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.

Well I'm certainly pleased, doubly so now that the cyber-zombies are in, bit of a shame they don't match the previous two in their concept art though, hopefully that doesn't mean W101 and #42 have been changed too as them and Nephahrya are why I got into this KS at all. They'll definitely be going on the pledge though regardless, just gotta keep my fingers crossed for some ranged options in the kit.

The original plan was to just get some alternative sculpts and characters without getting troop boxes (Aleksandr as Creed etc.) for the traitor guard but it's getting harder not to add to the pledge, they really do pretty minis, it's just a shame about everything else they do.

 Madcat87 wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
having design explanations based on their crazy in-universe background just means you have figures that are less able to be plugged into other games. Who knows, maybe that is what they are going for.

I'm pretty sure it's a case of making gak up on the fly as needed to justify the designs that they thought were cool.

My money is on "No guys these aren't just IG count as we actually have a game and lore to back this up!"

Except, well, they don't.

I actually don't really mind those Lulu models. I think there are lot more offensive miniatures out there... if the idea of "stray kids" is true, they've done a decent job conveying it. Kids that have picked up weapons that were discarded, helmets, etc... but are more distracted by the cat walking by than anything else.

I could see where you could be upset by it, but if so I think you should just not buy it. I think, if you were going to make a "kid soldier", they're done about as well as is humanly possible to do, and about as least offensive as possible.

I can see you taking issue with the idea of anyone making a "kid soldier" model, Ever, but... I think on the scale of things they have actually pulled these off fine, and I did not think they would have been able to from the art. I.e., the sculpts are much less offensive once I see them- I actually quite like them and they're about the only thing I'd be tempted to pick up in this campaign so far.

One could complain more about the over-sexualization of women, glorification of violence, etc etc ad nauseum much more than that these cute models represent an endorsement of forced child soldiers in the world today. So, as much as I try to see it, my outrage meter just remains barely above zero and I find myself actually wanting to maybe get these eventually... not even really for game pieces, but just as cute models.

Sometimes there's beauty in the middle of war, and in an environment where a kid was by themselves and had picked up weapons, etc, the fact that they'd drop their gun and pick up a dog instead is kind of awesome and heart-warming. So, while I think the idea is something that could cause offense, in execution I think they're pretty much nailed it and made them acceptable to the vast majority of people (and to those that they are not, that is totally fine, but they can just not buy them).

I admit the Lulus are growing on me now that I've seen them in rendered.

The Iron Empire girls look a lot better rendered then in concept art to me as well.

So, when will they show the Lulu casualty "prone markers"?

 RiTides wrote:
I actually don't really mind those Lulu models. I think there are lot more offensive miniatures out there... if the idea of "stray kids" is true, they've done a decent job conveying it. Kids that have picked up weapons that were discarded, helmets, etc... but are more distracted by the cat walking by than anything else.

I could see where you could be upset by it, but if so I think you should just not buy it. I think, if you were going to make a "kid soldier", they're done about as well as is humanly possible to do, and about as least offensive as possible.

I can see you taking issue with the idea of anyone making a "kid soldier" model, Ever, but... I think on the scale of things they have actually pulled these off fine, and I did not think they would have been able to from the art. I.e., the sculpts are much less offensive once I see them- I actually quite like them and they're about the only thing I'd be tempted to pick up in this campaign so far.

One could complain more about the over-sexualization of women, glorification of violence, etc etc ad nauseum much more than that these cute models represent an endorsement of forced child soldiers in the world today. So, as much as I try to see it, my outrage meter just remains barely above zero and I find myself actually wanting to maybe get these eventually... not even really for game pieces, but just as cute models.

Sometimes there's beauty in the middle of war, and in an environment where a kid was by themselves and had picked up weapons, etc, the fact that they'd drop their gun and pick up a dog instead is kind of awesome and heart-warming. So, while I think the idea is something that could cause offense, in execution I think they're pretty much nailed it and made them acceptable to the vast majority of people (and to those that they are not, that is totally fine, but they can just not buy them).

