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.

So there are decent GW sculpts of women in my opinion.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Adepta-Sororitas-Hospitaller-2020

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Daughters-Of-Khaine-Morathi-2018

However for the good there are the bad and i seem to see the bad in 40k more. For instance ephrael stern with a constipated face looking like she has no boobs. I don't need massive boobs but i think they should still exist. I get sisters of battle aren't supposed to be the most appealing but sometimes they don't feel feminine or look aesthetically good. Perhaps things look better in the old Hollywood form of something that looks appealing (both the men and women) rather than a scarred gross looking model because it just doesn't look like something a person wants to buy.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Daemonifuge-Ephrael-Stern-and-Kyganil-2020

Notice the difference in how these women look....

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Space-Marine-Celestine-The-Living-Saint-2018

and compare it to these.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Adepta-Sororitas-Seraphim-Squad-2020

Maybe some will say the women in the living saint were too slight of figure or a little curvy (not massively so) but the one in the 2020 seraphim have ugly looking faces. Sometimes it doesn't even look like a good human or female face anymore.

This is a gsc magus and it's decent and i get the ridged head but i think GW has issues making female sculpts heads overall these days and i don't know why.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Genestealer-Cults-Magus-2019

Yvraine looks like crap esp.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Ynnari-Triumvirate-Of-Ynnead-2017

Don't get me wrong. Some models look decent and others bad like in the basic battle sisters box.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Adepta-Sororitas-Battle-Sisters-Squad-2020

That said i can't seem to stop seeing models like this. The inquistior with an ugly face and armor that is so fat, squat and ugly that if the head wasn't there i probably couldn't tell if it was a female model.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Ordo-Xenos-Lord-Inquisitor-Kyria-Draxus-2020

--------

Am i being unfair? Don't get me wrong GW can make some decent female models but there is a pattern of some atrocious looking female models. I honestly think GW needs to hire female models and have them wear armor props just to properly get the female form or even if it ends up being a female boxer maybe at least get proper movements and positioning so the models look right. Probably have some gymnasts wear the armor?

I honestly think the female magus is mostly fine but the face is a bit off. Perhaps when it comes to human faces GW is just terrible. It's a shame because back in 8th edition WHFB i saw some of the prettiest models i've seen GW make. The coven throne/mortis engine kit still stands out to me.

What do you guys think?

May I ask exactly what your definition, not example, of what is not "atrocious looking female models"?

From your post I was able to gather the following criteria which you deem to be 'decent looking' female models:

...ephrael stern with a constipated face looking like she has no boobs.

-female models must not have constipated face and must have boobs.

...I don't need massive boobs but i think they should still exist.

-female models must have boobs. They don't have to be overly exaggerated, but females must have discernible boobs.

...I get sisters of battle aren't supposed to be the most appealing but sometimes they don't feel feminine or look aesthetically good.

-females must be pretty at the worst, if they're not SUPER pretty.

...things look better in the old Hollywood form of something that looks appealing (both the men and women) rather than a scarred gross looking model.

-females must be pretty, and scars are not pretty.

...The inquistior with an ugly face and armor that is so fat, squat and ugly that if the head wasn't there i probably couldn't tell if it was a female model.

-Fat females are indiscernible as females. Females must be skinny.

I mean, if you want pin-up miniatures, there are plenty other game system/companies that make them. I think you should look there instead.

Your post is dangerously misogynist, and no, I am not a female.

When I read just the thread title the first thing I thought was I like the female magus, Celestine and Greyfax (as models that is, it's not that I find them attractive). But I'm not a big fan of the new hospitaller and some others of the new Sisters. So tastes can and do differ and it's fine to have your own taste.

Many GW female models don't look very feminine in a traditional way, especially when compared to some 3rd party minis, but really they don't have to be feminine in a traditional way for wargaming. I'm absolutely fine with that, but given how little free time I have and how much time one has to invest in a miniature I will not paint or use any I don't like, female or not.

@skchsanMade:

My point is the female models must look female. Which is basically slighter features and maybe existence of boobs rather than completely boob-less.

That's not what i said. I said men and women in entertainment must be somewhat attractive or look aesthetically good for people to want to buy them. Look at ironman, captain america, Thor and various others. The characters meant to be cool look good. This works with men and women.

If you make ladies overly masculine or give them really ugly faces and you're selling models then why do people want them. If they think that's cool then fine i guess that's your audience. I just think some of these models look ugly. People want things that look good. Do you want a static pose or an action theme pose even if it makes no sense?

