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.

lol. I forgot all about tremors. It's just hard to imagine that a sniper is needed to operate an anti-tank weapon.

It is when you need to hit armored vehicles or walkers in Sensors and weak points.

Like the Achilles' piston?

Whatcha gonna do with all that junk, all that junk inside your trunk?

Seriously, why do they all have such... substantial derrieres?

 Olgerth Istaarn wrote:
Whatcha gonna do with all that junk, all that junk inside your trunk?

Seriously, why do they all have such... substantial derrieres?

Nicki Minaj's cultural influence and

 Theophony wrote:

Spoiler:

The art of the squad advancing looks really strange to me. Either they are all doing the crouch run, or the proportions are way off. Could also be me so accustomed to GW standards

No, you're 100% correct. Their heads look fething ridiculous. The proportions on them are way worse than on the actual models. It reminds me of this (horrible) advertisement we have here in Australia.







While the last thing this campaign needs is more delays, that's some embarrassingly awful box art.

Awful box art. Also why do all the female soldiers have huge asses and thunder thighs?

I guess they all went to the Chun-Li school of self defence. Forget bayonets in close combat, ten spinning bird kicks should see off any opponent!

 RobertsMinis wrote:
Awful box art. Also why do all the female soldiers have huge asses and thunder thighs?

Opinions being like arseholes, etc, but these female troopers are not up to the standard set by most of the other kits in this range. The smooth thighs and shoulders don't look nearly as good as the etched/panelled lines on the males, and their arses look fething ridiculous. These have turned out to be average models, not the excellent ones I'd hoped for. If I want figures with hypersexualised details, RH is just over there - and many of their femtrooper designs look a lot better than these. Looks like the only "non-sexy-butt" female troopers out there are Vics.

Also. Rifle optics. Why do LMG/GPMG have scopes but assault rifles do not? Clownshoes.

 Azazelx wrote:

Also. Rifle optics. Why do LMG/GPMG have scopes but assault rifles do not? Clownshoes.

Hard to look down a scope while assaulting.


And that's just while humouring your assumption that assault rifles are a thing not a Hollywood cliche.

What you said makes no sense.

But I guess you must be right, since assault rifles don't exist and no modern military would have optics of any kind on them even if they did exist.

 Azazelx wrote:
What you said makes no sense.

But I guess you must be right, since assault rifles don't exist and no modern military would have optics of any kind on them even if they did exist.

What I said makes perfect sense. The term Assault rifle is used in movies and video games.

And the class of military weaponry. Assault RIFLE is actually the correct term that really does exist and has a clear definition. It derives from the original exemplar of the weapon class, the Sturmgewehr 44; the name of which translates to "Storm Rifle" literally and "Assault Rifle" adjusting for idioms. An assault rifle is a rifle that fires a sub-power rifle cartridge and generally includes selective fire (although there are some that are safe/auto only). It is designed to be a flexible weapon able to engage targets at combat range (which are typically <1000 yards, which is why sub-power rounds were deemed sufficient as they lower the weight and cost) and provide additional automatic fire in closer-quarters. It is inferior to a sub-machine gun or machine pistol in this CQB role, but far superior than bolt action or single-fire rifles using a full-power cartridge. There SHOULD be optics as an option for them, as one of the intents of the weapon class is the ability to engage in longer range engagements.

Assault WEAPON is the term that does not exist that people bandy about with reckless abandon during anti-gun rallies. This is the made-up one that has no actual members other than "the one that looks scary" and has no formal definition.

Back on-topic, I reserve judgement on how things look until I have the models in my hand. I'm part of Az's pessimist club on this point. I am at the "when they get here, they get here" stage of Az's Phases of KickStarter Grief (which someone needs to write up...)

Thank you, Krinsath. I certainly would not have had the patience to explain that at the moment, and not nearly as politely. Not to someone on Dakka, at any rate.

 Azazelx wrote:
Thank you, Krinsath. I certainly would not have had the patience to explain that at the moment, and not nearly as politely. Not to someone on Dakka, at any rate.

That is both sad and depressing.

I'm logging off of the Internet for the rest of the day...

So, I guess I'll be the one to say it. Is it possible Mark just meant for their butts to look feminine and not sexualized, but just designed his minis based on a er, gifted model? As an artist, I would tend to use my wife as a model if I wanted to draw or sculpt a woman who looks as realistic as possible, and having been with her for years I tend to think of her automatically if tasked with conceptualizing female anatomy or proportions. Is it possible that's what happened here?

