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.

 praetor24 wrote:

And to the guy who mentioned Amazons. Mate, do some research. "Amazons" in Ancient Greek means the "Breastless" (α+μαστός). Why? Because they were cutting one of their breast off? And why's that? Because they were warriors and BOOBS get in your way when you fight. Especially HtH.

Wasn't that theory thoroughly debunked? I could be remembering wrong, but I'm pretty sure there was no evidence supporting that beyond ancient stories (tales/fiction type, not eyewitness accounts).

~Eric

 praetor24 wrote:

 praetor24 wrote:

And to the guy who mentioned Amazons. Mate, do some research. "Amazons" in Ancient Greek means the "Breastless" (α+μαστός). Why? Because they were cutting one of their breast off? And why's that? Because they were warriors and BOOBS get in your way when you fight. Especially HtH.

Taarnak wrote:
Wasn't that theory thoroughly debunked? I could be remembering wrong, but I'm pretty sure there was no evidence supporting that beyond ancient stories (tales/fiction type, not eyewitness accounts).

~Eric

Amazons never existed in anything but these stories/fiction/legends. Trust me on this. My PhD is on Ancient Greek History.

Then you would definitely know better than me. Lol. I just half remember some readings I had done a few years back.

All that aside, my point about differentiating still stands, I think.

~Eric

 Taarnak wrote:

 praetor24 wrote:

 praetor24 wrote:

And to the guy who mentioned Amazons. Mate, do some research. "Amazons" in Ancient Greek means the "Breastless" (α+μαστός). Why? Because they were cutting one of their breast off? And why's that? Because they were warriors and BOOBS get in your way when you fight. Especially HtH.

Taarnak wrote:
Wasn't that theory thoroughly debunked? I could be remembering wrong, but I'm pretty sure there was no evidence supporting that beyond ancient stories (tales/fiction type, not eyewitness accounts).

~Eric

Amazons never existed in anything but these stories/fiction/legends. Trust me on this. My PhD is on Ancient Greek History.

Then you would definitely know better than me. Lol. I just half remember some readings I had done a few years back.

All that aside, my point about differentiating still stands, I think.

~Eric

On that point, you have a point I just read some posts of people demanding boobs for the boobs god and this is why my comment. Although, I still believe that the Bauhaus lady, even at this scale, still has enough elements to make her stand out as a female: a) posture, b) lower body. Boobs are not needed, because they would be unrealistic for yet another reason. Trained women tend to have broader shoulders and smaller breasts.

What does it matter if we can distinguish if a 30mm figure on the tabletop from a distance of several feet is a male or female?

If you were looking at a real soldier wearing body armor at that distance with scale factored in, you would not be able to tell if that soldier is male or female.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If we're gonna have giant armored melon boobs on female figures, then we should have giant armored banana hammocks on male figures.

 judgedoug wrote:
What does it matter if we can distinguish if a 30mm figure on the tabletop from a distance of several feet is a male or female?

If you were looking at a real soldier wearing body armor at that distance with scale factored in, you would not be able to tell if that soldier is male or female.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If we're gonna have giant armored melon boobs on female figures, then we should have giant armored banana hammocks on male figures.

Greatly said! I can't agree more with what you say.

Only a few days in and already we're on the same topics as GoA?

 judgedoug wrote:
What does it matter if we can distinguish if a 30mm figure on the tabletop from a distance of several feet is a male or female?

If you were looking at a real soldier wearing body armor at that distance with scale factored in, you would not be able to tell if that soldier is male or female.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If we're gonna have giant armored melon boobs on female figures, then we should have giant armored banana hammocks on male figures.

It doesn't matter. That's why I said if you can't tell on the tabletop, don't waste the time, energy, and money making female figures.

What about the picture I posted above? No massive boobage, but something to set her apart a bit.

Also, find me a realistic male figure in wargames figures. There are about as many of those as there are realistic female figures.

~Eric

 kenshin620 wrote:
Only a few days in and already we're on the same topics as GoA?

At least we have concept art and early sculpts upfront this time...

 Taarnak wrote:

It doesn't matter. That's why I said if you can't tell on the tabletop, don't waste the time, energy, and money making female figures.

By the same token what the point in wasting time, energy and money making male miniatures? After all you can play games perfectly well with tokens.

The male Bauhuas concept sketchs look realistic (aside from the overly styised armour), in fact the majority of male miniatures are of realistic proportions, its only oddities like GW's Catachans that aren't.

