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

I'm not really a massive fan of it, it certainly doesn't offend me, I just don't like how it trying to take something I regard as a fun hobby and taking it too seriously. Its hardly something new, anyone a Nirvana fan? I wonder how many of you pulled out you pitch folks when they released In Utreo?

Thing is I can go on google and find find far more disturbing things than that in a couple of seconds, I choose not to just as most people can choose not to look at the scene.

Polonius wrote:While some people may be offended by nudity and other such themes in 40k art, I think more people find the work "inappropriate" rather than offensive.

And works are appropriate based entirely on the audience, acutal or hypothetical. Lots of people could look at the eldar rape scene and not find it personally offensive (I think it's a big hamfisted and cartoony, but not offensive), but would find it inappropriate for any audience where kids were expected.

I think a third group (After those genuinely offended and those worried about offending others) are those that dont' like the idea that a person viewing the hobby from outside would see such work, and decide that it's representative of the hobby as a whole. This is one of those things that I kind of agree with: it'd be easy for a non-gamer to assume we're all wierdos that play a satanic game. Toss in gratuitous nudity and it doesn't help.

The problem, of course, is that all of this evaluation of what is and is not "gratuitous" is in the eye of the beholder. Which is the case with all art.

Is this gratuitous?


The Rape of Lucretia, attributed to Felice Ficherelli. Since he died in 1660, this painting is at least 350 years old.

Or if we are to speak of games, how about the Konzentrationslager?

MeanGreenStompa wrote: Show it and explain it to a victim of gang rape. Tell her it's art and it's not offensive.

Shall we show the Lego Concentration camp to a Holocaust survivor and ask if it's offensive? Too late, it's already been on display at the Jewish Museum. There is passing chance it was seen by such...

Oscar Wilde observed that all art is useless, and art that inspires no discussion, evokes no emotion, provokes no feeling... that is doubly useless, for it becomes a waste of time, both for the artist and the audience.

Is a diorama depicting a horror of war more offensive then, say, the Rape of the Sabine Women?

Chowderhead wrote:Adam, that may be because those types of models are supposed to have cleavage, a nude commissar girl... That seems a bit OTT, as the model it is based off of is both male and clothed.

Now, I'm not saying go around sticking penises on your Slaanesh Soul Grinder, I'm saying if it's tasteful, and doesn't make a fanboy want to whip it out, go for it.

Agreed, however their has to be a differentiation between what is artwork and what is smut. That is what I am referring too.

Edited: WOW I did not look at the whole entire page when I made my previous post. I was only 1 page yesterday and 5 as I make this second posting. My previous post is mostly Mute as it has been completely thought out by people posting in the previously pages.

Adam

I think it is fine as long as it artistically fits in with the background/image you are trying to convey. I really like the diorama for example. Its cruel, dark and it really shines a light on the terrible things that happens in wars. The fact that it was done with miniatures really gives it another layer of depth. Does it need to be a part of the 40k universe? No not really, but it is a beautiful diorama and I think it was done fairly tasteful considering what it is depicting.

As for the demonettes, barbarians and chem dogs standard I think they all fit well into the fiction behind it all, especially the banner. It is absolutely stunning.

Delephont wrote:

My closing point on this. I would understand your point wholly if this were a game about the Carebears, or the Smurfs (no, not the Ultramarines).....but it's not. GW make a big thing about their GrimDark universe, and showers of Blood (Blood for the Blood God anyone). They parade their skull thrones and cloaks made of human skin, they glory in the destruction of worlds and the mass enslavement of global populations to be sacrificed for mad Gods......they do all of this, and the fans take it all in laughing happily and bearing no shame at being associated with it.....until a scene depicting rape shows up.....suddenly the gaming society is split, and the same people that were happily painting blood dripping from the axes of their Orks, and getting just the right hue of dead flesh for the heads hanging from belts, suddenly find a moral platform to shout foul

And mine, this: The whole rape/nudity representation, what have you creates an unnecessary representation of sexual abuse and objectification. I accept that rape and abuse is unfortunately a part of reality and war. However, I don't find it an acceptable part of reality, including in the context of war. Hence my negative opinion towards things like a naked commissar or rape scene that showcase it in this context or any other. Later.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I typed a long counter argument to what you said, then I realised I can't be bothered, the point you're missing, the hypocritical enormity of your statements is so numbing I just can't summon the energy to continue to converse with you.