Considering how well-defined the male Eisenkern butts are, Mark was probably just sticking with the same aesthetic, although that doesn't explain the feature-free thigh and shoulder plates.

PS: Am I the only one reminded of "The Pumpkin" from Portnoy's Complaint? Surely not.

Am I the only one that actually likes them?

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
Am I the only one that actually likes them?

I like them in so much as I think they offer some good potential for 40k SoB conversions. With some GS tabards, some alterations to the helmets, and bolters added they should look decent enough, and while the lack of panel lines on the leg plates isn't ideal, it's not deal breaking. Are we sure these are the final models, or is there a chance they're just prototypes?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, I guess I'll be the one to say it. Is it possible Mark just meant for their butts to look feminine and not sexualized, but just designed his minis based on a er, gifted model? As an artist, I would tend to use my wife as a model if I wanted to draw or sculpt a woman who looks as realistic as possible, and having been with her for years I tend to think of her automatically if tasked with conceptualizing female anatomy or proportions. Is it possible that's what happened here?

Considering how well-defined the male Eisenkern butts are, Mark was probably just sticking with the same aesthetic, although that doesn't explain the feature-free thigh and shoulder plates.

PS: Am I the only one reminded of "The Pumpkin" from Portnoy's Complaint? Surely not.

This is no complaint about Bob specifically (others are making the same point), but I do sometimes wonder if Dakka causes a kind of amnesia: this discussion, about the look of the (then called Black Widows) is one we already had six months ago.

Mark was quite interested in people's thoughts about the Widows, you can see him responding to my questions (specifically about the model's thighs) here. Mark even set up a survey about the Female Stormtroopers.

That's just some of the discussion from six months ago: in January Mark specifically asked people "how should the Female Stormtroopers look?", and it's worth pointing out that Mark has explicitly said that the feedback of one Ms. J. Cooper, a female LEO, was a major influence on the design of these models.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not yelling "the time for complaints is over!", just pointing out that these images are... well, basically the same thing we saw (and I commented favorably on) six months ago. So... yeah, I'm pretty happy to get the girls in hand.

Wait...

There look to be 4 weapons in that picture, two long gun things, one medium gun thing (fired by the trooper in the middle), three shot gun looking things with both a box mag and a tube mag, and then a 4th, sort of oddball weapon, held by the other helmet less trooper. Really, the two helmetless models have close-but-no-cigar weapons.

Anyway, I was just going to say that combat shotguns sometimes forgo optics past a little ball at the end of the muzzle and some grooves on the top, as your range is pretty limited. Still, those are some pretty silly weapons, and lacking even iron sights is kind of an...


oversight.

As posted above, Mark went through the design of the Black Widows with the people in this very thread.
The hips and butts had to be accentuated a little more so that they would look obviously female at 3 feet away and with paint on them. Otherwise they would look the same as the male counterparts.

Dunno why people think the armor is drastically different. It's almost the same as the basic stormtroopers. Just missing the extra plate on the front of the thighs. And a different faceplate.

Short barrel weapons are carbines, one with grenade launcher. The long barrel weapon with the small drum mag is an LMG/GPMG (SAW), and the long barrel weapon with the larger drum is a plasma ammo antitank rifle.

I think Mark explained the sights at some point... built in cameras that direct sights to helmets or eye lenses. Or even have pop up holographic sights on the weapons' receiver.

Yea, that is all probably there some 144 pages back, somewhere.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
Am I the only one that actually likes them?

I like them. I do wish certain areas had the detailed panelsm but I love their general shape, the helmets, the weapons and the poses. In the hand, the smooth areas and behinds won't be so noticeable, but since we don't have them in hand...

I'd like to see some built and maybe primed, but they look pretty good.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, I guess I'll be the one to say it. Is it possible Mark just meant for their butts to look feminine and not sexualized, but just designed his minis based on a er, gifted model? As an artist, I would tend to use my wife as a model if I wanted to draw or sculpt a woman who looks as realistic as possible, and having been with her for years I tend to think of her automatically if tasked with conceptualizing female anatomy or proportions. Is it possible that's what happened here?

Considering how well-defined the male Eisenkern butts are, Mark was probably just sticking with the same aesthetic, although that doesn't explain the feature-free thigh and shoulder plates.

PS: Am I the only one reminded of "The Pumpkin" from Portnoy's Complaint? Surely not.

This is no complaint about Bob specifically (others are making the same point), but I do sometimes wonder if Dakka causes a kind of amnesia: this discussion, about the look of the (then called Black Widows) is one we already had six months ago.

