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.

Indeed, it is a craft and whilst I would never aspire to call myself an artist, I am quite happy to be considered a craftsman.

R.

Good points all around. I didn't mean to demean anyone's hobby by calling them "toys", though this thread has got me thinking about what I mean when I use the term.

HTJ presented the definition of toy that included the word "amusement, and that comes close for me. In addition to issues of detail, use, and level of craft, I call them toys because I approach them with a spirit of whimsy, make-believe and amusement. I don't usually refer to them as models, because I asociate models with realism, detail and serious subjects.

There are of course numerous areas where toy and model may cross, but for me, unless I'm quoting monty Python ("It's only a...) I refer to them gaming miniatures or toys.

Ouze wrote:

snurl wrote:The best thing about sci-fi and fantasy modeling is you don't have some expert blasting you because they didn't use that camo pattern until late in '44.

Put some female head-swaps on your marines and then go to a few games, and you'll see what our equivalent is.

To be fair:
Historicals are expected to have a measure of reality. That's the whole point of historical gaming: playing out famous battles, that actually happened.

Female head-swaps on Marines is kind of a 'ehhhhh' thing.

Most people(myself included) don't like it because in many cases it's not a case of "I'm Jenny and I want my Marines to be me in power armor".
It's more of a case of "I'm James and I did this because I know that somewhere, someone's going to act slightly off-put by it and then I can act all indignant and say you're ruining my fun".

Wait! Are we fighting about this or not? If we're not, then why aren't we?

I think I killed the thread. Woohoo!

There's also a little bit of the "Female NIght Elf played by a 43 year old guy called Kev" about a "Girl" army.

Eilif wrote:...by comparison to the pictures of coversions and paintjobs in FineScale I kind of feel like we're all just playing with toys (this doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing).

What do you all think?

Exactly.

I know my toys are simpler and less-detailed than many of those extremely realistic historical model kits. This is a good thing, IMO, since I'd rather not break them too easily as I'm playing with them.

I know that my painting is far worse. Which is okay, since I want my stuff to look good, but it's meant to be played with and to provide an enjoyable spectacle from a standing view.

Each to his own hobby, that he finds most enjoyable and satisfying. I feel no inferiority, as I know my hobby prioroties and choices are simply different.

As an asside. One more reason that "playing with toys" doesn't bother me. Quite a number of my terrain pieces and vehicles are made from toys. I've got three pieces on my desk right now that are based off toys.

I'm very much in the Necromundicon (www.ironhands.com) school of terrain so I frequently raid the resale shop toy bins for conversion fodder.

Eilif wrote:As an asside. One more reason that "playing with toys" doesn't bother me. Quite a number of my terrain pieces and vehicles are made from toys. I've got three pieces on my desk right now that are based off toys.

I'm very much in the Necromundicon (www.ironhands.com) school of terrain so I frequently raid the resale shop toy bins for conversion fodder.

I've known scale modellers to use almost any old toss they can find, so long as it works. I know I do. Of course admitting that you've used a toy in a scale model mag is treated with the same shock and awe as I recall White Dwarf editors using when someone utilised a real twig!!??!!!??!!. But if it works, why knock it?

ArbeitsSchu wrote: Of course admitting that you've used a toy in a scale model mag is treated with the same shock and awe as I recall White Dwarf editors using when someone utilised a real twig!!??!!!??!!. But if it works, why knock it?

It's worth noting that the quite unjustified shock in WD comes from editors for a company who once published an article explaining how to make vehicles out of deoderant containers, Apache helicopter model kits and Zoids, yet now makes it's own plastic trees and specifically bars toy-based vehicles (not always enforced) from their stores and tournaments.

People remember the deoderant tank, and it's sort of become a joke, but they often forget that the WD article also contained pictures using an Apache Helicopter model to build a gunship and assembly directions and game stats for using a nearly unmodified Zoids toy in 40k. Things that would be anathema to GW today.

Eilif wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote: Of course admitting that you've used a toy in a scale model mag is treated with the same shock and awe as I recall White Dwarf editors using when someone utilised a real twig!!??!!!??!!. But if it works, why knock it?

It's worth noting that the quite unjustified shock in WD comes from editors for a company who once published an article explaining how to make vehicles out of deoderant containers, Apache helicopter model kits and Zoids, yet now makes it's own plastic trees and specifically bars toy-based vehicles (not always enforced) from their stores and tournaments.