T and A in Scifi go together like peanut butter and jelly. And you do know that your talking about one of the all time old school artists of said subject?

http://www.gamingtabletop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/fictional-reality-issue-07-cover.jpg

http://www.mutantpedia.com/Immagini,%20Avatar%20e%20Video/Immagini%20Mutant%20Chronicles/Bonner/seeker.jpg

Over the top is Warzone's style.

http://www.mutantpedia.com/Immagini,%20Avatar%20e%20Video/Immagini%20Mutant%20Chronicles/Bonner/commando.jpg

http://www.mutantpedia.com/eng/Bisley.html


And somehow, I find the conversation complaining about "proper female warriors" kinda... Ironic, seeing as we are talking about the same medium as was invented by one of the great ones of scifi fantasy art.

I put Simon Bisley up there with Frank Franzetta, Boris, and Olivia.

As to the armor question, as well....

They make female armor now... and it looks like crap.

It is not dental floss, but it does exactly what you would think of when you think of a female, and "Form-fit"...

Trust me, though, it is not pretty, and If you want to know the truth, an old addage of mine STILL holds true.

Anything to make you look different, makes you a target... so shoot it first. ( yes, I said that a very long time ago.)

Make the Bauhause over the top, thier style demands it. Not to the point of caracature, but to the point of "We're the best at the use of technology, we will do what we want to as efficently as we possibly can."

From the fluff-

"In its military, Bauhaus is a strong believer in quality over quantity ... but when it comes to armored divisions, they have a strong belief in "bigger is better". Bauhaus is the dominant force in tank warfare, as exemplified by the largest tank in their armory, the Grizzly MBT - basically a mobile bunker. Bauhaus weapons are renowned as the most reliable in the system, provided they are cared for properly."

Palindrome wrote:

 Taarnak wrote:

It doesn't matter. That's why I said if you can't tell on the tabletop, don't waste the time, energy, and money making female figures.

By the same token what the point in wasting time, energy and money making male miniatures? After all you can play games perfectly well with tokens.

The male Bauhuas concept sketchs look realistic (aside from the overly styised armour), in fact the majority of male miniatures are of realistic proportions, its only oddities like GW's Catachans that aren't.

That's a false equivalency at best. Figures are easily differentiated from tokens.

Uniforms and markings can be exaggerated to make them discernible. Gender differences need similar (or perhaps greater) exaggeration.

Proportions are an entirely different discussion, in my opinion. I'm talking here about exaggerating features.

~Eric

Frankly, with this kind of game I'd say there's room for both Bisley-esque-inspired over the top characters of both sexes, and more realistic interpretations.

I like boobs, I really do, (not just one flavor though) but I really do not need my female miniatures to be modeled according to my sexual preferences. They are not my dates, they are representations of the warriors from the universe in which the battle takes place which the game played aims to synthesize. And as such I want them to look like warriors because that's cool and I want my miniatures to look cool. That said I'm not saying it cant be cool with feminine miniatures but it's not like there is a shortage of those (apart from female miniatures still being exceptions, a staggering majority of all miniatures are still male).

And about all this "If I can't tell it's a woman when looking at it from afar, why bother?" Well, first of all, can you tell that an ordinary Cadian miniature is a male when seen from afar or do you just assume it is because most rank and file miniatures are male? You could argue it got male shapes, but in all honesty, anyone with all that bodyarmor, especially with shouder-pads, will look somewhat masculine. I'd say the only reason you can "see" (I'd say you just assume it's a man and simply doesn't reflect about it) those cadians are men is because that's what you'd expect since most miniatures are men.

Another point is that TT-gaming in it's current state, I'd argue, are mainly geared towards a male audience which consists of half of the worlds population. And if people find something they can identify with in a hobby, I'd say it's more likely that people will take part of that hobby. So to not try to appeal to 100% of all possible customers is kind a strange business strategy.

And with modern miniature modeling with 3D modeling and printing and whatnot it's possible to make those subtle changes that would make a miniature stand out as a woman or a man in cases where this would otherwise be hard to tell. And personally I don't
need to be able to tell the gender of all my miniatures with a quick glance on the tabletop or without picking them up when on the table, they'll do their job anyway, but just knowing there is a mix of both and that someone bothered modeling them is cool imo. But again, I'm not saying all female miniatures should have "realistic shapes" but please, give us some diversity!!! There is a big variation of how men are represented, not so much for how women are represented (sure there are exceptions) if women are represented at all (which might be an even bigger issue). So the notion about moderately/realistically porportioned female minatures wouldn't look female just isnt valid imho. I'd say the final renders of Angelika is a proof of that.

