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, hopefully we will have the occasion to check this, but I am not holding my breath…

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I am not fooling myself though, there are still going to be a very few people that will be extremely pissed by the change. I just don't really care about them, and I don't think they matter financially in the long term. Too few in numbers, too angry about any change, and also usually will throw a big fit but keep playing, and after a while will get used to the new version of things and will throw a fit if it is changed back.

I don't understand how discussions like this eventually end up with what I highlighted. It is exactly what the usual sides on both sides of the fence will say. They don't care what the other person thinks, they don't think they financially matter in the long term... yet for whatever reasons "their" PoV/Opinion is what is supposed to matter and override the others.

Honestly until a third party source actually does the market research and partial development, no one will really know the answer to those statements on which side is bigger and matters more. And I don't simply mean a small sample by surveying local game stores or even a region, but I mean a larger case study with viable examples of what something is trying to introduce. Otherwise it evolves into the category of Side A says vs Side B says with no eventual change (at least from the companies they would like to see change).

 Ashiraya wrote:
When you take a look at what sexualisation actually means
If solkan's model is sexualised, then every person you meet on the street is sexualised, and I hopefully should not need to explain why that is not the case.

I am sorry to disappoint you I go by the basic translation, not how it has been devolved, so I use it to mean showing difference between the two genders, not asexual.

Solkan's models show breast shape under Gambeson and Chainmail, (and leather armour but NMT) if you think that is realistic or not an artistic licence making the model acquire the female form then you are mistaken.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Spoiler:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Changing Marines is huge, even though it might only be mentioned once somewhere obscure "no girls allowed because biology" it would still be a huge change to tell people "oh, by the way, half your previously male army is female now, please cross out all references of battle brothers and change it to battle siblings".

Except you wouldn't need to tell people anything about whether their army are half women or not. They would just know that the Chapter Mistress of the Wolf Angel Fists is Augustina Haravina, who gained her rank after the previous Chapter Master was killed by Chaos Lord Methronic Barbarus, or something like this. Which would just mean that it would be perfectly compatible with canon that their home-made chapter is 100% male, 100%, or anything in between, and they can choose for themselves.
I am not fooling myself though, there are still going to be a very few people that will be extremely pissed by the change. I just don't really care about them, and I don't think they matter financially in the long term. Too few in numbers, too angry about any change, and also usually will throw a big fit but keep playing, and after a while will get used to the new version of things and will throw a fit if it is changed back…

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Mobile brigadas were the same suit of armour, yes, male brigada is thicker, female brigada is thinner this is due to the sexualisation of the miniatures to be different, this does not change the fact their armour is the same, it is shaped the same way it has the same silhouette, if you cannot understand why one is thinner and the other is thicker and why this is irrelevant, I may as well start giving up hope on you understanding it, I am guessing Victorias Tannenburg Fusiliers were different armour too in your eyes, because the females sure were thinner fatigues and the shirt is quite bulgy.

You seem pretty annoyed. One of those armor is definitely extremely thick, the other is definitely extremely thin.
I looked at the Tannenburg Fusiliers, pictures just below:



It looks like similar clothes that look different because they are worn by people with different bodies.
That is VERY different from the Brigada because, unless those are aliens, the differences cannot be explained by the differences between the bodies below the armor.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
On the other hand WH40K is their bread and butter if they do anything wrong with it anything that will alienate the fans they are a dead company, so AlmightyWalrus you can create an excuse in 5 seconds (though I have to inform you Space marines were never part of STC, but Emperor's original research spawning at least a millenia) good for you, I am sure GW can too, how well will this be received by the customer base? how willing are they to risk their flagship product? they can't afford to "play" with something that its lore generates a bit more than half their income.

Newcrons. Bigger retcon. Now C'tan are enslaved rather than masters. HUGE retcon. In your 40k.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Who really wants the latter? and if you do it already exists name your male models females.

