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.
Albertorius wrote: You'll be needing coherent male sculpts for it fo actually feel like an integrated force. How about something like this:
Too tame, maybe? Guess it needs legs/arms protection, though.
To be consistent with the rest of the range presented here, I believe they'd have to modify the original design from a diaper to a thong in the back. I believe the aerodynamics of that are better for riding the inevitable dirt bike motorcycles. I also believe they'll have to add much more additional padding along the front of the diaper so that the level of beefcake matches the previously presented cheescake.
This all assumes men even fight, aren't considered second class citizens and are on the battlefield. I would probably imagine the society much like Paradise Island in DC, Wonder Woman's main land of Themyscira where women rule, men don't exist. Men are just needed for genetic materials and stock afterall. ^_^
Dark Severance wrote: This all assumes men even fight, aren't considered second class citizens and are on the battlefield. I would probably imagine the society much like Paradise Island in DC, Wonder Woman's main land of Themyscira where women rule, men don't exist. Men are just needed for genetic materials and stock afterall. ^_^
I dig that.
However, i don't think anyone should have to justify why a fantasy wargame conflict is fought entirely by women any more than why one (well, nearly all on the market) are fought entirely by men. No one gives the latter a 2nd thought. It's all make believe.
If a game producer wants their make believe to be an 18+ Heavy Metal/FAKK 2000 version of fantasy conflict, why should he/she/they be shouted down? Why judge the people who do want to buy the game and paint the minis infantile/juvenile/worse? Just vote with your wallet.
I'll pick up a handful of the armored ones if i like the final product. I'll very likely pick up the bike set. Doing so encourages Prodos to make more of those. Nothing good will come of wailing and gnashing of teeth about a product i'm not going to buy.
Vrex wrote: However, i don't think anyone should have to justify why a fantasy wargame conflict is fought entirely by women any more than why one (well, nearly all on the market) are fought entirely by men. No one gives the latter a 2nd thought.
Isn't that sexism though? Just because other markets are fought almost entirely by men, doesn't mean there couldn't exist where societies are entirely fought by women. Just the fact that no one gives the latter a 2nd thought, but somehow the other-way around isn't plausible... even though it is all make believe.
I never said these should be shot down or people who buy them should be judged. I will probably pick up a few of both armored and unarmored, although I will be doing black suits anime style instead of skin. Anyone that wants to paint skin is fine with me. I don't look at them and think they someone is worse off or some closest pervert.
I do have an issue with a couple of the sculpts though because I don't agree with the designs, not that they have breasts. I have no issue creating a plausible background and story to support it. The sculpts seem like a bad design but that may just be because of the paint jobs as some of the resin only seem fine.
I always imagined the background being something like:
Spoiler:
On the planet Themiscrya the women had grown tired of the evil ways of mankind, separating themselves to where they could practice a peaceful way of life and cultivate their minds. The world is controlled and ran by the women, men existing as second class citizens that are only present for genetic stock. There are two factions created in a caste society composed of two factions the aristocracy and the warriors. The aristocracy are those in the higher tiers of society who control and forge the direction the Empire takes.
They knew they had to protect themselves and developed a the warriors system which would genetically breed the perfect warrior. The warriors were created in the image of the aristocracy who control the planet. They aren't second class citizens but they don't hold the rank that the aristocracy hold. Most nobles are born into the aristocracy although on some occasions warriors that have exemplified themselves for the Empire can be raised in ranks.
Over the years the sludge, bad genetic material and other had to be disposed of. Corporations looking to increase their profit margins utilized inadequate disposal methods, often taking shortcuts. The demons harvested this sludge and utilized it creating their own abominations. Being rejected they are fighting for their own survival against the Empire.
Vrex wrote: However, i don't think anyone should have to justify why a fantasy wargame conflict is fought entirely by women any more than why one (well, nearly all on the market) are fought entirely by men. No one gives the latter a 2nd thought.
On the planet Themiscrya the women had grown tired of the evil ways of mankind, separating themselves to where they could practice a peaceful way of life and cultivate their minds. The world is controlled and ran by the women, men existing as second class citizens that are only present for genetic stock.
