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.
2016/03/31 00:32:33
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
PsychoticStorm wrote: Mobile brigada is a proper next gen powered armour, (by Infinity's fluff)...
Is it actually classified as power armor? The N3 book I have does say they are Heavy Infantry... although that can me also classifying heavy infantry different than power armor. I tend to view power armor closer to TAG. While heavy infantry I tend to classify heavy armor up to exo-skeleton, which I don't group with power armor as I consider them different things. But that is my own beliefs based on anime and how I think it should be, not actually how they have defined it.
2016/03/31 00:37:39
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
They've referred to HI armour as powered armour - where it's suitable - since the beginning. Example - Asawira. 'They are equipped with the finest light powered armour on the market'.
2016/03/31 00:44:19
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
In infinity fluff Heavy Infantry is a mix of powered and un powered suits of armour, only Ariadna use the later and this is because their rare metal (tesseum) allows them to have equivalent protection with powered armour without needing the fiber muscle support powered armour troops need to remain effectively mobile.
The power armour is essentially what I described a form fitting muscle suit that has structural support for the wearer, such as reinforced spinal support this is the base and most essential part is provides the increased strength and mobility despite the armours weight plus the extra subsystems that help stabilize the wearers condition and provides some ballistic protection and shrapnel protection.
On top of that the actual armour is attached, Azra'Il is an old armour type and it shows how powered armours evolved in Infinity's fluff with miniaturization of components and change to be a smaller silhouette.
What might has threw you off is the medium infantry classification in Infinity this is what other fluff say heavy infantry and mean hard-shell unpowered armour.
2016/03/31 07:59:15
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
AllSeeingSkink wrote: An interesting tangent on Infinity armour fluff, I'm not sure what it still has to do with the original topic though?
It all revolves around the idea that on the other hand when using power armor, that you don't need to see that the wearer is female and infinity uses different types for male and female just to show the different sex.
It comes down to what the customer wants, and as far as i can discern, most of them want to see difference between male and female armor, realistically it depends on how bulky or thin the armor is and from a sales point of view it depends on the customer being
into hard realistic SF or more into non realistic and/or cheesecake.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: An interesting tangent on Infinity armour fluff, I'm not sure what it still has to do with the original topic though?
It all revolves around the idea that on the other hand when using power armor, that you don't need to see that the wearer is female and infinity uses different types for male and female just to show the different sex.
It comes down to what the customer wants, and as far as i can discern, most of them want to see difference between male and female armor, realistically it depends on how bulky or thin the armor is and from a sales point of view it depends on the customer being
into hard realistic SF or more into non realistic and/or cheesecake.
Well in the context of Mobile Brigada which don't wear tremendously bulky armour (relative to the size of the person inside it) it seems Infinity make the distinction between male and female by modelling males and females vastly differently rather than the armour being significantly different.
When it comes to super bulky armour like Azra'il, where you could make the argument that a male and female model should look quite similar, is there an example in Infinity of male vs female in very bulky armour?
2016/03/31 13:18:41
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
No, but most TAG pilots are females (as evident by the models sculpted for it) and the TAGs does not have any distinct appearance, but they fall on the "vehicle" category rather than the suit of armour category.
And before Marut's are brought up, these do not have a pilot inside, they are controlled remotely by an AI aspect.
2016/03/31 13:39:18
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
AllSeeingSkink wrote: When it comes to super bulky armour like Azra'il, where you could make the argument that a male and female model should look quite similar, is there an example in Infinity of male vs female in very bulky armour?
Technically speaking the majority of TAG pilots are female. The Anaconda has a the pilot model while we know the other TAGS have female pilots from the Bootlegs.
Spoiler:
The closest I know of with actual heavy armor instead of a pilot of power armor would be Janissaires and Naffatun. You can barely tell the female is female on the table, but closer look you'll see not technically boob plate, but the armor is more like a sports bra. I know someone will say it is "form fitting" but that is subjective because she doesn't have to be DD to fill, she could still be a C/B cup and the shaping is design to support and protect. You can tell it is roughly the same thickness as the male equivalent. Then you have Ghulam which looks like boob plate, but it isn't. It is shaped to come down and then curve around the breasts but given the paint job, the shadow of the curvature people tend to see it as form fitting but it is roughly the same thickness as the male versions. The Muyibs has a female, which they use really long hair emphasis with a slight increase in breast size which you can see zoomed in but on the table it is subtle, the identifier for her being female is the hair.
Spoiler:
Then there is what I could call questionable. I'm sure someone who is more up on the fluff could tell me if it is correct or wrong. The Hafza (Spitfire) could technically be female but you'd only know close up. The closeup paintjob gives the face a feminine look. The same goes for the Asawira which is probably a male but utilizes slightly thicker pectorial armor plates that you could say she was female. I also always thought a couple of the Briscards could be considered female depending on how you paint them.