It should be obvious by now what people want. They want the female models to look different when given the type of armor worn, it would be realistic to have them look different, and they want the female models to be the same when it would be realistic that they look the same. Because going out of one's way to show the difference will make the designs look dumb.

Pretty annoyed? not sure, I like how you discarded the image I provided that has the Tanebreg together and went with the separate pics, sure they wear the same uniform, the females just have a really thin waist, thinner arms and definitely a bulge the uniform should not have, mobile brigadas have difference thickness armour, between male and female? I don't see anybody disagreeing there it still is the same shape of armour despite the thickness difference.

I would not classify Necrons retcon a "huge retcon", Ctan became slaves and the biggest continuity issues they created with their AC codex were fixed, necrons are a new race with hardly any established fluff and their codex was severely criticized for violating the existing lore.

I am afraid you do not realize the impact of changes of the things, you want for yourself really, impact a company overestimate how many like minded people are out there and how many of them will buy the products you suggest, or will not be rubbed the wrong way with drastic fluff changes you wish to happen.

I will again suggest make the product you want for yourself, yourself,at best you will supply the untapped market that eagerly waits such models to exist, at worse you will have a failed investment but hey a few decades of collective industry experience and practical examples are obviously wrong and you know better, so what there could go wrong?

 Ashiraya wrote:
When you take a look at what sexualisation actually means, you also see why it certainly applies to models like that disastrous mobile brigada (that boobplate, WTF) but has nothing to do with armor like what solkan showed, which shows a realistic sex difference without in any way sexualising the model.

Spoiler:

If solkan's model is sexualised, then every person you meet on the street is sexualised, and I hopefully should not need to explain why that is not the case.

Why are breasts assumed to be sexual rather then distinguishing? Your assuming the female mobile brigada's armored chest is somehow sexy rather then simply a distinguishing attribute. I personally don't see anything sexy about that mini at all. In the absence of breasts what would you do to distinguish the two? What else wouldn't be considered sexual? Long hair maybe? Then your making other assumptions instead.

What exactly are we talking about here?


If your trying to put those downtrodden females on a pedestal, forget it.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
When you take a look at what sexualisation actually means, you also see why it certainly applies to models like that disastrous mobile brigada (that boobplate, WTF) but has nothing to do with armor like what solkan showed, which shows a realistic sex difference without in any way sexualising the model.

Spoiler:

If solkan's model is sexualised, then every person you meet on the street is sexualised, and I hopefully should not need to explain why that is not the case.

Why are breasts assumed to be sexual rather then distinguishing? Your assuming the female mobile brigada's armored chest is somehow sexy rather then simply a distinguishing attribute. I personally don't see anything sexy about that mini at all. In the absence of breasts what would you do to distinguish the two? What else wouldn't be considered sexual? Long hair maybe? Then your making other assumptions instead.

The word "sexual" can have varying connotations which in turn means "sexualise" can also have different connotations. Unrealistically emphasizing the breasts on a female model to make it identifiable as female is sexualisation, but not eroticisation. Giving a model clothing and poses that are supposed to arouse some sexual desire is also sexualisation but with the connotation of also being eroticised.

At least that's my understanding, I've never really studied English or anything like that, lol.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Never heard of Xenan Free Legion, nor can I find any pics or information, what was their story?

A pun towards warrior princess Xena, never seen any squad of them there is one model in the last chancers squad

Yeah I saw the Last Chancers when I googled it, but Psienesis said "The Xenan Free Legion were an all-female IG Regiment that GW produced models for a very, very long time ago."

I couldn't find any such models so I was wondering what their deal was, when were they around, what did the models look like, did they have a back story other than being a Xena pun, etc.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:


Oh I am sorry I never realized its completely natural for chain mail and scale mail to bulge

Spoiler:

Well I have to point out that it is completely natural:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

And leather armour to be soft enough to separate the breasts with shoulder straps

Spoiler:

I imagine leather armour would be too solid for that, especially if it was cuir bouilli, rather than unworked rawhide. However, I sculpted both those models wearing cloth, so I guess the point is moot...
On these models however, wearing hardened leather, there's no 'strap separation'...

