Episode 146 - The 2016 Warhammer 40k Year in Review

Have an idea, comment or complaint about the show? Be heard here.
User avatar
Fomite
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Episode 146 - The 2016 Warhammer 40k Year in Review

Post by Fomite » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:06 pm

EverRaven wrote:If you stick with GW models? Yep. And as a girl, I find it rather frustrating. BUT, there are really nice models out there from third parties, and a few don't have skin tight armor:

Image
I was going to use Victoria's models as an example of "visibly female from a distance" models that aren't cheesecake-y.

I'd do an army of them, but the slightly off scale (and the $$$) stops me :\

...For now.

User avatar
EverRaven
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:17 am

Re: Episode 146 - The 2016 Warhammer 40k Year in Review

Post by EverRaven » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:22 pm

I think it would be an amazingly great army - I've thought blending them with the Toughest Girls might make a really nice mixed attempt at a Sisters+Imperial Guard list...

IntotheGloam
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Episode 146 - The 2016 Warhammer 40k Year in Review

Post by IntotheGloam » Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:20 pm

Fomite wrote:Still wading through this episode, but I've got one comment on Inquisitor Whatsherface and the heels and corset debate.

The problem with Carl's "You can have boob-plate, you can not have boob-plate, whatever..." stance is that the "Not Boob-plate Option" doesn't actually exist with the exception of some Tau units. If you want any female representation in your army, it's going to involve skin-tight body armor.
I think what Carl was saying does hold up. While I understand and respect where people are coming from on this I don't think GW has some kind of obligation to society at large to represent all opinions, desires and aesthetic sensibilities. GW should be free to produce the models that appeal to their artists and if there is a desire that is not being met it is up to the market to address that: both by people taking their money elsewhere and by other companies filling that void if the demand is truly substantial.

If the demand is not substantial then you should accept that you may have to buy non-GW models or kitbash/sculpt your own.

What I don't agree with is the sentiment that I play your game, I want to see X therefore it is wrong for you not to provide X.

Personally I too am hoping for plastic sisters which I think we all agree would rock :D

User avatar
Adan
IC Staff
Posts: 6403
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 10:00 pm
Location: Moraga, CA (work)

Re: Episode 146 - The 2016 Warhammer 40k Year in Review

Post by Adan » Sat Jan 21, 2017 1:00 pm

I completely agree that companies should be able to make what they feel like selling. If it doesn't sell, well....

I don't personally like the way that Greyfox is represented, and I won't be buying/using that model. The Toughest Girls models linked above are basically only that squad in that line that I would even consider. All of the rest of them are too over-the-top for my taste, as is basically anything from Kingdom Death. KD made millions of dollars and I'm happy to see artists making a living, but it's not for me.

I like sexy where it should be -- based solely on my opinion of where/when that is. I don't mean to impose it on anyone else.

I think that GW is missing out on opportunities to bring more people in and enhance their bottom-line if they would offer alternatives that don't cater to a traditional 16-26 straight-male mindset (with a 1970s/80s vibe). They have an opportunity with the new Sisters. We'll see.

IntotheGloam wrote:
Fomite wrote:Still wading through this episode, but I've got one comment on Inquisitor Whatsherface and the heels and corset debate.

The problem with Carl's "You can have boob-plate, you can not have boob-plate, whatever..." stance is that the "Not Boob-plate Option" doesn't actually exist with the exception of some Tau units. If you want any female representation in your army, it's going to involve skin-tight body armor.
I think what Carl was saying does hold up. While I understand and respect where people are coming from on this I don't think GW has some kind of obligation to society at large to represent all opinions, desires and aesthetic sensibilities. GW should be free to produce the models that appeal to their artists and if there is a desire that is not being met it is up to the market to address that: both by people taking their money elsewhere and by other companies filling that void if the demand is truly substantial.

If the demand is not substantial then you should accept that you may have to buy non-GW models or kitbash/sculpt your own.

What I don't agree with is the sentiment that I play your game, I want to see X therefore it is wrong for you not to provide X.

Personally I too am hoping for plastic sisters which I think we all agree would rock :D
All of my armies and current projects.


