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.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Only a fraction of all CEOs are female, but when I hear 'CEO' I do not think 'male'.

The % of females is only part of the reason (and I believe the % of female CEO's is still significantly higher than the % of females in front line combat roles, especially when you consider it over a century or so to include the 2 world wars).

Like I said before, I think the important thing is to establish space for those indistinguishable models to be either gender, whether that's through fiction materials (so maybe you read a book about Stormcast Eternals that has a bunch of Stormcast who are women in it and they look the same as the rest of them) or through particular examples of the models (the stereotypical example here is the helmetless figures). Then when you have established that space, it's clear that all your generic armoured models could be men or women.

Of course, that requires you to not also build units of troops where all the soldiers appear to be male. For example, the Epirian Contractors unit would ruin our hypothetical other units by suggesting that all-male units are the default. This is pretty common in fantasy wargames I think? You have some units where you can't tell the gender of the soldiers because of their heavy armour, but they'll be alongside lightly-armoured (or lightly-clothed) troops where their gender is more apparent, and it suggests that all the armoured troops are men too.

It'd probably help to have more diverse concept drawings, too. If you establish through the drawings that, yeah, women who don't have ponytails exist in the setting, then that could help make models more credible.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Also don't female Tau Fire Warriors just look exactly the same as male Tau Fire Warriors? I thought it was only those weirdo fans that drew pictures of female Tau with big boobs and bums Aren't the actual female Tau very similar in appearance to male Tau?

The evidence is sparse, basically everything we have on Tau biology is from a few pages of Xenology which leaves room for some doubt. The only Tau we've ever seen shirtless are a few male ethereals who look like bodybuilder types. I will admit, the Tau line have gotten better lately. I'm pretty sure every model that came with bare head choices in the last release had a female head. However, even in the fluff 9/10 named characters are male (I can only recall Shadowsun and Torchstar, and Torchstar doesn't even have a unique model) and we have 0 female ethereals, even though they keep coming out with new sculpts.

 Jayden63 wrote:
Actually, I think if anyone walks into a standard gaming shop (especially a GW shop since they discourage using non-GW products) they wouldn't see any of the alternative cheese cake models from these other companies. I personally have never seen an alternative party figure outside of a private collection or garage game. Most don't actually make it to a public gaming store. So your pretty much stuck seeing the basic gaming lines and the models that they come with. Yes they are for sale, yes people buy them, some people may actually buy a lot of them, but how many actually make it into forces that get brought to a public place?

I think that's another facet of this issue, and I agree with you. Even in independent game stores, you're not likely to see anything outside of GW, PP, FFG, and maybe CB or Reaper depending on the local community, all of which have predominantly tame models, or at least, the ones that aren't are rarely sold in stores (When's the last time you saw SoB in an actual store?). For the most part, cheesecake models are not meant for gaming. Take Kingdom Death, for example. Kingdom Death has numerous suggestive female models, but you're probably never going to see them in a game store. Even if someone was to bring Monster, the Kingdom Death board game, into a game store and play, the most risque thing you'd see are the loincloth-clad starting survivors (and I'd argue none of them are particularly gratuitous). The KD pin-up models and their more controversial monsters that people like to pick at, don't have a use or a place in the game, and as delicate resin figures, they're unlikely to see play on a tabletop. In comparison, something like Prodos's Space Crusade (in its initial form) is much more noticeable, since, as an ostensibly self-contained board game, those models are intended to see play, rather than simply being collectors pieces.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I then put that default assumption into question. This is a hobby, not real life.

Personally, I want miniatures to have recognizable features from a foot away. From a meter away, they might as well be tokens for all the detail I can see. But, as I care about modeling and fluff instead of the gaming aspect, I am doing it wrong.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

This means that if you want to include female soldier figures they need to be differentiated from the male soldier figures.

Only in very small ways, more feminine faces etc if at all, after all details like that would be very noticeable to someone who is painting the specific models so they will know that it is feminine and that is largely all that matters. I simply don't understand why people would want female miniatures to be differentiated largely by their breast size, except for the usual reasons of course.

