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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think I still prefer the idea behind the old Repentia better (more insanity), but I can sure understand why they didn't go that route.

Some tattered sleeves and tabards, and boots rather than trainers would do the new models a world of good IMO. They look a little too much like models from a different game that someone has kitbashed with fluers and purity seals, and the lack of robes hurts their appearance of speed and movement.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

flamingkillamajig wrote:I never said that once again.

You said this: "the female models must look female. Which is basically slighter features and maybe existence of boobs rather than completely boob-less"

How else am I meant to take that?

I said i hated the space marine models

You said that *some* Primaris faces looked bad, not that all Space Marine faces (because, let's be honest, it is all Astartes faces) look unhandsome.

and yes i like the dudes to look masculine. It's why i liked 300. I love how different people have thrown out conflicting reasons for why i must obviously be sexist.

I've shown you why your comments were inappropriate. Nothing to do with what you like in your models. It's what you've said WOMEN should look like.

I've asked you twice to define what a woman is for me, and both times, the answer's been an issue for me, because it's not just about models, it's about the perception of women (and trans women) in the real world.

Keep in mind this is an over-the-top game.

Over-the-top violence, not over-the-top sexual objectification. There's a difference.

If something has over-the-top violence and an 6-8 boobed towering daemon than asking for slightly more feminine looking models (bit shorter and a bit more lean and more feminine faces) isn't asking a lot.

You're being wilfully ignorant now.
There's nothing wrong with asking for some slightly more feminine looking models. What IS the problem is you saying that the existing ones don't look like women, because of your reductive view on what women look like!

Don't blame anyone else for your bad phrasing! Apologise, correct it, and rephrase - don't double down.

I can look at morathi and tell it's a woman without needing to look at it a while

Again! This isn't just "it's a good looking woman", it's "it's good because it fits into my idea of what a woman should look like". It's not hard to tell the Sisters look like women - that is, if your idea of women isn't the hollywood stereotype.
This is what I mean by having a problem with what you're saying. I don't care about your preference, but your comments are indicating more than just what you like about models, and more into what you think a woman should look like - which has some pretty terrible RL implications.
Ditch THOSE kinds of comments, and you wouldn't have an issue.

Hold your horses there.

You are making your point and you have your right to do so, but saying that a person has problems in real because of his tastes in miniature is quite uncalled for.

That's a personal attack against someone you literally have no idea who he is or what is his attitude toward women in his life.

His points are correct even if badly expressed. He like models more feminine, which is not a crime nor a reason for personal attacks.

Now, this game has a small scale, so expressing that cannot be done in many ways, we simply don't have enough details. The easier ways to make a model look like a women are indeed:

1) A bit exagerated body curves
2) Slender figure
3) Makeup

Those 3 things makes it easy for our eye to identify that piece of plastic as a small representation of a women.

A figure in that scale without any of those 3 does indeed not look like a women to our eyes. That's simply how our brain works. It would take an incredibly skilled sculptor to make something look like a women in 28mm without any of those 3 traits.

You may think that such a style is not in line with 40K, to which I agree, and you are free to make your point about it.

Personal attacks though are not cool, or are you really convinced that our preferences in miniatures/anime/marvel/whatever are really related to something deeper than a mere visual preference?

A.T. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think I still prefer the idea behind the old Repentia better (more insanity), but I can sure understand why they didn't go that route.

Some tattered sleeves and tabards, and boots rather than trainers would do the new models a world of good IMO. They look a little too much like models from a different game that someone has kitbashed with fluers and purity seals, and the lack of robes hurts their appearance of speed and movement.

I wished the Repentia had looked like the one on the cover of the old codex, or the Dialogus, wearing a tabard of parchment for clothing instead of chains, leather, and nipple piercings as a BDSM cult.

phones with spinning dials can totally fit into the 40K world. There are a million inhabited worlds, and all levels of technological advancement are present somewhere in the galaxy.