 Ashiraya wrote:
When you take a look at what sexualisation actually means, you also see why it certainly applies to models like that disastrous mobile brigada (that boobplate, WTF) but has nothing to do with armor like what solkan showed, which shows a realistic sex difference without in any way sexualising the model.

Spoiler:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

I am sorry to disappoint you I go by the basic translation, not how it has been devolved, so I use it to mean showing difference between the two genders, not asexual.

Solkan's models show breast shape under Gambeson and Chainmail, (and leather armour but NMT) if you think that is realistic and not an artistic licence making the model acquire the female form then you are mistaken.

Actually not, as shown by the chainmail-wearing lady in the photo above... but I think the real problem here is just a semantic misunderstanding. The word 'sexualised' means different things to different people, quite legitimately, depending on which dictionary definition you use. It's just not always obvious which definition someone's used when they post. You got to love web-based communication!

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah I saw the Last Chancers when I googled it, but Psienesis said "The Xenan Free Legion were an all-female IG Regiment that GW produced models for a very, very long time ago."

I couldn't find any such models so I was wondering what their deal was, when were they around, what did the models look like, did they have a back story other than being a Xena pun, etc.

I'm certain no models were ever made - they were just one of the many little illustrations in the 3rd edition Guard codex:


cheers,
Michael

 Dark Severance wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I am not fooling myself though, there are still going to be a very few people that will be extremely pissed by the change. I just don't really care about them, and I don't think they matter financially in the long term. Too few in numbers, too angry about any change, and also usually will throw a big fit but keep playing, and after a while will get used to the new version of things and will throw a fit if it is changed back.

I don't understand how discussions like this eventually end up with what I highlighted. It is exactly what the usual sides on both sides of the fence will say. They don't care what the other person thinks, they don't think they financially matter in the long term... yet for whatever reasons "their" PoV/Opinion is what is supposed to matter and override the others.

Honestly until a third party source actually does the market research and partial development, no one will really know the answer to those statements on which side is bigger and matters more. And I don't simply mean a small sample by surveying local game stores or even a region, but I mean a larger case study with viable examples of what something is trying to introduce. Otherwise it evolves into the category of Side A says vs Side B says with no eventual change (at least from the companies they would like to see change).

GW never releases sales data so it's unlikely we'll never have any hard data to discuss in regards to their lines. However if there's any shred of truth to the oft-repeated line about the SM tactical squad box outselling ALL of WHFB, there's no way they'd think about messing with their sacred cow. They've messed up Xenos fluff, retconed whole swaths of the backstory, written whole new factions into existence, killed off named characters with existing models, and let Abbadon land on Cadia, but the generic SM fluff has remained constant. I'd bet they'd be willing to squat or retcon first founding chapters out of existence before they touch the one part of 40k lore that even people who have never touched a minis game in their life know of.

@Lovejoy

Mind you I do not find your models bad, I agree that what "sexualisation" means is dependent on what the poster has in mind when using the word, for me it simply means made clear it is a female.

I think we can agree that the pic you posted more or less in model size would be flat, but there is not harm in exaggerating the effect for 28mm models.

The IG codex pic you posted I think was a weak attempt by GW to tie in the Escher line with IG.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Pretty annoyed? not sure, I like how you discarded the image I provided that has the Tanebreg together and went with the separate pics

Dude. Your image was showing the exact same thing. I put 10 female Tanenberg next to 10 male Tanenberg. I don't know how I can make things more obvious. You are in no way answering ANYTHING I said.
I am going to copy it again for you.

It looks like similar clothes that look different because they are worn by people with different bodies.
That is VERY different from the Brigada because, unless those are aliens, the differences cannot be explained by the differences between the bodies below the armor.

