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.
Yeah the boob armour makes her look like my (very large-boobed) partner when she puts her larp armour on. Looks fine to me. Although a very slim, conventionally athletically built female warrior is not going to look that different to a dude in armour, anyone with big boobs... well, they have to go somewhere. And somewhat squished like on Trista, looks right.
I NEEDS me some of those bugs bunny vultures "Nope, nope, nope nope."
LOL, Theo your mind is an amazing place, never change.-camkierhi 9/19/13
I cant believe theo is right.. damn. -comradepanda 9/26/13
None of the strange ideas we had about you involved your sexual orientation..........-Monkeytroll 12/10/13
I'd put you on ignore for that comment, if I could...Alpharius 2/11/14
Reaper's 25th Silver Anniversary continues! This March, we're celebrating by giving all of our fantastic customers a FREE 25th Anniversary "Tara the Silent" Miniature all month long!
During March 2017, you'll receive a free 25th Anniversary "Tara the Silent" for each qualifying order of $40 (in your purchasing currency - USD, GBP, Euro, AUD) or more placed right here on www.reapermini.com! And what's more, for each $40 you spend, you'll receive an additional copy of the 25th Anniversary "Tara the Silent" - $80 for two, $120 for 3, etc. There's no need to place multiple orders on the same day! The FREE 25th Anniversary "Tara the Silent" is automatically added to your order at checkout when you hit $40...you don't have to to anything else.
However, for those of you who just want to buy the 25th Anniversary "Tara the Silent" miniature, it's on sale separately. So it's your choice...get it for free or just order it by itself.
And one correction, the figure I mistakenly identified as "Morgoth, The Bloodthirsty" is in fact named "Krass Omenthrall" i apologize for the error.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/02 08:46:54
The Paladiness looks nice enough. That is how 'boob' armor ought to look, IMHO. It is obvious that she has a bosom, but the armor is not lethal to her. (y'all can ask the Google about the dangers of boob armor)
Well, in real life, boob armor was a little more explicit.
(From India. The only European 'boob armor' that I've found is a Celtic set that really wasn't very boob-ish).
I also have some issues with people thinking that boob armor is lethal to the wearer- mostly because guys used to wear it all the time:
It is one of those geek myths that gets spread around the internet- like how there's no such thing as a silencer (you can use sub-sonic rounds with a silencer to make an innervingly quiet gun).
I agree -- I think the "lethal boob armour" claim betrays a misunderstanding of how both plate armour, and the padding under it, work. If the blow isn't strong enough to pierce your plate armour, it's unlikely to give you more than a bruise.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/02 22:50:05
Odinsgrandson... yes, but we call it a suppressor, not a silencer All you hear is the action of the firearm itself. Very creepy.
Those armors are ceremonial, not for real fighting. And quite dangerous for a woman to wear. the concave part between the breasts will split the wearer's sternum if the wearer falls or sustains a blow to the chest, even a blow that does not pierce the armor. Weapon strikes will be deflected into the sternum. Nasty stuff. And Lethal. The Paladiness's breastplate has no concavity, and thus avoids the problem while still showing a bosom.
The male 'boob plate' is not necessarily ceremonial. Such well defined armor was used by the Greeks, it made you more imposing. Putting a large horsehair crest on ones head is also dumb from a defense perspective, but people did it because it made them more intimidating.
Red Harvest wrote: Odinsgrandson... yes, but we call it a suppressor, not a silencer All you hear is the action of the firearm itself. Very creepy.
Those armors are ceremonial, not for real fighting. And quite dangerous for a woman to wear. the concave part between the breasts will split the wearer's sternum if the wearer falls or sustains a blow to the chest, even a blow that does not pierce the armor. Weapon strikes will be deflected into the sternum. Nasty stuff. And Lethal. The Paladiness's breastplate has no concavity, and thus avoids the problem while still showing a bosom.
And that'll be it for my OT.
This, it's the concave shape directing weapons right into the chest that's bad.
And here we have Denova, Female Mage. Cute dress, let's assume she's headed to Court or a ball and not for a dungeon, she probably has some supportive undergarments or magical assistance but overall
So we're two for two, can we go three for three?