Mark was quite interested in people's thoughts about the Widows, you can see him responding to my questions (specifically about the model's thighs) here. Mark even set up a survey about the Female Stormtroopers.

That's just some of the discussion from six months ago: in January Mark specifically asked people "how should the Female Stormtroopers look?", and it's worth pointing out that Mark has explicitly said that the feedback of one Ms. J. Cooper, a female LEO, was a major influence on the design of these models.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not yelling "the time for complaints is over!", just pointing out that these images are... well, basically the same thing we saw (and I commented favorably on) six months ago. So... yeah, I'm pretty happy to get the girls in hand.

Wait...

Different people are complaining about different things, some of them on the same track they were last time, I'm sure. Now, while I have made jokes about the behinds due to the ongoing discussion, my only real complaint is on the smoother armored panels on the legs and shoulders, which are only noticeable now that we see male and female troops side by side with realistic lighting/shading. Those issues, all issues, have been magnified by the delay and the increasing disappointment among the backers.

Besides, people were saying "dat ass" since the male troopers were revealed. Buttless carapace armor was just not an ideal design choice.

Buttless chaps were definitely the way to go. Ah well, cest la vie

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
..
Different people are complaining about different things, some of them on the same track they were last time, I'm sure. Now, while I have made jokes about the behinds due to the ongoing discussion, my only real complaint is on the smoother armored panels on the legs and shoulders, which are only noticeable now that we see male and female troops side by side with realistic lighting/shading. Those issues, all issues, have been magnified by the delay and the increasing disappointment among the backers.

Besides, people were saying "dat ass" since the male troopers were revealed. Buttless carapace armor was just not an ideal design choice.

A fair cop that you personally don't seem to have been active in the discussion at the time. That said, the issues of detailing were discussed (at length), so... I dunno, it kinda is what it is. The delay is a poor sauce indeed for this meal.

I will quibble about the ass-less chaps issue ('cause I'm a nerd that way): I remember a discussion about the making of Star Wars where this issue actually came up, the issue being "stormtrooper butt". The problem with the armor Imperial Stormtroopers wear in SW is that it has a solid plate over the buttocks. Well, this caused the predictable problem for the actors that... you can't sit down in such armor.

This is an area where Infinity is actually quite realistic, in that they regularly outfit the heavier armored models with flexible (appearing) materials in areas where solid plates would be inconvenient. As seen in the superlative Mobile Brigada;



Mmmm, I'm all about that Bass...

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Mark was quite interested in people's thoughts about the Widows, you can see him responding to my questions (specifically about the model's thighs) here. Mark even set up a survey about the Female Stormtroopers.

TBH, the only part of that conversation I was taking much note of was the sizing issue, since that's all that people here were talking about (along with cross-kit compatibility as an element of that) and honestly didn't notice the shoulder or thigh differences at the time. When it was resolved that the kits would indeed be the same size, to the chargrin of a poster or two, I mentally tuned out again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ski2060 wrote:

Short barrel weapons are carbines, one with grenade launcher. The long barrel weapon with the small drum mag is an LMG/GPMG (SAW), and the long barrel weapon with the larger drum is a plasma ammo antitank rifle.
I think Mark explained the sights at some point... built in cameras that direct sights to helmets or eye lenses. Or even have pop up holographic sights on the weapons' receiver.

Makes perfect sense then why the GPMGs have optics, then. And why there are unhelmeted troops in there.

 Buzzsaw wrote:


I will quibble about the ass-less chaps issue ('cause I'm a nerd that way): I remember a discussion about the making of Star Wars where this issue actually came up, the issue being "stormtrooper butt". The problem with the armor Imperial Stormtroopers wear in SW is that it has a solid plate over the buttocks. Well, this caused the predictable problem for the actors that... you can't sit down in such armor.

Having trooped a bit with the 501st, that is so true. We were there for a concert once, and our stormies had to stand through the whole night because hard plastic plate... yet not hard enough not to bend dangerously is force is applied.

Look, this is all anecdotal, but in my experience, almost all female LEO I have seen had the same defficient tailor (because I know they can all have the same bass) but they all looked exactly like that in their uniform. I feel I'm not making my point correctly. It looks realistic to me, is what I'm saying. Oh and those are the T1 shots, most probably. Once the fit is good, it is quite possible the detailing will be added to the moulds.

I'm going to reserve judgement until I see them in person, or a pic of a physical object.

I think renders of 3D models almost always look more bulky or chunky than they do after production.

I'm quite sure these will be good.