No one would expect to see women in Historical games (except in very specific instances) but why would that be the case in Sci Fi games? Many such games explicitly state in their fluff that women are combatants and have miniature ranges to match.

What do you think of the Statuesque Minis female freedom fighters?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What do you think of the Statuesque Minis female freedom fighters?

Variable. Some are fine but others have dubious poses or deliberately prominent breasts.



That's a good example. Obviously female but not tits all over the place.



Not so good...

 Rainyday wrote:

The evidence is sparse, basically everything we have on Tau biology is from a few pages of Xenology which leaves room for some doubt. The only Tau we've ever seen shirtless are a few male ethereals who look like bodybuilder types. I will admit, the Tau line have gotten better lately. I'm pretty sure every model that came with bare head choices in the last release had a female head. However, even in the fluff 9/10 named characters are male (I can only recall Shadowsun and Torchstar, and Torchstar doesn't even have a unique model) and we have 0 female ethereals, even though they keep coming out with new sculpts.

GW has not produced to my knowledge any other Y shaped head except Shadowsun and this is the only defining feature we know about female tau, of course this allows us to assume TAU are sexual dimorphic, but we do not know to what extend, if we assume they are mammals, then they must have breasts if not, well they should not have.

@BobtheInquisitor
1 meter 1/3rd of a meter, not big difference really, more or less its the same.

With my vision, that is a huge difference.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What do you think of the Statuesque Minis female freedom fighters?

I have the french resistance fighters and the "commissar"


They are very well done. more realistic than cheesecake

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Does it have to? Usually we do not design models to look specifically male from a meter away. A Marine looks male because he has much wider shoulders than hips, for instance, but from a meter away it's difficult to compare the ratio, and aside from that his massive armour is quite androgynous. Shouldn't we get rid of most of the armour plating so that it's obvious that it's male? It must be obviously male, otherwise you may as well collect a female army.

Why yes, of course it does, the whole point of making female models if to have a representation of female characters in a setting, if they do not look like it then why bother, they may all be male for what it is worth (the default assumption for a combat environment).

And this is a thing discussed on many of the pages that have passed, if you want to make a representation of something, it must look like the thing you intent to represent under the conditions it is indented to be used.

A "realistically depicted" female warrior in 28-32mm scale is almost identical to the male one some differentiation must happen for the sculpt to look what it is supposed to represent, even Victoria's female guards have elements that are not "realistic depictions" of female warriors to diferentiate them from the male counterparts and I am sure nobody has (or should have) anything bad to say about them.

We've been specifically talking about female models needing to be obvious from a meter away. So on this point I still stand by it, they don't need to be instantly (and hilariously) obvious and could still fulfill the purpose of being female. There's a lot of subtle to clear ways to portray females in miniature without resorting to the clichéd representations that saturate the industry.

Indeed, if a soldier is intended to fight, it must look ready to fight first, regardless of sex.

Victoria's miniatures are still designed for male oriented and dominated hobby. Of course they will still skew on the side of obvious. It's only notable that she doesn't go comically obvious in her miniatures. It's funny that the reason why those minis are notable for this conversation is that they are so reserved, yet you're trying to use them as an example for needing to be more obvious.

This quote is like a twisted and reaching version of how some men believe women must look a certain way for men.

I am interested in your results, more power to you if you pull it of, you may even set an example for others.

I do not get the comment about Victoria? yours will not be designed for such a hobby? I set her as an example of female models done "decently" or as the more restricted here want and point out the design problems this approach has and how she works around it.

Yes, Arcadia line is quite difficult to differentiate if the trooper is helmeted and the Tanneburg line which is newer has more prominent differentiating factors to help this issue, I do not think this is made because of a male oriented and dominated hobby, but from the desire to represent what the model is supposed to be.

What would be the point of increasing the female representation in the models if they are passed as males?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

What would be the point of increasing the female representation in the models if they are passed as males?

Becasue the more often people have to pause and think over their own assumptions, the better the odds of people realizing that those assumptions make no sense. They're only "passed as males" because male is assumed to be the default.

99% of those that observe will not notice will not pause and will not think about their own assumptions.

This is not Metroid thing, were the main and only character is revealed to be a female and one must redefine his or her worldview, its a bunch of 3 cm (ish) miniatures quite some distance away that come and go quite fast indeed.