I think this sums up my feelings on them pretty well. Had no intention of getting the lulus, and still don't. But I do find myself wishing that they'd sell them individually, just so I could paint that one with the puppy.

 RiTides wrote:
I actually don't really mind those Lulu models. I think there are lot more offensive miniatures out there... if the idea of "stray kids" is true, they've done a decent job conveying it. Kids that have picked up weapons that were discarded, helmets, etc... but are more distracted by the cat walking by than anything else.

I could see where you could be upset by it, but if so I think you should just not buy it. I think, if you were going to make a "kid soldier", they're done about as well as is humanly possible to do, and about as least offensive as possible.

I can see you taking issue with the idea of anyone making a "kid soldier" model, Ever, but... I think on the scale of things they have actually pulled these off fine, and I did not think they would have been able to from the art. I.e., the sculpts are much less offensive once I see them- I actually quite like them and they're about the only thing I'd be tempted to pick up in this campaign so far.

One could complain more about the over-sexualization of women, glorification of violence, etc etc ad nauseum much more than that these cute models represent an endorsement of forced child soldiers in the world today. So, as much as I try to see it, my outrage meter just remains barely above zero and I find myself actually wanting to maybe get these eventually... not even really for game pieces, but just as cute models.

Sometimes there's beauty in the middle of war, and in an environment where a kid was by themselves and had picked up weapons, etc, the fact that they'd drop their gun and pick up a dog instead is kind of awesome and heart-warming. So, while I think the idea is something that could cause offense, in execution I think they're pretty much nailed it and made them acceptable to the vast majority of people (and to those that they are not, that is totally fine, but they can just not buy them).

As I said, there's a context that works and one that doesn't. Child Soldiers for Kony, Hitler Youth/Volkssturm for historicals, even Juves in Necromunda or DiggaNob. As I said, if these figures were divorced from their "game" and not created as Ratling stand-ins (shorties with sniper rifles) then fine. I also did say that the renders are very nice, especially the one with the cat/puppy/hamster. I'm also not "upset" per se, I just think it's ill-chosen and that (as usual) their gakky badly-thought-out-made-up-on-the-fly excuses just make things worse. "These are mascots who don't feature in our game but we thought we'd do some dress-up figures for collectors because they look cool" would have been a much better way to deal with it.

Ah good. We've circled back to the Lulu's topic. Always a worthy discussion.

Note that there were 3 positive posts about them just on this page, HBMC and several on the last, as well as a number of positive about the update in general

Yeah, stop being so negative.

He's 80% negative, most of the time..

The Lulus are a far more controversial unit than any of the Sexy Future Women Soldiers, by far.

I find it hard to even think that is debatable, especially now that they have 'real' weapons too.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ah good. We've circled back to the Lulu's topic. Always a worthy discussion.

Ah good. We circled back because they showed the lulu renders with real weapons, which is quite contrary to what they initially said they would be.

Lulu's having real guns is far tamer than a lot of the anime I've seen where young kids tear people apart in very graphic, hard hitting ways. Actually there was an anime (Gunslinger Girls iirc) with a bunch of girls from "troubled" childhoods, ie. gang raped, who were repurposed by the government to be hitmen... interesting anime, and pretty fitting comparison to the Lulu's I guess.

Things being "controversial" is great imo and should be encouraged, it allows us to challenge our opinions on such topics in a safe fictional setting. Nazi IG, Brother Vinni's slave girls, Lulu's with real guns... all awesome stuff as far as I'm concerned. Anything that can be used to better simulate "darker" aspects of fictional settings - in non-cheesy ways ideally - gets a thumbs up from me. I didn't like the Lulu's initially, but them having real guns has me a little more interested in them now at least.

They're still count-as Ratlings to me, unless it's all one big coincidence, but I doubt RH has never heard of 40k.

