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.

What's your suggestion to do then in order to get female models in?

GW is a company run by sales numbers, but blind on the reasons.

When they introduced Sisters of battle in the end of 2nd edition, a non psycher army ina psychic massacre game and then under-supported them for so long, they came to the natural conclusion that since they didn't sell good enough, people do not want them because they want to field macho male warriors.

I feel their codex and lack of support were the reasons, but GW does not care for these things, only models selling, in their mind a miniature sells itself the rules just support or prod to selling more of a particular type of model the sales department wants to move.

One more thing to consider is GW is a plastic multiposed models company, they will do anything to cut down costs, and their recent attempts for female models show it, most of the parts making male and female models are the same, one might ignore them on elves that are thinner, but pulling the same stunt on a regular human form will not work, this is another reason for them to not do female models.

What will raging heroes do? show beyond doubt to other companies (as if CB has not done way before that) that there is demand for female models and the old GW mantra of female models selling less is an unsupported, uninformed statement.

 Kroothawk wrote:
They are not aware of any differences in male and female bodies, so for all we know, Cadians are already all female .

Uh, your examples are elves, who are quite frequently portrayed as reasonably androgynous to human eyes, not just by GW.

GW's female Catachan and Commissar models, on the other hand, were quite blatantly female.

 insaniak wrote:

GW's female Catachan and Commissar models, on the other hand, were quite blatantly female.

With regards to the former, only because there's already so much skin showing. Realistically speaking, you'd be hard-pressed to tell a female and a male apart when in uniform, webbing, and armor. "Bewb'd armour" does not exist in real life.

I do know where to get samurai female models but they won't be released until later this year.

 Enigwolf wrote:
With regards to the former, only because there's already so much skin showing. Realistically speaking, you'd be hard-pressed to tell a female and a male apart when in uniform, webbing, and armor. "Bewb'd armour" does not exist in real life.

We're not talking about realisticnessismitude, though. We're talking about miniatures for a science fantasy wargame that uses exagerated proportions to make the models fit their stylised aesthetic. And within that aesthetic, you most certainly can tell the difference between a male and a female.

GW's Cadians, for example, are quite incontrovertibly male. The exagerated proportions that GW use for human males really doesn't leave any ambiguity there, regardless of how similar the males and females might look in 'real life'.

http://martwhim.tumblr.com/post/40061546009/why-do-you-hate-the-shape-of-breasts-in-plate-armor-so

Perfect article... It not only shows why the "bewb armor" is impractical and ineffective but would actually hurt or kill the person wearing it.

Cheesecake is just that, and many people see it as pointless trash. Don't confuse the market for female models with that for cheesecake models.

 Ouze wrote:
There was a post in the Raging Heroes thread that I think might warrant a thread of it's own, maybe.

Saxon wrote:
Everyone and his wife has underestimated the demand for female soldiers... once these factions expand with bikes etc, and add-ons will come...

Anyone who is following this kickstarter and participates in the HHHobby should be pretty pissed disappointed with Games Workshop.

There is no reason anyone should have underestimated the demand for female infantry. There have been dozens and dozens of threads on this on Dakka Dakka alone; where there was page after page of people saying they wished there were more female models in 40k. 30 years, and no female guardsmen! It's mind boggling. They have left, literally, millions of dollars on the table in squandered opportunity. Moreso, they have utterly and totally failed the gaming community in this arena.



It's not like they can't do it. The Dark Eldar line shows it's totally possible for them to make good looking and gender-diverse models. They just decided we didn't want them; and they decided so because, presumably, they didn't feel like making them.

Rightfully, someone smaller and faster got there first and are now reaping the rewards of this overripe demographic, moving models at literally Forge World prices with minimal complaints (and those are generally about shipping and the minutiae of the Kickstarter, not the sculpts base price or quality).

Do you think this will influence 40k, and WHFB? Have you found other games systems do better in this, and have been more or less successful? Infinity, I believe, already is pretty well represented in gender. Share with the class.

99 reasons to be !@#$ed with GW.

Females ain't one.

1. If I want female IG, I can get at least a regiment if I so chose. GW has shown time and again that they are not interested in gamers, only in cash. To them, us plebes are unworthy of respect, nor our opinion warranted. You will buy like a good little consumer and enjoy what is put before you.