I have people assume all models in Infinity are male from gaming distance and CB is not subtle on differentiating their models.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
99% of those that observe will not notice will not pause and will not think about their own assumptions.

Just like you just didn't pause to question that assumption?

And yes, I realize I just made an assupmtion too.

No, because I am talking from experience, so it is not an assumption.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
There is a place for the tasteless, the over top, i like rocky horror picture, old Troma movies, Japanese Guro movies.
Controversial movies etcetera. I sometimes don't understand why people feel the need to go on the moral high ground and preach that something wrong.
There is so much violence and porn on the internet that a few plastic and/or metal boobs will not corrupt any kids/grown ups.

And as the media/movies still cast sexy males and females in unrealistic representations then a little titillation in a niche hobby will not be an issue IMHO.


Off course agree the quality of some of those casts can be criticized.

There is a problem though when the UN women's commission distinctly points out that Japanese depiction of women in Comics and games is harmful though.

Whatever your opinion may be on this is does show that ultimately certain viewpoints are considered Good and others bad. Peer pressure and possibly laws will come into place stopping things considered Taboo.. it has happened. It will happen.

Look at the Street fighter V censorship Especially Mika ( and no matter what anyone says or how the devs spin the thing it is censorship, if that's good or bad is subjective )

Western American Collage viewpoints are now considered the gold standard to look at everything. People Like Laci Green, and Anita Sarkeesian are now the go to on these things. Even if you don't like it, We have to adapt and face that ultimately our opinions were wrong.

This is again An Analogy once a big feminist notices war games they will be changed

What is the problem?

I am not clear if you mean that the statement from the UN indicates that there is a problem in visual depictions of women, or if you mean that it is a problem that the UN has made that statement. If the latter, then why?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
No, because I am talking from experience, so it is not an assumption.

You're generalizing your experiences to the entire population. That's as good as an example of assumption that one can get.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the problem?

I am not clear if you mean that the statement from the UN indicates that there is a problem in visual depictions of women, or if you mean that it is a problem that the UN has made that statement. If the latter, then why?

The problem is that while the UN is happy to go against Japan for cartoons or against perceived violence against nasty words on Twitter without more evidence than C:

When actual more violence against women is happening in cologne, Berlin, Calais, to name a few to problems ultimately they caused.

Let alone the problems in Isil or other states where you can hit women quite legally but those countries are on the security council (not isil )and would never ever Say a bad word against them.

The UN has been ignored by the US when it wants too yet. key influential people who champion a form of Feminism that quite honestly is Puritanical. While I now think they can be Correct that there are significant problems within Certain Sections of geek / gaming culture. Destroying it seems stupid.

A recent article from CBR said comics should be scrapped and follow a narrative similar to the recent tv shows ( more specifically Superfeminist... sorry Supergirl) because of a potential buyer base ( key word potential) and if the current buyer base who have distinctly said they would like them separate... can basically go to hell. when the same article mentions when The walking dead readership remained largely unchanged due to the tv show, where as the TV show is loosing viewers.

Look I would like both Cheesecake and More normal figures to exist even if those figures are still going to be exaggerated or there wont be any difference... But if i have to choose Id rather the hoby survives even if its Censored into oblivion.

What do you think the UN should do in Berlin and Cologne?

Actually, it would be better not to ask or answer that query as we are getting off topic.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Abanshee wrote:

Correcting muh spelling. God, your insufferable. I asked you guys a legitimate question. As, to why you guys were so upset about tits on a model. You avoided the question by calling me a troll and telling me to read the origin (which I have frigging slow). Stop avoiding the question and answer it.

You don't get to demand anything. Now go away.

Doesn't matter someone already had the balls and courtesy to answer my question. Though it is typical of social justice crowd to not answer questions, no matter how legitimate.

 Abanshee wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

 Abanshee wrote:

Correcting muh spelling. God, your insufferable. I asked you guys a legitimate question. As, to why you guys were so upset about tits on a model. You avoided the question by calling me a troll and telling me to read the origin (which I have frigging slow). Stop avoiding the question and answer it.

You don't get to demand anything. Now go away.

