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.

Zefig wrote:You might wanna check scale first. I have a few dark sword minis....they're absolutely beautiful minis, but they're a bit bigger than 40k/WHFB scales.

Yeah, I can't find where the scale o fthe models are on the site. Wish they'd say it, because scale is also important for DnD minis, as well.

They're nice models. The axer is my favorite. The others kind of look bored.

Zefig wrote:Couple things. First off, thanks for all the feedback on my sketch, both in praise and in constructive criticism. I did it mostly because I just like drawing. Seeing something like that on the tabletop would make me pretty happy. That being said, I don't have too much of a problem with the current miniatures, and the things I don't like about them have been beaten to death in this thread already so I'm not going to bring that up again.

Where I do take issue is with the thought that non-exagerrated feminine form can't be expressed in miniature scale. My own sketch notwithstanding, a quick look through 2 company catalogs yielded some results- Reaper and Dark Sword. Most of these girls are at least moderately armored (somewhat form-fitting though some of it is) and have fairly ambiguous hairstyles (that is to say, I've seen the same style on plenty of male minis). And all of them are pretty unmistakably female, even in 25mm-35mm mini form. And they all do it without OTT, massive boob-cups.





And sources:
http://www.reapermini.com/FigureFinder#detail/02475
http://www.reapermini.com/FigureFinder#detail/02725
http://www.darkswordminiatures.com/mainwebsite_html/gallery/V_4107_femalecleric.htm
http://www.darkswordminiatures.com/mainwebsite_html/gallery/GRRMline_5020_Wildling_Spearwife_Bow.htm
http://www.darkswordminiatures.com/mainwebsite_html/gallery/GRRMline_5028_asha.htm

So. For a skilled sculptor? Definitely possible. For GW's sculptors? Who knows.

The top right one is cool but the rest are very boring.

Okay, I'll try not to take this off-topic too much longer. Anyone interested in the Dark Sword minis, but concerned about scale, PM me. I'll take some scale pictures with the one or two I own once I get home and try to post those tonight.

I tend to like the Dark Sword stuff, although they can get just as cheesecake as anyone else. Reaper too, I suppose. But I really just posted the pics to try to emphasize my point that OTT omgsexeh isn't the only way to make a female mini. The post was just a proof-of-concept.

Good call on the Reaper minis. I use them for the D&D games. The below one is about right for 40k scale. Notice the potential Fleur-de-Lys on the knees.

Zefig wrote:Okay, I'll try not to take this off-topic too much longer. Anyone interested in the Dark Sword minis, but concerned about scale, PM me. I'll take some scale pictures with the one or two I own once I get home and try to post those tonight.

Please just start a new thread (Dakka Discussions) and link it to this one. Would really appreciate it.

Or pretre, whoever can do this first, but the more pics the better obviously.

One thing, I might agree is a bit unfair about the representation of females in the 40k figurines:
Diversity of size.

I don't mean bewbs, I mean the size and shape of the bodies. With 40k male figurines they got tall ones, short ones, fat ones, and mutated ugly ones. Like pictured below:
(I'm just using pics from the Dakka Dakka gallery, free advertisements for whom ever I randomly grab an image from)

Tall:

by: lifeofshan

Short:

by: Llamahead

Fat, Ugly, and Mutated:

by: the scarecrow

For the female figurines we have to pick from, there is pretty much only the one standard size. Athletic build with hourglass figure no matter how many bits of armor you stack on or take off from her.

Hourglass Figure:

by: EmpressRosaline

Athletic Build:

by: Loricatus Aurora

Unless you do something like this:

by: illuknisaa (burns the eyes a bit!)

Where are the horribly mutated nurgle plague women? Where are the woman Ogryn or female Halflings? Where are the sculptures of a woman blown open with her guts hanging out from rocket fire?

This sort of one sided/double standard sculpting is borderline sexist. I say borderline because I still don't think the original sculpters had purposful sexist intentions in mind when sculpting. Instead, it falls into that subconcious relam where us as males might not even realize we are doing it. That still does not make it right, just not as wrong as it may seem. Humans come in all shapes and sizes. I know one has to stay physically healthy and fit in a lifetime of battle, but not every woman has that hourglass figure regardless of diet or exercise. Some people are just "big boned", born tall with thick muscle mass. Why not make a Cannoness with a little meat on her bones?

Why not have an all female Ogryn or all Female Halfling chapter for the Sisters of Battle as allies? Sure they might not be full fledged Sisters since they are "mutants" kind of, but once sworn to a life of Faith for the Emperor, why not? Let us put an Ogryn in the SOB armor and see if that looks "sexy".

