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.

Commander Karg and the Boromite Matriach are the perfect Couple. Their Children would be beautiful.

RazorEdge wrote:
Commander Karg and the Boromite Matriach are the perfect Couple. Their Children would be beautiful.

...now I wish the slaves were an Algoryn and a Boromite. Humans are boring!

Is there any indication on when more plastic starters will come out? I'm holding off until I can pick up a plastic Boromite kit.

Supposedly, the plan is for a plastic kit for the basic infantry of each faction in year 1, but that would require a lot coming out in a very short period of time.

decker_cky wrote:
Supposedly, the plan is for a plastic kit for the basic infantry of each faction in year 1, but that would require a lot coming out in a very short period of time.

I believe "first year" by End of 2016. Algoryn plastics have already been discussed and I believe are the first non-Ghar and non-Concord plastic infantry kit coming out, using CAD renders. I can imagine Boromites and Freeborn would be 3-up traditionally sculpted.

Algoryn have been confirmed as the next plastics several times.

Still...accepting the June release schedule as complete, that means Warlord needs to release plastics for Algoryn, Boromite, Freeborn and Isorians over the next six months (with Bolt Action 2.0 dropping in the middle of that window).

Definitely doable, but it's a pretty intense release schedule (assuming the normal assortment of releases over the same period).

RazorEdge wrote:
Commander Karg and the Boromite Matriach are the perfect Couple. Their Children would be beautiful.

I hope someone will use this and write a Karg x Matriach Lovestory.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
For me the slaves, and the implied sexual predation that goes with it, are far worse than mere stripper costumes. Cheesecake is embarrassing and tacky, but rapey cheesecake? Thanks for sharting the bed so thoroughly, Warlord. I thought I was running out of reasons to despise you as a company.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


It's almost as if they could have such a race without giving an already embarrassingly retrograde hobby yet another reason to look bad. I hear people can have movies, books or games about war with dastardly villains that don't involve portrayals of sexual slavery.

This isn't Kingdom Death we are talking about. We are talking about a range that includes goofy rockmen, goofy hobbit-daleks, goofy latex-head aliens, and a faction that panders to Firefly fans. One might consider those to be good indicators that the range isn't going for brutal grittiness or realistic portrayals of the dark side of human conflict. The mindset of the game developers seems to say throwing in a couple of token despoiled women to make a villain look 'pimp' fits into their silly game aimed at regular blokes. It's 2016, but every aspect of this game's development seems to come right out of 1986. It's pathetic.

Wait what? I find it really weird when people detest sexual violence in settings that involve literally genocide and massed slaughter. Are you so desensitized to death war that you can happily enjoy a game that not only depicts it in a large scale but also portrays it in a positive light? Why is the mere and minor implication of female slaves where you draw the line?

Is this a genuine example of white knighting? I mean, come one dude, you even used the "it's the current year!" phrase. If anythings cringy in this thread it's you mate. Since you have a problem with sex but not war or killing how about if you happen to buy the model replace the ladies with crucified ones in nice burkas instead. That way you dont need to see anything sexual but you still get the killing this hobby is based around.

It's 2016 mate (see what I did there), no need to be erotophobic. It's not the 1980s anymore didn't you realize? In all seriousness can you please explain, how killing and genocide is not a "dark side of human conflict", but the female slaves are? Because I'd like to know why one is fine for you but not the other. Since you feel so strongly about one those 2.

I know if I where evil and conquered endless planets I too would grow fat, take the women of the men I slaughtered and take them around as trophies. That's a message every race fighting me will understand. It's very fitting for a warlord to do and certainly not out of place as you claim. But thats my opinion.

 Swastakowey wrote:
In all seriousness can you please explain, how killing and genocide is not a "dark side of human conflict", but the female slaves are? Because I'd like to know why one is fine for you but not the other. Since you feel so strongly about one those 2.

I will have a stab at this one as I feel similar about the slave girls.

Playing a wargame with models isnt about having graphic images of peoples brains being splattered around the board or the other ugliness of war. My kids can play 'army men' and go 'pew pew' and shoot people without the graphic understanding of actual conflict or the motivations behind it but they can still have fun with their own concept of army men and tanks etc.

The slave girls are a visual cue linking those ugly behind the scenes concepts to the tabletop game (the same as the old GW eversor assassin with the severed head.)

If my kids watched me play a wargame and saw models and tanks with guns its just like a cartoon represented in miniatures, pew pew all very G rated but what do I (or you) say when a kid says, "what is that dad?" pointing to scantily clad women chained up.

Maybe that doesnt make you uncomfortable, maybe you dont have kids, whatever, but I dont want to expose my kids to those sort of visual cues about gender imbalances and issues.