It's not misogynist. People use that word and i don't think they all know what it means. Being that means i hate women right? I don't hate women i just think it's a physically weird look and not something i want to buy. I like some female models but GW definitely doesn't make good ones or at least not anymore.

Saying a person wants an appealing model so they can buy what they want isn't too much to ask. Keep in mind i said the faces of a lot of these models were awful too but you avoided that. I suggest you go look at women and see if they tend to be represented by these models. Afterwards re-examine the misogynist line you stated.

 Max Moray wrote:
When I read just the thread title the first thing I thought was I like the female magus, Celestine and Greyfax (as models that is, it's not that I find them attractive). But I'm not a big fan of the new hospitaller and some others of the new Sisters. So tastes can and do differ and it's fine to have your own taste.

Many GW female models don't look very feminine in a traditional way, especially when compared to some 3rd party minis, but really they don't have to be feminine in a traditional way for wargaming. I'm absolutely fine with that, but given how little free time I have and how much time one has to invest in a miniature I will not paint or use any I don't like, female or not.

What don't you like about the new Sisters?

Personally I like most of the female models I've seen. Off the top of my head I can't think of a model I dislike because I take issue with the way they've done the "femaleness" of it. Females shouldn't look massively different to males in 40k, I think. I do wish there were more explicitly female Eldar rather than the ambiguity most have.

Edit: Between the weird action poses and static poses I 100% choose the static pose. I'm sick of the weird rock jumping.

I think the aesthetic on many of the models matches the setting in which they are depicted

There are some outliers, but overall, they seem to be harping on the physical strain (and adaptation of muscle mass over the bodies) and the damage suffered in the harsh conditions of 10,000 years of war. It makes sense that their figures look more like this:

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/h8oqe7wbmquhN89h3MXYNA-650-80.jpg

And just about every female model in 40K has more of a feminine appearance that the typical female soldier in body armor in the field. Trust me, there's a term for it overseas...

pm713 wrote:

 Max Moray wrote:
When I read just the thread title the first thing I thought was I like the female magus, Celestine and Greyfax (as models that is, it's not that I find them attractive). But I'm not a big fan of the new hospitaller and some others of the new Sisters. So tastes can and do differ and it's fine to have your own taste.

Many GW female models don't look very feminine in a traditional way, especially when compared to some 3rd party minis, but really they don't have to be feminine in a traditional way for wargaming. I'm absolutely fine with that, but given how little free time I have and how much time one has to invest in a miniature I will not paint or use any I don't like, female or not.

What don't you like about the new Sisters?

Personally I like most of the female models I've seen. Off the top of my head I can't think of a model I dislike because I take issue with the way they've done the "femaleness" of it. Females shouldn't look massively different to males in 40k, I think. I do wish there were more explicitly female Eldar rather than the ambiguity most have.

Edit: Between the weird action poses and static poses I 100% choose the static pose. I'm sick of the weird rock jumping.

Perhaps it's just current GW models overall whether male or female. I liked some primaris but hate a lot of the new models as well. Necrons feel fine. GW usually is decent at making elves or eldar type models. I'm mostly ok with the female magus but the head is a little weird. I could maybe accept it since it is a genestealer hybrid after all and the dudes also look alien. Yvrainne just always looked weird to me. Eldar usually don't look so strange. I'm not into the new GW aesthetic for models at times. Perhaps since i started this hobby 13 years ago the model range has changed and not always for the better. I still say 8th ed fantasy (pre-end times) had the best models.

GW is doing a better job than they ever have with female models, honestly.

OP, you've got a big double standard if you feel like the female models need to be attractive according your particular tastes in order to be "good models".
(and you also clearly don't understand that misogyny encompasses prejudice, not simply "hate of women", and arbitrary beauty standards certainly falls within its scope)

Uh....
I don't have a good response to this. Reading this kind of makes me feel gross.


I think that GW makes plenty good models of females, plenty more good female models than bad ones. The Sisters of Battle are good, the Dark Eldar are good. Those that I don't like generally have to do with choices entirely unrelated to the "female form", like Ephrael Stern's cape and overly dramatic pose, which is a complaint that can generally equally be leveled against male models at a similar rate, like Shrike.

I'm not sure what's wrong with the Seraphim. I think they look really good, and I'm not seeing this apparent serious difference between them and the Geminae.



And yeah, the GW female models are extremely feminine looking and obviously female.

rbstr wrote:
GW is doing a better job than they ever have with female models, honestly.