 Yonan wrote:
Lulu's having real guns is far tamer than a lot of the anime I've seen where young kids tear people apart in very graphic, hard hitting ways. Actually there was an anime (Gunslinger Girls iirc) with a bunch of girls from "troubled" childhoods, ie. gang raped, who were repurposed by the government to be hitmen... interesting anime, and pretty fitting comparison to the Lulu's I guess.

Things being "controversial" is great imo and should be encouraged, it allows us to challenge our opinions on such topics in a safe fictional setting. Nazi IG, Brother Vinni's slave girls, Lulu's with real guns... all awesome stuff as far as I'm concerned. Anything that can be used to better simulate "darker" aspects of fictional settings - in non-cheesy ways ideally - gets a thumbs up from me. I didn't like the Lulu's initially, but them having real guns has me a little more interested in them now at least.

Will we see a change of fluff though? They had stated that those were suction cup guns (which was really pushing it, imho, because that's a lot of stuff for a glorified elastic mechanism) and that they would be "immune from fire" or some such. Now if they do have real, sci-fi weaponry, I'm afraid they'd logically be considered fair game by the opposing forces.

For the record, I think you're right that a fictional setting is much better to explore this than, say, Africa.

They tried to invoke this during the campaign when they got that feedback: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WouldntHurtAChild

They look armed and adorably dangerous to me (Especially when paired with the cold, sociopathic sniper stereotype they look up to) and the Jail Birds strike me as a faction that is desperate enough to say "feth it" and give a gun to every person willing and able to fight.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
Lulu's having real guns is far tamer than a lot of the anime I've seen where young kids tear people apart in very graphic, hard hitting ways. Actually there was an anime (Gunslinger Girls iirc) with a bunch of girls from "troubled" childhoods, ie. gang raped, who were repurposed by the government to be hitmen... interesting anime, and pretty fitting comparison to the Lulu's I guess.

Things being "controversial" is great imo and should be encouraged, it allows us to challenge our opinions on such topics in a safe fictional setting. Nazi IG, Brother Vinni's slave girls, Lulu's with real guns... all awesome stuff as far as I'm concerned. Anything that can be used to better simulate "darker" aspects of fictional settings - in non-cheesy ways ideally - gets a thumbs up from me. I didn't like the Lulu's initially, but them having real guns has me a little more interested in them now at least.

Will we see a change of fluff though? They had stated that those were suction cup guns (which was really pushing it, imho, because that's a lot of stuff for a glorified elastic mechanism) and that they would be "immune from fire" or some such. Now if they do have real, sci-fi weaponry, I'm afraid they'd logically be considered fair game by the opposing forces.

For the record, I think you're right that a fictional setting is much better to explore this than, say, Africa.

Perhaps the safest way for RH to handle it would be just to write them out of any playable/useable role. No rules for them. Fluffwise, just leave them as orphans being looked after by the jbs. Make them no more than mascots... objective markers at most, if you like.

I'm not sure there's a huge controversy anyway at the moment (certainly when plans for them aren't final), it's very much worth discussion. But I don't think it would harm RH just to play it safe with this one.

 BrookM wrote:
They tried to invoke this during the campaign when they got that feedback: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WouldntHurtAChild

They look armed and adorably dangerous to me (Especially when paired with the cold, sociopathic sniper stereotype they look up to) and the Jail Birds strike me as a faction that is desperate enough to say "feth it" and give a gun to every person willing and able to fight.

Nice link, and it has one of my favorite quotes from the X-wing books, that I still remember! Man, that stood out:

"Threaten a child and you will unite its parents against you. Kill a child and those who have lost it will retreat in mourning. Those around them will feel their pain and likewise look to their own families. They will keep their children close and out of schools. [...] This makes the Rebellion look unforgivably weak."
— Flirry Vorru, Star Wars: The Krytos Trap

This is certainly an interesting discussion, and I guess I felt I might have reacted as some of you are (or seemingly are considering). But, given the setting, this one just doesn't bother me so far... and like I said, I'd actually be tempted to get those. And I tend to be on the other side of the fence in these discussions.

