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.

makeitorky wrote:I really wish there were more miniatures of women that were like actually realistic. I know the topic is probably a dead horse, but sculpters, please go outside and look at real women! We don't look like sex dolls! Also, the fact that the vast majority of women miniatures are heels is just so frustrating.

Mantic have been doing this properly too.
Lots of kits that simply have half or 3 out of 5 female models (tbh, I would prefer a choice in the matter though).
One may notice that some of the torsos are a little more slight and have a bit of a bump in the chest.
If you look closely.
Plus female head options.

The upcoming Mantic "dark elves" (Twilight Kin officially) appear to be mostly clothed.

 DarkBlack wrote:

makeitorky wrote:I really wish there were more miniatures of women that were like actually realistic. I know the topic is probably a dead horse, but sculpters, please go outside and look at real women! We don't look like sex dolls! Also, the fact that the vast majority of women miniatures are heels is just so frustrating.

Mantic have been doing this properly too.
Lots of kits that simply have half or 3 out of 5 female models (tbh, I would prefer a choice jn the matter though).
One may notice that some of the torsos are a little more slight and have a bit of a bump in the chest.
If you look closely.
Plus female head options.

The upcoming Mantic "dark elves" (Twilight Kin officially) appear to be mostly clothed.

At the risk of spiralling off topic, I think there are three different aspects to this:

a) Female miniatures that are both 'sexed up' and look like blow-up dolls, with ridiculous proportions, inflatable chests, etc. I can think of a few Aussie miniatures ranges that fall into this category, naming no names ...

b) Female miniatures that are going for sex appeal and/or have mysteriously forgotten most of their clothes, but do have proper proportions and anatomy. Juan Diaz's sculpts for GW over the years, and Kev White's figures for Hasslefree spring to mind. They do know what real (very attractive) women look like. Many of GW's other attempts at female minis back in the day looked a bit ... uh ... mannish, similar to illustrator Gary Chalk's famous inability to draw women.

c) Female miniatures that aren't impractically hottified at all: wearing reasonable attire for the battlefield, blending in well with their male counterparts, no stupid high heels, and so on.


The thing that really annoys me for gaming purposes is pin-up poses. Sometimes it makes sense for a female mini--or a male one for that matter--to be mostly naked, depending on the setting (e.g. Mesoamerican-style Amazons in the rainforest) or the faction (Witch Elves, etc). And they may well happen to be good-looking. But if they're for a wargame, they ought to look like they're trying to stab your eyes out or shoot you in the face, not posing seductively for the cover of a magazine.

For what it's worth, my favourite female GW mini of all time is the current Arwen for Lord of the Rings. Absolutely gorgeous. Ironic given that the original Arwen from 2001 was pretty dire (although that was partly due to the official paintjob on the face).

One thing that I didn't add earlier, but that I feel very strongly about now that I'm working with figures like that, is transparent plastic. It's a pain to see what's going on when assembling, I struggle to see the mould lines, and the material also is worse at holding detail so it has exactly zero advantages for me.

Good post, Zenithfleet!

I'll just add...

d) Female miniatures which aren't *explicitly* female. Mantic's Dungeon Saga has a gender-ambivalent elf, so, naturally, at least one backer said it wasn't female. Historically, women in armor were rare, but, aside from ceremonial armor, women did not need boob armor. (Often, a family had only one set of armor, so even the guys had to wear armor that didn't fit.) So, if the gender of a miniature (not to mention if it's a monster) isn't frickin' obvious, you don't have to get your underthings bunched up and complain it's a male. And don't even get me started when we're slapping on *mammalian* secondary sexual characteristics on *non-mammalian* humanoid creatures.

Anyway, I'll change my third thing (: to "Good sculpt on a miniature I can't use". I'm still in for the Archon "Dungeons and Lasers 5: Deuslair" KS (obPlug: 48 hours left), but how am I going to use that wood golem with four alien greys sticking out of it? (I'm actually seeing if I can use in "Five Leagues from the Borderland"'s fey and nature faction.) I got the figure as part of a sample pack given to D&L4 backers, but I'd have to cut off the aliens from it before the Druid can summon it!

1) foot on rock pose (nothing inherently wrong with it, it’s just overused)

2) monopose bodies

3) mould lines in inconvenient places

1: The model overhanging the base edge.
2:The model overhanging the base edge.
3: The model overhanging the base edge.

Drives me nuts trying to have models base to base for combat and not fitting and then using proxy bases.
Warmahordes has previously been particularly bad, with Skorne models fighting back to front to get into base to base.

Most of what might annoy me stems from my being primarily a wargamer.
I enjoy building and painting, it's creative and is great to unwind, but it's part of a hobby for me rather than a hobby in it's own right.
That means I'm only interested in something for so long and never intend to go beyond "tabletop standard".
It also means that what I make has to be fit for a game.

Which means I want models that:
Look fine with a basic paint job.
Are straightforward and preferably customisable (so I can make what I need for whst I'm playing).
Can be put in a box, transported in a vehicle that might hit a bump, carried (with potential light josteling), taken out of the box, pushed around on a table (i.e. handled a lot) and the packed up fairly quickly. With minimal repair required afterwards, sometimes.
Are not made more expensive than they need to be.

Which means that I prefer models ftom the likes of Mantic or Northstar over the likes of GW any day.

To answer the question/TLDR:
1: Overdesign (makes models more expensive and harder to build and paint).
2: Fragility.
3: Metal, over a certain size.

I like metal for smaler scales (15mm and smaller) or even true 28mm (like Infinity), the extra rigdity is nice.
Metal doesn't hold paint as well though and it's heavier. Making it prone to paint chipping and rubbing off raised details.

I hate models that use combinations of materials like Resin and Metal especially.

Model ranges that are too large for the bases they are supplied with... Basically all of Para Bellums Conquest... Why did they make a 38mm scale game, but supply 25mm bases.

1. Models that are designed to be a display piece rather than a game piece (e.g. Katakros, Mortarch of the Necropolis - fething stupid; The Triumph of Saint Katherine - really fething stupid; Szarekh, The Silent King).

2. Models of a design that make them too fragile to transport (e.g. the entire fething Adeptus Mechanicus range) or so delicate the model breaks every fething time you touch it (e.g. Belisarius Cawl).

3. Poor assembly instructions (e.g. mislabeled parts).