I've done that like three times now, myself. So much I have to say, and yet I can't actually find the power to say it. lol

Squidmanlolz wrote:

Thare1774 wrote:Often while browsing CMON I see nude female miniatures that people paint. It doesn't offend me at all, I just don't get it. For example I saw two today, the first was a female commissar wearing only a trench coat and pants and boots. Breasts exposed as well as her whole upper torso all the way down nearly to her crotch. Why in the world would a female commissar be naked? What is the value of that model? I would think people in this hobby would rather see a really well sculpted legitimate female commissar in full uniform appropriate for gameplay. The second example I saw was a diorama basically depicting the rape of an Eldar female captured by some guardsmen. One had her breastplate in his hands and she was topless on the ground while another guardsmen had his pants unbuttoned and others were watching in amusement. It was really well painted and put together, but what is the motivation to depict a rape scene when it could have just been the same scene minus the rape and nudity? I think in MOST cases it cheapens the time and effort put into creating it, What do you think?

Not really a fan of all of the nudity in the modeling community, but I have seen the diorama depicting the whole Eldar thing, it was meant to depict a crueler, more dark, harsh war-time environment (the kind of cruelties that inevitability occur in war). In that particular diorama it's meant to be offensive and a bit gross. As far as the rest of the nudity, sex sells, nuff said.

Is that the one where an eldar is being molested?

Sex sells. it's true. It's a shame.

TiB wrote:
That said, I think I would find the diorama a lot stronger if the eldar was still wearing her breastplate.
As it is now, the attention still goes to the boobies first. It would be better if one would just see the guardian lying down looking cornered and only then seeing the one guardsman unbuttoning his pants. That would be strong and subtle.

I agree with that, though my first thought wasn't that the boobies were distracting, but that it seemed odd that the guy holding her breastplate was not really involved in the scene.

I will also say that a fellow guardsman turning, or walking away in disgust would have helped set the tone of "War is hell."

Sidstyler wrote:

Nudity itself doesn't offend me, nor should it really offend anyone. Simple nudity is not "pornographic" or something to be ashamed of (unless you look like me, lol), and it pisses me off when people suggest as much. That said there is a line that exists between beautiful and tasteless, but most of the time it's pretty easy to tell when someone's crossed it. It all depends on context, bare breasts or genitals may be perfectly acceptable in some cases, but for miniatures, especially ones that are meant to represent characters on the field of battle, a topless female commissar is inappropriate, because there's no reason for her to be naked in this scenario. On the other hand, something resembling a daemon (though in most cases daemons aren't really depicted with genitals...since they don't really need them and they're not natural beings anyway) could probably get away with it, hence why few people are offended by daemonettes: it makes sense for them to be partially or even fully nude on the battlefield, they serve an evil god of hedonism and debauchery, and make a hobby out of seducing weak-willed mortals, or cutting them down with relative ease while dancing gracefully for the pleasure of their dark master. What the feth is a commissar doing with her tits out? "Inspiring" the men to fight on, is that the idea? Commissars "inspire" by executing people who disobey orders. It's stupid, unjustified, pointless nudity done for the sake of it.

Actually, there is. An attacker could stagger the female commissar/guardsman/etc and then grab them (by the shirt collar in this instance) and throw them down (and ripping said item of clothing) so as to capitalize on the prone form of their opponent

What I don't understand is why people are saying it a rape scene. Where is the rape? Where is the sex? All it is is a female being held at gunpoint and a guy zipping down his pants. Who knows what might happen next? How do we know a eldar pathfiner doesn't have him in his cross hairs? How do we know a commissar doesn't come around the corner and blow everyone away? Why did alot of people jump into this as a rape depection? Why doesn't he have her bent over the IFV ? Why isn't she bound ? It's not like hes made a rape scenero game.

The female commissar is just pandering to the lowest common denominator, sex sells. Show boobies and some people lap it up. I personally think it's just 'lawlz boobz' just like most of the other female models on brother vinnies site. The sculpts are nice just not my cup of tea. Does that mean that he shouldn't make them? Not in the least he's got the right to make a living anyway he see's fit as long as he's not breaking any laws in the process. If he can sell them to people all the power to him. Will I buy one? not a chance.