Doesn't matter someone already had the balls and courtesy to answer my question. Though it is typical of social justice crowd to not answer questions, no matter how legitimate.

I agree with you. Some members of the Progressive movement have a better than you attitude. It does need to be changed in order to build bridges and actually fiix problems in stead of just rowing on each other. I hate modern social justice but I am a progressive. don't think everybody is bad okay?

migooo wrote:

 Abanshee wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:

 Abanshee wrote:

Correcting muh spelling. God, your insufferable. I asked you guys a legitimate question. As, to why you guys were so upset about tits on a model. You avoided the question by calling me a troll and telling me to read the origin (which I have frigging slow). Stop avoiding the question and answer it.

You don't get to demand anything. Now go away.

Doesn't matter someone already had the balls and courtesy to answer my question. Though it is typical of social justice crowd to not answer questions, no matter how legitimate.

I agree with you. Some members of the Progressive movement have a better than you attitude. It does need to be changed in order to build bridges and actually fiix problems in stead of just rowing on each other. I hate modern social justice but I am a progressive. don't think everybody is bad okay?

I am glad we see eye to eye and can wholeheartedly agree that the modern form of social justice has developed into witch-hunting almost. As, for the last statement, what are you a fool everyone is against you. At least that what the dark, sinister, ever-howling whispers of corruption tell me.

migooo wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
There is a place for the tasteless, the over top, i like rocky horror picture, old Troma movies, Japanese Guro movies.
Controversial movies etcetera. I sometimes don't understand why people feel the need to go on the moral high ground and preach that something wrong.
There is so much violence and porn on the internet that a few plastic and/or metal boobs will not corrupt any kids/grown ups.

And as the media/movies still cast sexy males and females in unrealistic representations then a little titillation in a niche hobby will not be an issue IMHO.


Off course agree the quality of some of those casts can be criticized.

There is a problem though when the UN women's commission distinctly points out that Japanese depiction of women in Comics and games is harmful though.

Whatever your opinion may be on this is does show that ultimately certain viewpoints are considered Good and others bad. Peer pressure and possibly laws will come into place stopping things considered Taboo.. it has happened. It will happen.

Look at the Street fighter V censorship Especially Mika ( and no matter what anyone says or how the devs spin the thing it is censorship, if that's good or bad is subjective )

Western American Collage viewpoints are now considered the gold standard to look at everything. People Like Laci Green, and Anita Sarkeesian are now the go to on these things. Even if you don't like it, We have to adapt and face that ultimately our opinions were wrong.

This is again An Analogy once a big feminist notices war games they will be changed

Censorship is when an external agent forces you to change something, which is not what happened with SFV. The SFV situation could be called self-censorship if you wanted to, although why anyone would protest the voluntary removal of a near-naked double D girl butt slapping herself for the camera from a fighting game is beyond me.

 Mymearan wrote:

migooo wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
There is a place for the tasteless, the over top, i like rocky horror picture, old Troma movies, Japanese Guro movies.
Controversial movies etcetera. I sometimes don't understand why people feel the need to go on the moral high ground and preach that something wrong.
There is so much violence and porn on the internet that a few plastic and/or metal boobs will not corrupt any kids/grown ups.

And as the media/movies still cast sexy males and females in unrealistic representations then a little titillation in a niche hobby will not be an issue IMHO.


Off course agree the quality of some of those casts can be criticized.

There is a problem though when the UN women's commission distinctly points out that Japanese depiction of women in Comics and games is harmful though.

Whatever your opinion may be on this is does show that ultimately certain viewpoints are considered Good and others bad. Peer pressure and possibly laws will come into place stopping things considered Taboo.. it has happened. It will happen.

Look at the Street fighter V censorship Especially Mika ( and no matter what anyone says or how the devs spin the thing it is censorship, if that's good or bad is subjective )

Western American Collage viewpoints are now considered the gold standard to look at everything. People Like Laci Green, and Anita Sarkeesian are now the go to on these things. Even if you don't like it, We have to adapt and face that ultimately our opinions were wrong.

