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.

 Dysartes wrote:
You might want to go to an optician, dude.

I really do think Goliaths pull off the 'female version of gang X' thing better. Hell, Orlocks already have a plastic female ganger that looks better than the FW ones.

The female there IS one of the Forge World ones.

I meant the female Orlock from the Arms Masters box. The one I posted above is there to illustrate the Goliaths utilizing proportions to differentiate sex to a greater effect.

Ah. Gonna have to disagree then.

I definitely felt like the Wreckers, of both genders, were a bit on the small side. They're cool models but so far all of the boxes have felt like Juvies rather than the Prospects that they got described as.

I thought Prospects were like the next step along from Juvie basically. Sort of unproven types.
Or a step before.. I don’t know..

I like the FW female Orlock, they fit perfectly to the aesthetic of the gang. It just is a huge shame that these were not part of the original plastic kit, it sucks that you have to play FW prices to include female gangers.

Having just built and Arms Master and a Wrecker, to compare against Old Size Orlocks - she's about half a head taller than an old metal Juve, the same height as an old metal Ganger. Fits pretty well, scale wise, since the old juves are very obviously kids.

The Wrecker, on the other hand, is about EIGHT FEET TALL. Old metal ganger comes up to about his collar bone. Given that he's a big maniac in a servo rig with a massive hammer I can live with that height difference, but it's really pronounced. How much bigger than a new plastic ganger are these guys?

 Graphite wrote:
Having just built and Arms Master and a Wrecker, to compare against Old Size Orlocks - she's about half a head taller than an old metal Juve, the same height as an old metal Ganger. Fits pretty well, scale wise, since the old juves are very obviously kids.

The Wrecker, on the other hand, is about EIGHT FEET TALL. Old metal ganger comes up to about his collar bone. Given that he's a big maniac in a servo rig with a massive hammer I can live with that height difference, but it's really pronounced. How much bigger than a new plastic ganger are these guys?

Pretty sure the Wreckers are the kids; the Armsmaster's the dude with the hammer and 'rig. And he's about a head taller than a Gunner.

You're right, I meant the Arms Master was the guy with the hammer. Good to know he's massive compared to the current Gunners. Scale creep is one thing, but that would be excessive.

Female orlock look chunky enough to use the male arms without looking out of place.

What piss me off is you look those female models coming up and you want to jump on Orlock but no more dice, no more cars.. GW should bring back those just for the people who want to catch the bandwagon.

They have been bringing back dice at least for blood bowl, stuff that went oop since 2016 and usually shortly after release. If they did that for the new edition of bb, they probably can do it when N21 drops.

Silly question but... Where am I supposed to send rules questions ?

 HudsonD wrote:
Silly question but... Where am I supposed to send rules questions ?

necromundafaq@gwplc.com

beast_gts wrote:

 HudsonD wrote:
Silly question but... Where am I supposed to send rules questions ?

necromundafaq@gwplc.com

Thanks !

Why do the females need to look that much different to the dudes? I mean, they have boobs, slightly bigger hips and female enough faces. They’re all ugly scrappers anyway, in the world of 40K. Do they need to be sexy to be a female model?

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Why do the females need to look that much different to the dudes? I mean, they have boobs, slightly bigger hips and female enough faces. They’re all ugly scrappers anyway, in the world of 40K. Do they need to be sexy to be a female model?

I only follow the thread peripherally so apologies if I missed it. But... can you quote the post from the recent pages of posts asking for them to specifically be sexy? I recall that topic being discussed back in the reveal of Escher minis but I must have missed it completely as my understanding of the gestalt complaint is that people want the females to be noticeably different from the males. Making them sexy as you seem to be suggesting as the only option is in reality only one way of doing it (but admittedly the easiest and most common). Accentuating the phsyical differences between males and females isn't soley done to make models sexy but also to differentiate them at a glance at arms length on the tabletop; the same thing is true of clothing specific or more common to one gender than the other. The key is to do it for function rather than gratuitously (Infinity combat heels and heiny butt/hip poses, I'm looking at you!).

The real question to ask- Has anyone shot Victoria a question to see if she's working on some of these females of the species?

 warboss wrote:
I only follow the thread peripherally so apologies if I missed it. But... can you quote the post from the recent pages of posts asking for them to specifically be sexy?

You missed it - BrookM [MOD] deleted them.

Again though I’m not sure looking female or male means much in the world of 40k.

In a setting like Cyberpunk it’d mean a lot more, since sexuality is a very big part of the setting.

But in 40K where everyone is just a person trying to survive, looking overtly male or female means nothing.

On a tabletop scale I’d imagine the main thing you want to tell at a glance is what they’re armed with and which gang their part of. And the player who owns them knows their name and what gender they are.