This is, though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/17 22:30:51
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
Vrex wrote: However, i don't think anyone should have to justify why a fantasy wargame conflict is fought entirely by women any more than why one (well, nearly all on the market) are fought entirely by men. No one gives the latter a 2nd thought.
Isn't that sexism though? ...
no, no, I'm agreeing with you. You should *not* have to justify an all female conflict any more than you should have to justify an all male.
My post replied initially to your's with "i dig it", then i did a 90 degree turn without signaling first.
After that I was throwing out general-response-thoughts about the tone of many of the other posters in general. Sorry for the confusion.
I'm way under-caffeinated right now and blame my slow-firing brain.
And i like your background fluff. Commission Patrick Keith and Tom Mason to sculpt it and i'm in.
=]
Legitimate question... why? I mean why is it perfectly acceptable to believe that a society is ran by men, men are the soldiers that make up the army and women aren't there for whatever reasons. The premise is that there is prejudice, discrimination against women. However if it is the reverse where society is ran by women, women make up the soldiers in the army and men aren't there for whatever reasons... that isn't considered prejudice, discrimination against men?
Actually never mind. I think I misunderstood what was being said which is why it isn't considered that. I took it a different direction than what the poster was meaning.
It was actually designed to be honestly, although technically I didn't write it. DC Comics created the initial part of it.
Dark Severance wrote: After that I was throwing out general-response-thoughts about the tone of many of the other posters in general. Sorry for the confusion.
No worries, makes sense now.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/17 22:51:49
To be consistent with the rest of the range presented here, I believe they'd have to modify the original design from a diaper to a thong in the back. I believe the aerodynamics of that are better for riding the inevitable dirt bike motorcycles. I also believe they'll have to add much more additional padding along the front of the diaper so that the level of beefcake matches the previously presented cheescake.
Sinful Hero wrote: But...but... They don't even look similar to real heels! There's no support for the heel itself-it all goes to her toes! Or maybe they're supposed to be...Power Heels?
They make her legs look more horse than woman's.
I've seen this design in a few animes before, it all looks very uncomfortable and wobbly, but rule of cool right?
Oddly, I think this kind of design is more mainstream then... well, then I can explain. I base that on their appearance in a Taylor Swift video (don't judge me);
In turn those seem to have found plenty of inspiration in the late 1980's anime Bubblegum Crisis;
Nothing good will come of wailing and gnashing of teeth about a product i'm not going to buy. I'll shrug and simply support what i like.
There's a lot of similar sentiments along the lines of 'if you don't like it, don't buy it', 'vote with your wallet' etc.
All those are valid, and if people don't like the models, not buying them will certainly send a message.
However, what is much more useful is to state WHY you're not buying it. It's more useful to the people making the models, it's more useful to other potential manufacturers. That's why a lot of people are commenting negatively (and vocally) about this. If the reason people don't want to buy the models is because they find them insulting, or sexist, or that they feel they portray wargaming in a negative light, they should absolutely come on here and say that. And THEN not buy them!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/18 11:49:03
That is assuming the reason people state is the real reason.
"I think they look sexist" could really be "I don't want to look like a perv" or "I want to sound progressive/superior". With things like this people regularly deceive themselves let alone each other.
"I think they look sexist" could really be "I don't want to look like a perv" or "I want to sound progressive/superior". With things like this people regularly deceive themselves let alone each other.
"I think they look sexist" could really be "I don't want to look like a perv" or "I want to sound progressive/superior". With things like this people regularly deceive themselves let alone each other.
*laugh* No.
I guarantee that there are than a few people who do that. I have a few of those friends.
"I think they look sexist" could really be "I don't want to look like a perv" or "I want to sound progressive/superior". With things like this people regularly deceive themselves let alone each other.
Considering how much Kingdom Death plastic and resin(and not to mention my PVC statues and art related things) I have, it'd be hypocritical of me to say I don't like them because "I don't want to look like a perv". I've gone way past that territory, and I've come to accept it.