This is again An Analogy once a big feminist notices war games they will be changed

Censorship is when an external agent forces you to change something, which is not what happened with SFV. The SFV situation could be called self-censorship if you wanted to, although why anyone would protest the voluntary removal of a near-naked double D girl butt slapping herself for the camera from a fighting game is beyond me.

And if you honestly think that peer pressure did not apply to that situation then honestly we are in a worse state of affairs than I previously thought.

migooo wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

migooo wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
There is a place for the tasteless, the over top, i like rocky horror picture, old Troma movies, Japanese Guro movies.
Controversial movies etcetera. I sometimes don't understand why people feel the need to go on the moral high ground and preach that something wrong.
There is so much violence and porn on the internet that a few plastic and/or metal boobs will not corrupt any kids/grown ups.

And as the media/movies still cast sexy males and females in unrealistic representations then a little titillation in a niche hobby will not be an issue IMHO.


Off course agree the quality of some of those casts can be criticized.

There is a problem though when the UN women's commission distinctly points out that Japanese depiction of women in Comics and games is harmful though.

Whatever your opinion may be on this is does show that ultimately certain viewpoints are considered Good and others bad. Peer pressure and possibly laws will come into place stopping things considered Taboo.. it has happened. It will happen.

Look at the Street fighter V censorship Especially Mika ( and no matter what anyone says or how the devs spin the thing it is censorship, if that's good or bad is subjective )

Western American Collage viewpoints are now considered the gold standard to look at everything. People Like Laci Green, and Anita Sarkeesian are now the go to on these things. Even if you don't like it, We have to adapt and face that ultimately our opinions were wrong.

This is again An Analogy once a big feminist notices war games they will be changed

Censorship is when an external agent forces you to change something, which is not what happened with SFV. The SFV situation could be called self-censorship if you wanted to, although why anyone would protest the voluntary removal of a near-naked double D girl butt slapping herself for the camera from a fighting game is beyond me.

And if you honestly think that peer pressure did not apply to that situation then honestly we are in a worse state of affairs than I previously thought.

I didn't say anything about that. Still not censorship though. And still a half-naked comic girl butt-slapping herself. White, busty half-naked girls aren't exactly an underrepresented minority, and if you want it, there are PLENTY of other games to go to, and they aren't going away any time soon. But if you're genuinely interested in and upset about self-censorship caused by pressure from outside sources, then you should be very interested in getting more women and minorities in games, and stuff like this: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7wnTunPrQJo

 Mymearan wrote:
But if you're genuinely interested in and upset about self-censorship caused by pressure from outside sources, then you should be very interested in getting more women and minorities in games, and stuff like this: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7wnTunPrQJo

Care to give a quick synopses? I find jimquisition painful to watch and don't really want to sit through it for 8 minutes.

First time I watched him when the same vid was shown a few pages back, find his persona too "entitled" overall his comments are correct, his persona fails to make the message delivered.

On this particular he covers the difficulties game designers have to work to deliver a female character because the game developing companies believe most of their target audience are insecure male heterosexuals.

On more detail the insecure part is my addition because with industry wisdom as "a dude cannot (controlling a female protagonist) kiss another dude in a game it will feel awkward" and "we cannot put females into cover the players cannot relate to them" it shows fundamental flaws in publishers logic and expectations of the maturity of the player base.

Edit while relevant the above does not have much relation with the tabletop gaming especially wargaming because players in most cases are not controlling a single protagonist as an avatar but many individuals as a commander.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
On more detail the insecure part is my addition because with industry wisdom as "a dude cannot (controlling a female protagonist) kiss another dude in a game it will feel awkward" and "we cannot put females into cover the players cannot relate to them" it shows fundamental flaws in publishers logic and expectations of the maturity of the player base.

As a dude I don't really know what it's like for a woman, but it seems to me there is a social stigma of men acting like women more than the other way around. Things like a dude singing a very girly song is creepy in a way that a girl singing a guy's song is not.

It would be rather interesting to see a poll of males and females independently and see if men would be more creeped out by playing women kissing a dude than vice versa. It wouldn't surprise me if industry wisdom is correct on that one.

Might be interesting to poll heterosexual men and women and ask "how much would you have to be paid to have a 5 second kiss with someone of the same sex".