Taarnak wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
What does it matter if we can distinguish if a 30mm figure on the tabletop from a distance of several feet is a male or female?

If you were looking at a real soldier wearing body armor at that distance with scale factored in, you would not be able to tell if that soldier is male or female.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If we're gonna have giant armored melon boobs on female figures, then we should have giant armored banana hammocks on male figures.

It doesn't matter. That's why I said if you can't tell on the tabletop, don't waste the time, energy, and money making female figures.

What about the picture I posted above? No massive boobage, but something to set her apart a bit.

Also, find me a realistic male figure in wargames figures. There are about as many of those as there are realistic female figures.

~Eric

Well because that money spent on moderately sculpted female miniatures might generate more income since the game will appeal to a bigger audience. I don't know it it's true or not, but I believe there is a general notion that the Malifaux community have a bigger gender-mix than other games which wouldn't surprise me. Malifaux sports more female miniatures many of which aren't trapped in stereotypical female roles (not saying there isn't tacky female and male miniatures in the Malifaux range, but hey you can't love them all ).

And I'd say there are plenty of realistic(-ish at the very least) male miniatures given the style the games are done in, but more importantly the diversity among male representations are bigger.

Taarnak wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 Taarnak wrote:

It doesn't matter. That's why I said if you can't tell on the tabletop, don't waste the time, energy, and money making female figures.

By the same token what the point in wasting time, energy and money making male miniatures? After all you can play games perfectly well with tokens.

The male Bauhuas concept sketchs look realistic (aside from the overly styised armour), in fact the majority of male miniatures are of realistic proportions, its only oddities like GW's Catachans that aren't.

That's a false equivalency at best. Figures are easily differentiated from tokens.

Uniforms and markings can be exaggerated to make them discernible. Gender differences need similar (or perhaps greater) exaggeration.

Proportions are an entirely different discussion, in my opinion. I'm talking here about exaggerating features.

~Eric

What I believe he meant is that a game can be played with tokens just as well. Me and my friends played with mostly tokens in 40k for years and it worked just fine (and those were the days when there still was hard and soft cover).

 Capamaru wrote:
Amazons have boobs, so no she is a relaxed boobless amazon in my eyes. I think I will go cybertronics in the end.

Amazons probably never existed as far as I know and could be made any whay anyone see fit. And as already been mentioned, they only had one boob according to some mythology but this have already been discussed... But will you let one miniature that don't fit your taste deter you from choosing a whole faction (remeber, we've only seen renders of two Bauhaus miniatures this far)? It's your choice, but why?

And I mean, why so much fuss about ONE miniature, no, ONE render to be more correct when there should't be a problem finding a female minature with huge boobs, cleavage bare bellies and everything you guys could wish for to replace her!?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azazelx wrote:
Frankly, with this kind of game I'd say there's room for both Bisley-esque-inspired over the top characters of both sexes, and more realistic interpretations.

Sure, I'd say there are plenty of room for and would like to see both! But giving big breasts, narrow waist and big butts to female minis as some modus operandi still strikes me as boring and unimaginative just as karikatures of men do if used too often.

 Taarnak wrote:

That's a false equivalency at best. Figures are easily differentiated from tokens.

Uniforms and markings can be exaggerated to make them discernible. Gender differences need similar (or perhaps greater) exaggeration.

Proportions are an entirely different discussion, in my opinion. I'm talking here about exaggerating features.

~Eric

Wargames certinaly can be played with tokens, it used to be the norm in fact. You don't need to exaggerate markings and uniforms, visual cues like stance or weaponry can easily mark out a particular models status from a distance. Aside from that why would you need to distinguish female models from male ones from the other side of the table?

If its not proportion that you are talking about then what? Perhaps male miniatures should have a giant penis and some kind of sexy outfit, just so that they will stand out of course.

Aren't there enough model makers out there catering to your interests? Why must every female model ever produced be a cheesecake pinup with huge tits and sexy outfit?

I for one hope Prodos doesn't cave in to these ridiculous demands and keeps her looking "mannish"...a woman in a combat role without a huge rack? Perish the fething thought.

 c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
And with modern miniature modeling with 3D modeling and printing and whatnot it's possible to make those subtle changes that would make a miniature stand out as a woman or a man in cases where this would otherwise be hard to tell.