Zefig wrote:
Where I do take issue is with the thought that non-exagerrated feminine form can't be expressed in miniature scale. My own sketch notwithstanding, a quick look through 2 company catalogs yielded some results- Reaper and Dark Sword. Most of these girls are at least moderately armored (somewhat form-fitting though some of it is) and have fairly ambiguous hairstyles (that is to say, I've seen the same style on plenty of male minis). And all of them are pretty unmistakably female, even in 25mm-35mm mini form. And they all do it without OTT, massive boob-cups.

Point made; I think all of the models you posted are unmistakably female and cool looking except for the last one (two strokes of a file away from looking like a teenage boy).

KamikazeCanuck wrote:If you've spent so much time on the hobby that all that's left is cynacism then its time to give it up.

I enjoy it far more now than I used to, probably because I did give it up for 15 years. 40K that is, I was still playing historicals.

mgraham wrote:(two strokes of a file away from looking like a teenage boy).

It's very rare to see a female model that this does not describe. But that's one of the main points of this thread and I don't think any of those pictures really contradict it, either. You might as well say "two lumps of greenstuff away from looking like a cougar" about Sigvald.

Psyker_9er wrote:One thing, I might agree is a bit unfair about the representation of females in the 40k figurines:
Diversity of size.

For the female figurines we have to pick from, there is pretty much only the one standard size. Athletic build with hourglass figure no matter how many bits of armor you stack on or take off from her.

Here is one that is differently shaped:



More like a barrel than an hourglass. (one of my favorite models, btw)

Shas'O Dorian wrote:When I think of SoB I think pure chastity super-feminazis who would be offended if you said their hair looked nice.

But thats just me .

A view I hate, by the way. There's no reason why there can't be women that hate the enemies of the Imperium without being a misogynistic stereotype.

SamplesoWoopass wrote:I'lll never understand the hate SOB models get from their fans.

From one of their fans. I like the entire 2nd edition range as-is, except for the fact they're metal.

shrike wrote:

RisingPhoenix wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Irony.

If you're not going to follow the context of the conversation there's no wonder why you're so confused. My position isn't that there is no such thing as female gamers. My position is that 40% of the gamers that GW markets to are most likely not female. And try your Negative Proof Fallacy somewhere else.

GW markets to female gamers not at all. This does not mean that the market does not exist, or that they are not morons for ignoring that market.

Irony, by the way, doesn't mean 'lol, I think he's wrong!' It's when words or actions are opposite to what would have been expected.

As an example, it would be ironic if someone lecturing another person on how to interpret what others are saying in the course of that lecture revealed that they themselves could not understand what others were saying.

P.S. Fallacies... really need to actually learn what they are sometime.

Wow! I've never seen an american who knows what irony is!

If you'd read the articles and actually followed the conversation a bit more deeply, you'd have seen two.

Regardless, I have no intention of continuing a line of conversation when you have proven yourself unable or unwilling to provide evidence of your position while demanding evidence from mine.

@Melissa: I'm not sure what evidence either "side" can offer here. One person looks at a model and sees one thing, another person looks at a model and see another thing.

Melissia wrote:Regardless, I have no intention of continuing a line of conversation when you have proven yourself unable or unwilling to provide evidence of your position while demanding evidence from mine.

That's fine. Go big with that.

I did post a link to support my point, which makes your post another ironic incident. Does the term "social gaming" ring a bell? Not that I expect you to admit you were wrong, so I'll sit here in a sense of smug satisfaction nonetheless.

Anyway, I think the pic MDS posted is pretty good. Not that the models need to change.

Manchu wrote:

mgraham wrote:(two strokes of a file away from looking like a teenage boy).

It's very rare to see a female model that this does not describe. But that's one of the main points of this thread and I don't think any of those pictures really contradict it, either. You might as well say "two lumps of greenstuff away from looking like a cougar" about Sigvald.

I wouldn't say that about any of the other models that he posted, just the one.

Gymnogyps wrote: More like a barrel than an hourglass. (one of my favorite models, btw)

Awesome! Nice paint job! That is what I was talking about, the one figurine that feels more like a natural woman.

The only problem with that one, is that it is just the one.

There are Daemonettes:

by: neuminic

But they are still hourglass, even if some of them only have one breast. And how many fat, tall, short, stubby, big boned, mutated, FUBAR male figurines are there?

Was there ever a female space dwarf/squat? If they did make those, why not female ratlings? (sorry, I called them "Halflings" in my prior post, but we all know in 40k that Halflings are Ratlings and elves are Eldar, etc. etc.)

So if they expanded upon the female gender for other races and armies, then that alone would cut down on the sexist feel of the SOB sculpting. Since the SOB are pretty much the only option for us to discuss, the flaws stand out more. If there was more variety of different types of women, then in a way it would dilute the "sticking out like a sore thumb" effect the SOB have. That is more of a "sweeping under the rug" solution, but a solution none-the-less.