Just answer those questions, it should be goddamn easy:
- How thick do you believe the male Brigada armor is? Especially, how thick is it in the upper torso?
- How thick do you believe the female Brigada armor is? Especially, how thick is it in the upper torso?
- Are those two thickness very different?
- How thick do you believe the male Tannenburg uniform is?
- How thick do you believe the female Tannenburg uniform is?
- Are those two thickness very different?
- Does it means that male and female Tannenburg uniforms are similar, while the male and female Brigaga armors are very different?

Here are the pictures for reference:



And now, the correct answers were:
- Very, more than 20mm.
- Skintight, maybe 1 or 2 mm.
- Yes
- Similar to actual Earth uniforms
- Similar to actual Earth uniforms
- No
- Yes

Seriously, are the differences between male and female Tannenburg grenadier slightly exaggerated to make them distinguishable on the battlefield? Maybe. But the Brigada are not just “sightly” exaggerated. It is like those are aliens with much, MUCH more sexual dimorphism than humans, or they are two completely different types of armors. It's like if you made models whose hands were bigger than their torso and then claimed “It's heroic scale”. Just no.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I would not classify Necrons retcon a "huge retcon"

It is though. It changed their whole nature. Now they have personalities and stuff. Meanwhile, the named C'tan have disappeared or been retconned as shards or fugitives.
Meanwhile, retconning the marines to include women would change… well, literally nothing to any of the named Marines, literally nothing to the history of any named chapter, …

 Rainyday wrote:
However if there's any shred of truth to the oft-repeated line about the SM tactical squad box outselling ALL of WHFB, there's no way they'd think about messing with their sacred cow. They've messed up Xenos fluff, retconed whole swaths of the backstory, written whole new factions into existence, killed off named characters with existing models, and let Abbadon land on Cadia, but the generic SM fluff has remained constant. I'd bet they'd be willing to squat or retcon first founding chapters out of existence before they touch the one part of 40k lore that even people who have never touched a minis game in their life know of.

Well, GW already DID change the SM tactical squad box to add new stuff.
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Space-Marine-Tactical-Squad-2015
As the url says, the change happened in 2015. Good luck finding anything similar to those on the 1rst, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th pictures in the previous box. Or in previous artwork. Or in previous anything.

Seems like GW is perfectly fine with adding new stuff to this kit. I cannot see why female head would be so different…

Except that the Brigada male and females are clearly two different body types. The male is a whole head taller than the female. That could could be anywhere between 6 - 8" taller. Depending on body mass/build he could easily be 50-70 lbs heavier. Thus needing a bigger suit of armor just from the get go. The actual thickness of the armor may not actually be that different.

However, looking at the Tannenburges all the soldiers are within an inch of height of each other and clearly both the male and females have pretty much the same body/build. I'm not sure how realistic it is to have 6 people with all the same body portions hanging out together, even if the female armor is more in line with the male versions, you are loosing the diversity of the race wearing the armor. I honestly can't think of three other men my exact same height and build, let alone three women.

From a realistic perspective it looks wrong, but people want their miniatures to be the same height, so I cannot flaw miniature companies that do that.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Just answer those questions, it should be goddamn easy:
- How thick do you believe the male Brigada armor is? Especially, how thick is it in the upper torso?
- How thick do you believe the female Brigada armor is? Especially, how thick is it in the upper torso?
- Are those two thickness very different?
- How thick do you believe the male Tannenburg uniform is?
- How thick do you believe the female Tannenburg uniform is?
- Are those two thickness very different?
- Does it means that male and female Tannenburg uniforms are similar, while the male and female Brigaga armors are very different?

Here are the pictures for reference:

Spoiler:

I even put your picture even though I think it doesn't do nearly as good a job at showing the miniatures and the differences.

And now, the correct answers were:
- Very, more than 20mm.
- Skintight, maybe 1 or 2 mm.
- Yes
- Similar to actual Earth uniforms
- Similar to actual Earth uniforms
- No
- Yes

Seriously, are the differences between male and female Tannenburg grenadier slightly exaggerated to make them distinguishable on the battlefield? Maybe. But the Brigada are not just “sightly” exaggerated. It is like those are aliens with much, MUCH more sexual dimorphism than humans, or they are two completely different types of armors. It's like if you made models whose hands were bigger than their torso and then claimed “It's heroic scale”. Just no.