As for GW miniature representations' of women, I think its much better than in many other miniature games. However, I'd still feel like a dirty old man if I collected corset clad boob plate SoB, but at least it wouldn't be as pathetic as owning a collection of Kindom Death hentai miniatures. I think any of you with teenage kids can relate.

Spoletta wrote:

Now, this game has a small scale, so expressing that cannot be done in many ways, we simply don't have enough details. The easier ways to make a model look like a women are indeed:

1) A bit exagerated body curves
2) Slender figure
3) Makeup

Those 3 things makes it easy for our eye to identify that piece of plastic as a small representation of a women.

A figure in that scale without any of those 3 does indeed not look like a women to our eyes. That's simply how our brain works. It would take an incredibly skilled sculptor to make something look like a women in 28mm without any of those 3 traits.

Uh...

Does a model need to have a chiseled jawlone, broad shoulders, and pants bulge to look like a man?


I think that models like Inquisitor Draxus are good for slowly dismantling the androcentric assumption of military-themed things. And she's still a woman even without a narrow corseted waist, a boobplate, flowing hair, and makeup. I'd say she's pretty obviously female:

Spoletta wrote:
Hold your horses there.

You are making your point and you have your right to do so, but saying that a person has problems in real because of his tastes in miniature is quite uncalled for.

I'm saying nothing about their taste in miniatures. I simply asked them what defined a "female", in their own words. Their answers did not fill me with confidence.

That's a personal attack against someone you literally have no idea who he is or what is his attitude toward women in his life.

As I said - I've asked. They answered. I'm yet unconvinced.

His points are correct even if badly expressed. He like models more feminine, which is not a crime nor a reason for personal attacks.

I never said there was anything wrong with how you like your models. What I *do* have a problem with is how they seem to classify what is, and is not, a woman.
If badly expressed, I've invited them to clear that up several times. They have not.

Now, this game has a small scale, so expressing that cannot be done in many ways, we simply don't have enough details. The easier ways to make a model look like a women are indeed:

1) A bit exagerated body curves
2) Slender figure
3) Makeup

Those 3 things makes it easy for our eye to identify that piece of plastic as a small representation of a women.

And yet I can quite easily tell that Draxus, the Magus, hell, all the SoB, Severina, Greyfax, etc - are all women. Funny that.
And again - playing into the idea that women *should* have curves, slender figures, and makeup, when that's a gross oversimplification of women!
Here's a novel idea - how about we move AWAY from the idea that those features define what a woman is. Otherwise, what about men? I mean, what are the "easier ways to make a model look like a man"? A big bushy beard, rippling Arnie-like muscles, and a massive, pendulous... member? Those are all "masculine" things, right? Maybe we should be exaggerating those more, because, you know, the game's at such a small scale, who would ever be able to tell that those guardsmen are male?

Why the double standard? Why do we need to make exaggerated details for women (and not even realistic depictions of most women, at that) and not for men?

A figure in that scale without any of those 3 does indeed not look like a women to our eyes. That's simply how our brain works.

To YOUR eyes and brain, not mine.

It would take an incredibly skilled sculptor to make something look like a women in 28mm without any of those 3 traits.

GW must have a lot of talented sculptors, because I have no trouble identifying models of women as women.

You may think that such a style is not in line with 40K, to which I agree, and you are free to make your point about it.

It's nothing to do with "what you want your models to look like" - it's comments implying that OP doesn't regard models as female if they don't look feminine! Which is something that DEFINITELY bleeds over into the real world!

Personal attacks though are not cool, or are you really convinced that our preferences in miniatures/anime/marvel/whatever are really related to something deeper than a mere visual preference?

From the answers I've received from my questions? Yes.
I asked plainly and simply what OP classed as "female". Their answer did not do them any favours.

I couldn't care less about their model preferences. I *do* care about their perception of what women are and should look like, in the same way I care about what people say men should look like.
I again, welcome them to attempt clarify or apologise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Now, this game has a small scale, so expressing that cannot be done in many ways, we simply don't have enough details. The easier ways to make a model look like a women are indeed:

1) A bit exagerated body curves
2) Slender figure
3) Makeup

Those 3 things makes it easy for our eye to identify that piece of plastic as a small representation of a women.

