This week Lange and Nathan chat about the new models for the new Dark Elf release. Next week will bring a new armybook… but is it enough to make buying this models worthwhile? The model of the week has Snake Toes and end of the show inspires a battle cry for gamers annoyed with half naked female models. Listen and enjoy!!
[WARNING! Jaded Gamercast is meant for an adult audience. We ask that all listeners be at least 18 years of age or have their parents permission before listening.]
Direct Download the podcast here!
Need advice on Army Building? Painting? Crushing your enemies and seeing them driven before you? Dating? ….EMAIL US!?
Jaded Gamercast 
Honestly I think “Hair Singularity” would have been a better episode title. I laughed out loud when Nathan said that. Epic rants this time, loved it. I agree that the prices for these Dark Elves are absolutely unfathomable. I’m with Nathan in that it’s not a matter of income that would keep me from buying them, but the principle of it being such an unbelievable “fuck you” to get something like 10 witch elves for $60. I was similarly skeptical about the $30 Space Marine captain from last month too; at a certain point the prices they are pushing go from evil-but-logical to whoops-we-just-tanked-our-sales! and I think we just got there.
Remember when the new Terminator box came out? $50USD for 5 plastic figures seemed insane, but people claimed that they were selling well, yet they have remained untouched pricewise since then, suggesting that GW realized that any price higher would be too much. I think they know exactly where that limit is between too much and a price you don’t mind paying.
The terminators (Deathwing are $60!) aren’t an apt comparison point in my mind as they are so low in model count when building an army. Nathan was right to point out how many Dark Elves you’d have to buy in comparison to make a single unit. You’d have an entire Deathwing army for the same price.
I felt we are being a bit harsh on the release. Im actually far more upset that the Dark Elf rules are going to be so much better than high elves. Also, they have leaked photos for next wave whenever that is. And the next one promises to be much more exciting. Im also mad that Dark Elf core got a new kit, where my high elves were left wanting. I actually cannibalized dark elf spears and the dragon icon for my high elf spearmen for my Caledor/Averlorn army. There was nothing really wrong with Dark elf core that I could see. In terms of your comments on female models and their slut level, I agree on a general basis, but I do have a caveat. One of you said that the witch elves before and after battle look like they want the D, but I mean, that is kinda in their fluff. They are sluts. That is their role in dark elf society. And to be phlebotomists (blood takers) for Khaine’s Blood Bank. Anyways, at first I thought you guys ranted too much, but apparently this dark elf release just spawns ranting. Oh, the hydra I was a little meh on, but after looking at their heads, I actually like them. I own a pet snake, and her head is similar to the hydras, kinda a cool touch, but thats just my opinion. Im done lol.
I’m VERY happy with the new Dark Elf models. They suck so bad I was just able to sell all my old ones which everyone around here likes better!
You guys kind of need to give it a rest on the whole nudity in models argument. I’m 100% on board with you when it is gratuitous or has no real justification (which is usually the case) – case and point would be the vile mountain of tits you showcased as a model of the week a while ago or those bunny-girls from very recently. However you get it wrong as often as you get it correct. GW certainly does not include gratuitous nudity in their model lines – in this very podcast one of you did state that the Khainite wych (spelling however GW feels the need to….) do the whole naked gladiator thing as a significant part of their fluff. Further any model associated with slaanesh also gets a pass since they’re supposedly the personifications of lust who happen to formed of warp energy, wrapping then in a hoodie and track pants, or depicting them in a bath robe with curlers in their hair, would kind of muddle the point a bit.
Further, I’m quite pleased with most of the new Dark Elf kits (certainly not the pricing though!) as the biggest impediment to my getting a DE army previously was the HORRIBLE core models. You said yourself, the crossbowmen were atrocious and frankly the spearmen all suffered from some form of bizarre gigantism where their hands were larger than their heads…. My new impediment is of course the price, but hey – infinity averages $15 per model, Malifaux averages $12, and warmachine/hordes is kind of bad so yeah…
TL:DR version: 1) gratuitous nudity is bad, nudity itself is not. GW does not do gratuitous nudity (just skulls!). 2) new models are all significant improvements over the previous line, however the price is completely unacceptable.
I personally have no intention of giving the ‘nudity in models’ argument a rest. The Medusa chick that we talk about does have gratuitous nudity in my opinion since one breast is covered by armor that has no apparent reason to exist on the model other than because two breasts would be blatant nudity. Something GW avoids whenever they can, we saw this with the old Daemonettes. One tit out for no apparent reason. It’s how movies avoid R ratings and instead get PG-13 rating.
GW decided to go as far with nudity as they could get away with, because of this the model failed in my opinion. If they had just gone with full armor or no armor at all I would be happier with it…. minus the modelled blood. 😦
As for the Witches, they read less as Gladiator and more as Sexy Dominatrix due to the thigh-highs and loin cloths.
You’re free to do whatever you want on your podcast, however it is about as effective as yelling at the wind in a hurricane….