I think this get's across the hell that war is. That both sides do dirty nasty things to eachother. War isn't pretty, war isn't neat and tidy. If you are playing a game based on fighting expect some people to want to show off the dark side. Do you have to like it, no. Do you have to look at it, no. Should this be front and center of a GW, I don't think they would ever allow this into a store because it might offend little timmys mommy and daddy and that's who's paying for little timmy's GW stuff.

I've seen people who play WWII games that have scenero's based on German Concentration camps. The Allies have to assault and capture the Germans before then can burn all the evidence and paperwork. They also have to rescue as many people as they can. Is that offensive? Why is it offensive? I think it's a creative way to depict what has happened in the past. People we have to remember what has happened in our past so it's not forgotten.

I personally think there are better things to complain about then a diorama of space elves and space solders where nothing happens.

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:

What I don't understand is why people are saying it a rape scene. Where is the rape? Where is the sex? All it is is a female being held at gunpoint and a guy zipping down his pants. Who knows what might happen next?

Everyone that isn't you.

lord marcus wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Nudity itself doesn't offend me, nor should it really offend anyone. Simple nudity is not "pornographic" or something to be ashamed of (unless you look like me, lol), and it pisses me off when people suggest as much. That said there is a line that exists between beautiful and tasteless, but most of the time it's pretty easy to tell when someone's crossed it. It all depends on context, bare breasts or genitals may be perfectly acceptable in some cases, but for miniatures, especially ones that are meant to represent characters on the field of battle, a topless female commissar is inappropriate, because there's no reason for her to be naked in this scenario. On the other hand, something resembling a daemon (though in most cases daemons aren't really depicted with genitals...since they don't really need them and they're not natural beings anyway) could probably get away with it, hence why few people are offended by daemonettes: it makes sense for them to be partially or even fully nude on the battlefield, they serve an evil god of hedonism and debauchery, and make a hobby out of seducing weak-willed mortals, or cutting them down with relative ease while dancing gracefully for the pleasure of their dark master. What the feth is a commissar doing with her tits out? "Inspiring" the men to fight on, is that the idea? Commissars "inspire" by executing people who disobey orders. It's stupid, unjustified, pointless nudity done for the sake of it.

Actually, there is. An attacker could stagger the female commissar/guardsman/etc and then grab them (by the shirt collar in this instance) and throw them down (and ripping said item of clothing) so as to capitalize on the prone form of their opponent

But they make shirts without collars. And why would an attacker need to grab them anyway when a simple shove could be enough to knock them prone?

I see what you're trying to say, but it really feels like you're pulling stuff out of your ass here in an effort to try and explain the practicality of a female officer being nude on the battlefield. No matter how you try to spin it, it just isn't that practical.

I think this get's across the hell that war is.

Which is a point that doesn't need to be made, anyone old enough to play 40k will understand that war, rape, etc. is not good. And considering that it's gotten into the news several times over the past decade, people ought to understand by now that rape happens in war time, too, and that it happens even in our own military shockingly enough (female soldiers being raped by their male peers). This is what bothers me so much about the diorama, it's not the content, it's the fact that the artist and his supporters think this is necessary, that the rest of us are all fething stupid and need to be "educated" about the true horror of war, since we're playing 40k and managing to have fun despite the dark, violent world that serves as the game's backdrop.

Sidstyler wrote:
But they make shirts without collars. And why would an attacker need to grab them anyway when a simple shove could be enough to knock them prone?

Have you never played American football?

Sidstyler wrote:
Which is a point that doesn't need to be made, anyone old enough to play 40k will understand that war, rape, etc. is not good.

If you really believe this, then you have never been in a GW shop.

Sidstyler wrote:
This is what bothers me so much about the diorama, it's not the content, it's the fact that the artist and his supporters think this is necessary, that the rest of us are all fething stupid and need to be "educated" about the true horror of war, since we're playing 40k and managing to have fun despite the dark, violent world that serves as the game's backdrop.

Personally, what bothers me is that we object to rape, but not servitors, or conscripts, or Space Marines, or Dark Eldar, or Inquisitors, or Necrons, or the entire game.

So, I have a serious question for all of those people that are offended by the implied rape of the Eldar.

What aspects of war violence do you consider appropriate for your wargaming and miniature modelling?

Why do you think those aspects of violence are more acceptable than others?

And, we've established that rape is a taboo for the wargaming society, however, what other violence should never be depicted in a miniatures scenario or wargame?

Buzzsaw wrote:Or if we are to speak of games, how about the Konzentrationslager?