OP, you've got a big double standard if you feel like the female models need to be attractive according your particular tastes in order to be "good models".

Except i said male and female models need to look good. Read what i said. I know it's a long post but i didn't write much.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
@skchsanMade:

My point is the female models must look female. Which is basically slighter features and maybe existence of boobs rather than completely boob-less.

That's not what i said. I said men and women in entertainment must be somewhat attractive or look aesthetically good for people to want to buy them. Look at ironman, captain america, Thor and various others. The characters meant to be cool look good. This works with men and women.

If you make ladies overly masculine or give them really ugly faces and you're selling models then why do people want them. If they think that's cool then fine i guess that's your audience. I just think some of these models look ugly. People want things that look good. Do you want a static pose or an action theme pose even if it makes no sense?

It's not misogynist. People use that word and i don't think they all know what it means. Being that means i hate women right? I don't hate women i just think it's a physically weird look and not something i want to buy. I like some female models but GW definitely doesn't make good ones or at least not anymore.

Saying a person wants an appealing model so they can buy what they want isn't too much to ask. Keep in mind i said the faces of a lot of these models were awful too but you avoided that. I suggest you go look at women and see if they tend to be represented by these models. Afterwards re-examine the misogynist line you stated.

This (the OP) is a clear example of gender profiling, which falls under gender-based discrimination, which is well within the boundaries of misogyny.

The response wasn't meant to label YOU as a misogynist, and I will apologize if you were offended by it.

As stated, I asked for your opinion on exactly what constitutes 'acceptable' female models, as the explanation you've listed are quite 'debatable' which may come off quite offensive and are often cause for thread lock.

I think there's a reason why you can't stop seeing the female faces as distractingly ugly, and I don't think it has anything to do with the way the plastic is shaped.

The miniatures that GW puts out for their grim-dark universe Warhammer 40,000 are not as attractive on average as the characters portrayed in popular marvel movies.

Guilty as charged right there. Gooooot 'em. Iron man and Thor and captain america don't look like this guy https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcFhrEzXsAAHlz_.jpg

It could just be me, and I guess feel free to chime in here if people are not in on this, but the general over-the-top grim nature of 40k, and the fact that stuff is generally a little bit uglier, and a little bit less sleek than other science fiction universes...that was a selling point for me for sure. I looked at the fighting mech suit from 40k, and I saw that it was basically a coffin with squat, ugly stompy legs, a gun slapped on the side and a blunt, nasty, squared-off claw with just enough articulation to rip and tear and I thought "Yeah. Actually, no. HELL YEAH."

rbstr wrote:
GW is doing a better job than they ever have with female models, honestly.

OP, you've got a big double standard if you feel like the female models need to be attractive according your particular tastes in order to be "good models".

Pretty sure they made the SOB minis specifically to not be attractive per se, they're battlefield warriors; not supermodels.

 Max Moray wrote:


Many GW female models don't look very feminine in a traditional way, especially when compared to some 3rd party minis, but really they don't have to be feminine in a traditional way for wargaming. I'm absolutely fine with that, but given how little free time I have and how much time one has to invest in a miniature I will not paint or use any I don't like, female or not.

Honestly once you put muscle and armour on them a lot of typical "feminine curves" tend to vanish anyway.

I think if you want slightly more pin-up style females then there's several good resources like Wargame Exclusive and Raging Heroes (though they both might just go that touch too far for some).


Plus I'd say the females are in line with the males for GW. As plastic casting has advanced some of the designs have markedly improved. I think also there have clearly been set ethos of design that have shifted, the overmuscled design of the old Catchans is clearly something more "of that age". Then again its a sci-fi setting so we will get odd body adjustments like that.


Finally don't forget that the game is designed to be a tabletop game, not a close up pin up game. As a result sometimes things in scale get adapted to suit the visual situation rather than sticking to purity of sculpting and scale accuracy. You see this very heavily as you shift scales - 15mm and 6mm models have vastly oversized weapons and other parts for the practicality of assembly, game use and for seeing 1ft away on a table.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
My point is the female models must look female.

Define female.

Which is basically slighter features and maybe existence of boobs rather than completely boob-less.

That's not what female means. There are women out there with "harsh" features, and men with "slight" features. Under all the armour, do you really think bobs would be present? Look at female soliders today compared to males. You can barely tell the difference. And that's not even getting into non-binary and trans folks.

That's not what i said. I said men and women in entertainment must be somewhat attractive or look aesthetically good for people to want to buy them.