I'm surprised other people are apparently so damn "confused" about her gender. I could tell just from looking at the render that she's female, if I didn't already know beforehand. Her face (if that's "mannish" then you haven't really seen that many female models I take it, looks a lot better than a lot of them I've seen, especially compared to what little GW has on offer), hairstyle, the shape of her body and her pose all convey well enough that she's female. Honestly the ass alone should fething give it away.

It's seriously just her tits, that's the only reason people are complaining. Which is kinda sad in my opinion, makes me wonder how people would regard women they met in real life that had small breasts.

Actually, this reminds me a lot of when GW released the new model for Lelith Hesperax and people complained that she looked "mannish", too. Despite the fact that she has ridiculously long hair and that she's basically wearing a thong bikini, and the mini itself (I have one, sadly in Finecast but at least it's not a bad cast like so many other models I've gotten) actually has a pretty decent face, mainly the only thing that made her look mannish was the 'Eavy Metal paintjob, the way they painted her skin was kinda harsh and a little too high-contrast for a female model, and the fact that she had smaller breasts more appropriate for an athletic woman that spends the majority of her time fighting gladiator-style. So once again it seems to come down to "Boobs aren't big enough!"

First off all I feel the need to apologize for bringing boobs into the conversation. I don't mean to start an ongoing boobs argument and I only did it in order to mention what I feel will look better in a sci fi game.

judgedoug wrote:

 Capamaru wrote:

Well besides making her look like a man what other alterations you are referring to?

Surprise, you can't tell any woman has breasts when they are wearing body armor.

I would prefer not to have BOOBARMOR shaped like giant distended armored melons attached to the front of miniatures.

Surprise surprise she is wearing a T shirt and a vest no body armor.

Taarnak wrote:
True, but those are 5' tall plus real people with far more visual clues than will ever be gotten into miniature figures.

 judgedoug wrote:

I would prefer not to have BOOBARMOR shaped like giant distended armored melons attached to the front of miniatures.

I totally agree with you here though.

Something like this maybe more appropriate?

Spoiler:

With abdominal armor, of course.

~Eric

Well I totally agree with you . Some well defined armor in the chest area with make her look more female.

Taarnak wrote:

 praetor24 wrote:
Sorry, but I do not get it. Why do we need so badly boobs in a miniature game?

I mean, I love boobs in real life, but jesus, I see them even in ads for beer, I don't need them on my minis too. I mean do you like being treated always as the typical male target group that salivates in the sight of anything curvy enough to remind of boobs?

I think that Prodos have it right. Female minis, because it makes in-universe sense. Not super-sexified, because it does NOT make sense. They are warriors not some Baywatch rejects.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that, not really. But there does need to be differentiation that is visible on a 30mm figure viewed from 2-3 feet away. Otherwise, why bother? I think we as a community have this debate because of super high-res, super close up pictures on the web. It's easy to see the differences in those. Figures on the tabletop. Not so much.

~Eric

I don't suggest making her a super sexified bimbo of some short but adding some visual content that will make it able to clearly identify her as a woman from 4 feet away. Long hair and some short of breast armor like people suggested would be nice.

praetor24 wrote:

 praetor24 wrote:

Amazons never existed in anything but these stories/fiction/legends. Trust me on this. My PhD is on Ancient Greek History.

Last person I knew that had a Phd in Ancient Greek History was Kenneth J Dovers and I can say that my opinion for him is somehow similar to what eldars feel for orks...

I seem to be saying this more and more often these days, but this is bloody disgraceful and makes me regret being a white male. Oh well, adds more population to the ignore list I suppose. Glad Prodos aren't giving in to the "helpful" fan criticism.

If being a fan and telling your opinion is bad then I will speak no more in this thread.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Aren't there enough model makers out there catering to your interests? Why must every female model ever produced be a cheesecake pinup with huge tits and sexy outfit?

I for one hope Prodos doesn't cave in to these ridiculous demands and keeps her looking "mannish"...a woman in a combat role without a huge rack? Perish the fething thought.

 c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
And with modern miniature modeling with 3D modeling and printing and whatnot it's possible to make those subtle changes that would make a miniature stand out as a woman or a man in cases where this would otherwise be hard to tell.

