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.

"Whachu gonna do with all that junk*, all that junk inside that trunk?"

* Junk apparently consisting of a loveseat, small car, rhinocerous, and the Denver Broncos defensive lineup.

It's just way too silly. The proportions go well beyond anything remotely believable.

"Dwarf beer girl" is a concept I could have gotten behind. "Up-armored dwarf beer girl", well, that sounds like something that would have come out of the World of Warcraft aesthetic that I'm not much of a fan of, but I wouldn't criticize it. "Up-armored dwarf beer girl wearing leather straps almost as if they were bondage gear and also proportioned like a doodle on the margins of a frustrated 14 year old boy's math homework" ... I think I'm going to pass on the model and not waste too much time looking at the line of models it comes from. Sorry.

 Darth Bob wrote:
I actually don't think the bust is that over the top for a dwarf, seeing as they are stout and heavyset, in general. I think the hips are what really throws it off.

same thoughts, the top heavy doesnt bother me, the hips on the other had seem larger then id like

I'm sorry, but what exactly is the problem with her hips? Judging by the line of her thigh, there is nothing wrong with them, proportion wise.

It could be a bustle.


Massive forum bending/breaking picture removed.


Reds8n

Holy giant pic, batman!

I for one like the pose and the dress, it's just the breasts. They need to be about 75% the size to be a little less obtrusive. Not being a hater of full figured women - my wife is currently at a 38G - but the combination of lack of coverage and size makes them take over the figure when all the other detail is great. Even a top that only shows half the length of the cleavage would make it better, and would look more like the style of that gown, besides.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
It could be a bustle.

Of course it's some sort of bustle/crinoline arrangement. Surely no one actually thought she's that wide down there?

Seriously. This is the sort of dress she's wearing, with a slit in front for walking/showing leg.



There is something off about the mini, though. I believe it is the appearance that she's wearing nothing to support her top side. She really should be in a corset to support her back with those things on the front...

 Gymnogyps wrote:
Seriously. This is the sort of dress she's wearing, with a slit in front for walking/showing leg.
*snip*

Is that kind of dress functionally possible with a big slit in the front, though? I'm not a connoisseur of old-style fashion.

Nice to see that I am not alone in liking the idea, and not liking the mini....

Ah, well.... It was a nice idea. Maybe someday someone will make a beer maiden more to my liking.

The Auld Grump

Her breasts are fine.

To be honest, the first thing I thought when I saw the pic was how did he get my wife to model for it ?



And no, I do not have pics of wife to share for the side by side comparison.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
It could be a bustle.

Of course it's some sort of bustle/crinoline arrangement. Surely no one actually thought she's that wide down there?

Well, judging by the number of posts complaining about it...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Holy giant pic, batman!

I don't know how to resize

If you can't resize, you could put it in spoiler tags.

She's got some broad shoulders.

The bustle theory doesn't work because of the armor plates. Bustles were used to keep the weight of fabric on dresses from flattening itself over time and dragging. One does not strap a bustle across their hips and thighs to raise a skirt and then slap slabs of lobstered steel armor over top of them to weight them back down again. It doesn't make sense. Never mind that the Victorian fashion that gave us the bustle is the exact opposite mentality from the slit-to-the-waist-to-show-as-much-as-possible/plunging cleavage (or are those supposed to be boob straps?) that the miniature shows us. It's ridiculous.

I know that there is a certain faction out there that will defend a bad design because it has boobs, but sometimes bad designs are just bad designs. Any one element of this miniature (including the silly proportions), if explored by a sculptor who took the time to study their subject and think everything through, could be turned into an excellent or at least passable piece. As it is the figure is a mishmash of ideas thrown together by someone hoping the absurdity of it all will make it stick. You're welcome to waste your money on it if you want, but obviously a lot of us would rather not.

I don't know,

clothing is often designed to enhance features that the wearer chooses (look at the push up bra for example, or penis gourds and codpieces)

In this case the dwarves may have a big thing for wide hips that nature cannot satisfy, hence a dress that exaggerated them,

whereas they are quite happy with the large but natural bust

(although I admit it's not a mini I'd want)

 JOHIRA wrote:
I know that there is a certain faction out there that will defend a bad design because it has boobs, but sometimes bad designs are just bad designs. Any one element of this miniature (including the silly proportions), if explored by a sculptor who took the time to study their subject and think everything through, could be turned into an excellent or at least passable piece. As it is the figure is a mishmash of ideas thrown together by someone hoping the absurdity of it all will make it stick. You're welcome to waste your money on it if you want, but obviously a lot of us would rather not.

Could you be any more insultingly condescending if you really tried, friend?

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 JOHIRA wrote:
I know that there is a certain faction out there that will defend a bad design because it has boobs, but sometimes bad designs are just bad designs. Any one element of this miniature (including the silly proportions), if explored by a sculptor who took the time to study their subject and think everything through, could be turned into an excellent or at least passable piece. As it is the figure is a mishmash of ideas thrown together by someone hoping the absurdity of it all will make it stick. You're welcome to waste your money on it if you want, but obviously a lot of us would rather not.

Could you be any more insultingly condescending if you really tried, friend?

No. I don't really think he could.

 adamsouza wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 JOHIRA wrote:
I know that there is a certain faction out there that will defend a bad design because it has boobs, but sometimes bad designs are just bad designs. Any one element of this miniature (including the silly proportions), if explored by a sculptor who took the time to study their subject and think everything through, could be turned into an excellent or at least passable piece. As it is the figure is a mishmash of ideas thrown together by someone hoping the absurdity of it all will make it stick. You're welcome to waste your money on it if you want, but obviously a lot of us would rather not.