 RiTides wrote:
Note that there were 3 positive posts about them just on this page, HBMC and several on the last, as well as a number of positive about the update in general

Hell, even my posts recognise that they are very well done renders and that the one with the small animal is just adorable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yonan wrote:
Lulu's having real guns is far tamer than a lot of the anime I've seen where young kids tear people apart in very graphic, hard hitting ways. Actually there was an anime (Gunslinger Girls iirc) with a bunch of girls from "troubled" childhoods, ie. gang raped, who were repurposed by the government to be hitmen... interesting anime, and pretty fitting comparison to the Lulu's I guess.

Things being "controversial" is great imo and should be encouraged, it allows us to challenge our opinions on such topics in a safe fictional setting. Nazi IG, Brother Vinni's slave girls, Lulu's with real guns... all awesome stuff as far as I'm concerned. Anything that can be used to better simulate "darker" aspects of fictional settings - in non-cheesy ways ideally - gets a thumbs up from me. I didn't like the Lulu's initially, but them having real guns has me a little more interested in them now at least.

Anime is from Japan, with.. shall we say, very different cultural standards. Where groping women on a packed train, public urination in an alleyway, and tentacle rape in Manga are all considered somewhat acceptable.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:

Will we see a change of fluff though? They had stated that those were suction cup guns (which was really pushing it, imho, because that's a lot of stuff for a glorified elastic mechanism) and that they would be "immune from fire" or some such. Now if they do have real, sci-fi weaponry, I'm afraid they'd logically be considered fair game by the opposing forces.

For the record, I think you're right that a fictional setting is much better to explore this than, say, Africa.

Sure, and when I charge the adorable little counts-as ratlings with my unit of Bloodletters and the cute widdle 5-year-old Lulu's are literally torn apart in a bloody swathe of H2H and their souls damned to Khorne for all eternity, it's all good, right? Personally, I'd rather use Africa or 1945 Berlin and an appropriate historical ruleset like Force on Force or Bolt Action to simulate this sort of thing - but let's not kid ourselves, this isn't pushing any boundaries or anything. RH thought of a way to simulate Ratling Snipers in their "hot chicks" army (as they did with the Not-Ogryns) and thought of a concept that looked cool without stopping to think about it in any depth.

 alanmckenzie wrote:

Perhaps the safest way for RH to handle it would be just to write them out of any playable/useable role. No rules for them. Fluffwise, just leave them as orphans being looked after by the jbs. Make them no more than mascots... objective markers at most, if you like.

Correctamundo. After all, their "fluff" is ...rather amorphous right now, and their game is just a twinkle in the milkman's eye, so it does them no harm to remove the issue outright, and then if individuals decide to use them as Ratlings in their armies, then they can claim "clean hands". Kinda.

 alanmckenzie wrote:


Perhaps the safest way for RH to handle it would be just to write them out of any playable/useable role. No rules for them. Fluffwise, just leave them as orphans being looked after by the jbs. Make them no more than mascots... objective markers at most, if you like.

I'm not sure there's a huge controversy anyway at the moment (certainly when plans for them aren't final), it's very much worth discussion. But I don't think it would harm RH just to play it safe with this one.

Weren't cheerleaders in Blood Bowl figs that sat on the sidelines, even though they had an effect on the game? Could we have something like that? An in-game effect, but no combat viability? I mean, between Servo-Skulls, Ammo Runts, Grot Oilers, Choosers of the Slain, and the artifact bearers of the Dark Angels, 40k alone is filled with models that have an in-game effect even if they aren't killing people or being killed themselves. I'd like to see them have SOME form of game utility (assuming the RH game is ever presented to us), even if they aren't going to be a standard combat unit.

