agnosto wrote: As to violence in wargamming. So much with children is in explaining things to them and educating them. Especially historical wargamming is an excellent teaching tool for ancient/modern history. It allows a responsible adult to put things in perspective and in such a way as to create a deeper understanding of the events surrounding certain battles. Any psychological impact from simulated violence (and wargamming is much less harmful that watching an episode of the Simpsons IMHO) may be mediated by having a simple discussion with the child as to that it is just a game and that such activities in real life are not acceptable. Ultimately, a good parent will censor what their child has access to and will know what their child is capable of handling; however, some stranger off the street doesn't necessarily know these things for every child (as they're all different).

agnosto wrote:

jprp wrote:"Oh, the children, the children!"
Why do people with kids always expect everyones elses world viewpoint to revolve around their decision to breed?

With the internet do you realy think that a flacid bull penis is going to be the thing that traumatises your kid?

In any case do you live in a world where a teen hasnt seen a dog, cat, bull or horse penis out in the real world?

I'll just answer both you and Delephont here.

As to the appropriate nature of these models. Parents should have the right to introduce their child and or edit what their child is exposed to not some stranger that happens to walk into a game store and gleefully show everyone the extra bits on their model. I'm not saying everyone is so childish as to do so but we are involved in a game where there are people that make "pew pew" sounds when rolling dice (you all have met this person, I'm sure). If someone's maturity level is that low, nothing will stop someone from running around a game store showing everyone that his minotaur's scrotum hangs down to its knees or that his daemonette is the S&M queen of the universe. I reserve the same disgust for this type of person as I do for the sad individuals that are constantly drooling to have femal space marines with giant breasts. Both are represehensible for different reasons.

I don't believe I even mentioned someone being "traumatised"; however, I also do not believe that the first place a child sees an S&M doll is on the game table at a FLGS. It's not a huge problem and I am sincerely sorry if you have taken my objections to mean that but we should all be considerate of each other and if I or others prefer not to see such things in a public venue, I hardly see why anyone would be so assinine as to willfully disregard others' opinions on the matter. I'm a firm believer that what people do in the privacy of their own homes is their business but they should also keep objectionable material to themselves. Let the prevailing mores of your locale be your guide and in my area, these models would not be acceptable. Oklahoma is the buckle of the bible-belt after all, YMMV; if nudity is ok in your neck of the woods, streak through the neighborhood for all I care.

As to violence in wargamming. So much with children is in explaining things to them and educating them. Especially historical wargamming is an excellent teaching tool for ancient/modern history. It allows a responsible adult to put things in perspective and in such a way as to create a deeper understanding of the events surrounding certain battles. Any psychological impact from simulated violence (and wargamming is much less harmful that watching an episode of the Simpsons IMHO) may be mediated by having a simple discussion with the child as to that it is just a game and that such activities in real life are not acceptable. Ultimately, a good parent will censor what their child has access to and will know what their child is capable of handling; however, some stranger off the street doesn't necessarily know these things for every child (as they're all different).

I'm not trying to be an ass or argumentative, I was simply providing my perspective on something that was being discussed and I freely admit that I may not be always the best at expressing myself (who is?). All of this said, I think we all understand each other so I'll just be quiet and let you folks talk about the models.

Delephont wrote:Ultimately, Maelstrom probably cares little about either of our opinions on this, as the bottom line for them is sales. Personally I hope the range does well. I can imagine that the range might suffer from limited sales in places like the US for the reasons stated, I only hope this doesn't influence them to stop producing these wonderful pieces or change their design direction.

Delephont wrote:I have dealt with Maelstrom for ordering nearly all of my Infinity stuff, and I already like the company and the service they provide.

What I like about this range, is that the quality and level of dedication to detail is unrivaled by almost any other miniatures company out there, I'm truley speechless. This is clearly not just another "band wagon" jumper, trying to muscle in on GW's territory....

As far as the genitals are concerned, I think it's a shame that people (especially those who claim to admire miniature art and sculpting) can not go beyond their puritan society indoctrination. Rather than seeing a fruity beardy guy sculpting a pair of danglies for the hell of it, try seeing a serious sculpting team who have taken the decision to take miniature sculpting to the next level.

To be fair, it's not surprising to see this level of shock at seeing male genitals on a miniature, after all, we're dealing with the GW fan-club, and it's their double standards....sure, it's politically correct to show a vehicle sporting a severed head, hand, arm, leg etc, it's fine to show a pair of bare breasts, but by God, Queen and Country, don't you dare sculpt a pair of balls on my miniature....it's pathetic what people find to be insulted by.

I would buy all of these miniatures, simply just to paint and display, and I can't wait for Maelstrom to make the move to Sci-Fi....if they want to get rich quick, take this level of detail into the Sci-Fi genre, and do it soon!!

I'm puzzled by it. Why the hell would you not want some armor(or at least pants!) around your dangly bits or your breasts when going into battle? That's just asking for trouble

SilverMK2 wrote:Genitals for the genital god! Balls for the ball pool!

JOHIRA wrote:With regards to nekkid bits: Kudos! I can think of no army where this is more appropriate. Thank goodness there are some miniature producers out there who do not treat their customers like fragile pre-teens. If you don't like 'em, just don't buy 'em!

SlaveToDorkness wrote:So, would they arrest you for bringing your male dog into the store as well?

::Gasp:: "He has a Peeny!!!"

SlaveToDorkness wrote:There's a huge difference between an 8x10 picture of an actual naked man and a tiny tiny anatomically correct area on a miniature. A miniature of an animal no less. One that you really would have to bend over the table to see also.

Buzzsaw wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:With regards to nekkid bits: Kudos! I can think of no army where this is more appropriate. Thank goodness there are some miniature producers out there who do not treat their customers like fragile pre-teens. If you don't like 'em, just don't buy 'em!

I find this a frankly amazing statement, as a good proportion of the people that play GW games at my local venue are, in point of fact, pre-teens.

Kanluwen wrote:I'm puzzled by it. Why the hell would you not want some armor(or at least pants!) around your dangly bits or your breasts when going into battle? That's just asking for trouble

Maelstrom Games wrote:July's miniatures won't have any genitalia on show, in case that helps anyone, although it's not like we planned that.

Agamemnon2 wrote:I'm repeating myself here, but here goes: they're beastmen.

Kroothawk wrote:Yes, beastmen are always horny and like to rape women, but do I want a miniature to represent this background on the tabletop? No.

cygnnus wrote:Pretty amazing that this thread's been all but totally hijacked over concerns that Maelstorm's figures are "obscene", "porn", or whatever rather than focusing on how good Maelstorm's stuff is...

Male genitalia are nothing new to fantasy figures. I remember old Ral Partha Goblin models from the late '80's with fully sculpted genitalia. Somehow Western Civilization survived...

If you don't like the figures, find them offensive, or simply can't deal with a bit of male nudity, don't buy them! There's room in the gaming world for companies that go PG-13 (for graphic violence) up to R (for male nudity). Heck, there's probably room for a few X companies as well. Would those all be figures you'd use at your FLGS? Perhaps not, but that's not the only place to game, now is it?

Personally, I think Maelstorm does some amazing stuff and, eventually, will be picking some up.

Valete,

JohnS

Llamahead wrote:I have to say I really like the Knight great lines oozes character. The Beastmen are interesting although I think the Chimera is still the pick of the crop....

jprp wrote:I find it a bit odd that adults (other than staff or parents teaching their kids to play) would want to spend hours with young kids-is this not more of a worry than the minis.