I am assuming you are unfamiliar with what we discuss and really read nothing in this thread when we discussed about making models of different genders look different and easy to tell apart, while I am sure I can find easilly realistic examples of a male and a female been so different regarding the body type, it is completely irrelevant because, it is an artistic decision to exaggerate body proportions in order to amke the models easy to tell apart.

Thanks for choosing the answers for me, but I think Ill give you a c- and have to answer them myself.

- How thick do you believe the male Brigada armor is? Especially, how thick is it in the upper torso?
Not much sufficient to offer adequate protection from small arms fire?
- How thick do you believe the female Brigada armor is? Especially, how thick is it in the upper torso?
Not much sufficient to offer adequate protection from small arms fire?
- Are those two thickness very different?
Not as much as you think. if you look at the models were the armour shows on sides its roughly the same (for example look at the legs were the armour stops), the fiber muscle bodysuit underneath it is were most of the bulk is, which in turn means the body type under the suit makes most of the bulk.
- How thick do you believe the male Tannenburg uniform is?
Standard issue dress uniform? no protection at all?
- How thick do you believe the female Tannenburg uniform is?
Standard issue dress uniform? no protection at all?
- Are those two thickness very different?
Again the visual distinction comes from the body type under the uniform and the artistic decision to exaggerate the differences to make the models distinct from each other.
- Does it means that male and female Tannenburg uniforms are similar, while the male and female Brigaga armors are very different?
No.

I do not understand why you insist the armours are different when they clearly are not, how big the model is does not alter the uniform the shape and the details are the same, the uniform is the shame, I understand it does not sit well with your agenda but this is what it is.

On the female marines subject I must assume the discussion is a dead end, you are unwilling to accept either lore or real world issues that makes this an impossibility until GW endtimes 40k reboots it and do whatever the hell they want with it alienating yet more of their customer base and creating a spectacular implosion.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Rainyday wrote:
However if there's any shred of truth to the oft-repeated line about the SM tactical squad box outselling ALL of WHFB, there's no way they'd think about messing with their sacred cow. They've messed up Xenos fluff, retconed whole swaths of the backstory, written whole new factions into existence, killed off named characters with existing models, and let Abbadon land on Cadia, but the generic SM fluff has remained constant. I'd bet they'd be willing to squat or retcon first founding chapters out of existence before they touch the one part of 40k lore that even people who have never touched a minis game in their life know of.

Well, GW already DID change the SM tactical squad box to add new stuff.
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Space-Marine-Tactical-Squad-2015
As the url says, the change happened in 2015. Good luck finding anything similar to those on the 1rst, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th pictures in the previous box. Or in previous artwork. Or in previous anything.

Seems like GW is perfectly fine with adding new stuff to this kit. I cannot see why female head would be so different…

I was just using the tactical squad as an example of how popular SM are. The SM tactical squad kit gets upgraded all the time to the point where it would be shocking if an edition went by and the SM tactical squad didn't get an update, even if just to the packaging. However, there's a world of difference between adding /removing weapon options from the kit and drastically changing the fluff behind an army. Details about events and individual chapters, and what gear they have access to has changed many times over the years, but as far as I know, there haven't been any changes to the core space marine fluff since 2nd ed. Space marine gear and basic vehicles, chapter structure, the Codex Astartes, the creation/recruitment process, SM roles (devastator/ apothecary/chaplain) and unit types (tactical squad, devastator squad), and the fact that they're an all male army of warrior-monks might as well be set in stone.

We're more likely to see female bloodletters and plaguebearers or female heads on the Ork boys sprue than we are to see space marine fluff get overhauled to allow female marines.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
- Are those two thickness very different?
Not as much as you think. if you look at the models were the armour shows on sides its roughly the same (for example look at the legs were the armour stops), the fiber muscle bodysuit underneath it is were most of the bulk is, which in turn means the body type under the suit makes most of the bulk.