Spoiler:
2016/03/31 17:13:49
Subject: Re:General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Is that your picture? Could you add a female Brigada for reference?
I frankly feels like the armor bulks the upper torso a lot on the male one.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2016/04/01 16:53:41
Subject: Re:General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Is that your picture? Could you add a female Brigada for reference?
I frankly feels like the armor bulks the upper torso a lot on the male one.
That was not my picture. I think I do have a female Brigada but she isn't assembled or painted yet. I'll see if I can locate her to compare with the male one I have. The chest is naturally bulkier both because of the armor but also because is a wrestler style body, his arms and legs are about twice the size of the female if I recall.
2016/06/01 06:04:56
Subject: Re:General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Given the new renders released for the Raging Heroes Sisters Davidans, why do they not get as much scorn as Space Crusade? They have bare midriff, underboobs, heavy armored legs, some heavy arms (power fist) or shoulders. Is it because they aren't considered new anymore, those discussions already happened with the first campaign?
I will say Raging Heroes are better sculpts, but that was always my issue however given some of the discussions about believe-ability and boob plate, these apparently don't get as much scorn.
Spoiler:
2016/06/01 13:00:07
Subject: Re:General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
1) As you say, they're better done for starters. While certainly cheesecake-esque, they don't go "HERE ARE BOOBS AND LOOK A BUTT" like the Prodos models did. Yes, they are clearly female and impractically clad, but the posing is not nearly as exploitative (note the word "as" in there).
2) They're actually roughly even on clothing with the models they're supposed to be proxying in the Sisters Repentia. Those models are in turn based on an actual historical reference of flagellants who are often depicted as having no clothing on their torsos. The context of the model's origin informs the design.
3) While some have an arm encased in armor, nor all of them appear to nor is that armor clearly enormously heavy. The Prodos sculpts had massively heavy plates on both arms, shoulders and leg and left the vital organs wholly unprotected. These women appear to be mainly wearing boots, and that could be for balance with their comically oversized blades (which again, originates with their "source" models).
4) Raging Heroes doesn't have as checkered of a history as Prodos. They weren't releasing "new" things while they still had a huge number of years-old "debts" they hadn't paid. Now, that's not say RH doesn't have a history of mistakes, just that they're seemingly not slow-rolling anyone who didn't know that already.
5) If you follow Raging Heroes, you know that's their style and nearly all of the models mirror it. They're being RH just like people don't have outrage with KD models as every model KD makes fits the over-sexualized theme. Prodos in contrast makes many sculpts and the Space Crusaders line seemed to be a cynical cash-grab versus artistic expression. #4 obviously colors that perception.
2016/06/01 16:42:42
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
I can agree with a lot of what you are saying and even understand some of the reasoning behind it. There was however a much more deeper "hate" though vs subjective reasoning behind a lot of the complaints with Space Crusade.
It also probably didn't help they did digital paint jobs, instead of just doing a gray render and then letting other people color/paint it mentally. There was definitely more of a cheesecake feel, then here is a strong powerful female character. I wouldn't say they are more heavily armored though. Comparing the various armored Raging Heroes, that armor is just as thick on the heavy boots. I would have to agree though that the Space Crusaders style being completely different than anything Prodos released made it more of a "shock" which probably resulted in more backlash too.
It was just something I found funny and amusing.
kronk wrote: They can clearly make armored females (posted below).
I wasn't saying that they didn't make armored females. I am more interested in the armored ones personally. I don't mind a couple being having high heeled but more along the style of Bubblegum Crisis power suits, for a hero character or something. However for the most of the base troops I definitely would have preferred to have the boots styled like the Davidians.
Desubot wrote: Wait is that dark elf walking around in crab claws?
They definitely look like them. Although after watching a couple concerts over the weekend, being amazed how well some of the stage dancers moved with thigh high boot stilettos was pretty cool. I can't imagine someone wearing those long term for a battle though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/01 17:40:49
2016/06/01 19:06:15
Subject: Re:General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
lets face it Sex sells, whether you are male or female its that female model or male model that will get you to buy, how many movies with fat ugly people sell a lot of tickets?
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
2016/06/02 03:09:11
Subject: Re:General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Asterios wrote: lets face it Sex sells, whether you are male or female its that female model or male model that will get you to buy, how many movies with fat ugly people sell a lot of tickets?
I have a spare tire. And I'm still a sexy bitch like Papa Nurgle.
Proud Purveyor Of The Unconventional In 40k
2016/06/02 03:43:18
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Desubot wrote: Wait is that dark elf walking around in crab claws?
They definitely look like them. Although after watching a couple concerts over the weekend, being amazed how well some of the stage dancers moved with thigh high boot stilettos was pretty cool. I can't imagine someone wearing those long term for a battle though.
