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.

Adam Poots (the guy behind Kingdom Death) did a piece on his plans for it for the ezine I edit, Irregular.

The short version is that it will be a horror fantasy board game, with the players playing against the system (a bit like Warhammer Quest). For a bit more from Adam regarding Kingdom Death, the article is on page 49 of issue 2 of Irregular magazine.

i have never seen a mini that i considered offensive, since it is all make believe...
i have however see some sculpts and paintjobs that i thought were ugly...
if i think something is ugly, i just don't buy it, end of story...
no need to get so worked up over someone else's work...
it has zero effect on my life...

when something is done well, like the Kingdom Death sculpts, i think the work of the artists and designers should be respected...
you don't have to like it or buy it, but the sculpts definitely fit into the setting, and are well done...
to attack someone else's work and aesthetic is really disrespectful...

as for nudity without the bizarre twist of KD's creations, it is natural...
nudes have been sculpted for thousands of years...
why is it suddenly perverse to sculpt on a small scale???

cheers
jah

Nude models? Bring 'em on!

They're never really very well done, nor are they very sexy or even relevant in a gaming sense but I'm all for it XD

this is my favorite nude, and extremely well done:

http://www.hfminis.co.uk/shop?product=artemis-%28blue%29~hf4001b&category=miniatures%7E40mm-%26-54mm-scale

not very relevant in a gaming sense ...
still, don't see why anyone would get worked up and call something like this "tasteless and unnecessary"...
not sexy, suggestive, exploitive, demeaning, or raunchy, but instead very classical...

cheers
jah

jah-joshua wrote:this is my favorite nude, and extremely well done:

http://www.hfminis.co.uk/shop?product=artemis-%28blue%29~hf4001b&category=miniatures%7E40mm-%26-54mm-scale

not very relevant in a gaming sense ...
still, don't see why anyone would get worked up and call something like this "tasteless and unnecessary"...
not sexy, suggestive, exploitive, demeaning, or raunchy, but instead very classical...

cheers
jah

I bought another nude model from hassle free after this thread started, they do some lovely sculpts.

@jah-joshua I completely agree, I have two that model and I use one as a Greek Statue for scenery in 28mm games, and the other as a soldier in 40mm games, and don't see why people would be upset about that, sure it's a naked woman, but it's classical, historically accurate and a well sculpted model

Actually Hasslefree do a lot of nude models, their wonderfully sculpted, and in a lot of cases make great extra touches in certain armies, like the Harem Members are great for an Araby army surrounding the Sultan. And that's how I'd use them.

Some people may get upset or offended in some way by them, and I simply say lighten up, this is a game of toy soldiers, yes there are a lot of models that are nude for the sake of being nude like the Commissar, but IT'S A GAME, if your going to complain about naked female models that a gamer chooses for whatever reason then you really need to chill out

Especially if your getting upset about it not making sense or not being practical to go into battle like that, it's not practical to go into battle against giant demons and monsterous aliens while dressed in combat trousers and a thin shirt but Catachans do it all the time. Let's be honest, warhammer and most Sci-Fi or fantasy wargaming background isn't supposed to make sense

Also I've noticed a minimal outrage against naked men as opposed to naked women, it's the same with Comic books where people complain over and over about female superheroes wearing skimpy outfits, being next to nude and mostly being proportioned ridiculously, but ignore characters like Superman or Captain America which wear spandex and are drawn as adonis' and have greek god bodies in minimal or skintight clothing most of the time

I never indicated gender. I think those nude male models are tasteless too.

But almost nobody makes nude male models in comparison to nude female models, so that's rarely a problem.

Don't get on an "anti-feminist" rant, it'll just look silly.

Like many things in our society, we fear what we do not know.
If someone who grew up with the absence of feelings, the absence of love, the absence of .. art.
That someone will not be able to sense love for nothing but their own self.

But if you take a person on the opposite end of that spectrum, you'll have someone who'll find the love for art, the love for another.

If you are afraid of nudity, of sexuality, that is a prejudice, a prejudice that you bring yourself to judge others with.

No, liking something that features a nude person, be it a photograph, a painting or a miniature figure, is an aesthetic. nothing more. there's seldom any sexual arousal involved for anyone but pre-pubescant boys.

And likewise the diorama showing the horrors of war, yes, it exists to this day. I've myself averted scenes such as that on my tour of duty. But, its a superb scenario, it fulfills it purpose.
If you are not taken aback by it, you need to get back to your shrink.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Melissia, well the chapter serf i'm sculpting atm has a bulge of a package near his groin.