Well, that's nonsense, because Space Marines don't appeal to anything I look for in men. Do I like the aesthetic of their armour? Yes. Do I find their faces appealing? No. Are they appealing models? Yes.

If you make ladies overly masculine or give them really ugly faces and you're selling models then why do people want them.

Because I don't treat my models as gendered objects?
Also MASSIVE yikes on the whole concept of "who would want an overly masculine woman" - like, CHRIST.

I just think some of these models look ugly.

Right - but that doesn't mean they don't look like women, unless you have a very specific (and frankly insulting) idea of what women should look like.

People want things that look good.

I think Space Marines look good. The actual transhuman inside it? Hell no. The armour and sculpted aesthetics? Yes.

Do you want a static pose or an action theme pose even if it makes no sense?

Entirely a matter of opinion, with no right or wrong.

It's not misogynist. People use that word and i don't think they all know what it means. Being that means i hate women right? I don't hate women i just think it's a physically weird look and not something i want to buy.

You're calling ostensibly 'female' models "not women" because they don't look like what you expect when you think of a woman. Sorry, but there's some deep issues I have with that.

Saying a person wants an appealing model so they can buy what they want isn't too much to ask.

Yes, but implying that they don't look like women because they have certain facial features and NEED breasts isn't just "wants an appealing model".

Space Marines don't look particularly handsome. Where's the outcry about them not being "appealing"?

I suggest you go look at women and see if they tend to be represented by these models.

Yes, I do suggest you go look at women - and not just the ones with "slighter features".

TL;DR They look fine, because I don't need attractive faces to find models "appealing". Space Marines are proof of that.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
My point is the female models must look female. Which is basically slighter features and maybe existence of boobs rather than completely boob-less.

That's not what i said. I said men and women in entertainment must be somewhat attractive or look aesthetically good for people to want to buy them. Look at ironman, captain america, Thor and various others. The characters meant to be cool look good. This works with men and women.

If you make ladies overly masculine or give them really ugly faces and you're selling models then why do people want them. If they think that's cool then fine i guess that's your audience. I just think some of these models look ugly. People want things that look good. Do you want a static pose or an action theme pose even if it makes no sense?

Wow. I don't even know where to start.

Traditionally, especially in the States, physical attractiveness was often linked to moral righteousness. The matinee idol in the white stetson, for example. This changed in the late 60s and 70s. Anti-heroes with grizzled or atypical looks started to come to the fore. Hollywood has since re-established the good-looking hero trope but has left some rough edges, usually in the shape of personality flaws eg. Tony Stark.

However, and I stress, this cultural phenomenon is very much a USA thing. In Europe there isn't the same link between physical good looks and heroism/effective personality. A lot of European heroes tend to be lacking physically.

It does tend to be universal, though, that women have to be 'hot'. But there are pretty serious cultural divergences in what constitutes attractive.

My final and most salient point is this: No matter where in the world you hail from, plastic toy soldiers are never attractive. They're plastic. Toy. Soldiers.

Everyone knows that the men in 40k are all

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcT3OV8-wrCYArWqmIcnNNvd9WgvhbL-3aB0NA&usqp=CAU

Super

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQlBug2Z8torIktEVFd3QKU1c3ZHsoQcbVmRA&usqp=CAU

Duper

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTofTX7SO1vPoKGilNh2aD0yQXQKsND_Zf2FA&usqp=CAU

Hawt

Grimtuff wrote:

rbstr wrote:
GW is doing a better job than they ever have with female models, honestly.

OP, you've got a big double standard if you feel like the female models need to be attractive according your particular tastes in order to be "good models".

Pretty sure they made the SOB minis specifically to not be attractive per se, they're battlefield warriors; not supermodels.

Exactly - I'd have more issues if they were conventionally attractive, and not hard-as-nails utter badasses. They're no less female for it.

Female to me equals a body that's somewhat slighter than a male's, a feminine face and possibly muscles but maybe not hulk looking muscles.

Yvrainne's model just looks bad. It looks female but the model just feels very AoS and i don't like it.

There's a reason why i don't have much issue with the gsc magus lady. Her proportions feel right but the face looks weird and alien. Maybe it's how GW paints their models. Since she's a hybrid that's mostly fine. As far as some of the sisters models go i'm ok with them but others just feel a bit i dunno not traditional to say the least. I get that sisters of battle are often strong but i prefer the hollywood look where you get attractive men and women as opposed to ugly men and women.