I'm surprised other people are apparently so damn "confused" about her gender. I could tell just from looking at the render that she's female, if I didn't already know beforehand. Her face (if that's "mannish" then you haven't really seen that many female models I take it, looks a lot better than a lot of them I've seen, especially compared to what little GW has on offer), hairstyle, the shape of her body and her pose all convey well enough that she's female. Honestly the ass alone should fething give it away.

I just want to be clear about this one, I believe Angelica totally rocks and to me there is no question it's a women from looking at the render. What I meant with what you quoited above Sidstyler is that the argumen that "to make a realistically porportioned woman in full battle gear at 28-30 mm scale is wasted energy since it's not going to look like a woman anyway" isn't valid (now more than ever). Well, I'd say we now, more than ever, got the tools and skills to do "moderately" proportioned women in full battle gear that definitely looks looks like a woman, which I believe Angela is a good proof of but I believe you can and should go even further in some cases.

The problem is that there are so few woman miniatures so those few that are made gets an disproportional amount of attention especially if they break the current norm or hegemony in the TT-community. I'd say there are seldom so much outrage about male miniatures that differs from the norm than when a female miniature does so.

 Capamaru wrote:
Surprise surprise she is wearing a T shirt and a vest no body armor.

Some women just have small breasts. I imagine to be a soldier one would have to be in pretty good shape, too, so it's possible that she might just have small breasts on account of being athletic, since breasts are mostly fat.

So if a woman has small breasts does that just not "count" or what? I don't understand why it's a problem in this context, or why it would be so important for you to be able to tell what gender the tiny soldiermans are from 4 feet away anyway since it has no bearing on gameplay whatsoever. Her outfit is good enough to distinguish her as a character of importance from the rest of the faceless, nameless grunts, if that's an issue.

 Capamaru wrote:

Some well defined armor in the chest area with make her look more female.

I'm starting to think that's all it takes to make a model "female" anymore, a couple of giant anvils grafted to a breastplate. If you can't tell she's female from looking at everything else but her chest then god damn, I just don't know what else to say. =\

 Capamaru wrote:

I don't suggest making her a super sexified bimbo of some short but adding some visual content that will make it able to clearly identify her as a woman from 4 feet away. Long hair and some short of breast armor like people suggested would be nice.

I already asked why it's important to know if she's female or not from 4 feet away, when gender isn't relevant to gameplay, but I have to ask what is wrong with her current hairstyle? That looks like a woman's haircut to me. Or do all feminine hairstyles have to be shoulder-length or longer, kinda like how all "real" women don't have boobs smaller than double-D's? =|

 Capamaru wrote:
If being a fan and telling your opinion is bad then I will speak no more in this thread.

I didn't say it was bad, I just...don't really understand it much, myself. You're free to think and do whatever you want, if this is really such an issue that it puts you off the army then so be it. But much like how you're allowed to your opinion, I'm allowed to my opinion that you're being pretty damn silly to swear off an army because the one character model we've seen for them so far was a small-breasted, fully-clothed female.

 c0un7_z3r0 wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
Aren't there enough model makers out there catering to your interests? Why must every female model ever produced be a cheesecake pinup with huge tits and sexy outfit?

I for one hope Prodos doesn't cave in to these ridiculous demands and keeps her looking "mannish"...a woman in a combat role without a huge rack? Perish the fething thought.

 c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
And with modern miniature modeling with 3D modeling and printing and whatnot it's possible to make those subtle changes that would make a miniature stand out as a woman or a man in cases where this would otherwise be hard to tell.

I'm surprised other people are apparently so damn "confused" about her gender. I could tell just from looking at the render that she's female, if I didn't already know beforehand. Her face (if that's "mannish" then you haven't really seen that many female models I take it, looks a lot better than a lot of them I've seen, especially compared to what little GW has on offer), hairstyle, the shape of her body and her pose all convey well enough that she's female. Honestly the ass alone should fething give it away.

I just want to be clear about this one, I believe Angelica totally rocks and to me there is no question it's a women from looking at the render. What I meant with what you quoited above Sidstyler is that the argumen that "to make a realistically porportioned woman in full battle gear at 28-30 mm scale is wasted energy since it's not going to look like a woman anyway" isn't valid (now more than ever). Well, I'd say we now, more than ever, got the tools and skills to do "moderately" proportioned women in full battle gear that definitely looks looks like a woman, which I believe Angela is a good proof of but I believe you can and should go even further in some cases.

The problem is that there are so few woman miniatures so those few that are made gets an disproportional amount of attention especially if they break the current norm or hegemony in the TT-community. I'd say there are seldom so much outrage about male miniatures that differs from the norm than when a female miniature does so.