That is why I call this a hugely DUMB move especially with the amount of gender equality issues that are in the mainstream in recent years.

 MangoMadness wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
In all seriousness can you please explain, how killing and genocide is not a "dark side of human conflict", but the female slaves are? Because I'd like to know why one is fine for you but not the other. Since you feel so strongly about one those 2.

I will have a stab at this one as I feel similar about the slave girls.

Playing a wargame with models isnt about having graphic images of peoples brains being splattered around the board or the other ugliness of war. My kids can play 'army men' and go 'pew pew' and shoot people without the graphic understanding of actual conflict or the motivations behind it but they can still have fun with their own concept of army men and tanks etc.

The slave girls are a visual cue linking those ugly behind the scenes concepts to the tabletop game (the same as the old GW eversor assassin with the severed head.)

If my kids watched me play a wargame and saw models and tanks with guns its just like a cartoon represented in miniatures, pew pew all very G rated but what do I (or you) say when a kid says, "what is that dad?" pointing to scantily clad women chained up.

Maybe that doesnt make you uncomfortable, maybe you dont have kids, whatever, but I dont want to expose my kids to those sort of visual cues about gender imbalances and issues.

That is why I call this a hugely DUMB move especially with the amount of gender equality issues that are in the mainstream in recent years.

These girls are hardly dressed differently to girls at the beach with a towel and bikini on. It is not graphic in the west.

I would say that guns and tanks are also a visual cue to the ugly behind the scenes concepts of war.

Bikinis do not make me uncomfortable. Not any more than guns or tanks or other military gear do.

At the end of the day, if you consider the model obscene or "graphic" then simply replace the women with something more friendly like mini guns or missiles. Im sure your kids will love it.

 MangoMadness wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
In all seriousness can you please explain, how killing and genocide is not a "dark side of human conflict", but the female slaves are? Because I'd like to know why one is fine for you but not the other. Since you feel so strongly about one those 2.

I will have a stab at this one as I feel similar about the slave girls.

Playing a wargame with models isnt about having graphic images of peoples brains being splattered around the board or the other ugliness of war. My kids can play 'army men' and go 'pew pew' and shoot people without the graphic understanding of actual conflict or the motivations behind it but they can still have fun with their own concept of army men and tanks etc.

The slave girls are a visual cue linking those ugly behind the scenes concepts to the tabletop game (the same as the old GW eversor assassin with the severed head.)

If my kids watched me play a wargame and saw models and tanks with guns its just like a cartoon represented in miniatures, pew pew all very G rated but what do I (or you) say when a kid says, "what is that dad?" pointing to scantily clad women chained up.

Maybe that doesnt make you uncomfortable, maybe you dont have kids, whatever, but I dont want to expose my kids to those sort of visual cues about gender imbalances and issues.

That is why I call this a hugely DUMB move especially with the amount of gender equality issues that are in the mainstream in recent years.

Then don't buy the model, or convert it - issue solved.

Seriously chief, "I don't want my kids exposed to that" is pretty much the daftest reason to want something banned/not to be made in the first place ever, because you're the one who decides what they're exposed to. It's like those numpties you see decrying videogame violence because think of the children, when the only reason children saw videogame violence at all is their pushover parents bought them a 16 or 18 rated product in the first place.

And if we really want to start getting properly "right on" about things - is it not pretty irresponsible to allow kids to grow up playing at war without understanding its full implications? Will those memories of childhood fun playing armymen not distort their reaction later in life, making them less capable of empathising with the victims of war and violence? Surely if you want to be consistent you should either be using your models to have a teachable moment with your kids to explain the nature of genocide and the politics of war in the modern age, or be refusing to allow them to be exposed to the concept at all.

Or, alternatively, they're just models and your kids would have an equally nuanced understanding of the tasteless strippers(lol, bewbs) as they do of tables full of models playing out a brutal slaughter(pew pew pew).

I don't have kids myself - I wonder what it is about having them that makes adults forget what it was like to be one?

 Yodhrin wrote:

Spoiler:

 MangoMadness wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
In all seriousness can you please explain, how killing and genocide is not a "dark side of human conflict", but the female slaves are? Because I'd like to know why one is fine for you but not the other. Since you feel so strongly about one those 2.

I will have a stab at this one as I feel similar about the slave girls.

Playing a wargame with models isnt about having graphic images of peoples brains being splattered around the board or the other ugliness of war. My kids can play 'army men' and go 'pew pew' and shoot people without the graphic understanding of actual conflict or the motivations behind it but they can still have fun with their own concept of army men and tanks etc.