Don't see what the issue is?

People have been sculpting body parts and naked statues from the beginning.

People have been paint people naked for ages. Always have always will.

People have been taking photos of naked women when cameras were just invented.

People did it with "motion pictures"

Including them in miniature wargaming line? Just another tradition of human race. "We" love the naked body, in any form. It's fascinating and beautiful form.

Now what irks me, are those people offended by nudity and not playing a game with guns and the objective is to kill you opponent. Great set of morals you got there.

EDIT: After some quick googling I found the Eldar rape diorama.

The scene is disturbing, then again I have never been a fan of rape scenes in shows/movies. It's not some moral superiority judge and jury bullcrap many seem to play (ie I hate nude models argument but I play violent games). It's just not my thing even in a fantasy setting where it is make believe.

However, I do have to consider the molder's intentions. Is some warped fantasy? Like some of those disturbing japanese cartoons on the internet?

Or was he just portraying the dark side of war like many war movies have done? Which have occurred in every war, etc.

Does it go to far for miniatures game? Yeah, but everyone has there own taste and perception of right and wrong and what it ok and what is bad (again like those jagbags who say nudity is bad, shooting people is good).

I don't know the molder's intentions. Sick perv who needs to seek mental help? Or just reminding us that war is something we should never grow too fond of?

There are tasteful nude miniature. Their are tasteless nude miniatures. And there are some stupid ones.

I generally find what I call "center fold" poses to be the better miniatures. I don't paint nude miniatures because I have a gf or have those set of morals. My painting skills suck and don't want to paint a display figure that is going to look like crap. And none of the games I play have nude models. So......

But I do like porn.

I'm kinda having trouble understanding folks' problems with nude or non-nude or whatever models... I mean, folks that have issues with nude models, how do you feel about the statue David, by Michelangelo? Or 'The Birth of Venus' painting by Sandro Botticelli?

I mean... I guess I tend to see little miniatures as art a lot more than just grey men we push around the table and roll dice with. Maybe that's just me.

Piston Honda wrote:(again like those jagbags who say nudity is bad, shooting people is good).

Is anyone actually saying that, or is that you putting words into their mouths?

I think this (and most arguments) would work out a lot better if people actually paid attention to what the argument was and didn't just make up one of their own to rant against instead.

Revarien wrote:I guess I tend to see little miniatures as art a lot more than just grey men we push around the table and roll dice with.

And there are plenty of artists who would laugh their asses off at the idea of miniatures being "art". They're just toys to a lot of people.

Sidstyler wrote:

Piston Honda wrote:(again like those jagbags who say nudity is bad, shooting people is good).

Is anyone actually saying that, or is that you putting words into their mouths?

I think this (and most arguments) would work out a lot better if people actually paid attention to what the argument was and didn't just make up one of their own to rant against instead.

There is someone on this thread. Actually a few.

I think it would be helpful if people read the entire threads or look to see if such cases do exist.

Oh joy, now I'm being flamed and called a "jagbag" (IE, a "jerk-off") because I don't have the same tastes in models as you do.

How fething delightful.

who called you a jagbag Melissia?

Sidstyler wrote:And there are plenty of artists who would laugh their asses off at the idea of miniatures being "art". They're just toys to a lot of people.

Lots of artists (just like everybody else) have their own ideas about what does or doesn't constitute art.
http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/12/12

"I don’t think I’ve ever read a definition for art that wasn’t stupid. Generally speaking, when a person constructs a thought-machine of this kind, what they’re actually trying to do is determine what isn’t art. I have always been white trash, and will never cease to be so; what that means is that I was raised with an inherent distrust in the Hoity and a base and brutal urge to dismantle the Toity. This is sometimes termed anti-intellectualism, usually by intellectuals, when what it is in truth is an opposition to intellect for intellect’s sake. The reality is that what “is” and “isn’t art” is something we can determine with a slider in our prefrontal cortex.

If this thought-machine had any purpose other than to create a world with less art, I could cut it some slack. But it doesn’t. Its entire purpose is to rarify art, controlling expression thereby. The aperture must be cinched, and quickly, before someone creates a cultural product without elite imprimatur. Its effete and its fething disgusting."

Sidstyler wrote:And there are plenty of artists who would laugh their asses off at the idea of miniatures being "art".

While that is true, as someone with a fine arts degree, I find there are plenty of artists who are pretentious douchebags who sneer at things they are not interested in as clearly not being art- not because they have some developed grasp of what the difference between art and not art is, but because they feel an insecure need to belittle anything they are not personally interested in.

