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.

12thRonin wrote:I hope the OP never finds the Malifaux line. There's some stuff there way more disturbing than this. This fig is poor taste IMO.

Malifaux also in no way resembles reality in any way. As horrible as a giant evil stuffed teddy bear might be, it doesn't reflect real suffering.

I find your zombie western six shooter duelist offensive

daedalus wrote:I AM A BEAR. I HAVE... BEAR POWERS!

I like it, but then again, I thought that the Soviet Attack Bears of RA3 were awesome too, and I can't imagine what horrors they must have gone through at the mercy of Tim Curry.

Daedalus, that's exactly it for me. The attack bears of Red Alert 3 were obvious attempts at over-the-top stereotype/hilarity. This miniature doesn't bother me personally, but it's sculpt does not make it obvious whether it is an attempt at humor or not.

So that's where it fell short for me, even though I am not offended by it... I think they could have made it a lot more over the top and funny and it would have worked for me.

Also, this is a cool image from the Wojtek wikipedia page that Genosaurer linked to. Now something like this would have been pure win, imho


Show me a bear carrying ammunition or loading a cannon for its handler, and that would have been so very cool!!

Nice one RiTides!

Would bears firing small cannons from the hip be acceptable for my Dwarves? Mobile artillary is just what they are wanting.

Well mobile is a relative term where Dwarves are concerned

Servitors, cyber-cherubs, most of chaos, and most of the fluff in the the WH and WH40k universe...really, what you described is a little tame for it.

Yes, it is a barbaric, and pretty damn evil practice. I don't really see how this, though, can be an endorsement of dancing bears.

Perhaps I'll buy one just to resculpt it, with the bear in power armour, sipping a martini, wearing a monocle and making the guy pull his chariot.

The next thing you know people will be promoting themselfs with a rat holding a tiny teddy bear .......

RiTides wrote:
Show me a bear carrying ammunition or loading a cannon for its handler, and that would have been so very cool!!

I think we should combine the best of everything: We have bears wearing monocles that fire cannons that are loaded with more bears that, once propelled, shoot guns.

It's cruel, over the top, and involves more dakka. All at the same time.

i don't like the mini, but thats just because i prefer certain sculpts over others, it does however fit into the fantasy landscape of the game though, the empire is based on a meld of medieval and renaissance europe, and this sort of thing did happen so i don't see the point in the arguement of the OP, this is further undermined by the fact that the game is basically about killing things in war, under the OP arguement the whole of warhammer should be banned as 'this sort of think is still going on and is cruel'.

this miniture isn't going to increase the number of 'dancing bears' or increase its acceptance. the reason it still goes on is because tourists still pay money into it and goverment's let it happen.

somthing like this ? but with him shouldering a organ gun and fireing baby koalas !!

RiTides wrote:Also, this is a cool image from the Wojtek wikipedia page that Genosaurer linked to. Now something like this would have been pure win, imho


Show me a bear carrying ammunition or loading a cannon for its handler, and that would have been so very cool!!

It's kinda sad, but so were those horrific human-mutilation pictures in the 6th ed rule book. Anyone who has played the game for that long knows that the empire is a seriously messed up place.

In that context, I think the bear is a fun, characterful addition to an empire army. Hell, I'd probably compliment an empire player if he fielded one.

Eh, it's just a model. Pretty cool too. Might get it and 40k it up a little.

@Curnow, I just gave myself a headache laughing at that. Rocket propelled prairie dogs? roflmao.

Luco wrote:@Curnow, I just gave myself a headache laughing at that. Rocket propelled prairie dogs? roflmao.

Are those the ones taken from the sailor outfit girl with the hamster gun?

Hamster ammo is just one of the options for the Armorcast Cinematic Effects.

looks like 'em to me, Malf...
she's a fun mini...

i don't find this bear mini to be in the least offensive, but then i don't find any mini offensive...
personally, i don't find ANY art offensive...

personal attacks against me, verbal or physical, offend me...
that's about it...
what anyone else chooses to do doesn't really effect me...

i have been a vegetarian for 20 years, but i am not an animal rights advocate...
what someone does to a bear in Romania has no effect on my life...
it's sad for the bear, but not offensive to me...

when i travel in Alaska, i carry .357 pistol, and a riot shotgun loaded with solid slugs, because bears will eat me if they want to...
i have had many encounters with bears, but have never had to shoot...
i felt a whole lot more confident thanks to being armed "for bear" though...

i will definitely paint this mini, as it fits the setting of the Warhammer world perfectly...

cheers
jah

Lol. He isn't a zombie. He's a harrowed.