So Reaper's wraiths were some of the first models I got from them
I loved the look of an invisible spirit with just his clothes and weapons visible)
(though now as I look at it I want to say ARMS DON'T WORK THAT WAY! anyhow...)
So now they've put out a female wraith...
An while her arms are invisible her face and bare midriff are not. I'll leave it someone else to find a meaning there.
In Denova's defense, a corset dress very much would look like that, and given that she is labelled a mage I could see it fit for intrigue at court, etc. I agree the wraith is silly though, if would look much better with a hollow torso and head.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/03 03:13:21
You know, looking at the wraiths, one odd thing came to mind:
I would really prefer painting the ghostly girl over the empty cloak. There are just these centers of interest that are so THERE. While the cloak has these important centers of interest that are impressively NOT THERE (ok, so that's the point, but less fun to paint none-the less).
But I'll agree that it is not equal treatment.
I did start typing up a rant about boob plate, but I've got to be honest- it is WAY off topic for a thread about all of those nice sculpts from Reaper. Let's just say that I completely disagree on the basis that I've seenafewexamples. So I figure it can't be so very deadly to the wearer as all that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/03 05:34:29
Plate conforms to the user's body shape so as to spread the impact over the entire body... the whole "splitting the sternum" rant is well-intentioned but unproven.
Now, a rant about objectification of women in fantasy art would be... still off-topic but at least based on some evidence.
Personally I'm happy with boob plate and marginally less happy with cleavage plate, but we've seen enough Greek and Roman muscle armour to know that this stuff works fine on the battlefield too.
Which ever one of you made it possible for the boob plate debate to begin again should feel ashamed, ashamed and dirty. You know they can't help it, we have to protect them from themselves.
There’s a difference between having a hobby and being a narcissist.
Greek muscle cuirasses are entirely different from late medieval and renaissance plate cuirasses. Later chest pieces were designed to have deflective surfaces. A large plate adorned with oversized spherical breasts would be impractical as it would add unnecessary weight and the cleavage would tend to draw impact to vital areas- a definite bad thing. A female would do fine in a standard breastplate (see Joan of Arc).
The highly stylized muscle cuirass is designed as a more ceremonial piece derived from the practical bell cuirass. It seems to have been worn by generals, kings, etc., not frontline warriors. The later Roman pieces seem to follow this trends and contemporary accounts do not record such pieces in arsenals as part of war accoutrements indicating that they were more akin to vanity items for individuals.
Combat tends to be driven by practical concerns, but higher ups generally get more distance from the messy stuff so can afford to wear more lavish or stylized pieces. Additionally, such figures are also playing political and status games. Artistic depictions have long idealized human forms, so it is not unusual to see such exaggeration in modern art forms. Add in that many artists lack significant historical knowledge on ancient warfare and that they are produced for commercial purposes driven by factors other than realism, and it's not surprising that medieval pinups continue to varying degrees.
I would expect that a rogue (as described) would be far more likely to wear some sort of quilted, leather, or sewn metal scale/chain (if expecting to be directly confronted) due to the relative ease of silencing such armor and ease of movement (though the more metal you add, the more cumbersome it gets). Painting it as leather or cloth would probably address the issue and indicate that she may also use her wiles to accomplish her aims and avoid a ridiculous "boob plate" depiction.
The "draw impact to vital areas" idea is the unproven bit. Plate armour spreads the impact over the whole area covered. It's what it's best at. It's why you also get pretty resistant to falls in plate...
Some women would do fine in a standard breastplate, but if you talk to people who wear medieval armour today, you'll find that plenty really wouldn't. Really depends on the boob size.
Modern body armour is not exactly flexible, but does tend to be more flexible than medieval plate armour. Women with big boobs still won't fit in the men's version of the armour though -- in recent years various boob-friendly versions have been made to avoid problems like this:
I know plenty of female re-enactors and larpers who do happily just strap their (smaller) boobs down and wear men's harness, but it won't work for everyone. And (DRAGGING the thread back on topic?) big-boobed warriors need representation too!
Ian Sturrock wrote: The "draw impact to vital areas" idea is the unproven bit.