The slave girls are a visual cue linking those ugly behind the scenes concepts to the tabletop game (the same as the old GW eversor assassin with the severed head.)

If my kids watched me play a wargame and saw models and tanks with guns its just like a cartoon represented in miniatures, pew pew all very G rated but what do I (or you) say when a kid says, "what is that dad?" pointing to scantily clad women chained up.

Maybe that doesnt make you uncomfortable, maybe you dont have kids, whatever, but I dont want to expose my kids to those sort of visual cues about gender imbalances and issues.

That is why I call this a hugely DUMB move especially with the amount of gender equality issues that are in the mainstream in recent years.

Then don't buy the model, or convert it - issue solved.

Seriously chief, "I don't want my kids exposed to that" is pretty much the daftest reason to want something banned/not to be made in the first place ever, because you're the one who decides what they're exposed to. It's like those numpties you see decrying videogame violence because think of the children, when the only reason children saw videogame violence at all is their pushover parents bought them a 16 or 18 rated product in the first place.

And if we really want to start getting properly "right on" about things - is it not pretty irresponsible to allow kids to grow up playing at war without understanding its full implications? Will those memories of childhood fun playing armymen not distort their reaction later in life, making them less capable of empathising with the victims of war and violence? Surely if you want to be consistent you should either be using your models to have a teachable moment with your kids to explain the nature of genocide and the politics of war in the modern age, or be refusing to allow them to be exposed to the concept at all.

Or, alternatively, they're just models and your kids would have an equally nuanced understanding of the tasteless strippers(lol, bewbs) as they do of tables full of models playing out a brutal slaughter(pew pew pew).

I don't have kids myself - I wonder what it is about having them that makes adults forget what it was like to be one?

Everything I would have said in words much better than I could have thrown together - have an exalt.

 Swastakowey wrote:

These girls are hardly dressed differently to girls at the beach with a towel and bikini on.

And metal collars. Its also about context as I said, a beach is not a battlefield

 Swastakowey wrote:

Bikinis do not make me uncomfortable. Not any more than guns or tanks or other military gear do.

Explain a bikini clad model with a metal collar on a battlefield to me, tell me why it is there

 Yodhrin wrote:

Seriously chief, "I don't want my kids exposed to that" is pretty much the daftest reason to want something banned/not to be made in the first place ever, because you're the one who decides what they're exposed to. It's like those numpties you see decrying videogame violence because think of the children, when the only reason children saw videogame violence at all is their pushover parents bought them a 16 or 18 rated product in the first place.

So you are saying that the game is an R rated game? I have no problems with that, if thats the direction warlord want to go with the game but thats now what I have seen in other products in the range.

 Yodhrin wrote:
I don't have kids myself

lol, unsurprising looking at your comments

 Yodhrin wrote:
- I wonder what it is about having them that makes adults forget what it was like to be one?

Its called responsibility and if you think exposing children to the horrors of war or reinforcing gender stereotypes is a good thing then you have alot to learn

This is all off topic, take the discussion to somewhere that cares.

Thebiggesthat wrote:
This is all off topic, take the discussion to somewhere that cares.

Indeed.

Thank you.

Very well, my reply to Mango is here.

Hmmm, the Algoryn drop pods are actually made by Sarissa out of whatever material they use, now I do not know if I am so keen:



At least, unlike SM drop pods, they look like they could realistically hold their payload.

 Thraxas Of Turai wrote:
Hmmm, the Algoryn drop pods are actually made by Sarissa out of whatever material they use, now I do not know if I am so keen:



At least, unlike SM drop pods, they look like they could realistically hold their payload.

those are nice!

 Thraxas Of Turai wrote:
Hmmm, the Algoryn drop pods are actually made by Sarissa out of whatever material they use, now I do not know if I am so keen:



At least, unlike SM drop pods, they look like they could realistically hold their payload.

MDF - they will in all likelyhood be easy to build and great quality. Sarissa are a very good company

I'm a big fan of Sarissa Precision too - but that material is a lot different to work with - and paint! - vs. what many will be used to using!

I'll bet that they also put out some good tutorials for prep and painting too though, when the time is right, so there shouldn't be many issues.

Those look pretty cool - I was hoping it was single-man drop capsules like the Mobile Infantry in Starship Troopers (novels) but it looks like those are large enough for a 5 man squad at least.

I have actually loved Sarissa kits. MDF likes to absorb paint, but I have found if you give it two coats of an oil-based primer (Krylon Fusion or Val*Spar or equivalent at Lowe's, in the USA at least) then you're good to go.

meh

Who designed them? B&Q?