Maybe I’m being too woke, but IMO I’m not sure it really matters whether they look male or female, as long as they look cool.

beast_gts wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I only follow the thread peripherally so apologies if I missed it. But... can you quote the post from the recent pages of posts asking for them to specifically be sexy?

You missed it - BrookM [MOD] deleted them.

Ah, my bad then. I recall seeing the red text (and apparently now ironic always sexualized animated gif he post with them!) but not the context behind it.

 warboss wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Why do the females need to look that much different to the dudes? I mean, they have boobs, slightly bigger hips and female enough faces. They’re all ugly scrappers anyway, in the world of 40K. Do they need to be sexy to be a female model?

I only follow the thread peripherally so apologies if I missed it. But... can you quote the post from the recent pages of posts asking for them to specifically be sexy?...

Nothing to see. One guy said "I think they're unattractive", provoking predictable flurry of "Your hatred of women is heart breaking etc etc" was pretty much it.

 warboss wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I only follow the thread peripherally so apologies if I missed it. But... can you quote the post from the recent pages of posts asking for them to specifically be sexy?

You missed it - BrookM [MOD] deleted them.

Ah, my bad then. I recall seeing the red text (and apparently now ironic always sexualized animated gif he post with them!) but not the context behind it.

There were suggestions with what sort of body types there should be on the table, and where non-youthful women belonged in society and what to do with them.

 Grot 6 wrote:
The real question to ask- Has anyone shot Victoria a question to see if she's working on some of these females of the species?

One imagines that the idea of Female Conscripts has been floating around Vics head off and on.

But it does seem like something that one might bring up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tiberius501 wrote:


But in 40K where everyone is just a person trying to survive, looking overtly male or female means nothing.

On a tabletop scale I’d imagine the main thing you want to tell at a glance is what they’re armed with and which gang their part of. And the player who owns them knows their name and what gender they are.

One would also suppose that it'd depend on what gang you''re playing and what that gang's culture is. One might imagine that, for example, a group of female Goliaths might choose to emphasize it or play it down, depending on if they're trying to blend in or stand out.

But subtle things like 'culture' and, to a degree 'logic' are lost causes in 40k where rule of cool overrides Rule of Rule Book or even 'Sense and Self Preservation'.

 Graphite wrote:
And Aussie GST is 10%

Sooo..... price should reduce by 20% then increase by 10% for an overall 12% reduction.

Then 5% Aussie import duty taking us to a 7.6% reduction.

So. Yeah. "Taxes" looks like nonsense.
.

VAT is actually 16.7% of the total price of an item (including VAT), not 20%.

An item costing £100 inc VAT is £83.33 plus 20% of £83.33 VAT (£16.67).

Derek H wrote:

 Graphite wrote:
And Aussie GST is 10%

Sooo..... price should reduce by 20% then increase by 10% for an overall 12% reduction.

Then 5% Aussie import duty taking us to a 7.6% reduction.

So. Yeah. "Taxes" looks like nonsense.
.

VAT is actually 16.7% of the total price of an item (including VAT), not 20%.

An item costing £100 inc VAT is £83.33 plus 20% of £83.33 VAT (£16.67).

20% means "20% of the original cost added to it". I mean, yes, you're right, but it's kind of overly nitpicking, and it's what everyone assumes by default, I think. Because that's how taxes work.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ah. Gonna have to disagree then.

I definitely felt like the Wreckers, of both genders, were a bit on the small side. They're cool models but so far all of the boxes have felt like Juvies rather than the Prospects that they got described as.

What is the difference? I'm asking because prospects are as far as I can see exactly like juves, except GW never bothered making dedicated minis for them, and created 'specialist' juves instead, which did get minis.

I'm pretty sure that prospects are juves in all but name. GW has simply shifted from generic no-gang juves into themed ones for each faction.

Who knows we might see generic juves appear at some point in the future, but right now prospects fill that same niche, just with faction themed models.

Kanluwen wrote:Ah. Gonna have to disagree then.

I definitely felt like the Wreckers, of both genders, were a bit on the small side. They're cool models but so far all of the boxes have felt like Juvies rather than the Prospects that they got described as.

Baxx wrote:What is the difference? I'm asking because prospects are as far as I can see exactly like juves, except GW never bothered making dedicated minis for them, and created 'specialist' juves instead, which did get minis.

Overread wrote:I'm pretty sure that prospects are juves in all but name. GW has simply shifted from generic no-gang juves into themed ones for each faction.

Who knows we might see generic juves appear at some point in the future, but right now prospects fill that same niche, just with faction themed models.

I thought the lore now was that Prospects have replaced the Juves as the bottom ringers of a gang? If the Juve is a the new guy who's made it into the gang, the Prospect is someone looking to join, and the gang has tasked them with proving how tough they are by eating this kitten.

Still have juves. Prospects are champion level juves, while juves are ganger level juves.