Wow, that's nice. Didn't know that one.
Meaningwise it is exactly the same as the rape scene. A dark aspect of humanity displayed in toys.
In one way it is stronger than the rape scene because (in my opinion) the holocaust is worse than rape (and more taboo when it comes to jokes) and lego is more iconic a toy than warhams.

On the other hand the rape scene has the added layer in that warhammer is normally used to play a very violent wargame and that when the abuse of a female comes into the picture it suddenly becomes distasteful.

Tim the Biovore wrote:I think part of the problem is that people want to use this hobby as an escape from the real world, but when something that portrays one of the darker sides of humanity, like the Eldar rape scene, is created, it throws them back into the harsh reality.

I'm not offended by the diorama at all, but because it's a reminder of the cruelty of man, I don't like it.

And I'm not just talking about the sexual depictions; anything that represents any of the horrific things in human history would be offensive to a lot of people.

The less realistic 40k is, the better, IMHO.

That's just silly.
You can close your eyes all you want and pretend the game is really about shooting rainbows and kisses at each other, but it just isn't. It's a wargame. It's an abstraction of a very violent, nasty part of life.

It doesn't just disappear when you choose not to see it.

Delephont wrote:Why do you think those aspects of violence are more acceptable than others?

Who says I do? Do I have to like what the background says the Dark Eldar do in Comorragh in order to like collecting the models and playing the game with them? Does being a Dark Eldar player mean I have to be okay with someone who put an insane amount of effort into creating a diorama of a haemonculus brutally torturing a prisoner on a table, because the background says they're master torturers and this is what they do in their off-time? Do I have to like war and violence in order to enjoy playing a wargame that's about as far removed from real war as you can get, where the most "violent" thing you do is roll a die and pull a model off the table? Why can't I just enjoy the tactical aspect of the game and roll the fething dice without being accused of having a "booby allergy" or being a hypocrite because I don't accept rape when clearly I accept violence in all its other forms?

How about this, it's ALL horrible fething gak. I'm just as opposed to graphic dioramas that depict soldiers having their brains blown out, with lovingly crafted blood trails leaving the back of their skulls, or dioramas depicting a squad of IG getting ripped apart by a Tyranid lictor, with blood, gore, and limbs everywhere, as I am to a scene depicting the pre- or post-gang rape of a vulnerable female soldier. Obviously the idea of Exterminatus is horrifying and several magnitudes worse than the closest comparison we can draw to it from real life, and I don't think anyone in their right mind seriously isn't bothered by the thought of an entire planet's population being wiped out in a single act for any reason. A lot of the army fluff is really disturbing if you sit and think about it...does anyone really like what the Dark Eldar do? Or the Inquisition and it's habit of murdering countless innocents in the name of God? From what I saw from the last Ward hate thread about Grey Knights I think it's safe to say a lot of people aren't okay with it.

Anyway, to answer your question: "What aspects of war violence do you consider appropriate for your wargaming and miniature modelling?", how about "Anything you would be comfortable showing a 12-year-old?", since that's the minimum age 40k is targeted at. But even that's a stupid fething thing to say, because I know some people in here are going to be totally cool with showing 12-year-old kids anything from extreme graphic violence, to rape, to hardcore pornography, and call me a backwards-ass American with a booby allergy if I disagree with them.

TiB wrote:
That's just silly.
You can close your eyes all you want and pretend the game is really about shooting rainbows and kisses at each other, but it just isn't. It's a wargame. It's an abstraction of a very violent, nasty part of life.

It doesn't just disappear when you choose not to see it.

So I have to condone violence in order to play 40k? That's what it comes down to?

dogma wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:
But they make shirts without collars. And why would an attacker need to grab them anyway when a simple shove could be enough to knock them prone?

Have you never played American football?

Fine, whatever, you fething win. Nude commissars make perfect sense. Hell, I'm gonna buy three of them myself when GW releases them in Finecast. "The finest resin tits in the world."

dogma wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:
Which is a point that doesn't need to be made, anyone old enough to play 40k will understand that war, rape, etc. is not good.

If you really believe this, then you have never been in a GW shop.

