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.

[MOD EDIT - Dakka Dakka requests keeping it PG-13 - Alpharius]

So for those who don’t like the breasts, is it because they are too large, aren’t adequately covered? Or is there another reason? I think they look fine. She may be a bit top heavy for her frame but nothing to egregious. I have certainly seen women built like that. And the inquisition doesn’t cover breast reduction surgery.

I agree on the chainsword though. And I would likely leave the back pack off.

Just that leg. It's not going to work when the model breaks at that point. Other then that, I'm sure that backpack thing is optional. I might remove the chainsword if it comes with it. In Addition, if you don't like this Inquisition, there are plenty of others to choose from.

Love the hair, love the head. The rest don't do much for me.

 Smokestack wrote:
So for those who don’t like the breasts, is it because they are too large, aren’t adequately covered? Or is there another reason? I think they look fine. She may be a bit top heavy for her frame but nothing to egregious. I have certainly seen women built like that. And the inquisition doesn’t cover breast reduction surgery.

How many women do you know that have perfectly globular breasts? Like two cantalopes were placed inside their shirt? Because that's what that mini looks like.

When wearing something as a structured as a corset top? Just about all of them.

Now, for feths sake, can we move on with this talk, it isn't just this model, but every. single. time a company releases a model with breasts that don't resemble a 48 year old mother of seven's wearing a chunky knit cardigan it's the same posts (and often the same posters.)

It is the very paragon of the idea of don't like it, don't buy it, and the irony is by complaining you're bouncing the thread repeatedly to the top and getting the model more exposure. (Pun slightly intended.)

I mean, you're all wargaming nerds with internet access, surely you're acutely aware of the wide variety of female secondary sexual characteristics that occur naturally and articficially?

And yes, before anyone self righteously clambers on their high horse and decries me for trying to stifle their right to express their opinion, in this case your opinion would be better supported by keeping schtum and letting the thread drop away rather than keep debating it.

 Smokestack wrote:
So for those who don’t like the breasts, is it because they are too large, aren’t adequately covered? Or is there another reason? I think they look fine. She may be a bit top heavy for her frame but nothing to egregious. I have certainly seen women built like that. And the inquisition doesn’t cover breast reduction surgery

They're a bit too spherical I'd say. Like bad silicon-boobjob from the 80's. But that's a nitpick.

Primarily though I find the attire disconnected. She's rocking a pretty reasonable and classy looking purging-outfit overall, but then suddenly a super-low cut top that looks more in place at the porn-oscar's award ceremony than in a 40K underhive rooting out a cult. It kinda breaks the 4th wall for me and remind me that it's a miniature sculpture pandering to us by slapping on a pair of big tits, rather than "lady inquisitor X on a mission to exterminate the Y cult of Z".

 Smokestack wrote:
So for those who don’t like the breasts, is it because they are too large, aren’t adequately covered? Or is there another reason? I think they look fine. She may be a bit top heavy for her frame but nothing to egregious. I have certainly seen women built like that. And the inquisition doesn’t cover breast reduction surgery.

Taking purely in terms of the individual miniature they're fine. For me it's more that I really enjoy individual character models, and I particularly would like to see - and buy - more female miniatures (for roleplaying games, amongst other uses). To my eyes the trend for 3rd party female character models skews heavily towards "hey check out the rack on this one" in terms of modelling. That's fine, of course, since some people clearly like them and the companies that make them are likely going after the market they think will give them the best return on investment (and/ or because they themselves like the miniatures). That's all good.

Similarly, there's no hard fluff reasons why any given 40K character wouldn't put their breasts on display like that (aside from the usual "ineffective armour" argument, but that can be hand-waved). For me it's simply that I want more badass, non-sexualized female minis so when I see something like this I start off with "oh cool maybe this... oh... look at those breasts. That's a little too much. Too bad. Oh well."

If on the other hand I already had dozens and dozens of badass, non-sexualized female character miniatures and the boobilicious ones were hard to come by I'd totally get this one for the sake of variety.

TLDR: IMO, it's a matter of taste. Enjoy the minis you like, and I'll enjoy the minis I like.

Nevermind.

I wasn't aware there was an Ordo Cheesecakius but there you go.

And the post at the top of this page is vile. Utterly vile.