Wait, what? Do you understand how deflection works? Deflecting to a valley where your vital organs are underneath is a terrible idea. We are not talking slight fluting, but two spherical surfaces with a valley right in the middle of the chest! Ancient armorers figured out really fast that was not a good idea and everything from the bell cuirass to the chest pieces still in use during early modern conflicts all reflect this understanding. The *only* reason you get anatomical adornments and what not is for artistic and westhetic reasons; which gets back to initial problem. Artists who don't understand (or maybe just don't care for other reasons) how armor works.
Plate armour spreads the impact over the whole area covered. It's what it's best at. It's why you also get pretty resistant to falls in plate...
Yes, historically, plate armor was the pinnacle of heavy armor design. It was flexible, well balanced, and generally manned by someone who had been trained to fight since a very young age in peak shape with above average nutrition. Why someone would be falling around in it, I have no idea. Maybe when forcefully dismounted or knocked down during combat, but you shouldn't just "fall". Incidentally, getting up was not particularly difficult, unless of course, you had someone on top of you trying to gut you. But it's hard to spread impact when you channel blows back to your center mass. A downward strike from an axe or bludgeon seems like it would be particularly painful, though a spear would likely be nasty too...
Some women would do fine in a standard breastplate, but if you talk to people who wear medieval armour today, you'll find that plenty really wouldn't. Really depends on the boob size.
Of course, but keep in mind that comparatively few women fought and these were more likely physically more like a modern athlete than a pinup model. And breast enhancement was not as prevalent. Female warriors are warriors first and foremost. I doubt Joan or Boudicca were concerned with appearing comely to men in battle.
Modern body armour is not exactly flexible, but does tend to be more flexible than medieval plate armour. Women with big boobs still won't fit in the men's version of the armour though -- in recent years various boob-friendly versions have been made to avoid problems like this:
I know plenty of female re-enactors and larpers who do happily just strap their (smaller) boobs down and wear men's harness, but it won't work for everyone. And (DRAGGING the thread back on topic?) big-boobed warriors need representation too!
Modern body armor is much different that historical plate armor. Explaining why goes far off topic, but even modern body armor doesn't have boob plates. And I would steer clear of using LARP/reenactors as a source of historical verification.
Some women would do fine in a standard breastplate, but if you talk to people who wear medieval armour today, you'll find that plenty really wouldn't. Really depends on the boob size.
Of course, but keep in mind that comparatively few women fought and these were more likely physically more like a modern athlete than a pinup model. And breast enhancement was not as prevalent. Female warriors are warriors first and foremost. I doubt Joan or Boudicca were concerned with appearing comely to men in battle.
To be fair, there is little evidence that either of these women were extremely active warriors. Joan in particular is believed to have been mostly a figurehead/inspiring presence and was about 14 at the time she was riding around. She likely did see combat, but first and foremost it was her presence that inspired.
They likely dressed to impress in some aspect. Having a female commander would have been used to demoralize the enemy, and that requires some level of show casing 'I'm a girl'. Not the modern mini style, but lack of helmet, a dress, similar.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/03 19:57:53
Resistance to falling damage does generally come into play when knocked off a horse, thrown from a horse, etc. Mike Loades did a pretty neat video of same for his "Weapons That Made Britain" ep on armour.
Note that with the particular mini we're talking about, Trista, it's boob-plate but not full-on cleavage-plate. I did already say that I found the former more sensible. But I remain unconvinced that the latter will break yer sternum. Yes, a more deflecty kind of armoured surface would be more strictly practical, but we have plenty of heavily ornamented, less deflecty (technical term there) armour in the real world. And it turns out that looking fabulous has a number of benefits too, of course. I suspect that in a well-made harness, the loss of protection caused by some bits of decoration where a sword might catch, is minimal, and worth it for looking good.
As for how important it is for us to ignore the people who actually wear and fight in armour today, in favour of the people who only think about it... Right.
Its quite simple really. Round surfaces deflect the blade to one side, unless you manage to strike them at a 90° angle. Not very likely. So, the question is, where is the blade deflected to? Ideally, you want to get the blade *away* from your body. If youve got a single curve in your breastplate, you can accomplish this. Two curves though? The blade can glance off either way: If it strikes on the outside of the boobplate, its still (relatively) harmless. If its on the inner side (the cleavage part), it slides into the crease, at which point it strikes a concave surface, which is a lot less protective. Its quite likely to get through the armour, especially if youre stabbing.