I concede here too since no, I haven't, and from what I've heard I wouldn't want to. I'm not too tolerant of used car salesmen and GW employees are many times worse. (The only store in my state was a Bunker in St. Louis which has long since been closed.)

dogma wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:
This is what bothers me so much about the diorama, it's not the content, it's the fact that the artist and his supporters think this is necessary, that the rest of us are all fething stupid and need to be "educated" about the true horror of war, since we're playing 40k and managing to have fun despite the dark, violent world that serves as the game's backdrop.

Personally, what bothers me is that we object to rape, but not servitors, or conscripts, or Space Marines, or Dark Eldar, or Inquisitors, or Necrons, or the entire game.

Would it make you feel better if we all accepted rape as easily, too? Hell, I think after spending the last four hours reading this topic I'm about to go rape something. Either that or put a bullet in my fething brain, and then craft an intricate diorama depicting the act using my own blood for added realism.

God damn it, lol. As Shuma would say "This thread is bad and you should all feel bad."

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

hemingway wrote:There's nothing 'offensive' (a ridiculous affectation to take with art, but that's a rant for another day) about the guardsman diorama. It's amazing.

Show it and explain it to a victim of gang rape. Tell her it's art and it's not offensive.

Take your extremely well painted and based Flames of War Nazi German army and show it to a jewish person whose grandparents were killed in a concentration camp.

Show a diorama of a guardsman being ripped to pieces by an explosion and show it to a Purple Heart recipient.

Insert any other "take an aritistic depiction of real events and tell a story and show it to somebody who suffered from the same event" scenario...

Sidstyler wrote:
Who says I do? Do I have to like what the background says the Dark Eldar do in Comorragh in order to like collecting the models and playing the game with them? Does being a Dark Eldar player mean I have to be okay with someone who put an insane amount of effort into creating a diorama of a haemonculus brutally torturing a prisoner on a table, because the background says they're master torturers and this is what they do in their off-time? Do I have to like war and violence in order to enjoy playing a wargame that's about as far removed from real war as you can get, where the most "violent" thing you do is roll a die and pull a model off the table? Why can't I just enjoy the tactical aspect of the game and roll the fething dice without being accused of having a "booby allergy" or being a hypocrite because I don't accept rape when clearly I accept violence in all its other forms?

How about this, it's ALL horrible fething gak. I'm just as opposed to graphic dioramas that depict soldiers having their brains blown out, with lovingly crafted blood trails leaving the back of their skulls, or dioramas depicting a squad of IG getting ripped apart by a Tyranid lictor, with blood, gore, and limbs everywhere, as I am to a scene depicting the pre- or post-gang rape of a vulnerable female soldier. Obviously the idea of Exterminatus is horrifying and several magnitudes worse than the closest comparison we can draw to it from real life, and I don't think anyone in their right mind seriously isn't bothered by the thought of an entire planet's population being wiped out in a single act for any reason. A lot of the army fluff is really disturbing if you sit and think about it...does anyone really like what the Dark Eldar do? Or the Inquisition and it's habit of murdering countless innocents in the name of God? From what I saw from the last Ward hate thread about Grey Knights I think it's safe to say a lot of people aren't okay with it.

Anyway, to answer your question: "What aspects of war violence do you consider appropriate for your wargaming and miniature modelling?", how about "Anything you would be comfortable showing a 12-year-old?", since that's the minimum age 40k is targeted at. But even that's a stupid fething thing to say, because I know some people in here are going to be totally cool with showing 12-year-old kids anything from extreme graphic violence, to rape, to hardcore pornography, and call me a backwards-ass American with a booby allergy if I disagree with them.

On the surface a reasonable response. However, I think you're skating around the real point. Let me put it to you like this. One day a guy walks up to you, and declares that he hates pornography, thinks it's disgusting and is appalled by it, however, really enjoys sitting down in the evening watching a good graphic prono flick whenever he gets the chance.

Kinda weird, and yet, that's exactly what you're stating above. Why play WH40K or any wargame where the background fluff offends you? Hell, if you want strategy play chess....or Abalone, why does everyone equate strategy to war? People play WH40K, collect the armies and paint them based on the armies fluff in 99% of the cases.....are you going to deny this point? People read the Black Library books because?

To state that you play the game whilst being offended by the fluff is just idiocy...I'm sorry, theres no other way to put it. No one forces you to play (and endorse) a game the glorfies violence, you make that choice out of the myriad pastimes you could choose from.

Heck, according to fluff I could make a diorama with everybody having sex with everybody and everything, while having the Emperors Children running through the crowd stomping on people's heads and slaughtering them mid-orgasm.