A figure in that scale without any of those 3 does indeed not look like a women to our eyes. That's simply how our brain works. It would take an incredibly skilled sculptor to make something look like a women in 28mm without any of those 3 traits.

Uh...

Does a model need to have a chiseled jawlone, broad shoulders, and pants bulge to look like a man?


I think that models like Inquisitor Draxus are good for slowly dismantling the androcentric assumption of military-themed things. And she's still a woman even without a narrow corseted waist, a boobplate, flowing hair, and makeup.

Exactly! Why are we assuming it's so easy to tell what a man is when they're not objectified, but there's no possible way you could tell that's a women without certain features? Why are we assuming that men are the "default"?

Look, if we're going to accept the idea that women need makeup, slender figures, and exaggerated curved to be identifiably...female, all I'm asking for is for all male models to have an absolutely HUGE codpiece, unreasonably large muscles, and a thick beard. Otherwise, how I tell they're male?

I had to read the text under the picture to know that the new Inquisitor miniature was representing a woman.
And not because of my taste but because it lacks any easily identifiable traits usually associated with women.

Doesn't mean the model is bad though, just that it was designed that way. And I can understand why since I believe at this scale, most soldiers should look alike, whatever their sex is.

This thread is a dumpster fire.

The feminine models are great. The paint job on faces is sometimes strange, but that's more GW's style of painting than anything else and applies to all gender representations.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Now, this game has a small scale, so expressing that cannot be done in many ways, we simply don't have enough details. The easier ways to make a model look like a women are indeed:

1) A bit exagerated body curves
2) Slender figure
3) Makeup

Those 3 things makes it easy for our eye to identify that piece of plastic as a small representation of a women.

A figure in that scale without any of those 3 does indeed not look like a women to our eyes. That's simply how our brain works. It would take an incredibly skilled sculptor to make something look like a women in 28mm without any of those 3 traits.

Uh...

Does a model need to have a chiseled jawlone, broad shoulders, and pants bulge to look like a man?


I think that models like Inquisitor Draxus are good for slowly dismantling the androcentric assumption of military-themed things. And she's still a woman even without a narrow corseted waist, a boobplate, flowing hair, and makeup.

Maybe all those features on a small model of a man would make him readily look like a man. This game is over the top. Maybe the dude should have muscles on more muscles. This game has knights and titans in it as well as orks that need infinite more dakka. Seriously an ork armed with like 20 different guns having not enough dakka. I'm surprised we haven't seen absurdly sexual things in 40k like a slaanesh daemon with a 20 foot dong.

I would much rather models looked more alike than adding in forced "gender signifiers" like makeup or curves that lead into real world stereotypes of women. Not that I have a particular problem right now identifying models like Severina or Traxus as women.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I would much rather models looked more alike than adding in forced "gender signifiers" like makeup or curves that lead into real world stereotypes of women. Not that I have a particular problem right now identifying models like Severina or Traxus as women.

We could always add a bow in the hair of all feminine models. It'll be like Ms. Pacman.

"Why are we assuming it's so easy to tell what a man is when they're not objectified, but there's no possible way you could tell that's a women without certain features? Why are we assuming that men are the "default"?"
It's the default because it still is, 90% of the miniatures represents men. It won't change overnight.

So all it would take for this to become morally acceptable to some would be to change "they don't look like women" to "I can't tel their gender"?

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Maybe all those features on a small model of a man would make him readily look like a man. This game is over the top. Maybe the dude should have muscles on more muscles.

But where's my unreasonably massive phallus? How can I tell it's a man without that! /s

This game has knights and titans in it as well as orks that need infinite more dakka. Seriously an ork armed with like 20 different guns having not enough dakka.

The difference is that Orks and Knights and Titans are fictional. Women, and the depictions of them, are real. The game is over-the-top, but humans are still, by and large, humans. And funnily enough, human women can, and do, look masculine. Not that you seem to recognise that, given the several times I've asked you what women are.