---------

Keep in mind i'm not saying GW hasn't been able to do female models. I'm not exactly asking for naked dark eldar slave girls. GW is normally good with elves and i like GSC in aesthetic. Perhaps it's just my tastes but i don't like most of the new sisters of battle. It's just my tastes.

the_scotsman wrote:
I think there's a reason why you can't stop seeing the female faces as distractingly ugly, and I don't think it has anything to do with the way the plastic is shaped.

The miniatures that GW puts out for their grim-dark universe Warhammer 40,000 are not as attractive on average as the characters portrayed in popular marvel movies.

Guilty as charged right there. Gooooot 'em. Iron man and Thor and captain america don't look like this guy https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcFhrEzXsAAHlz_.jpg

It could just be me, and I guess feel free to chime in here if people are not in on this, but the general over-the-top grim nature of 40k, and the fact that stuff is generally a little bit uglier, and a little bit less sleek than other science fiction universes...that was a selling point for me for sure. I looked at the fighting mech suit from 40k, and I saw that it was basically a coffin with squat, ugly stompy legs, a gun slapped on the side and a blunt, nasty, squared-off claw with just enough articulation to rip and tear and I thought "Yeah. Actually, no. HELL YEAH."

Actually i'm a refugee from when WHFB died so grim and dark doesn't always appeal to me. I enjoy plenty of humor spread in there. I do like the over-the-top nature of 40k though but it kept getting grimmer and darker in some ways and it wasn't my thing.

I'm a big fan of the Wych models, they look exactly like what they supposed to be - Elves that have been abusing roids, rather than some cheesecake fantasy art.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Female to me equals a body that's somewhat slighter than a male's, a feminine face and possibly muscles but maybe not hulk looking muscles.

Well, sorry to say it, but that's not what female means, no more than all men are muscled out Schwarznegger-like with thick beards and bold, scarred faces.

I get that sisters of battle are often strong but i prefer the hollywood look where you get attractive men and women as opposed to ugly men and women.

That's with your false misconception of what women should look like.
Again, I don't see you complaining about Space Marines being ugly. Why is that?

Keep in mind i'm not saying GW hasn't been able to do female models. I'm not exactly asking for naked dark eldar slave girls. GW is normally good with elves and i like GSC in aesthetic. Perhaps it's just my tastes but i don't like most of the new sisters of battle. It's just my tastes.

Nothing wrong with "tastes", but when you're implying that they're "not women" because they don't fit your ideal looks and calling them ugly, saying "who would buy an ugly non-feminine model of a woman" and then not also complaining about Space Marines not looking gorgeous, then there's some big problems.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

That said i can't seem to stop seeing models like this. The inquistior with an ugly face and armor that is so fat, squat and ugly that if the head wasn't there i probably couldn't tell if it was a female model.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Ordo-Xenos-Lord-Inquisitor-Kyria-Draxus-2020

--------

Am i being unfair?

I rather appreciate that inquisitor model. It's armor without boobplate and unconventinal design, and I don't see why an Inquisitor needs to have a traditionally pretty face. Actually I think that particular face and the way it's painted looks like Tilda Swinton, who I think is quite beautiful in an unconventional way (and who would make an amazing Inquisitor if cast as such). Honestly, it'd be weirder if an inquisitor looked like a pouty-lipped supermodel.

And yeah, you're being unfair. There are plenty of ugly male model faces/bodies in the GW line. The shoveljaw marine Scouts come to mind. Maybe the entire Cadian line. The real underlying problem as I understand it is that culturally we are harsher judges of women when it comes to looks.

I can't for the life of me see a huge difference between the Seraphim and the guardians of Celestine. The hips on the Celestine models look a bit bigger, but that's about it. Also, paint has a TON to do with how the face winds up looking. (see the makeup industry for reference)

 Insectum7 wrote:
I rather appreciate that inquisitor model. It's armor without boobplate and unconventinal design, and I don't see why an Inquisitor needs to have a traditionally pretty face. Actually I think that particular face and the way it's painted looks like Tilda Swinton, who I think is quite beautiful in an unconventional way (and who would make an amazing Inquisitor if cast as such). Honestly, it'd be weirder if an inquisitor looked like a pouty-lipped supermodel.

Draxus is a gorgeous model. There's elegance to it without being too gender coded, and you're absolutely right on Swinton.