Basically create a diorama out of a scene from an official Black Library novel.

But I guess the only acceptable grimdark setting is a happy grimdark setting...

Sidstyler wrote:So I have to condone violence in order to play 40k? That's what it comes down to?

I'm not saying that at all. Just that you can't deny it's there.

Sidstyler wrote:How about this, it's ALL horrible fething gak.

Sidstyler wrote:Do I have to like war and violence in order to enjoy playing a wargame that's about as far removed from real war as you can get, where the most "violent" thing you do is roll a die and pull a model off the table? Why can't I just enjoy the tactical aspect of the game and roll the fething dice

No need to be 'holier than thou'.
You very likely got drawn into the game for the same reason we all do: the models look cool and it's cool to pretend to command an army of supersoldiers killing in the name of the emperor (or whatever faction(s) you play).
You may like the 'tactical aspect' about it, but it is not what pulled you in and it's not enough to keep you in the game were the background not there.

The (violent) background is what makes 40k a juicy game. If it were just:
"I compare stat A of 4 points of my game counter against your stat B of 3 points of your game counter. I now have to roll a 3+ to remove your counter"
instead of
"My marine shoots your ork in the face, 3+ to wound"
it would just be a ponderous and crappy game and there would be hundreds of infinitely better games to play.

Oh, and please watch your blood pressure. Once things start to heat up (like you're obviously doing in your last post) intelligent discussion will be the first thing to go out the window.

So why do you play 40k then, Delephont? Or why did you used to, since I remember you stating you were done with GW during the last price increase. Do you like violence? Are you a violent person?

I play 40k because I can easily tell the difference between fantasy and reality. I play Halo, TF2, etc. because I know when I shoot the guy on the screen he comes back 5 seconds later. I enjoy the game because it plays out more like fething paintball than a real war, where the focus is more on encouraging team play and working together to achieve an objective, usually something silly like grabbing a flag and bringing it back to your base. I'm okay with the violence in these games because it's not meant to mimic real life, in fact it's almost comical when you shoot a guy with your laser rifle and gallons of gakky-looking red textures come out. The feeling I get from playing these games is more like playing a competitive game of football than life or fething death.

And like Halo, where depicting the "horror of war" isn't really necessary in the context of your average multiplayer match, I don't think 40k really needs to be this fething deep. In my opinion, you, the artist, and every other one of his supporters are simply taking your toy soldier hobby too seriously. Take a step back for a minute and ask yourself if it really is me that's missing the point here.

TiB wrote:You very likely got drawn into the game for the same reason we all do: the models look cool and it's cool to pretend to command an army of supersoldiers killing in the name of the emperor (or whatever faction(s) you play).

No, I picked Tau, and am currently building Dark Eldar. Which of course means that deep down I'm a psychotic murderer who captures, tortures, and kills people for the fun of it. Why else would I have been interested in them? lol

And personally I think intelligent discussion goes out the window when you imply that your opponent is stupid for believing what he does. I really don't give a feth anymore. I'm literally being told that I have to be a violent donkey-cave at heart or I'm not allowed to play 40k, or any other game in my fething Steam library it would seem. And that I have to accept depictions of rape and graphic violence because I play a game where this stuff supposedly happens in the background behind the scenes.

Sidstyler wrote: So why do you play 40k then, Delephont? Or why did you used to, since I remember you stating you were done with GW during the last price increase. Do you like violence? Are you a violent person?.

Correct, I don't play WH40K or any GW products anymore. I now play MERCS and Infinity. Do I like violence, yes. I openly admit that there is a side to my nature which is drawn towards violence....there must be otherise I wouldn't find any interest in wargames, violent computer games, action films and action novels. Does it make me a violent person? perhaps, however, I have been socially trained as to what is acceptable and unacceptable, and restrain my more base instincts. I would imagine my statement above would go for anyone involved in anything like a wargame, however people are scared to see that they have a dark side. The only difference between myself and a mass murderer is that I fear the consequences of my actions.....that's it. People want to believe that they are somehow different from the "monsters" that inhabit our society, they want to believe that there is something more than chance that directs the socially constrained person down a different path to the mass murdering, child molestering, rapists that stalk our shadows......