 Azazelx wrote:
Sure, and when I charge the adorable little counts-as ratlings with my unit of Bloodletters and the cute widdle 5-year-old Lulu's are literally torn apart in a bloody swathe of H2H and their souls damned to Khorne for all eternity, it's all good, right?

It can't just be me right, but that would be hilarious ; p

 Azazelx wrote:



Anime is from Japan, with.. shall we say, very different cultural standards. Where groping women on a packed train, public urination in an alleyway, and tentacle rape in Manga are all considered somewhat acceptable.

In order. No it's really not, to the point that there are female only cars during rush hour. Just no, where the feth did you get that?. and that's really more a way to get around ridiculous censorship laws forced on the Japanese government by the West back in the day.

 Yonan wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
Sure, and when I charge the adorable little counts-as ratlings with my unit of Bloodletters and the cute widdle 5-year-old Lulu's are literally torn apart in a bloody swathe of H2H and their souls damned to Khorne for all eternity, it's all good, right?

It can't just be me right, but that would be hilarious ; p

Yeah, my friend wants to get them... I'm going to have to forego mission objectives in this case. I'll have to charge them every chance I get.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

Anime is from Japan, with.. shall we say, very different cultural standards. Where groping women on a packed train, public urination in an alleyway, and tentacle rape in Manga are all considered somewhat acceptable.

In order. No it's really not, to the point that there are female only cars during rush hour.

It happens. It's happened to a friend of mine, too - who kicked up a stink about it where apparently Japanese women often just live with it rather than making a fuss. If there are (now?) female-only cars, it's clearly a reaction to this.

Just no, where the feth did you get that?.

Just yeah. For reals. It's well known. But Google isn't where I first heard of it...

and that's really more a way to get around ridiculous censorship laws forced on the Japanese government by the West back in the day.

Irrelevant to my point. Hentai is a thing. So let's not use Urutsukidoji and friends as an example of how Japanese pop-culture norms should have any bearing on this discussion.

 Azazelx wrote:

Irrelevant to my point. Hentai is a thing. So let's not use Urutsukidoji and friends as an example of how Japanese pop-culture norms should have any bearing on this discussion.

Fritz the Cat is a thing too.

Porn has no bearing on regular television.

 Azazelx wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

Anime is from Japan, with.. shall we say, very different cultural standards. Where groping women on a packed train, public urination in an alleyway, and tentacle rape in Manga are all considered somewhat acceptable.

In order. No it's really not, to the point that there are female only cars during rush hour.

It happens. It's happened to a friend of mine, too - who kicked up a stink about it where apparently Japanese women often just live with it rather than making a fuss. If there are (now?) female-only cars, it's clearly a reaction to this.

This isn't just a problem in Japan, it is a worldwide thing and it is really sad.

But sadly most every single culture in the world is geared towards a horrible spiral of victim blaming and rape apologism that tends to make it endemic in every culture. Japan is not unique in its under-reporting.

For what its worth, I'm sorry your friend had to go through that and I'm glad she said something. Hopefully in doing it she inspired others as well.

 Cyporiean wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

Irrelevant to my point. Hentai is a thing. So let's not use Urutsukidoji and friends as an example of how Japanese pop-culture norms should have any bearing on this discussion.

Fritz the Cat is a thing too.

Porn has no bearing on regular television.

I'll never be able to watch his Lord of the Rings the same way again...

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:

 Cyporiean wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

Irrelevant to my point. Hentai is a thing. So let's not use Urutsukidoji and friends as an example of how Japanese pop-culture norms should have any bearing on this discussion.

Fritz the Cat is a thing too.

Porn has no bearing on regular television.

I'll never be able to watch his Lord of the Rings the same way again...

American Pop was pretty good though!

I'm not totally clear what we're arguing about here, is it:

"I find these Lulu's are bad because giving fantasy children guns and having them fight is unpleasant in gaming due to not liking real world children having had to endure similar/the same"?