People remember the deoderant tank, and it's sort of become a joke, but they often forget that the WD article also contained pictures using an Apache Helicopter model to build a gunship and assembly directions and game stats for using a nearly unmodified Zoids toy in 40k. Things that would be anathema to GW today.

I remember that one. They basically glued the tail on a Slitherzoid in a slightly different position and painted it. Remember the AT-ST titans? What a waste, nice as they were.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
I remember that one. They basically glued the tail on a Slitherzoid in a slightly different position and painted it. Remember the AT-ST titans? What a waste, nice as they were.

Ooh, I would have like to see that. From the RT era, I've only got the Rulebook, and the Compendium and Compilation WD books, which served as the codex for most races.

I remember the Inquisitor bat-reps featuring repainted Star Wars toys and 1:35 kit bashed trucks.

Eilif wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
I remember that one. They basically glued the tail on a Slitherzoid in a slightly different position and painted it. Remember the AT-ST titans? What a waste, nice as they were.

Ooh, I would have like to see that. From the RT era, I've only got the Rulebook, and the Compendium and Compilation WD books, which served as the codex for most races.

Which one? The Zoid or the Scout Walkers? The walkers showed up at games day, and appeared in WD somewhere in the hundred and teens. I used to know to the nearest issue..I'll guess at 118/19.

I'm not sure I can be of much help.

I've got the Deoderant/Apache/Zoid article in the red "Compendium" book from 1989. Unfortunately it doesn't list the issues or dates for the articles reprinted therin. All I can say is that it probably comes from sometime between 1987 (RT published) and 1989.

Hope that helps.

Deoderant Grav tank was in 'eavy Metal either the month or the month after RT was released IIRC, including instructions and a materials list. So that makes it either WD 93 or 94. This article also showed a number of conversions of the RTB01 Space Marine kit including the "Davros" Space Marine commander and one Sm riding a Lawmaster (and looking pretty cool in doing so!).

The both it and the flyer were shown in the RT book itself aswell, again IIRC.

I barely remember the ATST but what really sticks in my mind was the Ork battle tank that appeared on the back of an issue (WD109 I think). It was just a slightly converted WW2 Tiger with an ork in the top hatch. How things have changed!

Kanluwen wrote:Most people(myself included) don't like it because in many cases it's not a case of "I'm Jenny and I want my Marines to be me in power armor".
It's more of a case of "I'm James and I did this because I know that somewhere, someone's going to act slightly off-put by it and then I can act all indignant and say you're ruining my fun".

Really? Those are the only two perspectives on it?

Because I prefer to play a game where the game has a realistic sci-fi basis, as a fun game I can enjoy as a grown man. I can buy the concept of a bolter. I certain can employ suspension of disbelief and extend that to land speeders, and skimmers. I can sort of buy the idea of an armored fist surrounded by a force field that can punch through a fist.

What I can't buy, however, is that a faction wholly dedicated to solving problems by throwing warm bodies on it would not use 50% of their available resources because they don't have the right junk. That is a bridge too far for me. It simply doesn't make any freaking sense, at all. Most modern armies NOW have females fighting, and it seems likely that the virtually every major fighting force on Terra - actual, real life Terra - will have females fighting in frontline combat in 100 years, let alone 40,000.

The only possible reason for the current under-representation of women in 40K is that Games Workshop sees it's core demographic as young boys who still find girls to be icky. When I think about it - and I am forced to actively try and not do so - I'm a little embarrassed to play the game as a grown man. A grown man, playing with toys aimed at little boys.

Yes, we're playing with toys.

Ouze wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Most people(myself included) don't like it because in many cases it's not a case of "I'm Jenny and I want my Marines to be me in power armor".
It's more of a case of "I'm James and I did this because I know that somewhere, someone's going to act slightly off-put by it and then I can act all indignant and say you're ruining my fun".

Really? Those are the only two perspectives on it?

Because I prefer to play a game where the game has a realistic sci-fi basis, as a fun game I can enjoy as a grown man. I can buy the concept of a bolter. I certain can employ suspension of disbelief and extend that to land speeders, and skimmers. I can sort of buy the idea of an armored fist surrounded by a force field that can punch through a fist.