It's kind of like a microcosm for this thread. In the end it all boils down to "The way you play is inferior to the way I play."

Piston Honda wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Piston Honda wrote:(again like those jagbags who say nudity is bad, shooting people is good).

Is anyone actually saying that, or is that you putting words into their mouths?

I think this (and most arguments) would work out a lot better if people actually paid attention to what the argument was and didn't just make up one of their own to rant against instead.

There is someone on this thread. Actually a few.

I don't believe this is accurate. Misrepresenting or misinterpreting people's positions, distorting them into a charicature, is not a useful or productive way to have a discussion. If you feel compelled to do so, I strongly advise simply not participating in the discussion, or using the Ignore feature on any user who makes you feel that way.

Murdock129 wrote:
Also I've noticed a minimal outrage against naked men as opposed to naked women, it's the same with Comic books where people complain over and over about female superheroes wearing skimpy outfits, being next to nude and mostly being proportioned ridiculously, but ignore characters like Superman or Captain America which wear spandex and are drawn as adonis' and have greek god bodies in minimal or skintight clothing most of the time

The difference between the two is that the men don't have their reproductives dangling out, while you can clearly see more private parts of the females. This thread is NOT about comic books, but miniatures might I add.

This discussion is going to rage back and forth until one of the sides of the argument just gets too annoyed to continue corresponding. In my opinion, we should simply just agree to say that we all have different interpretations of scantily clad miniatures. I personally don't find them interesting or at all appealing, but that isn't the case with, say, Piston Honda who look at it as art.

What is NOT okay is calling others 'jag-bags' or whatever was said to mellissia just because they have different, legitimate opinions than you do. That is immature and wrong.

kronk wrote:They will kill you, torture you, and eat your children (in no particular order).

Having your children eaten would fall under the torture categorie for me.

Mannahnin wrote:

I don't believe this is accurate. Misrepresenting or misinterpreting people's positions, distorting them into a charicature, is not a useful or productive way to have a discussion. If you feel compelled to do so, I strongly advise simply not participating in the discussion, or using the Ignore feature on any user who makes you feel that way.

Actually, it's kind of interesting how Honda's argument has been twisted and its fine, but that his argument was simply that from what's being said here one can infer that people are of the position that "Nudity" = bad, "Violence" = okay.

Honda never directly said "Melissa is a Jagbag" but many have "inferred" such intention. Doesn't make insulting people a legitimate argument to be sure, but it IS very interesting that those barking loudest about "not having said that" are now the ones drawing conclusions from others while continuing the rhetoric of "read before responding."


Melissa and others with her position are more than free to not play against someone with nudes in their army, or on their shelf; and are also more than welcome to not look at said models as well. I'm going to stay on the position that no one can tell me that its not artistic expression of one kind or another. Though I just still don't understand the concept that nude models are horrible in a game like 40k, where there are so many things that are downright nasty ((As stated several times before, Chaos, Dark Eldar, Traitor Guard, etc etc etc)).

Dracheous wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

I don't believe this is accurate. Misrepresenting or misinterpreting people's positions, distorting them into a charicature, is not a useful or productive way to have a discussion. If you feel compelled to do so, I strongly advise simply not participating in the discussion, or using the Ignore feature on any user who makes you feel that way.

Actually, it's kind of interesting how Honda's argument has been twisted and its fine, but that his argument was simply that from what's being said here one can infer that people are of the position that "Nudity" = bad, "Violence" = okay.

Honda never directly said "Melissa is a Jagbag" but many have "inferred" such intention. Doesn't make insulting people a legitimate argument to be sure, but it IS very interesting that those barking loudest about "not having said that" are now the ones drawing conclusions from others while continuing the rhetoric of "read before responding."


Melissa and others with her position are more than free to not play against someone with nudes in their army, or on their shelf; and are also more than welcome to not look at said models as well. I'm going to stay on the position that no one can tell me that its not artistic expression of one kind or another. Though I just still don't understand the concept that nude models are horrible in a game like 40k, where there are so many things that are downright nasty ((As stated several times before, Chaos, Dark Eldar, Traitor Guard, etc etc etc)).

+1

I never called anyone directly a jagbag (and jagbag has more than 1 meaning by the way)

As I stated, I don't understand the few people stating they don't like nude models because of their morals or religious beliefs (as said by a few people on this thread) but don't mind a game about a war torn universe.