2. Female "scifi" troopers have been done to death. I participated in a project long ago where I threw in with the female Cadian project many moons ago. It was a success, regardless of personal opinions. I can get them from any number of sources, and if I might be so blunt- The market is full of them. Mongoose, Hasslefree, Raging Heros, the hundred and one offs, Reaper, etc. GW wants to jack around, who am I to rage against the machine. I'll take my business elsewhere. Incidentally- there is nothing stopping me from taking my old cadian girls and casting them.

3. As much as I like some more female scifi troops, that raging hero project looks like a mismatched load of gak. They do not gel as a unit, so in some ways they take away the same old tired and drive home the seriousness of how much of a "real" need that is really out there. I like tank Girl as much as the next guy, but in the way in which this company has outright just rolled out the cliché line of gak, I'm not seeing "Serious" scifi girls, but standard issue box of cheesecake. A couple, sure. Maybe two or three per platoon, not a whole army of mismatched T and A.

GW caters to their shareholders not the customers.

If cheesecake is what you want 3rd party is the way to go.

 Grot 6 wrote:

3. As much as I like some more female scifi troops, that raging hero project looks like a mismatched load of gak. They do not gel as a unit, so in some ways they take away the same old tired and drive home the seriousness of how much of a "real" need that is really out there. I like tank Girl as much as the next guy, but in the way in which this company has outright just rolled out the cliché line of gak, I'm not seeing "Serious" scifi girls, but standard issue box of cheesecake. A couple, sure. Maybe two or three per platoon, not a whole army of mismatched T and A.

I'm not sure if we're looking at the same Kickstarter,,,

The Jailbirds are mismatched, certainly, but in the same way that GW's Catachans and Penal troops are... They're supposed to be ragtag and non-uniform. But there's still a strong underlying aesthetic that ties them all together. And the other two factions have a very strong theme tying them all together.

Purely design-wise, this Kickstarter is one of the most professional and squared away that I've seen to date.

Agree. The design is great. It just sucks that the management and communication so far has left a lot to be desired. Still early, so here's hoping.

Related, but not entirely--- Have they said which models are in metal and which aren't yet? Or is it listed next to them and I just am blind and don't see it?

Well, it could possibly help with their sales. Imagine having to buy 3 or 4 boxes of IG infantry just so you can build your one gender army with all official models!

... Kinda like how it is for us (sex-deprived) DE players... really...

 cincydooley wrote:
Related, but not entirely--- Have they said which models are in metal and which aren't yet? Or is it listed next to them and I just am blind and don't see it?

If it's posted, I have not yet seen that either.

Also, going back to the topic - we should maybe not be conflating the Jailbirds faction with the other 2/3rds of the kickstarter.

My roommate went in for $165 on this Kickstarter - he intends to rename his Jailbirds after Ronald Searle's' St. Trinian's School For Young Women:


The Auld Grump

Baronyu wrote:
Well, it could possibly help with their sales. Imagine having to buy 3 or 4 boxes of IG infantry just so you can build your one gender army with all official models!

... Kinda like how it is for us (sex-deprived) DE players... really...

I thought DE players were depraved. Huh.

 NAVARRO wrote:
I'm mad at them because they discontinued their only sexy babes!




GW dropped the ball there

GW has proven again and again they have serious problems sculpting females... so they just say its errrr not what customers want Yeah right!

Gorilla hands and oversized anatomic flaws are less forgiving on a delicate female anatomy sculpt.

Not only did they discontinue these sweet figs, the sculptor who made them has left the company. I need to think of something to do with my box of these...

The Sisters were not very successful when GW released them but a lot has changed since then in terms of the game and who plays it and who might be interested in playing it now.

Current sales of the SoB models is no gauge in potential interest for the reasons we are all familiar with.

Perhaps once GW gets all the big toys for kiddies released they will get back to making real wargaming minis and redo the SoB.

 cincydooley wrote:
Agree. The design is great. It just sucks that the management and communication so far has left a lot to be desired. Still early, so here's hoping.

Related, but not entirely--- Have they said which models are in metal and which aren't yet? Or is it listed next to them and I just am blind and don't see it?

I thought I had read that the characters would be metal, the others would be resin, but I can't find a quote to back that up.



On topic: I think, Ouze, that you're a bit...intense...in your views on sexism in gaming, but for all that, I agree with your basic opinion on this issue. (Games Workshop needs badly to have some quality female models, and the wargaming community wants these models. The success of the Raging Heroes Kickstarter is decent evidence of that fact.)