As it was already pointed out, she technically isn't in "full-battle gear", but yeah, the point still stands I think.

Also, as it was pointed out earlier, I too think the game would allow for "those" kind of female models in addition to ones like Angelika, so really all this arguing is kinda stupid anyway because it doesn't have to be one or the other.

EDIT: Also I think the quotes in my post are kinda fethed up, lol. My apologies but I'm not going back and fixing that okay fine I did.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Taarnak wrote:
Some well defined armor in the chest area with make her look more female.

I'm starting to think that's all it takes to make a model "female" anymore, a couple of giant anvils grafted to a breastplate. If you can't tell she's female from looking at everything else but her chest then god damn, I just don't know what else to say. =\

Hahaha! Word!

Ooh, here's something fun that this thread reminded me about. I've got this girl on my watch list on deviantArt (I don't do the art thing very well but if I ever feel like drawing again this seemed like it would come in handy), and she uploads nothing but pictures that people can use as references for drawing, etc. I picked the pack with her doing gun poses since it seemed the most relevant.

http://senshistock.deviantart.com/gallery/573222 (She's covered up but potentially NSFW anyway, just so I don't get chewed)

Put her in Angelika's outfit and I imagine she wouldn't look too different, her chest would look about the same but you'd probably see a little bit of her hips and butt, like in the render. Sorry, I really don't want to offend anyone here but the whole "She's too mannish, needs bigger knockers!" thing just comes off as being extremely sexist and ignorant. In my opinion Angelika has the body type that a female soldier would have, and if Prodos changes that to appease the few people who have a problem with this then I'll be extremely disappointed. Might still get the Bauhaus starter when it hits store shelves later on and just trade/sell Angelika for another model I can use in her stead.

Yeah, I'll agree that she isn't perfectly realistic, or else she'd be wearing full armor like the hussars. That said I still like what they did with the design and it's more realistic than most female models usually are regardless.

I'd like to see some realistic female hussars, let's break the hegemony! It won't hurt anyone, quite the contrary I'd say.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Yeah, I'll agree that she isn't perfectly realistic, or else she'd be wearing full armor like the hussars. That said I still like what they did with the design and it's more realistic than most female models usually are regardless.

I'm actually liking the stylistic similarities she share with the re-designed rangers. Smaller shoulder pad, under-suit is a bit more padded (including the pants) and she even conforms to some of the notes on the rangers about them often customizing or removing bits of armour to keep their operational weight down. I'm interested to know her history. The neurolash means it is better than even odds that she is part of the Order of Fear (especially considering that she is a Templar, according to the notes on her helmet).

If so, then I can't wait to see her painted up in jet black armour with the traditional iron skull-mask of that particular order.

They definitely dug deep in the Bauhaus sourcebook when coming up with the style guide for Bauhaus. Because there is a lot of consistency in there, and a lot of depth. Even the jacket addition conforms to some of the descriptions in the Mutant Chronicles sourcebook (one being that Templars tend to dress a bit more exotically than other units in the field because they are more a knightly order than a standard military unit).

The more I dig, the more nods I see in the designs and the more I love them.

Back on topic.

Can i see more pretty pictures of sexy new minis please?

Out if curiosity is the initial release sticking to character, squads, big things or is there likely to be jump infantry or cavalry/bike analogs as well?

 c0un7_z3r0 wrote:
I'd like to see some realistic female hussars, let's break the hegemony! It won't hurt anyone, quite the contrary I'd say.

Well take a hussar as depicted on the concept art, do not remove the helmet, there you go realistic female hussar.

Hey, I've got an idea! Let's talk about Warzone instead.

Prodos, since you and the MC RPG guys are cooperating to at least some extent, are there plans to make the RPG and WZ compatible? 1st ed had rules for converting your characters from the RPG to Warzone, for instance.

brynolf wrote:
Hey, I've got an idea! Let's talk about Warzone instead.

Prodos, since you and the MC RPG guys are cooperating to at least some extent, are there plans to make the RPG and WZ compatible? 1st ed had rules for converting your characters from the RPG to Warzone, for instance.

Well, that would be a great thing, if possible. At least it could result in some great fun in non-tournament games.

Honestly lets go back to WZ, I do not see why Angelica is not realistically armored, she is not a hussar, she is an officer, she wears the same breast plate and shinguard with the rest of the troops the "ornamental" jacket is over the armour.