Ok so let me get this straight , i have read multiple comparison between badly treated animals vs human being dying ,
hence is not a big deal?

I dont think its right to do a comparison like that. Let me be blunt , so caring about animal isnt your thing,
but thats what it is , it just doesnt raise the flag for you.

If we switch the subject to a sculpt that is depicting sexist or racist , how many flag will it trigger now?

That is my point. Because like.... sexist or racist is "tame" compared to mass genocide and murder in 40k right?

daedalus wrote:I think we should combine the best of everything: We have bears wearing monocles that fire cannons that are loaded with more bears that, once propelled, shoot guns.

Cheers for this and all the posts in that vein above . Gave me a good laugh!

Also, nice pic Genosaurer! You seem to have a veritable wealth of sweet Wojtek info

It's a model of a bear. Anyone can get their panties in a twist about anything, particularly in the Grimdarkness of the Far Future. When someone is crying the blues about the misfortunes of bears in some godless country when seeing a model, it's perfectly reasonable to question why they don't seem to have the same problem with the Genocide and perpetual violence inherent in the game. Genocides happen too, you know. You either appreciate the game(s) as entertainment or you don't.

LunaHound wrote:Ok so let me get this straight , i have read multiple comparison between badly treated animals vs human being dying ,
hence is not a big deal?

I dont think its right to do a comparison like that. Let me be blunt , so caring about animal isnt your thing,
but thats what it is , it just doesnt raise the flag for you.

If we switch the subject to a sculpt that is depicting sexist or racist , how many flag will it trigger now?

That is my point. Because like.... sexist or racist is "tame" compared to mass genocide and murder in 40k right?

To be honest I can't really understand what your saying.

malfred wrote:

Luco wrote:@Curnow, I just gave myself a headache laughing at that. Rocket propelled prairie dogs? roflmao.

Are those the ones taken from the sailor outfit girl with the hamster gun?

? I havent seen that, though I would like to!

LunaHound wrote:Ok so let me get this straight , i have read multiple comparison between badly treated animals vs human being dying ,
hence is not a big deal?

I dont think its right to do a comparison like that. Let me be blunt , so caring about animal isnt your thing,
but thats what it is , it just doesnt raise the flag for you.

If we switch the subject to a sculpt that is depicting sexist or racist , how many flag will it trigger now?

That is my point. Because like.... sexist or racist is "tame" compared to mass genocide and murder in 40k right?

i was saying that if this is your sticking issue with the game, your perspective on the world at large would be a bit wierd in my view. i whole heartedly believe that this practice of 'bear dancing' and many others (read up about bear bile farming by the chinese, to be honest alot of problems exist due to chinese medicine but thats another issue). the model is perfectly suited for the empire just like flangellants (depicting self harm) and warrior priests (depicting zeleous religous violence)

Yeah, a little tacky.

For WHFB, it doesn't really make sense. For 40k, it doesn't look NEARLY brutalized enough. I have a hard time seeing how this fits in with anything.

Some great conversion opportunities, though.

Wow, folks really seem to think fantasy is the cute and cuddly world with gumdrop forests and strawberry rivers. Perhaps this is a 40kers view of things? Ever see that 6th ed Fantasy rulebook? Seen some of the art of zealots with their eyes sewn shut? Or the guys with nails driven into their skin?

Honestly, The Empire seems just as insane as The Imperium of Man sometimes. A dancing bear is the least of their cruelty.

Droofus wrote:
Honestly, The Empire seems just as insane as The Imperium of Man sometimes.

Awww...the little empire's all grown up!

Luco wrote:

malfred wrote:

Luco wrote:@Curnow, I just gave myself a headache laughing at that. Rocket propelled prairie dogs? roflmao.

Are those the ones taken from the sailor outfit girl with the hamster gun?