I'm surprised we haven't seen absurdly sexual things in 40k like a slaanesh daemon with a 20 foot dong.

Because that's not the direction GW want to go. And I have nothing wrong with that.
Again - 40k is OTT violent. Not explicitly sexual, and not on the tabletop.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Now, this game has a small scale, so expressing that cannot be done in many ways, we simply don't have enough details. The easier ways to make a model look like a women are indeed:

1) A bit exagerated body curves
2) Slender figure
3) Makeup

Those 3 things makes it easy for our eye to identify that piece of plastic as a small representation of a women.

A figure in that scale without any of those 3 does indeed not look like a women to our eyes. That's simply how our brain works. It would take an incredibly skilled sculptor to make something look like a women in 28mm without any of those 3 traits.

Uh...

Does a model need to have a chiseled jawlone, broad shoulders, and pants bulge to look like a man?


I think that models like Inquisitor Draxus are good for slowly dismantling the androcentric assumption of military-themed things. And she's still a woman even without a narrow corseted waist, a boobplate, flowing hair, and makeup. I'd say she's pretty obviously female:

I didn't realize that was a woman. At a glance it's a man and not even gw, looks like a pp elf. I didn't know this existed but what an absolute travesty of design.

dhallnet wrote:
"Why are we assuming it's so easy to tell what a man is when they're not objectified, but there's no possible way you could tell that's a women without certain features? Why are we assuming that men are the "default"?"
It's the default because it still is, 90% of the miniatures represents men. It won't change overnight.

It's no excuse not to start now though.

So all it would take for this to become morally acceptable to some would be to change "they don't look like women" to "I can't tel their gender"?

Gender androgyny would be superior to hyper-masculine or hyper-feminine models, yes. However, GW have demonstrated that they can make perfectly suitable models that aren't hyper-gendered that look like their appropriate genders.

To add to this: Catachans being hyper-muscled? That applies to ALL Catachans, not just Catachan men. They're muscled because they're from Catachan. Cadian men, on the other hand, don't need to be hyper-muscled to show that they're men, for example. Just in case anyone was going to call me out on Catachans premptively.

Can't we just all agree that GW is equal opportunity fugly when it comes to model faces and sometimes proportions, and leave it at that?

How anyone can look at Gulliman and his tiny constipated face tacked onto that huge misformed body and think otherwise, I do not know.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I would much rather models looked more alike than adding in forced "gender signifiers" like makeup or curves that lead into real world stereotypes of women. Not that I have a particular problem right now identifying models like Severina or Traxus as women.

I can tell instantly that severina represents a woman, it's just the inq that feels off.
And I actually would rather have diversity than all look alike minis, and judging how much everyone is thirsty for new models, I'm sure most people would too.

 Irkjoe wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I didn't realize that was a woman. At a glance it's a man and not even gw, looks like a pp elf. I didn't know this existed but what an absolute travesty of design.

Well, I can tell she's a woman without any effort. Very Tilda Swinton-esque.
And, more importantly, on the "design" front - her being a woman isn't the important part of her design. The important parts of her design are the meldings of Imperial and xenos tech - which I think the design covers perfectly. Her being a woman ("casually", and I believe Inquisitor Lord Katherine put it) isn't the focus of her character - which is what I want to see more of. More "casual" women, more characters that happen to be women, not characters that are special for being women.

She's clearly an eldar wannabe, so I think they were going for the eldar female look. Which looks bad enough on say Yvraine. Maybe it's partially intentional that she looks a bit odd?

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think I still prefer the idea behind the old Repentia better (more insanity), but I can sure understand why they didn't go that route.

Some tattered sleeves and tabards, and boots rather than trainers would do the new models a world of good IMO. They look a little too much like models from a different game that someone has kitbashed with fluers and purity seals, and the lack of robes hurts their appearance of speed and movement.