Could you be any more insultingly condescending if you really tried, friend?

No. I don't really think he could.

Oh, I am quite certain that he could.

Easily.

I know that I could.

But then I have abilities far beyond you mere... mortals.

Really, though - I do see where he is coming from, but then I also really don't like this figure. (Despite really liking the idea. Liking a concept makes a poor model subjectively worse, not better.)

On the flip side, not liking the model will save me a bit of money.

The Auld Grump

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 JOHIRA wrote:
I know that there is a certain faction out there that will defend a bad design because it has boobs, but sometimes bad designs are just bad designs. Any one element of this miniature (including the silly proportions), if explored by a sculptor who took the time to study their subject and think everything through, could be turned into an excellent or at least passable piece. As it is the figure is a mishmash of ideas thrown together by someone hoping the absurdity of it all will make it stick. You're welcome to waste your money on it if you want, but obviously a lot of us would rather not.

Could you be any more insultingly condescending if you really tried, friend?

Maybe I could. I could suggest that anyone who doesn't like the model doesn't understand it. Or perhaps that anyone who doesn't like the model isn't a red-blooded man who likes women. Those (well-worn in these parts) approaches are pretty condescending, yeah? But that would probably take us off topic.

Really, I've only been condescending to two groups of people: A) people who defend the model against all criticism because of its bewbs, and B) people who sculpted the model and are asking for money for it. Do either group really need defending? If you see something good about the model, please, by all means, defend it on its merits. As it is, we're on page 2 now and hardly anyone has been able to point out anything well-designed on it. That should tell us something.

There's nothing wrong with someone making a sexy dwarf beer girl mini. There is however quite a lot wrong with this sexy dwarf beer girl mini.

I've got no problem with the full figure, also I think that the face is very well sculpted and full of character.

It's a shame about the armour and the "boob strap" outfit, they spoil the figure for me.

I hope I can snatch her over eBay or by ninjashopper... Cause I love her!!!

 JOHIRA wrote:
Really, I've only been condescending to two groups of people: A) people who defend the model against all criticism because of its bewbs, and B) people who sculpted the model and are asking for money for it. Do either group really need defending? If you see something good about the model, please, by all means, defend it on its merits. As it is, we're on page 2 now and hardly anyone has been able to point out anything well-designed on it. That should tell us something.

You do realize that Group A exists inside your head, and not this thread? It's an interpretation you've chosen to make by yourself, based on your own preconceived notions? You're tilting at windmills.

And "anything well-designed"? You want to set the bar that insultingly low? Fine, watch me soar above it, then. Based on the rendering, the facial expression looks a lot better than a lot of the other female dwarves I've seen over the decades, and the proportions of the legs to the body are a lot fairer than many others (some old GW dwarves look like penguins in this respect). Does that...satisfy your... criteria, friend?

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 JOHIRA wrote:
Really, I've only been condescending to two groups of people: A) people who defend the model against all criticism because of its bewbs, and B) people who sculpted the model and are asking for money for it. Do either group really need defending? If you see something good about the model, please, by all means, defend it on its merits. As it is, we're on page 2 now and hardly anyone has been able to point out anything well-designed on it. That should tell us something.

You do realize that Group A exists inside your head, and not this thread? It's an interpretation you've chosen to make by yourself, based on your own preconceived notions? You're tilting at windmills.

And "anything well-designed"? You want to set the bar that insultingly low? Fine, watch me soar above it, then. Based on the rendering, the facial expression looks a lot better than a lot of the other female dwarves I've seen over the decades, and the proportions of the legs to the body are a lot fairer than many others (some old GW dwarves look like penguins in this respect). Does that...satisfy your... criteria, friend?

Quick! Send him to Ice Age Mammals! They really need the fawning!

This is not a well designed figure - it is a with .

But then I do not need to buy the miniature.

So, I won't.

And Kabuki loses a sale.

The Auld Grump

 Ruglud wrote:
Was the design of this figure inspired by Jodie Marsh?

Actually the artwork is by Reddraws: https://www.facebook.com/Reddraws?.

Ah, she looks like a fun miniature! It's not exactly common to find such a well-rounded dwarven lass! Should be fun to paint!

Considering how small the window of opportunity to get this miniature is, I''m considering it. How much will this lass cost, Kabuki?

 TheDraconicLord wrote:
Ah, she looks like a fun miniature! It's not exactly common to find such a well-rounded dwarven lass! Should be fun to paint!

Considering how small the window of opportunity to get this miniature is, I''m considering it. How much will this lass cost, Kabuki?

Well...keep in touch with our social pages (like facebook, twitter, and instagram) and with our website!

So, I decided that I wanted to buy the figure, but it's not available on the website.

What gives? Did I get confused with the dates?

 Undead_Love-Machine wrote:
So, I decided that I wanted to buy the figure, but it's not available on the website.

What gives? Did I get confused with the dates?

It's only the 20th here ...... and same

Yeah, it should have been available from the 19th 'til the 22nd?

I may have dreamed this since I can no longer find it on facebook,

but I'm sure I saw a recent post where they said they'd tried a new 3D printing service and got back something that was in no way good enough to cast up (she looked melted in the photo)

so she will be delayed and instead get a full regular release rather than being a con only mini