I like the way the SOB models look too. A bit outdated since they have new members on the sculpting team and even the old ones have improved their craft, but I like the look. They could use some revamping, shaking the dust off, rethinking or what ever you want to call it, but not too much. Maybe cut down on the missile shaped/torpedo pointy bewb look a bit, but keeping in mind they can still be a woman's badge of honor just like a mutilated Ork head can be a man's cod piece of honor.

(Here is something I think no one will find, prove me wrong if you can: an Official GW figurine of a woman horribly injured or dead. Official events, display cases, pictures from any of the books, anywhere! Go find it!
If we are talking about equality here, this is War! Every one can have chunks of themselves shot off by heavy bolter fire, equally.
Art work aside, feel free to post the hand drawn pics from the books if you want, but we are discussing figurines for this topic.)

Psyker_9er wrote:There are Daemonettes:

by: neuminic

As a quick aside, i love that models hairdo.

I often wonder why GWS doesn't integrate their armies. Even with the obscure ruling leading to the SoB, it doesn't explain why there are not female IG. Common sense dictates approximately half of them should be.

Ouze wrote:I often wonder why GWS doesn't integrate their armies. Even with the obscure ruling leading to the SoB, it doesn't explain why there are not female IG. Common sense dictates approximately half of them should be.

There are female Imperial Guard, most notably in the Ciaphas Cain novels. GW just doesn't give us more than a handful of metal models. The recent Dark Eldar release is the first time GW has released a plastic box with more than 1-in-4 being female.

but what about daemonettes. they're female, sorta...

AlexHolker wrote:

Ouze wrote:I often wonder why GWS doesn't integrate their armies. Even with the obscure ruling leading to the SoB, it doesn't explain why there are not female IG. Common sense dictates approximately half of them should be.

There are female Imperial Guard, most notably in the Ciaphas Cain novels. GW just doesn't give us more than a handful of metal models.

Most notably, GW gave us one (1) female commissar w/far too much unnecessary cleavage, one (1) "warrior woman" and one (1) "rocket girl" in the Last Chancers kit, the former wearing a pleated skirt and bra and the latter one couldn't tell is female, and... uh... I don't know of any other female Guard models.

GW really dropped the ball on female Guard models, because that's one of the most requested things by Guard players...

There is a metal Catachan Grenade Launcher that is female.

What is unnecessary about the female commisar's cleavage?
The amount, or the mere fact she has some?
She is meant to inspire 90% male troops after all.

wrt the Last Chancers, those are horrible models as a unit, and all are stereotypes, even the male models.

skrulnik wrote:What is unnecessary about the female commisar's cleavage?
The amount, or the mere fact she has some?
She is meant to inspire 90% male troops after all.

SHe's meant to inspire them in battle, not to inspire them to want to shpadoink her.

The cleavage is low enough that you can almost see her nipples for Emperor's sake. She's one hard bounce from a wardrobe malfunction.

Post a pic of that model. Preferably painted.

I have that model and do not remember anything excessive about her chest.
Mostly I remember all the badly painted versions with horribly done lipstick.

Inspire in the respect that they would want to impress her,
which is a thing that happens when normal men are around a female they find attractive.
Whether they realistically have a shot at being with her or not.

Click on thumbnail for full image.

Best quality image I could find, but yeah, she's seriously a single hard bounce from them popping out of that dress

Female commissar (not drawn by me). Obviously her hat and epaulettes should be a lot bigger.

I think this shows a female character can be clearly female without being sexayfied.

Melissia wrote:

skrulnik wrote:What is unnecessary about the female commisar's cleavage?
The amount, or the mere fact she has some?
She is meant to inspire 90% male troops after all.

SHe's meant to inspire them in battle, not to inspire them to want to shpadoink her.

Well, fortunately, pretty women do more than that to male soldiers in warzones. The USO caught on to that a long, long time ago.

Either way, aren't we sort of forgetting that GW has said their target audience is young teenage boys with daddy's money to spend? I don't think they're trying to attract the ardent realist, the disdainful feminist, or anybody else. We're talking about a massively over the top setting with an uber-nerd audience. Practicality is trumped by rule of cool countless times in fluff, model design, etc. And, to a lot of guys, "rule of cool" regarding female commissars or female battle sisters is going to end up looking exactly as it looks. To a lot it won't. To GW's target market? I doubt there's much question.

Edited by Manchu. Keep discussion polite.

Asking for GW to give me a reason for me to give them (more of) my money is not an unreasonable request in a capitalistic society. For the most part, GW operates in such societies. Including the U.S.

I'm not suggesting you give a damn. I'm explaining why GW likely doesn't care that you don't. You're not their target, nor am I. And if you've bought the models and made almost 4000 separate posts discussing their game, they'd probably feel reasonably secure about having your business if they were in fact reading this. I know I would.

Edited for the grammarz.