available at the moment, stick to option A.

Please let me know if I have missed anything else.

I'm actually referring to Ariadna, but okay.

The Devas and Asuras can be fixed with a simple paintjob not showing nipples. The reasoning behind them being "less clothed" than the rest is because they're meant to be interacting with the general populace more often, and not be as threatening.

All the armor plating is subdermal.

I'm going to have to LOL at the 'psychology' that popped back up in this thread. Some rubbish about human minds and objectifying women and other such toss that seems to imply that because I paint a tiny metal womans arse, I think real womens arses should be shown to me on demand at every opportunity or some such guff, can't tell one from the other, am some sort of proto-rapist, or a sexist or something and a load of other crap as well. .

Actually, I wouldn't mind that in the slightest, because I'm a functional human being who enjoys looking at attractive examples of the opposite sex. Which is pretty normal by most definitions.

<image redacted - please don't post bare image macros in threads; they don't serve to advance the conversation, and fall under Dakka's definition of spam --Janthkin>

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I'm going to have to LOL at the 'psychology' that popped back up in this thread. Some rubbish about human minds and objectifying women and other such toss that seems to imply that because I paint a tiny metal womans arse, I think real womens arses should be shown to me on demand at every opportunity or some such guff, can't tell one from the other, am some sort of proto-rapist, or a sexist or something and a load of other crap as well. .

Actually, I wouldn't mind that in the slightest, because I'm a functional human being who enjoys looking at attractive examples of the opposite sex. Which is pretty normal by most definitions.

This meaningful and insightful post is going to serve to advance the conversation in the thread how, exactly?

<Last warning, folks - if your post isn't constructively contributing to the topic, you shouldn't be posting it here>

Mastiff wrote:
PS. I haven't responded to your long post responding to me yet. I respect your opinion, and think where we are farthest apart is whether the individual has a responsibility to sacrifice for society for symbolic reasons. In some cases I would agree the answer is yes. In the topic of minis, I would say no. I doubt we're going to move any much closer to agreement, but for what it's worth I do understand your argument if not entirely agree with it.

And I respect you for disagreeing. But my answer to your post would of course be that I do believe that private business have a responsibility to a certain degree, but yes, they do have to earn a living as well. And CB is IMO a good example of a company that takes this responsibility.

Mastiff wrote:This is entirely separate from our miniatures discussion, and I believe supports your beliefs more than invalidate them. I don't include them to debate, but because I think it would be of interest to you:
Google "FBI's definiton of rape updated". The FBI's archaic definition of rape was finally "modernized" last month. The US (and Canada as well, to a lesser degree) has also had the same problem as Sweden, where defense lawyers use victim-blaming to excuse their client's deplorable actions. The new definition weakens those arguments, though unlikely to end them.

That sounds interesting I'll check that out, thanks!

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I'm going to have to LOL at the 'psychology' that popped back up in this thread. Some rubbish about human minds and objectifying women and other such toss that seems to imply that because I paint a tiny metal womans arse, I think real womens arses should be shown to me on demand at every opportunity or some such guff, can't tell one from the other, am some sort of proto-rapist, or a sexist or something and a load of other crap as well. .

Actually, I wouldn't mind that in the slightest, because I'm a functional human being who enjoys looking at attractive examples of the opposite sex. Which is pretty normal by most definitions.

That is not really what I've said is it? If you would read what I've actually said and how I've tried to explain this to people that seem to have misinterpreted what I've written in the same way as you seem to have, you might reach to another conclusion. I don't expect you to agree with me but you can at the very least respect me for my opinion. And if you didn't have the guts to throw this directly at me, why bother?