You must be joking. Or blind. Either that, or you believe the male Brigadas to look like this without armor:

Which, indeed, was an artistic decision to exaggerate body proportions… a rather famous one. Or should I say infamous?
(also the female ones must look like this too:

)

 Rainyday wrote:
The SM tactical squad kit gets upgraded all the time to the point where it would be shocking if an edition went by and the SM tactical squad didn't get an update, even if just to the packaging.

I am sure there were plenty of new editions without a new SM tactical sculpt.

 Rainyday wrote:
However, there's a world of difference between adding /removing weapon options from the kit and drastically changing the fluff behind an army.[…]but as far as I know, there haven't been any changes to the core space marine fluff since 2nd ed. Space marine gear and basic vehicles[…]

That is not true. Just a few years back, the weapons available to tactical marines did not include grav-stuff. Grav-stuff was inexistent both in the lore and in models. And then GW decided to add grav-stuff in both, changing the lore and the models. Their gear changed.
And I am not even talking about the Centurion armor suddenly appearing after decades of “The Terminator armor is the best armor available!”
Similarly, right now tactical marines only have male members. They could change the lore and the models to include female marines, though. It is the exact equivalent. You add something new to the lore, and to the models.

I am neither, I also know for fact how the digital sculpts are created in CB and a standard body is used as a basis and everything is build on top of it.

I am also not insulting you.

Unfortunately I am probably reaching the conclusion that you are not here to debate, but to enforce your opinion, regardless of clear evidence to the contrary.

In the end I must insist, if you think your ideas are a meaningful and solid business plan grounded in reality, go for it you need 0 experience and talent all of that can be hired, you just need to invest time to coordinate the various artists and money to hire them.

Hey if it succeeds everybody is happy you for creating and offering to the market what you wanted, the market who buys it.

Dark Severance is right on the money (in both senses) with this comment;

 Dark Severance wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I am not fooling myself though, there are still going to be a very few people that will be extremely pissed by the change. I just don't really care about them, and I don't think they matter financially in the long term. Too few in numbers, too angry about any change, and also usually will throw a big fit but keep playing, and after a while will get used to the new version of things and will throw a fit if it is changed back.

I don't understand how discussions like this eventually end up with what I highlighted. It is exactly what the usual sides on both sides of the fence will say. They don't care what the other person thinks, they don't think they financially matter in the long term... yet for whatever reasons "their" PoV/Opinion is what is supposed to matter and override the others.

Honestly until a third party source actually does the market research and partial development, no one will really know the answer to those statements on which side is bigger and matters more. And I don't simply mean a small sample by surveying local game stores or even a region, but I mean a larger case study with viable examples of what something is trying to introduce. Otherwise it evolves into the category of Side A says vs Side B says with no eventual change (at least from the companies they would like to see change).

A lot of the conversation in this thread has focused on "Why aren't we seeing X?", and, as Severance observes, it ultimately boils down to risk and profit.

For a moment, look at the statement that Severance highlights not as a consumer, but as someone that puts food on their table, clothes on their kids' backs by making and thus selling miniatures. What businessman would follow a course of actions where even the advocates for it admit it's going to piss off the existing customers? Moreover, pissing off the existing customer base in favor of a demographic that may or may not exist, and certainly isn't an existing customer. It's fascinating to see criticism leveled at, for example, the Mobile Brigada unit I posted a bit ago. Now, no model ever receives universal acclaim, but my general impression is the reception for the Brigadas is more along the line of "Sweet Jesus those Mobile Brigada are awesome". As an anecdote: when Miniature Market put the Brigada box on sale for their Deal of the Day, they sold out their entire stock before 9 AM.

That's just a fun little anecdote, but it should give pause to people who are making these demands: if you're going to demand that companies stop selling things that their customers like and are already buying, you better have some rock solid evidence that they can make more money by doing something else. That evidence is going to come, if it exists, from a particular source: the marketplace.