I wished the Repentia had looked like the one on the cover of the old codex, or the Dialogus, wearing a tabard of parchment for clothing instead of chains, leather, and nipple piercings as a BDSM cult.

That would have worked well, yeah. I think my beef with the new ones is that they're relatively un-decorated or un-ceremonious in a faction that is all about aesthetic over-embellishment. I don't remember nipple piercings on the old ones, though I'm having trouble finding decent reference pictures.

That said, I liked aspects of the BDSM imagery. That probably sounds awkward but I liked how it played into some of the lore. Iirc there was a story that always stuck in my mind about a Superior who was writing with a pen that was specifically barbed in order to make writing hurt. There seemed to be an underlying theme of physical self-flagellation as part of a sort of hyper-Catholicism. I think the new ones are a little too tame. Parchment tabard would have been a good route, maybe they were afraid of potential red-carpet-sexy-leg and side-boob.

 Irkjoe wrote:


I didn't realize that was a woman. At a glance it's a man and not even gw, looks like a pp elf. I didn't know this existed but what an absolute travesty of design.

I thought it was an eldar.

dhallnet wrote:
And I actually would rather have diversity than all look alike minis, and judging how much everyone is thirsty for new models, I'm sure most people would too.

Diversity can be done without hyper-gendering the models. And again, it comes back to the topic of why don't we hyper-masculise the men, with giant bulges and beards, instead of hyper-feminising the women?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

dhallnet wrote:
"Why are we assuming it's so easy to tell what a man is when they're not objectified, but there's no possible way you could tell that's a women without certain features? Why are we assuming that men are the "default"?"
It's the default because it still is, 90% of the miniatures represents men. It won't change overnight.

It's no excuse not to start now though.

It's starting to grow but getting angry on a forum at people using the default because it still represents 90% of the content, is weird.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

So all it would take for this to become morally acceptable to some would be to change "they don't look like women" to "I can't tel their gender"?

Gender androgyny would be superior to hyper-masculine or hyper-feminine models, yes. However, GW have demonstrated that they can make perfectly suitable models that aren't hyper-gendered that look like their appropriate genders.

Nope, the over representation of hyper sexualised or androgynous models are both bad. Particularly when you advocate representing our society. Not that I think this game in particular should try to represent reality at any time.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I think that models like Inquisitor Draxus are good for slowly dismantling the androcentric assumption of military-themed things. And she's still a woman even without a narrow corseted waist, a boobplate, flowing hair, and makeup. I'd say she's pretty obviously female:

While I agree with what you said in general, Draxus does not look obviously female. Not that she has to or that the sculpt is bad because of that, but I honestly mistook her for a male at first, especially since the name doesn't give it away either.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

dhallnet wrote:
And I actually would rather have diversity than all look alike minis, and judging how much everyone is thirsty for new models, I'm sure most people would too.

Diversity can be done without hyper-gendering the models. And again, it comes back to the topic of why don't we hyper-masculise the men, with giant bulges and beards, instead of hyper-feminising the women?

Aren't Marines selling so well because they are a man power fantasy or something ? That's what I've been told in one of "these" threads elsewhere.
Also, bob the guardman isn't particularly hyper masculine. Nor is Karedron the guardian, or Strgfdt the hormagaunt.

dhallnet wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

dhallnet wrote:
"Why are we assuming it's so easy to tell what a man is when they're not objectified, but there's no possible way you could tell that's a women without certain features? Why are we assuming that men are the "default"?"
It's the default because it still is, 90% of the miniatures represents men. It won't change overnight.

It's no excuse not to start now though.

It's starting to grow but getting angry on a forum at people using the default because it still represents 90% of the content, is weird.

I'm not getting angry at people using the default. I'm annoyed because people aren't seeing the double standard and thinking "oh, yeah, maybe that is a bit of a double standard, we should do something about that".

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

So all it would take for this to become morally acceptable to some would be to change "they don't look like women" to "I can't tel their gender"?