I don't fancy the models because I don't agree with a few of the design choices, such as thin waists with heavy armor, lack of heels/toes, and of course the bikini bashers("round orbs"). They just don't trip my trigger, I'm not a fan of digital renders in general, and the paint jobs were lacking on a few of the first previews(not to mention digital). I believe I've gone over a few others during the course of the thread.
We all do it to some level. How deep do you go when you are asked why you like something? There are thousands of studies on how lighting, colour, surrounding,time of day and other things affect how favourable our opinion of something is.
Realisticly very few people are going to post here that they like the boobinators since they subconsciously remind them of the cover of their first razz mag or don't like them since they remind them of the stripper you cheated with that broke up your second marriage.
Badly sculpted? Sexist? I'd rather plant my flag in that camp.
This product could quite easily generate a huge amount of negative forum posts but still be the best seller for prodos. Look at election polls to see this in effect.
People like to be able to give a simple reason for liking or disliking something but never forget there is always more to it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/18 14:29:05
dragqueeninspace wrote: We all do it to some level. How deep do you go when you are asked why you like something? There are thousands of studies on how lighting, colour, surrounding,time of day and other things affect how favourable our opinion of something is.
Realisticly very few people are going to post here that they like the boobinators since they subconsciously remind them of the cover of their first razz mag or don't like them since they remind them of the stripper you cheated with that broke up your second marriage.
Badly sculpted? Sexist? I'd rather plant my flag in that camp.
This product could quite easily generate a huge amount of negative forum posts but still be the best seller for prodos. Look at election polls to see this in effect.
People like to be able to give a simple reason for liking or disliking something but never forget there is always more to it.
None of this make any sense in the context of this thread. Nobody is forcing anyone to reply at all, so none of those reasons apply.
If I liked this sexist crap but didn't want to look like a perv I'd just not reply? Why on Earth would I actively reply with the opposite of my own opinion?
Your reasoning might hold 'some' water if this was a live interview and we were questioning people but to try and pass off the 'overwhelmingly' bad response to this nonsense as anything other than people's actual feelings is ... I'll be polite and say 'not backed up by anything resembling evidence'.
As to whether or not the 'silent majority' is incredibly in favour of this, that was partly why I mocked them for removing their live sales. It was quite clear that it wasn't as popular as they claimed because you could see how much they sold after their announcement. As the only evidence we have is the combination of public response and those early sales figures I'm more than comfortable in saying that this is a) not that popular but b) still more popular than I'd like to not be embarrassed by my hobby..
"I think they look sexist" could really be "I don't want to look like a perv" or "I want to sound progressive/superior". With things like this people regularly deceive themselves let alone each other.
Oh, I totally agree. "I think they look sexist" could easily be "I think they look sexist, which may be fine for other people, but I don't like people thinking wargaming is sexist, because I'm a wargamer"
But I think it would be disingenuous to assume that everyone posting that they consider the models to be sexist is ACTUALLY just trying to look superior to others. They might just, you know, think the models are sexist.
Except it is relevant since it was claimed that posting why you don't buy something is important, I'm pointing out that this information is inherently untrustworthy.
People like to pour scorn on things and this is a GREAT opportunity. Plenty of people post just to tell nobody in particular what they think about something that doesn't matter.
Frankly as a competing interest your statements should be given very little weight. Stiring gak here actively benefits you.
@Arbitorlan
I never claimed everyone who thinks they are sexist is lying or delusional but some are. My point is likes and dislikes are complex and their articulation is rarely straightforward. The reliability of forum posts for gauging peoples true feelings is low, particularly on a subject like this.
dragqueeninspace wrote: Except it is relevant since it was claimed that posting why you don't buy something is important, I'm pointing out that this information is inherently untrustworthy.
People like to pour scorn on things and this is a GREAT opportunity. Plenty of people post just to tell nobody in particular what they think about something that doesn't matter.
Frankly as a competing interest your statements should be given very little weight. Stiring gak here actively benefits you..
I can't tell which of those green things is the rolly eyes one so just assume I did it here.
Once again, not all miniature companies are 'competing interests'.