What I can't buy, however, is that a faction wholly dedicated to solving problems by throwing warm bodies on it would not use 50% of their available resources because they don't have the right junk. That is a bridge too far for me. It simply doesn't make any freaking sense, at all. Most modern armies NOW have females fighting, and it seems likely that the virtually every major fighting force on Terra - actual, real life Terra - will have females fighting in frontline combat in 100 years, let alone 40,000.

The only possible reason for the current under-representation of women in 40K is that Games Workshop sees it's core demographic as young boys who still find girls to be icky. When I think about it - and I am forced to actively try and not do so - I'm a little embarrassed to play the game as a grown man. A grown man, playing with toys aimed at little boys.

Yes, we're playing with toys.

An interesting comment from someone who plays PC and Console RPGs as female characters, which may apply to the release of more female warriors: "If I must spend the next 18 months staring at someones ass, at least let it be a reasonably shapely girls ass."

Ouze wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Most people(myself included) don't like it because in many cases it's not a case of "I'm Jenny and I want my Marines to be me in power armor".
It's more of a case of "I'm James and I did this because I know that somewhere, someone's going to act slightly off-put by it and then I can act all indignant and say you're ruining my fun".

Really? Those are the only two perspectives on it?

On female marines? Yes. That's my two perspectives on it. I see no reason for female marines. They're called Battle-Brothers not Battle-People.

Because I prefer to play a game where the game has a realistic sci-fi basis, as a fun game I can enjoy as a grown man. I can buy the concept of a bolter. I certain can employ suspension of disbelief and extend that to land speeders, and skimmers. I can sort of buy the idea of an armored fist surrounded by a force field that can punch through a fist.

What I can't buy, however, is that a faction wholly dedicated to solving problems by throwing warm bodies on it would not use 50% of their available resources because they don't have the right junk. That is a bridge too far for me. It simply doesn't make any freaking sense, at all. Most modern armies NOW have females fighting, and it seems likely that the virtually every major fighting force on Terra - actual, real life Terra - will have females fighting in frontline combat in 100 years, let alone 40,000.

Which is why I used "female Marines" as an example, not female Guard. It's less "we don't use 50% of the population because they don't have the right junk" it's "we can't use 50% of the population because they don't have the right junk".

There's nothing wrong with female Guard and it's silly that they're underrepresented. At the same time though, I play 'fluffy' Cadians.
Their fluff for a long time has been that the women form the core of the Cadian Interior Guard and are talented mechanics and artificers. If GW started cramming half the box full of women just because someone else is crying "affirmative action! affirmative action!".

The only possible reason for the current under-representation of women in 40K is that Games Workshop sees it's core demographic as young boys who still find girls to be icky. When I think about it - and I am forced to actively try and not do so - I'm a little embarrassed to play the game as a grown man. A grown man, playing with toys aimed at little boys.
Yes, we're playing with toys.

Or grown men who still find girls icky.

It's true. I've met some.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:An interesting comment from someone who plays PC and Console RPGs as female characters, which may apply to the release of more female warriors: "If I must spend the next 18 months staring at someones ass, at least let it be a reasonably shapely girls ass."

And I think that doesn't apply, at all, in this case. You're mostly looking down on models, not behind.

But uh. Yeah. I've always found that stance a bit weird anyways.

Kanluwen wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Most people(myself included) don't like it because in many cases it's not a case of "I'm Jenny and I want my Marines to be me in power armor".
It's more of a case of "I'm James and I did this because I know that somewhere, someone's going to act slightly off-put by it and then I can act all indignant and say you're ruining my fun".

Really? Those are the only two perspectives on it?

On female marines? Yes. That's my two perspectives on it. I see no reason for female marines. They're called Battle-Brothers not Battle-People.

Because I prefer to play a game where the game has a realistic sci-fi basis, as a fun game I can enjoy as a grown man. I can buy the concept of a bolter. I certain can employ suspension of disbelief and extend that to land speeders, and skimmers. I can sort of buy the idea of an armored fist surrounded by a force field that can punch through a fist.

What I can't buy, however, is that a faction wholly dedicated to solving problems by throwing warm bodies on it would not use 50% of their available resources because they don't have the right junk. That is a bridge too far for me. It simply doesn't make any freaking sense, at all. Most modern armies NOW have females fighting, and it seems likely that the virtually every major fighting force on Terra - actual, real life Terra - will have females fighting in frontline combat in 100 years, let alone 40,000.

Which is why I used "female Marines" as an example, not female Guard. It's less "we don't use 50% of the population because they don't have the right junk" it's "we can't use 50% of the population because they don't have the right junk".