To me they resemble nothing so much as what is known in BDSM as 'ballet boots';
To say that they are not... practical as footwear is a bit of an understatement.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/02 03:43:53
Desubot wrote: Wait is that dark elf walking around in crab claws?
I'm staring at her heels wondering how a normal foot can even sit in those, and I feel that I must conclude she has mutant and/or robotic claws for feet.
Seriously chief, "I don't want my kids exposed to that" is pretty much the daftest reason to want something banned/not to be made in the first place ever, because you're the one who decides what they're exposed to. It's like those numpties you see decrying videogame violence because think of the children, when the only reason children saw videogame violence at all is their pushover parents bought them a 16 or 18 rated product in the first place.
So you are saying that the game is an R rated game? I have no problems with that, if thats the direction warlord want to go with the game but thats now what I have seen in other products in the range.
I'm saying that if you're worried about your kids being exposed to something, don't bloody expose them to it, your whole job as a parent is to curate the life experience of your kids until they're old enough to do it themselves. What you prefer to expose them to or otherwise, however, is nobody else's ruddy problem nor is it the responsibility of Warlord to produce their models according to your particular expectations.
Ah yes, that wonderful and not at all vacuously condescending "as a mother..." logic that parents deploy whenever they can't actually address the argument being made.
So we'll try again - if you are dismayed at the idea of exposing your children to gender stereotypes or "damaging" depictions of women through gaming, to the extent you would refuse to even let them see models that exemplify those topics in your view, why are you not also equally dismayed at the idea of exposing your children to notions of war, slaughter, and genocide via that same medium, once again to the extent you would refuse to even let them see the models that would cause that exposure?
It's a question of consistency - if your kids are at risk of forming negative opinions in the long term based on their exposure to models you consider questionable in the case of sex, they must necessarily(by any logic that could justify such a premise) be at the same risk from exposure to models that demonstrably are "questionable" in the case of war and violence(or do you not consider child soldiers taken from their society prior to what any modern society would consider a reasonable age of consent and then subjected to barbaric medical experiments and psychological conditioning, as an example cough Space Marines cough, "questionable"?).
And if that's the case your reaction in both cases should be the same, but for some reason you're happy to let your kids form unrealistic and childish views of war and violence, but not of sex.
Yodhrin wrote: - I wonder what it is about having them that makes adults forget what it was like to be one?
Its called responsibility and if you think exposing children to the horrors of war or reinforcing gender stereotypes is a good thing then you have alot to learn
I actually think children could do with being exposed to a great deal more reality a good deal sooner than is considered "proper" in western society - as I say, I don't know what it is about becoming a parent that means they forget what it was like being a child, but they're actually pretty intelligent wee creatures and are usually at least two stages ahead in their development on any given topic than their parents think/are willing to believe they are.
As for my views, whatever they are I hope I would at least be consistent in their application when it came to raising children, rather than passively allowing glorification of violence on the one hand then behaving like a prudish reactionary on matters of sex with the other.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/02 12:30:44
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
2016/06/02 14:36:32
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Yodhrin wrote: I'm saying that if you're worried about your kids being exposed to something, don't bloody expose them to it, your whole job as a parent is to curate the life experience of your kids until they're old enough to do it themselves.
I think that is where not being a parent yourself might come into play, because I think it may be much easier said than done… Basically “So you are saying that the game is an R rated game? I have no problems with that, if thats the direction warlord want to go with the game but thats now what I have seen in other products in the range.” means “I would like game company to help me with it by identifying precisely what kind of things I can expect to find in them”. Seems a perfectly fine request.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/02 14:38:43
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2016/06/02 14:51:52
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
If you can't understand why the unnecessary depiction of oppressed, abused, enslaved women on the GoA miniature is problematic I can't really help you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/02 14:52:14
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
2016/06/02 15:12:18
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
Yodhrin wrote: I'm saying that if you're worried about your kids being exposed to something, don't bloody expose them to it, your whole job as a parent is to curate the life experience of your kids until they're old enough to do it themselves.
I think that is where not being a parent yourself might come into play, because I think it may be much easier said than done…
This. Armchair CEOing is a bit different from armchair parenting.
2016/06/02 15:43:08
Subject: General depictions of women / men / nudity / etc in miniatures
JohnnyHell wrote: If you can't understand why the unnecessary depiction of oppressed, abused, enslaved women on the GoA miniature is problematic I can't really help you.
It's as unnecessary as that kind of thing ever is. I don't think that necessarily means it's problematic. Things like this are in character sometimes for the character being portrayed. It reminds me of when Tarantino got a load of crap for the amount of racial slurs used in Django Unchained; these things sometimes fit the character being displayed. Of course sometimes it can be problematic or gratuitous, and I don't know the fluff of this model in particular, but it might fit perfectly. It's not like it's condoning it, he's pretty clearly an evil character.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/02 15:57:55