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.

It seems to me like everything that's described as beautiful- whether it's in regard to slaaneshi cultists or dark eldar succubi and so on- is represented by models that do absolutely nothing to support that. I understand that a tiny miniature is something of a limited medium, but at the same time it seems as though most illustrations are similarly contradictory to the descriptions.

Thoughts? Comments? Agree or disagree?

1. Standards of beauty are objective
2. This is compounded when your dealing with cross species interactions
3. And you said it....28mm models are really small, so parts need to be distorted to be noticeable.

Lightcavalier wrote:3. And you said it....28mm models are really small, so parts need to be distorted to be noticeable.

Infinity is true scale 28mm, so smaller than 40k's exaggerated 32mm, and it has some absolutely beautiful models.

Mostly concerining female models, GW sculptors suck at doing them. Mostly due to the exaggerated nature of 40k models. It's hard to do a beautiful female model when her head is as wide as her shoulders and hands and feet are bigger than a gorillas.

Yet we have Reaper miniatures thats being getting it right for ages.

Or for GW fans, Juan Diaz Daemonettes

-Loki- wrote:

Lightcavalier wrote:3. And you said it....28mm models are really small, so parts need to be distorted to be noticeable.

Infinity is true scale 28mm, so smaller than 40k's exaggerated 32mm, and it has some absolutely beautiful models.

Mostly concerining female models, GW sculptors suck at doing them.

Yikes, Loki is right.

its basically GW lacks the competence

My Carnifex (his name is Phil) is purty.

Is it really that hard to find someone who can sculpt something prettyful?




Besides Phil the Carnifex, of course. That goes without saying


Honestly though, it's too bad that 40k uses such exaggeration. I guess I can kind of understand the theatrical objective, sort of. In a way. But I would much rather see something more realistic.

hellspawn22 wrote:Is it really that hard to find someone who can sculpt something prettyful?

Actually yes. Regarding females, the biggest problem is sculpting things like faces with hard lines to them or exaggerated features to be seen easier. They need softer details, and regarding exaggeration, it's not just GW, plenty of scuptors get it wrong by making lips huge or heads slightly larger to fit in more facial details. It makes them look like transvestites.

GW have done some good females in their exaggerated style. Lelith, while not pretty, is a well sculpted, well proportioned female gladiator. The Dark Elf Sorceress is quite nice as well. Their nice female models are few and far between though, because it's hard doing them well in any scale.

hellspawn22 wrote:Is it really that hard to find someone who can sculpt something prettyful?

Actually yes. Just look around, how many people can actually tell the difference?
They dont care about pose
they dont care about proportion
they dont care about aesthetics
they dont care about dramatics

Or perhaps, they just dont understand. But what would people that dont understand say about a bad sculpt?

Nothing, hence no improvement is ever needed.
That is why Im so vocal about things, I want them to improve, but people seems to think I do it to whine.