Sidstyler wrote: I play 40k because I can easily tell the difference between fantasy and reality. I play Halo, TF2, etc. because I know when I shoot the guy on the screen he comes back 5 seconds later. I enjoy the game because it plays out more like fething paintball than a real war, where the focus is more on encouraging team play and working together to achieve an objective, usually something silly like grabbing a flag and bringing it back to your base. I'm okay with the violence in these games because it's not meant to mimic real life, in fact it's almost comical when you shoot a guy with your laser rifle and gallons of gakky-looking red textures come out. The feeling I get from playing these games is more like playing a competitive game of football than life or fething death.

And like Halo, where depicting the "horror of war" isn't really necessary in the context of your average multiplayer match, I don't think 40k really needs to be this fething deep. In my opinion, you, the artist, and every other one of his supporters are simply taking your toy soldier hobby too seriously. Take a step back for a minute and ask yourself if it really is me that's missing the point here.

TiB wrote:You very likely got drawn into the game for the same reason we all do: the models look cool and it's cool to pretend to command an army of supersoldiers killing in the name of the emperor (or whatever faction(s) you play).

No, I picked Tau, and am currently building Dark Eldar. Which of course means that deep down I'm a psychotic murderer who captures, tortures, and kills people for the fun of it. Why else would I have been interested in them? lol

And personally I think intelligent discussion goes out the window when you imply that your opponent is stupid for believing what he does. I really don't give a feth anymore. I'm literally being told that I have to be a violent donkey-cave at heart or I'm not allowed to play 40k, or any other game in my fething Steam library it would seem.

Again, noone is saying you have to be anything, you make that choice. I wouldn't class someone who religiously played racing games a violent person, where would be the grounds, however to deny that on some level violence attracts you when you obviously enjoy games who basis is conflict and violence (no matter how comical) seems like the statement of a person very much out of touch with themselves.

However, you go on living your double standards and shaking your fist at the rest of the world that can clearly see what you can't. While you're at it, take a look in your Steam library, how many games in there have nothing at all to do with violence? if you find even one, please let us know the ratio of violent to non violent games in your collection......then seek out a good shrink.

On a separate note in regards to nude or shapely female models. I think that Infinity does a great job when it comes to having good looking female models. Good proportions, still wearing functional armor, maybe a tad bit on the "sexy" side, but for the most part nothing "slutty".

Most of the debate has centered around whether or not nude models are appropriate. I would like to add another dimension, the consequences of creating such artwork. In 1987 Peggy Hettrick was murdered and sexually mutilated in Fort Collins CO. The main suspect was a teenager named Tim Masters. There was no physical evidence that he committed the crime and no witnesses. He was hounded by police but no further evidence turned up. About a decade later he was charged with her murder. Central to the prosecution's case was testimony by a psychologist who interpreted graphic drawings that Tim made as a teenager. Tim was convicted of murder and spent close to a decade in prison. This case would certainly make me think twice before making a rape diorama, even if I thought that it was art.

spaceelf wrote:Most of the debate has centered around whether or not nude models are appropriate. I would like to add another dimension, the consequences of creating such artwork. In 1987 Peggy Hettrick was murdered and sexually mutilated in Fort Collins CO. The main suspect was a teenager named Tim Masters. There was no physical evidence that he committed the crime and no witnesses. He was hounded by police but no further evidence turned up. About a decade later he was charged with her murder. Central to the prosecution's case was testimony by a psychologist who interpreted graphic drawings that Tim made as a teenager. Tim was convicted of murder and spent close to a decade in prison. This case would certainly make me think twice before making a rape diorama, even if I thought that it was art.

.....surely there was more to the story than that! I mean, why was this particular person considered a suspect to begin with. If it were based on his "graphic drawings" alone, half the wargaming society, everyone on 4Chan and most likely Anne Rice would be doing time for that crime as well.

Sidstyler wrote:currently building Dark Eldar. Which of course means that deep down I'm a psychotic murderer who captures, tortures, and kills people for the fun of it. Why else would I have been interested in them?

Sidstyler wrote:I think intelligent discussion goes out the window when you imply that your opponent is stupid for believing what he does. I really don't give a feth anymore. I'm literally being told that I have to be a violent donkey-cave at heart or I'm not allowed to play 40k, or any other game in my fething Steam library it would seem.