There's nothing wrong with female Guard and it's silly that they're underrepresented. At the same time though, I play 'fluffy' Cadians.
Their fluff for a long time has been that the women form the core of the Cadian Interior Guard and are talented mechanics and artificers. If GW started cramming half the box full of women just because someone else is crying "affirmative action! affirmative action!".

The only possible reason for the current under-representation of women in 40K is that Games Workshop sees it's core demographic as young boys who still find girls to be icky. When I think about it - and I am forced to actively try and not do so - I'm a little embarrassed to play the game as a grown man. A grown man, playing with toys aimed at little boys.
Yes, we're playing with toys.

Or grown men who still find girls icky.

It's true. I've met some.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:An interesting comment from someone who plays PC and Console RPGs as female characters, which may apply to the release of more female warriors: "If I must spend the next 18 months staring at someones ass, at least let it be a reasonably shapely girls ass."

And I think that doesn't apply, at all, in this case. You're mostly looking down on models, not behind.

But uh. Yeah. I've always found that stance a bit weird anyways.

I was always under the impression that "female marines" players were supposed to be catered for by Sisters of Battle. Though I do remember some female power-armoured marines from way back in the early days of 40k. Not very pretty ones admittedly, but female nevertheless. There were also one or two female guardsmen released with the first range of guard, including one vaguely suggestive of the archetypal military girl, Vasquez from Aliens..even down to the HUGE cannon. I remember fielding them. The difference between the male and female guard only really worked when they went without helmets (for the hair) and without the Flak Armour (for the cleavage.) Cadian-style "modern" Flak armour doesn't look like it would handle a boob sculpt, and to be fair modern flak armour doesn't really include a "boob" element either..not a pronounced one. The ladies I know who served always moaned that there wasn't much "room" in body armour. Thus a female Cadian-style guard might be tricky to produce, especially for line infantry which is almost exclusively plastic. Thinking on the go, I would hazard that a more primitive Amazon-like look would serve better for a more female force. I don't think GW are allergic to doing lady-figures though...there have been plenty of Eldar/Elves with boobs.

As for the "Looking at attractive models"... The quote (which isn't mine I might add) might easily apply to the painting. "If I must closely eyeball anatomy, why not make it shapely?"

There was one 'female Marine' by all accounts that was mistakenly labeled as a 'Female Marine in Power Armour' when it was supposed to be 'Female Adventurer in Power Armour'.

Female Guard are one of those things, to me, where it can be done right or it can be done to such an extent that it's offensive. You wouldn't be seeing the huge junk in the trunk like some conversion kits show. Nor the huge boob armor.

In fact, there's even mention in the various Guard novels that even hair wouldn't be a telling factor. The majority of the women shave their hair down, same as the majority of the men.

In regards to the anatomy part: I think it'd be an issue if the Guard were wearing banana hammocks or something. But there's really not much that would make someone think 'ewwww, male anatomy!'

I play outside, so when the nabors ask what we are going I usaly give this reply.

Remeber how we all used to play in the dirt with those little army men and argue weither your green guy shot my tan guy, this is the same, but now we also have dice the help with the fighting.
[Only Wargammers get the Fact that "Fighting" is between the Minis and the Players]

Kanluwen wrote:There was one 'female Marine' by all accounts that was mistakenly labeled as a 'Female Marine in Power Armour' when it was supposed to be 'Female Adventurer in Power Armour'.

Wrong. There were 2 and while they were listed in the "Adventurers" section in their first catalog appearance (1988 or so) they were not called anything other than a stock number.

It was probably before I was even out of preschool, which is why I said "by all accounts".

I vaguely recall one painted in an Ultramarines-style pattern.

Weren't the 'Female Marines'/'Female Adventurers in Power Armor' also from the Rogue Trader era, which seems to be effectively a different universe entirely as far as setting goes? The Space Marines of that era were in generally a lot less 'transhuman' or 'knightly' from the pics and text I've seen.

Balance wrote:Weren't the 'Female Marines'/'Female Adventurers in Power Armor' also from the Rogue Trader era, which seems to be effectively a different universe entirely as far as setting goes? The Space Marines of that era were in generally a lot less 'transhuman' or 'knightly' from the pics and text I've seen.

They certainly predate any really serious chapter definitions, and just about predate the detailing of the genetic manipulation of Space Marines.