Its really hard to show what I mean without images, but I cant really be bothered right now, soooo... hope its still clear enough.
Ian Sturrock wrote: but we have plenty of heavily ornamented, less deflecty (technical term there) armour in the real world.
Now tell us, how much of that heavily ornamented, less deflecty armor comes from battlefield excavations, and how much from the private collections of noble families with minimal wear, much less actual battle damage?
Everyone knows that falling damage caps out at 10d6 and accordingly 121 hit points are all that is required to fall any distance then get up and fight with 100℅ effectiveness, every time. Boob plate has nothing to do with that, and the technicalities are somewhat off topic.
Elbows wrote: I think it's really an extension of the expectation/entitlement that human society is rapidly developing. We are (myself included) the generations of "now", and sadly the generations of "blame X!" for anything which upsets our delicate lives.
Being upset over some late toy soldiers shouldn't register on anyone's radar...I'd argue the fact that it can or does indicates how damn good our/your lives are to start with. If you have the luxury to be pissed that you blew $200-300-400 on toy soldiers and they're a few months late - life is frikkin' good.
I'm sitting on a couple of high dollar Kickstarters that are years...YEARS late and probably won't ever actually occur. I gambled and lost. Says right there on the Kickstarter page that it's all a big risk. It sucks and I won't be buying anything from those companies in the future...but that's about it. What good does it do me to get in a tizzy over it? I can warn people off about the companies (Gamezone and Palladium - to no one's surprise) but threats and pouting like a child? Pointless.
If you're not comfortable with the risk - don't do the Kickstarter. End of story.
This kind of defence of late kickstarters isn't useful either. I mean, mental cases and death threats are beyond the pale, but project management ranging from poor to flat out dishonest isn't something that nobody should be pissed off to angry about either. Calling people who have shelled out significant amounts of money with legitimate gripes "entitled" and going on about "delicate lives" is frankly insulting and childish and does nobody any good.
It's way too fething far in the other direction and both forgives and allows people like Jeremy Glen, our mate Kevin, that guy behind Defiance Games, Imbrian Arts and even the absolute half-arsing of Trollcast to get away with such bs and flakery - with literally millions of dollars. Unless you think that rewarding rip-off artists and scammers is a good thing?
You seem to think that not taking that sort of thing with good grace and not making a fuss is "pouting" and a bunch of other condescending things that you've posted. Like someone who's never had to work hard for their money or fight for anything. And if you don't like the tone of making insulting assumptions about others, then perhaps try not to do it yourself in future?
Elbows wrote: I think it's really an extension of the expectation/entitlement that human society is rapidly developing. We are (myself included) the generations of "now", and sadly the generations of "blame X!" for anything which upsets our delicate lives.
Being upset over some late toy soldiers shouldn't register on anyone's radar...I'd argue the fact that it can or does indicates how damn good our/your lives are to start with. If you have the luxury to be pissed that you blew $200-300-400 on toy soldiers and they're a few months late - life is frikkin' good.
I'm sitting on a couple of high dollar Kickstarters that are years...YEARS late and probably won't ever actually occur. I gambled and lost. Says right there on the Kickstarter page that it's all a big risk. It sucks and I won't be buying anything from those companies in the future...but that's about it. What good does it do me to get in a tizzy over it? I can warn people off about the companies (Gamezone and Palladium - to no one's surprise) but threats and pouting like a child? Pointless.
If you're not comfortable with the risk - don't do the Kickstarter. End of story.
This kind of defence of late kickstarters isn't useful either. I mean, mental cases and death threats are beyond the pale, but project management ranging from poor to flat out dishonest isn't something that nobody should be pissed off to angry about either. Calling people who have shelled out significant amounts of money with legitimate gripes "entitled" and going on about "delicate lives" is frankly insulting and childish and does nobody any good.
It's way too fething far in the other direction and both forgives and allows people like Jeremy Glen, our mate Kevin, that guy behind Defiance Games, Imbrian Arts and even the absolute half-arsing of Trollcast to get away with such bs and flakery - with literally millions of dollars. Unless you think that rewarding rip-off artists and scammers is a good thing?