[MOD]
Red is my "moderator voice".
[/MOD]

User avatar
EverRaven
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:17 am

Re: Episode 146 - The 2016 Warhammer 40k Year in Review

Post by EverRaven » Sat Jan 21, 2017 1:54 pm

Adan wrote:I think that GW is missing out on opportunities to bring more people in and enhance their bottom-line if they would offer alternatives that don't cater to a traditional 16-26 straight-male mindset (with a 1970s/80s vibe). They have an opportunity with the new Sisters. We'll see.
Ah - so I'm not the only person that thought their "Canoness Veridyan" looked like art one would find airbrushed on a 1970s van?" ;)

User avatar
cvtuttle
IC Staff
Posts: 5989
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:12 pm
Location: Morgan Hill, CA
Contact:

Re: Episode 146 - The 2016 Warhammer 40k Year in Review

Post by cvtuttle » Sat Jan 21, 2017 2:50 pm

EverRaven wrote:
Adan wrote:I think that GW is missing out on opportunities to bring more people in and enhance their bottom-line if they would offer alternatives that don't cater to a traditional 16-26 straight-male mindset (with a 1970s/80s vibe). They have an opportunity with the new Sisters. We'll see.
Ah - so I'm not the only person that thought their "Canoness Veridyan" looked like art one would find airbrushed on a 1970s van?" ;)
It was designed in the 80s - so yeah it would :)
Carl Tuttle
Host of The Independent Characters

User avatar
Adan
IC Staff
Posts: 6403
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 10:00 pm
Location: Moraga, CA (work)

Re: Episode 146 - The 2016 Warhammer 40k Year in Review

Post by Adan » Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:23 pm

It's specifically intended to be the miniatures version of an icon John Blanche sketch.
All of my armies and current projects.


[MOD]
Red is my "moderator voice".
[/MOD]

User avatar
EverRaven
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:17 am

Re: Episode 146 - The 2016 Warhammer 40k Year in Review

Post by EverRaven » Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:58 pm

Adan wrote:It's specifically intended to be the miniatures version of an icon John Blanche sketch.

Oh, I know - I remember when that art came out. But, I think we all can agree the art epitomizes 70s van art - Or to quote my friends "Check it out! Dee Snyder in a push up bra!" 40k artwork has come a long way since that time - the art style has changed in many positive ways. I'm hopeful that the (hopefully) upcoming sisters models reflect more the look they gave the new Celestine model...

As a girl, I've gotten over the frustration at tight armor and "boobs forward" models. But, the cannoness model was over "my line" of the desire to accept. I can't buy that - I can't paint that. Same reason I don't buy Kingdom Death models - they are WAY over my line.

Everyone's line is different. I'm cool with that. But, as Adan said - if more Victoriana style models would hit the table, us girls would be more interested in purchasing them. But Dee Snyder in a push up bra? No thanks...

User avatar
Fomite
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Episode 146 - The 2016 Warhammer 40k Year in Review

Post by Fomite » Sun Jan 22, 2017 3:23 pm

IntotheGloam wrote: I think what Carl was saying does hold up. While I understand and respect where people are coming from on this I don't think GW has some kind of obligation to society at large to represent all opinions, desires and aesthetic sensibilities. GW should be free to produce the models that appeal to their artists and if there is a desire that is not being met it is up to the market to address that: both by people taking their money elsewhere and by other companies filling that void if the demand is truly substantial.

If the demand is not substantial then you should accept that you may have to buy non-GW models or kitbash/sculpt your own.

What I don't agree with is the sentiment that I play your game, I want to see X therefore it is wrong for you not to provide X.

Personally I too am hoping for plastic sisters which I think we all agree would rock :D
I don't think they have an *obligation* to. But I also don't think that doesn't mean there's not room to note that GW continues to struggle with female representation even when they *do* make female characters. Nor that "Boobplate or not boobplate, do what you want" doesn't really work when the non-cheesecake options are extremely few and far between.

I mean, the new female character for the Eldar is both walking on her tiptoes even though she *doesn't* have heels on, and apparently forgot to put on shoes.

That kind of image gets put forward, and it's made at least two women I know come away with the impression that this hobby isn't "for them". Which is a pretty big loss in my mind.

User avatar
Tallassarinus
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:18 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Episode 146 - The 2016 Warhammer 40k Year in Review

Post by Tallassarinus » Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:15 am

I think Adan said something in a previous episode (potentially the Sororitas Show of Force?) which is another thing GW should really bear in mind: 51% of the population is female. Producing models which are not reflective of adolescent male fantasies could stand to really increase their customer base.

That said I don't think anything and everything remotely sexual should be purged from 40k - it works for daemons of Slaneesh as that's part of what the god is and draws its power from. But it would be nice to see female soldiers and Imperial agents that have armour that is clearly intended to be functional war-plate (challenges to sculptors acknowledged - difficult to produce a 28mm scale model visibly female without overly exaggerating female body shape).
"Martial strategy is a set of expedients and reactions; it resists reduction to system and scholarship." - Ancient Terran War Sage

Locked

Return to “Show Discussion”