The model in question is bad for multiple reasons – the snakes, the blood, and in this case the breast is modeled unnecessarily AND poorly. it doesn’t match with the rest of the line. I do take issue with the argument when the brush used is to broad – invariably the last rendition of daemonettes comes up in the discussion since they did have one breast, four breasts, some even have six. However as I mentioned previously they’re the daemonic embodiment of lust, and as such contextually nudity should be acceptable. Frankly it is hard to come up with other good examples as 99% of the time the use of nudity is gratuitous however drawing a staunch “no boobs” line comes across as overly conservative and frankly backwards. To me it is no different than arguing that the sculptures Venus de Milo or David need to be draped in shawls because the nudity is offensive.
I refuse to let the wind win.
Comparing these models to works of art is a flawed argument. These works are created with a purpose other than only art & asthetic.
(response to 6:17 comment)
That’s bullshit. Tell the sculptor that their sculpt isn’t art. I’m sorry but you’re side-stepping an argument and in its place trying to construct a straw man. I’m not going to debate what defines art on the forum of a podcast about toy soldiers where the creators have repeatedly stated that they don’t take any of it too seriously – I love your show but you know as well as I that the definition of ‘art’ is a hefty topic not fit for debate here.
That being said, if you can’t accept and acknowledge that there is a difference between acceptable and gratuitous usage of sex/profanity/violence then your argument isn’t rational.
Do you watch game of thrones? Do you watch anything at all on HBO? The questions are rhetorical because everyone and their dog watches GOT – the nudity depicted in HBO shows is gratuitous to the extreme and yet we love it, the violence as well. Why is it acceptable in one medium but not another?
It’s not bullshit and it’s not a strawman. I am not sidestepping by stating that art is only art if it is created expressly as art, nor am I attempting to create a debate around the ‘what is art’ topic. You were the one to compare Ole One Titty to David, not I. I will, anytime you like, tell any GW sculptor that what they do is not art according to my interpretation what ‘art’ is and is not.
The problem here is that you are mixing mediums and context for nudity and even going so far as to include violence and profanity while at the same time saying that you do not like opinions painted with broad strokes. Yes, I watch GoT and I feel is proves my point instead of yours. It is utterly gratuitous in all aspects which adds to it’s entertainment value. However, the same cannot be said for models used in toy soldier games. I am allowed to view nudity differently within different mediums of entertainment. I personally have no problem with nudity/sexuality in much of what I enjoy, however in this case of tabletop fantasy conflict I find the maginalization of female characters and concepts within this context (tabletop models) to be flawed and mostly negative due to abuse of nudity and sexuality within those concepts. I do not find nudity offensive and I am pretty sure Nathan doesn’t either.
Just keep in mind we are expressing opinions about toy models. Not works of art. Not television or movies. Not books or comics. With that said, I stand by my statement regarding coparing Ole One Titty to David. and look forward to your reply, even if it is going to just telling me that my reply is bullshit again 🙂
I guess if you don’t feel that the model sculptures are art because they weren’t expressly constructed for aesthetic enjoyment we may indeed need to discuss the nature of what makes art to be able to progress in this discussion for I feel that your definition of what makes art becomes limiting. Many pieces of great art were created not only to be aesthetically pleasing but to convey socio/political/religious ideals at the same time. Art can be, and is multi-faceted. That is partially why I accused your statement of being a bull-shit strawman & now that you’ve explained your opinion in a way that I can understand I’ll apologize if my statement offended you. I don’t agree with you, but I can understand your position.
That being said I don’t think this discussion will ever bear fruit since I believe it is possible to buy, assemble and paint models even though I have no intention of ever placing them on a table to play a game – some of them just end up in the display case next to the armies I do play. That is why I can appreciate a model – which absolutely was created to be used in a table top war game – as an artist’s representation of a terrible, alluring demon and say that Yes, having breasts is completely appropriate and does not in any way diminish the model or the female gender, nor does it detract from my enjoyment of the game because the model is on the table. If I’m playing in a store and some concerned passerby asks about the models I am able to explain why they appear the way they do.
I feel that the idea that we have to de-sex women is actually doing a disservice to them. Take my opinion with a grain of salt since I have a penis so must be unqualified to have an informed opinion – but I believe that female characters can be depicted as being simultaneously strong and sexual. By stating that they can’t be both you’re actually detracting from women by claiming that their sexuality diminishes them in some way. I’m totally on board with your argument that most depictions in table-top miniatures (and most “geek culture”) ARE negatively sexualized and that is the crux of my argument – gratuitous sexualization IS harmful, appropriate sexualization is not. This is where GoT comes back around to proving my point – the depiction of Daenerys wandering around topless does nothing to empower her but instead is an example of utilizing sexualization in a sensational manner to increase your enjoyment of the show, similarly each scene in a brothel adds nothing except enjoyment of the gratuitous. To me these are examples of negative sexualization because while Daenerys is a powerful character in her own right this depiction does nothing to enhance her power or her character. However within the same show there is a strong counterpoint in whatever-the-hell the wildling lady is called. She uses her sexuality to enhance her existing power and to get what she desires. Thus GoT is providing two examples of the use of sexuality and the depiction of nudity in female characters, one is an example of a negative depiction and the other is, I feel, a positive depiction.