Agreed that things can go too far in either direction. If someone goes to a restaurant, orders food, and is still waiting an hour later then they'll be a bit annoyed and that is hardly unique to a certain generation. While Kickstarter does come with uncertainty and risk, at some point people are paying X money for Y product in Z timeframe, and if Z doesn't pan out they aren't getting what they paid for. 'But its kickstarter, there's always risk' doesn't suddenly mean that any amount of screw-up is OK.
Every medieval breastplate design comes in at the waist, just above the faulds... surely if the "boob plate will crack yer sternum!" crew are right, any sideways blow from a heavy weapon on the breastplate would be magically guided down to the depression at the waist and cut the soldier in half?
Surely the one armourer whose article we've all read and thought "gosh I was right all along, boob plate was silly", or "gosh, well, boob plate is still silly but I'm not convinced it's more dangerous than not wearing armour", depending on our initial biases, would by now be able to report an actual cracked sternum from one of his many boob-plate-buying customers? He was pretty sure that if one of them just tripped and fell she would be straight off to A&E with a busted chest, right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: ...anyway
This thread inspired me to do a Bones order from the main UK seller and possessor of the company name most likely to make your postal operative assume you are ordering adult novelties, SnM Stuff. I got a Trista in the order so will let you all know how fantastic she is, and try not to talk about her boobs too much.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/04 01:27:55
Ian Sturrock wrote: Every medieval breastplate design comes in at the waist, just above the faulds... surely if the "boob plate will crack yer sternum!" crew are right, any sideways blow from a heavy weapon on the breastplate would be magically guided down to the depression at the waist and cut the soldier in half?
Surely the one armourer whose article we've all read and thought "gosh I was right all along, boob plate was silly", or "gosh, well, boob plate is still silly but I'm not convinced it's more dangerous than not wearing armour", depending on our initial biases, would by now be able to report an actual cracked sternum from one of his many boob-plate-buying customers? He was pretty sure that if one of them just tripped and fell she would be straight off to A&E with a busted chest, right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: ...anyway
This thread inspired me to do a Bones order from the main UK seller and possessor of the company name most likely to make your postal operative assume you are ordering adult novelties, SnM Stuff. I got a Trista in the order so will let you all know how fantastic she is, and try not to talk about her boobs too much.
Is Trista the Viking Paladin? I thought everyone was complaining about the deal of the month mini, which is not available in Bones, but which does have individually pronounced boobs.
We're not really talking about a particular mini. We're just talking about the possibility of boob plate being realistic- and whether the argument that it would kill you is implausible. It is general- I think we all agree that the paladin woman looks well protected.
Ian Sturrock wrote: but we have plenty of heavily ornamented, less deflecty (technical term there) armour in the real world.
Now tell us, how much of that heavily ornamented, less deflecty armor comes from battlefield excavations, and how much from the private collections of noble families with minimal wear, much less actual battle damage?
First off- the Persian, Celtic and Turkish boob plate that I linked to were not overly ornamental- they were clearly meant for combat (the Indian plate was the most exaggerated, and was probably more of the ornamental sort).
But- ornamental armor was also used for combat. Shakespear's Henry V has a lot of talk about the adornments on French battle armor. These were the knights who went to the front lines. Most of the nicer armors would have been collected after the battle (we have thousands of myths that account for both allies and enemies collecting expensive, sometimes magical armor off of the dead- sometimes as trophies- it would be hard to imagine that this was a taboo on the real battlefield). We have a little evidence that they were used in combat and we lack evidence that they were not used in combat.
And remember that the general wasn't always the guy who stayed way behind. Alexander the Great fought from a chariot, for example, and throughout the middle ages, leaders would lead from the frontish (usually in heavy armor on horseback with a retinue of bodyguards).
Armor has two concerns- fashion and utility. In a feudal society, it is important to display wealth- and this is still important when you're a wealthy knight charging ahead of the men at arms (foot soldiers weren't afforded very good armor). Now, if you're a lord with knights under you, you need to make sure you look good (in feudal society, appearances played a sort of is/ought fallacy- you needed to look like you're the best, and that proves that you should be).
Fashion is important, and even though Europe did not have armor for women, it is not inconceivable that armors made in a society that has women fighting more often would (and it turns out, did) have separate sorts of armor for women that exaggerated gender features.