Gender androgyny would be superior to hyper-masculine or hyper-feminine models, yes. However, GW have demonstrated that they can make perfectly suitable models that aren't hyper-gendered that look like their appropriate genders.

Nope, the over representation of hyper sexualised or androgynous models are both bad. None represents the reality, since that's what you're after. Not that I think this game in particular should try to represent reality.

Just because this game isn't trying to recreate reality doesn't give it a free pass on blatant double standards between men and women! Again - if you support using things like makeup, curves, and slenderness to represent women, I also want you support giving all male characters an absolutely giant member, and a great big bushy beard. Simple as.

I'm not after reality. I just want to deal with the idea that women *have* to look a certain way to be identifiable as women*, because it's a topic that extends beyond the tabletop, like it or not.


*and the same to be said of men - men with slighter faces, lighter frames, long hair, etc.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

So here's a shock for you....women tend to be smaller and shorter than men. Period.

Yah, and if they're wearing armor, no bewbs either. But you're asking for bewbs anyways. Why is it that you're specifically saying a female model is "bad" when they're not overtly displaying . . .

Ahh forget it. Sigh.

I generally assume that having multiple layers of armor and then some shoved between one's breasts would not be comfortable in general, much less in a fight.

That said, I find it an acceptable break from realism. [I even drew my avatar with a boob-plate, so I obvious find it okay]. It comes down to the issue of dressing and presenting oneself how we want to, not how males want us to.

Agree. My point was more that if flamingkillamajig was going to make a 'realism' based argument that could easily swing the other way.

And yeah the Sisters armor is both feminine and badass, acknowledging femininity and empowering it without being trivializing. (unlike the sculpts from several other manufacturers)

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Bonus points to whoever set that picture up, btw - look at the side-eye Coteaz is shooting towards Draxus. Reckon he's irritated by her lizard, or jealous of it?

I seem to recall he's a bit of a Puritan, so it's probably irritation.

Odd that Greyfax doesn't seem phased, but I'm less surprised by Gregor "emergency daemonhost" Eisenhorn being accepting of her gear.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

dhallnet wrote:
"Why are we assuming it's so easy to tell what a man is when they're not objectified, but there's no possible way you could tell that's a women without certain features? Why are we assuming that men are the "default"?"
It's the default because it still is, 90% of the miniatures represents men. It won't change overnight.

It's no excuse not to start now though.

So all it would take for this to become morally acceptable to some would be to change "they don't look like women" to "I can't tel their gender"?

Gender androgyny would be superior to hyper-masculine or hyper-feminine models, yes. However, GW have demonstrated that they can make perfectly suitable models that aren't hyper-gendered that look like their appropriate genders.

To add to this: Catachans being hyper-muscled? That applies to ALL Catachans, not just Catachan men. They're muscled because they're from Catachan. Cadian men, on the other hand, don't need to be hyper-muscled to show that they're men, for example. Just in case anyone was going to call me out on Catachans premptively.

You are trying to contest how imagine recognition of the human eye work.

Eyes have a certain way they work, you can't contest it nor change it. Multiple persons have already told you that the new inquisitor does not look like a woman, and indeed if she had an helmet there would be no way at all to know. Even without an helmet you need to look at it long and hard to understand that it is intended to be a women. That's 28mm scale for you. You either make things exagerated and obvious, or your eye simply defaults to the standard interpretation due to an absence of additional info. The default interpreation is that of a male soldier, because 99% of the miniatures are male soldiers. Maybe that one of my primaris intercessors is a woman, but I have no way to tell them apart, so my eyes just see male soldiers.

It is curious that you name sisters as being easily recognizable as women, when that happens exactly because they are much slender than a marine. The chestplate also definitely counts as an exagerated body curve.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Diversity can be done without hyper-gendering the models. And again, it comes back to the topic of why don't we hyper-masculise the men, with giant bulges and beards, instead of hyper-feminising the women?

Am I wrong in thinking that the core army most bought and played is space marines the army of super men body builders . How could GW make them any more hyper masculine Or do people mean hyper sexualized, when they say that?