This is exactly why (IMO) the way forward doesn't lie with movements or getting everyone together... it lies with people like Micheal (Lovejoy), with Mark Mondragon, with Tre Manor, with Victoria Lamb, with Adam Poots, with Patrick Keith, with Dark Severance, with companies like Shieldwolf, C'MoN, Dreamforge, Mierce Miniatures and Ninja Division (or whatever they are called now...). Their actions are what is going to create concrete change, precisely because their actions are expanding the marketplace and letting the more cautious, slower and larger companies see where new resources are. This is not unique to the miniature scene, but a constant in all marketplaces: the reason there are, for example, so many vegan entrees in grocery stores isn't because people called for them, but because people bought them from the companies that started making them.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I am neither, I also know for fact how the digital sculpts are created in CB and a standard body is used as a basis and everything is build on top of it.

That sounds interesting, PS - is there an article or video somewhere talking through their usual process?

I am afraid no, I know it first hand because I have seen them doing in in person, but there is these pictures.




From Azra'il released when people were wondering about the proportions and how a human can fit inside, CB takes care to be consistent in their design and with the 3D sculpting technology everything to be the same height, so they use a standard body (well a few but that is not really relevant) so that everything is build on it to maintain the same height and be sure the model fits properly inside the armour.

I think this is a perfect example of how there should be no real discernible difference between a male and female model and there would be no need for separate miniatures unless maybe, MAYBE, for ones not wearing helmets (but for both genders).
But personally, I'm not a fan of power armored warriors not wearing helmets in warzones, so I could do 100% without that.

That is a perfect example? real life is not?

The debate was never, if a realistically proportioned female warrior in realistically depicted combat gear would look different from a male warrior realistically proportioned and in realistic combat gear, they would look the same and we are all in agreement (I hope).

The debate is:
It is not realistic!
Yes, I agree but f I am going to spend the money and resources to include a female fighter in my miniatures line I want it to look like a female else why should I bother?

If people want to buy male models and name them female models because in reality they would be virtually the same, be my guest do so, even in GW lines you can do that, buy full helmet IG and call them female troops, you will not convince many people though with such attempt.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
That is a perfect example? real life is not?

I never claimed that. All I wanted to express is that full power-armor suits that completely encompass their wearers and are more robots than suits are a good example for where gender distinction other than heads would be completely off. But I guess it's heard to see over the trenches and sangbags sometimes.

The debate seems to be changing every few pages, because

 PsychoticStorm wrote:


The heart of the topic is how having females/ women in such an outfit may or may not deter female gamers and it has evolved (after it has been established that such miniatures are in no way a widespread phenomenon) debating whether a realistic but indistinguishable from the male model outfit or a sexualised and distinguished from the male models outfit is better.

Which is another matter entirely from

The debate is:
It is not realistic!
Yes, I agree but f I am going to spend the money and resources to include a female fighter in my miniatures line I want it to look like a female else why should I bother?

At the very least the heads of female combatants look different. The current IG heads, helmet or not, barely look human, let alone feminine so, yeah, that wouldn't work because the faces look like some unholy union of Ork and Ape. Yes, men and women in heavy combat gear look very similar, especially when shrunk down to 28mm. So, if there are women in the IG and all you need to cover them both is feminine heads, it shouldn't be that hard to include them, should it?

As always, the imporant point here is nuance. For some miniatures, it'd be pretty easy to include male and female heads and be done with it, because for that type of gear there'd be no difference in body types between the two. Robot-Style power armor is the perfect example for that. In other kits, you'd need to sculpt two entirely different lines. It'd be pretty hard to mix the parts of male and female roman gladiators.
But this is also an issue of multi-part plastic kits. If you are doing a set of one-piece metal or resin miniatures for example, it becomes another matter entirely because every model is a single sculpt anyway and you don't have to worry about compatability.