I'm not saying anything like that, and I don't think anyone else here is either. To do so would be kind of hypocritical.
I myself happen to like 40k, that's why I'm here on these forums. I like it for the models and the background first, game second. In my opinion the game is flawed and if I want to challenge my tactical thinking I'll go play something else. (but let's leave it at that, this is no rules discussion)

Does this make me a 'violent donkey-cave'? No, and I don't believe you are either. I have no violent tendencies and haven't been in an (unconsensual) fight in my life.
As you stated, it is important to make a difference between real life and cartoon violence. My point is just that that is just what it is. Cartoon violence. No need to call the beast a different name by likening it to paintball or something (so one war abstraction is more like another war abstraction than real war?)

I just think it's interesting that almost every game ("or any other game in my fething Steam library") that comes out these days has to have a link to violence.

Once again to make it clear I'm not necessarily against violent games. I love shooting people in the face with missile launchers. It's just that violence apparently sells even more than sex.


edit: Delephont, why you always replysniping me
I mostly agree with you, but this comment

Delephont wrote:The only difference between myself and a mass murderer is that I fear the consequences of my actions.....that's it.

is kinda disturbing...
I want to chalk it up to you exaggerating a little to make your point come across, but do you really mean it is only because of the watchful eye of the police that you aren't a rampaging, murdering maniac? Because that is what you are saying and if it is I don't want to be on the same side of the discussion as you anymore.

Delephont wrote:

spaceelf wrote:Most of the debate has centered around whether or not nude models are appropriate. I would like to add another dimension, the consequences of creating such artwork. In 1987 Peggy Hettrick was murdered and sexually mutilated in Fort Collins CO. The main suspect was a teenager named Tim Masters. There was no physical evidence that he committed the crime and no witnesses. He was hounded by police but no further evidence turned up. About a decade later he was charged with her murder. Central to the prosecution's case was testimony by a psychologist who interpreted graphic drawings that Tim made as a teenager. Tim was convicted of murder and spent close to a decade in prison. This case would certainly make me think twice before making a rape diorama, even if I thought that it was art.

.....surely there was more to the story than that! I mean, why was this particular person considered a suspect to begin with. If it were based on his "graphic drawings" alone, half the wargaming society, everyone on 4Chan and most likely Anne Rice would be doing time for that crime as well.

My knowledge of the case is based on a TV documentary called 48 Hours Mystery. Here is a link
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_162-6025618/drawn-to-murder/?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesArea.0
He was a suspect because the body was found in a field next to his house. His mother had also passed away a few years earlier. Although there may have been more to the case, they certainly do not describe it in their program.

TiB wrote:I mostly agree with you, but this comment

Delephont wrote:The only difference between myself and a mass murderer is that I fear the consequences of my actions.....that's it.

is kinda disturbing...
I want to chalk it up to you exaggerating a little to make your point come across, but do you really mean it is only because of the watchful eye of the police that you aren't a rampaging, murdering maniac? Because that is what you are saying and if it is I don't want to be on the same side of the discussion as you anymore.

It's a deep one, and probably not something to be discussed on a a gaming forum. Basically, given the right environment and exposure, any one of us could be the "Monsters" we see every day on the news. Have you ever been driving your car and someone pulls out on you, endangering you and your passengers? Once the shock passes, you may find yourself angry, and wish to harm the careless person who put you and your loved ones in danger (even more so if the other driver is unrepentant in their actions).....at this point someone who is fearful of the consequences of their actions will content themselves with loud swearing and a good thump on the horn, someone less caring will engage in road rage, and may end up killing the other driver......the other question you have to ask yourself is, what would it take to make you cross the line?.....all of these things prove one thing, we are all capable of violent acts, and it's what restrains us from committing those acts (whether it be the Police or some other agency) that seperates us from the others.

You're not on my side of the discussion, you're on your side of the discussion, debating an aspect you believe in. I don't think anyone is here to take sides, we're simply here to debate a point, that your angle of debate may in some degrees parallel my own does not make us of a like mind in all things.

We are all around 72 hours away from becoming these monsters, IMO.

Put an average family man in a situation where he has to provide food and security for his family in a natural disaster where he is cut off from the rest of society and he will become the person that will do whatever it takes to protect his own, no matter how violent his actions would be.

I need to get away from this topic for a while, it's starting to take a rather dark turn and I've spent way too much god-damned time on it as it is. You can believe what you want, but I'm not touching this gak right now.

And TiB, that'd be Dakka censoring me, I'm not literally typing "donkey-cave", just so you know.