Do I think the Raging Heroes Kickstarter will have an effect on Games Workshop? Not really. They are the Galapagos tortoises of the industry. Big, solid, long-lived, and slow to change. I'd like for them to take notice eventually, and I'd like for it to affect the larger gaming community as well.

I think one of the reasons this kickstarter is going as well as it is would be due to GW not producing the figures that people want to buy. People want a Sisters army or female IG. GW hasn't updated the sculpts in many years and they're metal where they can be found. Now a company comes along with figures that fit the need and don't weigh a ton in stuffed into a foam case and you complain? What am I missing here?

 Jimsolo wrote:
I thought I had read that the characters would be metal, the others would be resin, but I can't find a quote to back that up.

You got it right. They stated it in the kickstarter somewhere. Near the bottom they also have a note about moving to plastic should the KS go really well. What that means exactly, nobody knows. :/

So, where are people getting the information from that there is a high demand for SoB miniatures?

Its an indication that the contrary is not true.

 cincydooley wrote:

Baronyu wrote:
Well, it could possibly help with their sales. Imagine having to buy 3 or 4 boxes of IG infantry just so you can build your one gender army with all official models!

... Kinda like how it is for us (sex-deprived) DE players... really...

I thought DE players were depraved. Huh.

Ok, fine, sex-deprived-AND-depraved.

nkelsch wrote:
http://martwhim.tumblr.com/post/40061546009/why-do-you-hate-the-shape-of-breasts-in-plate-armor-so

Perfect article... It not only shows why the "bewb armor" is impractical and ineffective but would actually hurt or kill the person wearing it.

Cheesecake is just that, and many people see it as pointless trash. Don't confuse the market for female models with that for cheesecake models.

Agreed that cheesecake and female models are not exclusively tied together.

I would love to know what the qualifications of the person who wrote the above article are. I didn't spend too long, but it seems that they are, at best, an artist with an interest in the subject. Not an armorer, not a doctor, not a physicist. I ask, because this, and this exist. And were insisted on by all of my fiancee's fencing instructors, especially when she started with the heavier weapons.

~Eric

 Taarnak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
http://martwhim.tumblr.com/post/40061546009/why-do-you-hate-the-shape-of-breasts-in-plate-armor-so

Perfect article... It not only shows why the "bewb armor" is impractical and ineffective but would actually hurt or kill the person wearing it.

Cheesecake is just that, and many people see it as pointless trash. Don't confuse the market for female models with that for cheesecake models.

Agreed that cheesecake and female models are not exclusively tied together.

I would love to know what the qualifications of the person who wrote the above article are. I didn't spend too long, but it seems that they are, at best, an artist with an interest in the subject. Not an armorer, not a doctor, not a physicist. I ask, because this, and this exist. And were insisted on by all of my fiancee's fencing instructors, especially when she started with the heavier weapons.

~Eric

Anyone with any background in martial arts, military service, or law enforcement knows that male and female body armor are different.

Trying to convince people who live entirely within what they think things "should be like" is utter futility.

 Monster Rain wrote:

Anyone with any background in martial arts, military service, or law enforcement knows that male and female body armor are different.

Trying to convince people who live entirely within what they think things "should be like" is utter futility.

I haven't really been following so I might be wrong, I just like to read your posts.

But, aren't most people that are arguing otherwise basically saying that the armour isn't really different "enough" to really identify it in a mini?

I mean, in that case, they are entirely correct right?

Nerds into wargaming seem to be fixated on the armour showing off a pair of massive jugs, and that obviously isn't the case.

Now, you and I both know that they are different in reality, because girls have different body armor in the military and you served in the USMC and I STRADDLE THE BATTLEFIELD LIKE A MIGHTY COLOSSUS, but if we are just discussing how it is represented on the tabletop, then the differences actually are negligible aren't they?

I mean, sure girls have different ballistic vests, fencing armor and possibly even plate mail, but its not cut in half down the middle and then bolted together to leave a nice gap for some great cleavage and some sexy abs, and I think thats the point people are wanting to make!

Fair enough, but when the armor is designed for a closer fit on the chest which it is:

http://www.army.mil/article/90697/

It's going to be rather more obvious that the torso under the vest is shaped rather differently than that of your average man. This may be hard to do at 25mm scale, which I think was the reason for the exaggerated features on SoB armor.