Now you may state that the example has no bearing because we’re not talking about television but I feel it is a good example because it highlights the difference between appropriate and gratuitous use of the idea.
I know Nathan doesn’t have a problem with nudity. I’ve watched ultimate fighting with him and his wife at the Cat House in Calgary before. This is one of the reasons I find it so interesting (and baffling) when you guys take this stance.
It’s baffling to you because you are taking our opinions and inferring a desire to ‘de-sex’ female characters in general. You are taking the points made to illogical conclusions. You are also debating something I agree with regarding Game of Thrones and sexuality in other mediums. The nudity surrounding Daenerys changes as the story progresses from objectification to liberation, but this is because her character is not marignalized. Her desires and motivations are not centered around stronger male characters as the story progresses. I agree that there is a happy middle when it comes to a strong female character who is also expressing sexuality. I’m just not sure why you are taking our views regarding models into other mediums.
I’ve been using that as an illustrative example as it is a place where we have common ground since we’ve established we don’t view the model sculptures in the same light. I don’t view the difference in medium to be important where it seems you clearly do. You state that nudity in one form of entertainment is acceptable but in another it is not – that is where I’m baffled as to me there is no difference.
Jon: I think you’ve failed to missed the whole point.
There’s a certain point where there’s a suspension of disbelief.
Wargames are just that – stuff intended to represent on the battlefield. Sexualized models totally destroy the suspension of disbelief for me.
But the overt sexualization of women on the battlefield make them look like objects as opposed to having any sort of agency for themselves. It’s a normal and common thing –
I have no problem with sexuality. I have a problem with unsupported breasts on the battlefield for models supposed to be agile.
I have problems when my games stop representing the battle I’m playing and don’t actually uphold the fictional reality I’m supposed to invest in.
Maybe it’s because I have an intimate knowledge of the reality of the female body, I know what it’s like to run for the bus without the right kind of bra or shoes, let alone get involved in any sort of physically demanding action.
I totally get what you’re saying – however tell me what is wrong with the old slaaneshi models? I get that big swinging breasts aren’t conducive to agility in combat but on those models in particular the breasts are there for a reason and the clothing is missing for the same reason. There’s a huge difference between them and the blood bunnies (or whatever) these guys called out earlier this year. Frankly I don’t believe that simply having breasts that are covered is always an appropriate path forward either – a leather thong & bra is not effective battle armor either and as such is really no better than bare flesh; even in 40K where we have sisters of battle & howling banshees with breasts molded into their armor – said armor is not functional as the groove between the breasts would do nothing but act as a trap for projectiles funneling them right into the critical areas of the body. Modern paramilitary battle armor is sexless for a reason. My point isn’t “hey all female models should look like pornstars!” my point is that it can be appropriate and frankly the only good example I can come up with is the physical manifestation of the aspect of slaanesh – the god lust and excess. That is all. Everything else was just an attempt to find common ground to have a debate since our opinions relating to the purpose of the model sculpts are so divergent.
My breasts aren’t that big. I’d say they’re similarly sized to those old Slanesshi models. And I’m pretty comfortable saying that those models really should have had INT 1 to manage those boobs while fighting if they’re just hanging out in the open.
Where your point is that boobs are appropriate on the battlefield (at least from what I’m reading) my point is that having a bare boob (or multiple boobs) is never appropriate on the battlefield.
We will likely never agree on that, given that you’re looking only from the aesthetics and I’m someone who has a pair of her own boobs and understands the physics of them.
sorry but the physics and realism argument doesn’t hold water since we’re talking about games of magic and monsters and/or dudes flying across the galaxy in planet-killing battleships only to drive to battle mounted in battletanks equipped with enough ordinance to flatten city blocks who then jump from their tanks to charge at their enemies (who happen to be the manifestation of strong emotion in the physical realm) swinging chainsaws….
I’m 100% on board that if you’re looking for a modicum of realism then no, exposed flesh of any kind has no real place on the battlefield as it is a point of vulnerability – but that extends to exposed heads, shirtless men, etc. However given that we’re talking about the realms described above, realism takes a backseat to aesthetics in my opinion.
If you’re going to insist on an argument for realism in fantasy models, or Lange’s argument that these models aren’t a form of art that can be appreciated when removed from the game systems to which they were created for, then yes we’re going to have to agree to disagree as it all comes down to personal preference.
Now if you’ll excuse me I’m going to return to my basement where I can escape from the light of day to rub one out while ogling the perfectly sculpted breasts on my forgeworld keeper of secrets
As much as they have their own problems with their arms the new Sisters from Mantic games are a conservative lightly armoured female model. They are covered head to toe but in cloth rather than leather or metal.
http://www.manticgames.com/Shop-Home/Kings-of-War/Basilea/Product/Basilean-Sisterhood-20-Figures.html
Bravo Teri. /agree. It doesnt make sense for an agile model to be exposed like that without any “containment.” Most women complain about breasts just annoying them while putting on a backpack or some mundane task. When life or death is on the line (as it is in toy soldier wargaming obviously), you cant have interruptions in your swing.