Although I will admit to the tangential fact that this kind of sexist dog gak going away benefits the hobby as a whole, which include me and the company I work for.
But it is a nice attempt to try and belittle the views of the scornful, kudos on having a decent stab at it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/18 22:59:20
dragqueeninspace wrote: Except it is relevant since it was claimed that posting why you don't buy something is important, I'm pointing out that this information is inherently untrustworthy.
People like to pour scorn on things and this is a GREAT opportunity. Plenty of people post just to tell nobody in particular what they think about something that doesn't matter.
Frankly as a competing interest your statements should be given very little weight. Stiring gak here actively benefits you..
I can't tell which of those green things is the rolly eyes one so just assume I did it here.
Once again, not all miniature companies are 'competing interests'.
Although I will admit to the tangential fact that this kind of sexist dogshit going away benefits the hobby as a whole, which include me and the company I work for.
But it is a nice attempt to try and belittle the views of the scornful, kudos on having a decent stab at it.
You're really not doing yourself or your company any favors.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/18 22:27:01
dragqueeninspace wrote: Except it is relevant since it was claimed that posting why you don't buy something is important, I'm pointing out that this information is inherently untrustworthy.
People like to pour scorn on things and this is a GREAT opportunity. Plenty of people post just to tell nobody in particular what they think about something that doesn't matter.
Frankly as a competing interest your statements should be given very little weight. Stiring gak here actively benefits you..
I can't tell which of those green things is the rolly eyes one so just assume I did it here.
Once again, not all miniature companies are 'competing interests'.
Although I will admit to the tangential fact that this kind of sexist dogshit going away benefits the hobby as a whole, which include me and the company I work for.
But it is a nice attempt to try and belittle the views of the scornful, kudos on having a decent stab at it.
You're really not doing yourself or your company any favors.
Well I'll just have to live with your disapproval.
dragqueeninspace wrote: Except it is relevant since it was claimed that posting why you don't buy something is important, I'm pointing out that this information is inherently untrustworthy.
People like to pour scorn on things and this is a GREAT opportunity. Plenty of people post just to tell nobody in particular what they think about something that doesn't matter.
Frankly as a competing interest your statements should be given very little weight. Stiring gak here actively benefits you..
I can't tell which of those green things is the rolly eyes one so just assume I did it here.
Once again, not all miniature companies are 'competing interests'.
Although I will admit to the tangential fact that this kind of sexist dogshit going away benefits the hobby as a whole, which include me and the company I work for.
But it is a nice attempt to try and belittle the views of the scornful, kudos on having a decent stab at it.
You're really not doing yourself or your company any favors.
Well I'll just have to live with your disapproval.
I have to be honest, he's probably not the only one.
Nothing wrong at all with having an opinion and posting about it, but when it's such a strong one (calling work of someone else in the trade dog gak) you're necessarily going to get some people getting turned away from the company that you work for.
It's rarely a good idea to post on a public forum, using the name of the company you work for and attacking the work of another company. That sort of stuff will get you fired from most companies because it reflects poorly on your professionalism.
If you have such opinions of another company, that's fine, it's usually smarter to post anonymously though.
I'm actually more likely to put my money toward a company that has staff who stand against the blatant nonsense of others.
I also very much doubt the majority of people tutting and admonishing Arty were lining his tills to begin with.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It's rarely a good idea to post on a public forum, using the name of the company you work for and attacking the work of another company. That sort of stuff will get you fired from most companies because it reflects poorly on your professionalism.
If you have such opinions of another company, that's fine, it's usually smarter to post anonymously though.
I don't believe in that, that's pretty much sockpuppeting. I'm well aware that any views I put forward impact on the company I work for which is why I rarely bother to speak up unless I feel it is more than warranted, this time I believe it was. I absolutely hate this kind of sexist nonsense being so noticeable in the industry, I think it sets the hobby back years and I've fought (in my own small way) all my working life to not have that be the case. To have a company this size put out something that would have embarrassed me 25 yrs ago is just ... disheartening.
If some people think that's worth holding against my company then so be it, some things are worth it.
(more)
(building)
(less)