 Taarnak wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
http://martwhim.tumblr.com/post/40061546009/why-do-you-hate-the-shape-of-breasts-in-plate-armor-so

Perfect article... It not only shows why the "bewb armor" is impractical and ineffective but would actually hurt or kill the person wearing it.

Cheesecake is just that, and many people see it as pointless trash. Don't confuse the market for female models with that for cheesecake models.

Agreed that cheesecake and female models are not exclusively tied together.

I would love to know what the qualifications of the person who wrote the above article are. I didn't spend too long, but it seems that they are, at best, an artist with an interest in the subject. Not an armorer, not a doctor, not a physicist. I ask, because this, and this exist. And were insisted on by all of my fiancee's fencing instructors, especially when she started with the heavier weapons.

~Eric

My ex- was a national fencer - those hard plates are worn below the thick, padded suit and armour they wear. It's more to prevent any injuries should the point break through both layers and/or if the blade snaps. It's designed with modern fencing and "casual safety" in mind as opposed to actual combat.

Edit:

 mattyrm wrote:
and you served in the USMC and I STRADDLE THE BATTLEFIELD LIKE A MIGHTY COLOSSUS

I got a decent chuckle out of this after seeing your Dakka rank.

 mattyrm wrote:

Nerds into wargaming seem to be fixated on the armour showing off a pair of massive jugs, and that obviously isn't the case.

But there is a difference between "stripper" and "recognisably female". I think there is a gap in the market for female characters who look plausible within the role and genre they're meant to be in, by artists who understand that you don't have to default to "sexy" to make a woman look impressive or interesting.

But that example of a 'female breastplate' was the equivalent of a 'cup'. So every male model who wears a cup needs a giant, exterior, over exaggerated, penis-shaped massive piece to make the model look male?

By time you wear anything over the 'female cup' you won't even see the 'bewbs' and the outer armor for a fantasy-armor would be either a regular breastplate or a corseted breastplate, and in scifi, would be flack armor, which has slightly different dimensions, but not one to accentuate female curves like in the cheesecake models we see.

http://www.army.mil/article/90697/


Make those models. At 28mm the distinction is almost non-visible, just slightly different body dimensions. That is what GW should sneak into their sprues, not more bewbs.

nkelsch wrote:
So every male model who wears a cup needs a giant, exterior, over exaggerated, penis-shaped massive piece to make the model look male?

Please don't put words in my mouth. You sited that article as the be-all-end-all argument as to why those types of armor don't exist. I asked (and still haven't heard) what the author's qualifications were to write it. Then posited a reason that it might not be the be-all-end-all that you thought.

nkelsch wrote:

Make those models. At 28mm the distinction is almost non-visible, just slightly different body dimensions. That is what GW should sneak into their sprues, not more bewbs.

There are a few of those out there. But when we (as wargamers, especially sci-fi/fantasy ones) discuss females in armor, we are usually not talking about an armored vest over baggy clothes. I agree that these have their place (and it looks like Hasslefree are making at least a couple).

Also, a lot of folks have fallen back on the position that the people who want visually distinct female models are just looking for cheesecake (or are socially slowed mouth-breathers who just want to see miniature "bewbs"). Which is wrong, and usually when espoused, done so in the most offensive way possible.

Hasslefree has other female sci-fi models in body armor that are pretty much what I have been asking for (other decent examples are Sedition Wars Vanguard {although some take issue with their posing} , and Mantic's Void Siren female Dreadball team). These are armored, and visually discernible from the male models at a distance of a couple of feet, which would be the typical distance that these models are viewed at.

Enigwolf wrote:
My ex- was a national fencer - those hard plates are worn below the thick, padded suit and armour they wear. It's more to prevent any injuries should the point break through both layers and/or if the blade snaps. It's designed with modern fencing and "casual safety" in mind as opposed to actual combat.

Yeah, I know. I have watched the odd match or two and there was more than one fall, with no catastrophic injury. Which, given the hypothesis of the article quoted, and the fact that these are worn in close proximity to the skin, should not be the case. I concede that the fact that these are plastic plays a role in the lack of injuries.

TL;DR: Not everyone who wants visibly female models is looking for cheesecake (or "bewbs"), so please stop reducing the discussion to that.

~Eric