I am still surprised to see a fat, debauched Ghar warlord. My impression was, Ghar have an engineered compulsion to wage war for its own sake. So for example, they pay no heed to the destruction they wreak because they do not value an objective for any purpose beyond its tactical/strategic implications. Then again, IIRC, Karg and Fartok are from the same brood, and there is something "off" about that generation. So maybe Karg is just exhibiting his own form of "degeneracy," from the Ghar perspective, and no one is in a position to call him out because he has yet to fail.

I think they would be comparable to the Dalek Cult of Skaro. I know, comparing them to Daleks sgain, but that's basically what they are. The Cult of Skaro, like Karg and Fartok's brood were engineered to be more creative and individualistic. The idea was that they couldn't really think outside of the box, so some special tacticians were created who could think like their enemies so as to best counter them. The downside is that they end up being a bit eccentric compared to their brethren. Their eccentricities are ignored though due to them delivering results.

 Manchu wrote:
I am still surprised to see a fat, debauched Ghar warlord. My impression was, Ghar have an engineered compulsion to wage war for its own sake. So for example, they pay no heed to the destruction they wreak because they do not value an objective for any purpose beyond its tactical/strategic implications. Then again, IIRC, Karg and Fartok are from the same brood, and there is something "off" about that generation. So maybe Karg is just exhibiting his own form of "degeneracy," from the Ghar perspective, and no one is in a position to call him out because he has yet to fail.

The background is that he's abnormal for a Ghar and is the one who established the base in Xilos.
http://www.warlordgames.com/xilos-characters-ghar-high-commander-karg-12-40-9/

"...Except that Karg is quite unlike any ordinary Ghar. Karg was one of a series of genetically improved clones created to form the next generation of top-ranking leaders and commanders. Karg is possessed of mental powers both considerable and unusual for his race; perhaps more unusual than the Supreme Commander’s geneticists intended. For Karg is ambitious, hungry for power, willing to put his own interests over and above all Ghar-kind… over and above even the Supreme Commander.
Karg has established a base of operations on Xilos, a world ideally placed to launch further attacks upon the hated Algoryn. The world has been turned into a fortress, but its substantial defences prove unable to keep the enemy from effecting a landing. With his fleet driven from orbit Karg is forced to send for reinforcements. Unfortunately his messengers are captured by Karg’s old enemy Fartok, and instead of the reinforcements he was expecting he finds himself with another battle on his hands as Fartok’s slave army hunts down the rebel leader’s old adversary."

I imagine he's got some Heart of Darkness / Apocalypse Now style megalomania going on at this point.

A good deal from Warlord if ordering direct from their site, they have added the Ghar and Concord starter armies to their 15% off starter armies deal so they are now priced £42.50:

 jah-joshua wrote:
wow, and here i am thinking that Karg is the first Ghar model i will actually buy and paint...
space pimp/Jabba reference seems like a fun little bit of humor in a range of goofball aliens...
not to mention, it is a very well executed sculpt, with a beautiful paint scheme, and he is puffin' on a space hookah...
plus it is a good opportunity to finally paint a green alien women, a la classic Star Trek...

he does give off the vibe that he is a despicable warlord, which seems to fit the intended idea behind this character...

different strokes for different folks, i guess...
i like it...

cheers
jah

+1

Hilarious to hear people refer to the concept as juvenile while they spend butt loads on scifi aliens to play with....hmmmm....

But hey, it;s 2016 and everything is problematic! Offense is never an option you know!

As you said, the sculpt is intended to lightly depict how despicable he is, obviously paying homage to Jaba, lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albertorius wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
What's with the strippers?

He's a despotic mutated warlord. Why shouldn't he have strippers?

Well, for starters, he's a Ghar. They are supposed to hate every other "degenerate" species. They are basically bipedal daleks... I wouldn't expect to see a dalek on a carriage with strippers.

Might fly for Rifts, but this game felt different in that regard.

So then maybe, just maybe it is possible he has the slaves not for his own twisted pleasure but to demoralize his combatants. There are many ways to interpret a thing, it is fine to dislike it, but I feel like people are branding a thing as being one and only one possible thing when that is patently false. Now, if they go and label the kit, Gar Pimp with Bong and Strippa' Hoes then there isn't much defense But so far I feel people are simply chosing to take offense at a thing that isn't nefarious or serious.

Question has been definitively answered above: Karg is from a brood of Ghar designed for free(r) thinking and therefore has abnormal personality traits; in this case, debauchery. I agree with those who have identified the sculpt as an obvious reference to Jabba.

I agree that it's probably a reference to Jabba.

I am still allowed to dislike it, right? Or is disliking a Star Wars reference grounds for revoking my nerd club's card, now?