And yeah, you're being unfair. There are plenty of ugly male model faces/bodies in the GW line. The shoveljaw marine Scouts come to mind. Maybe the entire Cadian line. The real underlying problem as I understand it is that culturally we are harsher judges of women when it comes to looks.

Yup. Again, note how little criticism there is of the unattractive (in my opinion) look of the Space Marines, but when Sisters don't look "slighter", this happens.

Victoria Miniatures are, imho, a gold standard for female miniatures. And that's a tiny company. GW has a £2b market value, they can afford to hire better sculptors.

https://victoriaminiatures.com/collections/victorian-guard-1/products/victorian-guard-universal-10-woman-squad
https://victoriaminiatures.com/collections/rausenburg-siege-corps/products/rausenburg-siege-corps-10-woman-squad
https://victoriaminiatures.com/collections/arcadian-guard/products/arcadian-guard-10-woman-squad

Or Artel's, a singular Russian dude making miniatures in his basement.
https://artelw.com/Agent-Riding-Hood-p200172751
https://artelw.com/Einherjar%60s-Tank-Commander-p200172976
https://artelw.com/Rogue-Skipper-p160590790
https://artelw.com/Lady-Inquisitor-Bale-p134233758

Of course, the real problem is that people can't criticise the poor quality of GW's female miniatures without being called all the -isms.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Max Moray wrote:
When I read just the thread title the first thing I thought was I like the female magus, Celestine and Greyfax (as models that is, it's not that I find them attractive). But I'm not a big fan of the new hospitaller and some others of the new Sisters. So tastes can and do differ and it's fine to have your own taste.

Many GW female models don't look very feminine in a traditional way, especially when compared to some 3rd party minis, but really they don't have to be feminine in a traditional way for wargaming. I'm absolutely fine with that, but given how little free time I have and how much time one has to invest in a miniature I will not paint or use any I don't like, female or not.

What don't you like about the new Sisters?

Personally I like most of the female models I've seen. Off the top of my head I can't think of a model I dislike because I take issue with the way they've done the "femaleness" of it. Females shouldn't look massively different to males in 40k, I think. I do wish there were more explicitly female Eldar rather than the ambiguity most have.

Edit: Between the weird action poses and static poses I 100% choose the static pose. I'm sick of the weird rock jumping.

Perhaps it's just current GW models overall whether male or female. I liked some primaris but hate a lot of the new models as well. Necrons feel fine. GW usually is decent at making elves or eldar type models. I'm mostly ok with the female magus but the head is a little weird. I could maybe accept it since it is a genestealer hybrid after all and the dudes also look alien. Yvrainne just always looked weird to me. Eldar usually don't look so strange. I'm not into the new GW aesthetic for models at times. Perhaps since i started this hobby 13 years ago the model range has changed and not always for the better. I still say 8th ed fantasy (pre-end times) had the best models.

That's fair enough. I'm noticing I tend to dislike newer models.

Edit: I may hate her rules but Draxus is definitely a great model, I cannot see why you'd dislike it unless you dislike power armoured things in general.

This has to be the most male gaze BS on these entire forums. As to the lack of boobs: Women in absolute peak physical form have almost 1% body fat. Someone else here said it best. Go play with other models if you are looking for pin up hooters models in power armor.

Drukhari and sororitas models are amazing, IMHO among the best looking miniatures in the entire GW catalogue.

If anything I think GW is worse in making male models. AM and SM aren't particularly good looking. Maybe SW if you're into their viking theme, but what about cadians, catachans, scouts and blood angels with bare heads?

I'd rate female GW models over these anytime.

 harlokin wrote:
I'm a big fan of the Wych models, they look exactly like what they supposed to be - Elves that have been abusing roids, rather than some cheesecake fantasy art.

Lelith is like the perfect example. She has the exact body type you'd expect a "proper" female fighter to have. She hasn't got massive tiddays flopping around because that's not what someone of that physique would look like. Look at Ronda Rousey or Shayna Baszler for example. Lelith's mini matches their body types almost perfectly.

I would say that of the faces they've put out in the brand-new primaris range, 0% of them look like someone you'd cast in a new Marvel movie.

GW's models don't look like hawt hollywood supermodels.haven't for a long time. Basically ever, I would say, either in concept art or in practice.

All the source material GW used for 40k was grim, and ugly, and blunt, and gross. Robocop and Judge Dredd and Starship Troopers and Alien and old scifi novel covers.

Majority of people are either plain or ugly. Every dude in the game look like Major Chip Hazard from Small Soldier after his face got melted. Why would the women be any different?