Many male armors exaggerate sexual features of the wearer (on men, this includes muscle plate, enhanced shoulder pads and exaggerated codpieces that we don't often see on minis).
(If you've ever wondered why almost every knight in armor mini has a little chainmail mini skirt covering the loins, that would be why).
Interesting side note- the fashion vs. utility stuff still goes on today. The camouflage used by the US military was proven to be less effective than some alternatives before it was implemented, but used because the generals in charge liked the look of it more.
In addition, the US navy started using "blue camouflage" which is completely stupid (where the @#($ are they hiding?). But it fits in with the standards the other branches of the military were using. They did this for fashion concerns (and added a chemical that turns orange if it gets wet. This saves people in man overboard situations, but it also makes most sailors armpits orange- so they ended up with tacky fashion in addition to useless camo).
Combat fashion is a thing.
Now, there are times when it clearly goes too far (bare midrift plate, low neckline plate or keyhole neckline plate, and all sorts of bikini shaped armor-like things). I'm absolutely not going to argue that the majority of minis of women are highly sexualized or objectified. But I get irked when people attack this one aspect as if it can't be a thing (it can and has been a thing).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/06 18:32:57
Elbows wrote: I think it's really an extension of the expectation/entitlement that human society is rapidly developing. We are (myself included) the generations of "now", and sadly the generations of "blame X!" for anything which upsets our delicate lives.
Being upset over some late toy soldiers shouldn't register on anyone's radar...I'd argue the fact that it can or does indicates how damn good our/your lives are to start with. If you have the luxury to be pissed that you blew $200-300-400 on toy soldiers and they're a few months late - life is frikkin' good.
I'm sitting on a couple of high dollar Kickstarters that are years...YEARS late and probably won't ever actually occur. I gambled and lost. Says right there on the Kickstarter page that it's all a big risk. It sucks and I won't be buying anything from those companies in the future...but that's about it. What good does it do me to get in a tizzy over it? I can warn people off about the companies (Gamezone and Palladium - to no one's surprise) but threats and pouting like a child? Pointless.
If you're not comfortable with the risk - don't do the Kickstarter. End of story.
This kind of defence of late kickstarters isn't useful either. I mean, mental cases and death threats are beyond the pale, but project management ranging from poor to flat out dishonest isn't something that nobody should be pissed off to angry about either. Calling people who have shelled out significant amounts of money with legitimate gripes "entitled" and going on about "delicate lives" is frankly insulting and childish and does nobody any good.
It's way too fething far in the other direction and both forgives and allows people like Jeremy Glen, our mate Kevin, that guy behind Defiance Games, Imbrian Arts and even the absolute half-arsing of Trollcast to get away with such bs and flakery - with literally millions of dollars. Unless you think that rewarding rip-off artists and scammers is a good thing?
You seem to think that not taking that sort of thing with good grace and not making a fuss is "pouting" and a bunch of other condescending things that you've posted. Like someone who's never had to work hard for their money or fight for anything. And if you don't like the tone of making insulting assumptions about others, then perhaps try not to do it yourself in future?
odinsgrandson wrote: Fashion is important, and even though Europe did not have armor for women, it is not inconceivable that armors made in a society that has women fighting more often would (and it turns out, did) have separate sorts of armor for women that exaggerated gender features.
Many male armors exaggerate sexual features of the wearer (on men, this includes muscle plate, enhanced shoulder pads and exaggerated codpieces that we don't often see on minis).
(If you've ever wondered why almost every knight in armor mini has a little chainmail mini skirt covering the loins, that would be why).
Fun fact: The codpieces were (originally) functional. Henry VIII (along with a large portion of European nobility) had a bad case of syphilis, and the enlarged codpieces not only kept his genitalia from making painful contact with his armor, but also held medication to relieve symptoms.
Hey look more people trying to shame others for enjoying classical fantasy tropes! Just what the most lighthearted thread on Dakka needs!
I like most of those models. Though Reaper's issues with poses are still a thing. I would go for the special figure this month but thanks to people making sure every single Kickstarter has at least all the basic classes covered by females I will pass.
All you hear is the action of the firearm itself. Very creepy.