Sorry but have never heard annoy to explain this to me where it makes sense. You can believe if you want, I even agree that there are tasteful and tasteless nude minis but don't give me your judge and jury BS.

Honda never directly said "Melissa is a Jagbag"

Yes, but I'm not stupid enough not to get the inference.

I think I'll bow out of the discussion if we go to personal insults of anyone, agreeing with their position or not...

My last tidbit is just simply this: 'Art' is certainly in the eye of the beholder... having said that, historically (e.g. greek times), nudity was more accepted than violence... and today, some cultures (e.g. mostly European ones) are still more accepting of nudity and sexuality over violence...

This point was made abundantly clear to me after watching about an hour of TV in the UK, on my week visit there, lol.

Piston Honda wrote:Don't see what the issue is?

.... yadda, yadda...

I don't paint nude miniatures because I have a gf or have those set of morals. My painting skills suck and don't want to paint a display figure that is going to look like crap. And none of the games I play have nude models. So......

But I do like porn.

What odd views you have. On the one hand you take an intellectual liberal laisse faire attitude, and yet when faced with the concrete reality of an actual model you take a moral standpoint and then seek excuses. Before capping it off by equating nudity with porn. It reminds me of the characters in Spring Awakening by Wedekind,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Revarien wrote:I'm kinda having trouble understanding folks' problems with nude or non-nude or whatever models... I mean, folks that have issues with nude models, how do you feel about the statue David, by Michelangelo? Or 'The Birth of Venus' painting by Sandro Botticelli?

The Birth of Venus is hardly a nude. She is covering her bits up, and the figure on the right is hurrying to hide her modesty.

I much prefer a Lucian Freud, though I suspect in this discussion the realism of the human form depicted is not eroticised sufficiently.

marielle,

the porn comment was just a joke. Hope you didn't take it too seriously.


Sorry about that.

Revarien wrote:My last tidbit is just simply this: 'Art' is certainly in the eye of the beholder... having said that, historically (e.g. greek times), nudity was more accepted than violence... and today, some cultures (e.g. mostly European ones) are still more accepting of nudity and sexuality over violence...

Even in these European countries that are supposedly so much more tolerant of nudity than we are, I don't often see them sending troops off to war in their birthday suits. Or at least I've never seen pics of foreign modern day troops fighting in the nude, anyway. Nor do I notice an abundance of women/men walking around naked on a daily basis in places like the UK, either. I know a couple guys who live in the UK and they wear clothes, too, so from what I've gathered the idea of covering ones body with articles of clothing in certain social situations isn't just a puritanical American invention.

Or maybe everyone just wears clothing for our benefit, so no American that might be visiting or seeing pictures of these places is offended. lol

Sidstyler wrote:

Revarien wrote:My last tidbit is just simply this: 'Art' is certainly in the eye of the beholder... having said that, historically (e.g. greek times), nudity was more accepted than violence... and today, some cultures (e.g. mostly European ones) are still more accepting of nudity and sexuality over violence...

Even in these European countries that are supposedly so much more tolerant of nudity than we are, I don't often see them sending troops off to war in their birthday suits. Or at least I've never seen pics of foreign modern day troops fighting in the nude, anyway. Nor do I notice an abundance of women/men walking around naked on a daily basis in places like the UK, either. I know a couple guys who live in the UK and they wear clothes, too, so from what I've gathered the idea of covering ones body with articles of clothing in certain social situations isn't just a puritanical American invention.

Or maybe everyone just wears clothing for our benefit, so no American that might be visiting or seeing pictures of these places is offended. lol

On 1 of the 7 days I visited the UK, I went to the Cambridge grounds... I had a tour of the campus and got a picnic lunch from the open air market there, with my folks... we went to a park near the river as our entire week there was surprisingly nice weather (it did rain the day we left)... we could see the tennis courts, the small river that weaved between the old buildings and we also saw the 3 topless women sunbathing.

My point still stands, as much of a mockery as you try to make of it.

I don't think it's very good proof that British people are more tolerant of nudity, just that those particular British women had no problem sunbathing topless at the river, which sounds like a semi-appropriate place to be topless if you ask me. It wouldn't quite compare to walking around London in the nude, which I still imagine a fair share of women prefer not to do.

Sidstyler wrote:I don't think it's very good proof that British people are more tolerant of nudity...

If you want better proof, you can just look at British law, or Page 3.

dogma wrote:or Page 3.

My God, I thought the exact same thing.

Try sticking that in the NYT.