Either way, I'm still a firm believer of making what you want to see or at least giving your miniatures money to the companies that produce what you want

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I am afraid no, I know it first hand because I have seen them doing in in person, but there is these pictures.

Spoiler:

Can you post the Brigada, male and female versions? Because you are just proving my point here that the male armor is super thick, especially in the torso region! Like, the armor alone seems to be thicker than the whole female Brigada torso, with body AND armor included. It seems about the same size and shape as the male Brigada armor, though.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I am afraid no, I know it first hand because I have seen them doing in in person, but there is these pictures.

Spoiler:

Can you post the Brigada, male and female versions? Because you are just proving my point here that the male armor is super thick, especially in the torso region! Like, the armor alone seems to be thicker than the whole female Brigada torso, with body AND armor included. It seems about the same size and shape as the male Brigada armor, though.

I'm not all that familiar with Infinity, but just looking at the site the Azrail dude's armour is huge compared to Brigada. The Brigada appear to wear form fitting armour, not much thicker than a few layers of clothes, it's just Infinity model the male and female forms quite differently.

You see the same difference between male and female Brigada as you do in just general male and female models. Males are modelled as athletically beefy, females as athletically trim and slightly shorter.



If you take those bodies and model some reasonably thin armour like the Brigada seem to be wearing of equal thickness for men and women (not the huge armour that the Azrail wears) then you get something that looks (not surprisingly) like the Brigada.

The dude's arms are similar size to the lady's thighs. Which, I mean, isn't that far off reality when you look at the Australian Biggest Loser trainers...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm not all that familiar with Infinity, but just looking at the site the Azrail dude's armour is huge compared to Brigada.

I managed to find a picture with both I think:

The Azra'il armor is bigger, but roughly the same shape though.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The Brigada appear to wear form fitting armour, not much thicker than a few layers of clothes

Nope. The torso is way too convex (not sure this is the right word in English), so is the back.
Seems obvious from the inside view posted above: you can make the guy inside bigger all you want, it is never going to be skintight, because the shape of the armor is just too different from the shape of the guy inside.

Sorry I meant the dark grey/black part of the Mobile Brigada suit looks to be form fitting, not the armour itself. Then the armour plates are layered on top of that. The actual difference in armour plate thickness, eh, there might be a small difference, it looks to be insignificant compared to the actual size of the person under the armour.

The Azrail model is completely different, the armour is so thick that the dude it practically floating in it, his feet don't reach the ground and his hands don't reach the "gloves". I'm pretty sure Storm just used it as an example that CB do use actual 3D human models to sculpt armour over, they don't just create armour randomly. But it doesn't have much application when discussing the Brigada models which aren't so insanely armoured.

Mobile Brigada: It is more of a thick mesh suit with armor plates built upon it. You get a better idea of size when you compare to other models that aren't in armor. Mobile Brigada isn't technically considered power armor, they are heavy infantry. The hex designed mesh suit underneath is a type of armor, but different than the fibroarmored plates of the Azrail.

Azrail: The main reason they put a figure in the suit was because there was already a figure size that it was upgraded from. They are meant to be closer to power armor than heavy infantry which is shown more when you look at the two versions of 2008 vs 2015. The concept art shows a little better comparison about how it is more of true power armor suit design than the Brigada. You can see on the close up the fibro-muscle-like material instead of the hex/mesh suit.

@ Korraz
I am sorry you are right I should have said "the debate at the moment is"

Mobile brigada is a proper next gen powered armour, (by Infinity's fluff) a from fitting fiber muscle suit with structural support to enhance load bearing, mobility and to provide light ballistic protection and fragmentation protection the fiber muscle suit copies the movements of the wearer, but as is evident it does not follow the human muscle structure too closely because it is an over-suit and attachment points are different, on top of that the rest of the armour is attached to provide a better protection.

The Azra'Il is an old tech powered armour works with a master/ slave principle similar to what TAGs use and it is closer to an exoskeleton than a suit of armour.