? I havent seen that, though I would like to!

http://armorcast.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=760&osCsid=47970c5c8a2b8

Nice one malfred

OoieGoie wrote:If GM released the mini a little different I guess I wouldn't have such a bad feeling towards it. As it is, the bear looks sad (yes, I find it does lol) and has that big chain around its neck. The standing pose seems to magnify this for me as well. The eye patch is suppose to give character I guess but for me, makes the whole thing worse. Even the handler looks like troublesome.

Maybe Im just being paranoid. I know Ill never buy it or like it. I just hope people understand what it seems to portray to myself and maybe others. I have no issues with the other GW minis either.

I haven't posted at Dakka for years (I was a member back around 2004), but this actually prompted me to post.

First, I think it is very interesting how different our perceptions of a miniature can be. While you saw this as a sad and troublesome miniature, I looked at the same thing and thought something completely different. Here was my perception:

I assumed that the regiment was associated with the imagery of a bear in some way, possibly even being devoted to Ursun, the Kislevite god of winter, and so I automatically assumed that the bear would have been a valued/important/beloved part of the regiment.

This was reinforced, for me, by the eyepatch. My thought was that a mistreated animal would have been allowed to have open wounds, but a beloved mascot would get something like an eyepatch. For you, on the other hand, that same eyepatch was evidence of mistreatment.

Furthermore, the bear obviously seemed quite intelligent to me, as it was itself carrying a drum. While there is no evidence of this, I assumed it was not carrying the drum for a musician, but actually played the drum itself. A large, semi-intelligent bear would have, in my mind, been too dangerous to keep as a mascot if it were not relatively happy with its treatment.

Finally, I saw the "metal glove" that I believe you interpreted as being used to discipline the bear, and I assumed it was a prosthetic hand, and that the "keeper" had made the mistake of trying to discipline the bear, and had lost a hand for his troubles. Thus, the glove that you saw as evidence of abuse of the bear, I saw as evidence of abuse of the handler.

To me, the handler looked too sad and pathetic (with his torn clothes and slight frame) to be someone really capable of "man-handling" the bear. Compare him to the Kislevite Bear Tamer model, which is much more muscular and robust. Instead, the slight handler seemed to make it clear which of the two was actually the boss in this pair.

I thought it would make a GREAT figure for use in a regiment, using the hurdy-gurdy player as the musician, and the Bear as a unit champion, or even as an actual Hero character (especially with the new rules that open up the hero slots).

Just different perceptions, I guess.


On the topic of people condemning or ridiculing you for your opinion, I think that is really insensitive and unfair. There is plenty of Warhammer imagery that involves mutilation (flagellants), murder (orcs with human heads on spears), religious intolerance (some of the Witch Hunter figures), necromancy (the entire Vampire Counts line), cannibalism (ghouls), physical deformity (Bretonnian peasants), mental degeneration (same peasants), and lots (and lots, and lots) of other "adult" and "unpleasant" themes.

While it is obviously true that the person buying and painting and Orc with a human head on his belt isn't necessarily advocating the murder and dismemberment of humans, that's not the whole point. We all have our own personal comfort levels with the imagery in these miniatures. One person may have no qualms about dismemberment being depicted, yet still not like a depiction of animal cruelty. That doesn't in ANY WAY indicate that person thinks that it is OK to dismember people, but not to abuse bears. Another person might find all of the violent and bloodthirsty acts depicted unobjectionable in a game, but not like the sexual imagery of the slaaneshi demons.

Not wanting to see something depicted doesn't mean that you find the act itself more morally objectionable (it can, but it doesn't HAVE to). I find defecation and urination less morally objectionable than murdering someone and stringing his corpse up on a banner, but I'd MUCH rather have a miniature of a Black Orc Standard Bearer with a dwarf on a pole, than a miniature of a handgunner urinating.

I don't think anyone here was making the argument that animal cruelty is morally more objectionable than murder. I think we should all be able to understand that some people have different tolerance levels for different kinds of artwork. That doesn't make them morally confused, or morally incoherent.

Having said that, I certainly don't think that, compared, say, to the Games Day figure of an Exalted Champion with his hand IN the chest of a wood elf, that the violence apparent in the Regimental Mascot miniature is particularly gratuitous. However, YMMV, and that's OK.