 Azreal13 wrote:

...surely you're acutely aware of the wide variety of female secondary sexual characteristics that occur naturally and articficially?

Isn't it kind of the point of contention that this variety is not represented across the different ranges of miniatures?

JaqTaar wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

...surely you're acutely aware of the wide variety of female secondary sexual characteristics that occur naturally and articficially?

Isn't it kind of the point of contention that this variety is not represented across the different ranges of miniatures?

Well there is no range of fat 40 year old balding men but I am ok with that not being represented. I get your point, but it’s not really up to this manufacturer to make sure there is solid representation

Compare with the Code Zero KS exclusive ex-inquisitor:


Not exactly Gothic GrimDark(tm), but great looking robes and a dynamic pose without being cheesecake.

 John Prins wrote:
Compare with the Code Zero KS exclusive ex-inquisitor:


Not exactly Gothic GrimDark(tm), but great looking robes and a dynamic pose without being cheesecake.

That is a nice model. It’s great that we live in a world where both exist and people are free to choose the one they like, and purchase their preference.

Precisely. Why is it necessary to post a picture of another manufacturer's model and say "look, this is different!!"

Somebody doesn't like model A, that's fine. Nobody needs to justify their preferences, and the insistence of some, not just on this topic, to try and rationalize that preference leads to some very dull and repetitive retreading of old ground.

Just go buy model B and let market forces do what they will.

 BrookM wrote:
I wonder if the back frame is a separate piece, if so, off it goes as she'd look better without it in my opinion. I'd also at the very least replace the brazier-like nozzle of her weapon with a more recognizable flamer nozzle to turn it into a proper hand flamer.

Love to see a 360 view of the model, curious to see how the chainsword strapped to her side looks like and what kind of extra stuff they tacked to her back.

My thoughts exactly, the main thing I wondered was about removing the back part - I didn't even focus on the boobs until I saw all the shenanigans in this thread.

Separate chain sword and backpack would be nice, because they aren't very good and I'd like to leave them off. Boobs could be bigger, for miniature balance reasons, of course

The chainsword looks like it's clipping into the cloak.

 Fayric wrote:
That eyepiece is way, way to small for 40k.
Unless they smack a bulky camera lens over her eye, conected to a battery backpack with 2 or 3 large cables, she is just not trustworthy.

That could actually looks more like a monocle, complete with string.

T

My gosh she has big tits. I like the figure. Is this a Games Workshop figure or from another company?

Its from a third party.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Precisely. Why is it necessary to post a picture of another manufacturer's model and say "look, this is different!!"

Somebody doesn't like model A, that's fine. Nobody needs to justify their preferences, and the insistence of some, not just on this topic, to try and rationalize that preference leads to some very dull and repetitive retreading of old ground.

Just go buy model B and let market forces do what they will.

Heaven forbid people discuss why the like or dislike a model and compare it to other models to show examples of what they would prefer on a forum for discussing war games and miniatures.

 Nick Garai wrote:
My gosh she has big tits. I like the figure. Is this a Games Workshop figure or from another company?

I think the section of the thread title saying "by Maxmini" might give you a hint that the miniature is made by Maxmini rather than by GW?

 Zywus wrote:

 Nick Garai wrote:
My gosh she has big tits. I like the figure. Is this a Games Workshop figure or from another company?

I think the section of the thread title saying "by Maxmini" might give you a hint that the miniature is made by Maxmini rather than by GW?

Boobs can be pretty distracting.

 carlos13th wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Precisely. Why is it necessary to post a picture of another manufacturer's model and say "look, this is different!!"

Somebody doesn't like model A, that's fine. Nobody needs to justify their preferences, and the insistence of some, not just on this topic, to try and rationalize that preference leads to some very dull and repetitive retreading of old ground.

Just go buy model B and let market forces do what they will.

Heaven forbid people discuss why the like or dislike a model and compare it to other models to show examples of what they would prefer on a forum for discussing war games and miniatures.

I think what Az is getting at is that, at this point in the history of Dakka, it's the equivalent of beating on the broken tombstone on the trampled down, dug up, buried again, grave of a dead horse.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Super cheesecake".

It's like y'all have never seen a woman with big boobs before. Girl who sits next to me at work pretty much mirrors that. It's not out of the ordinary.

Does she use duct tape to show as much of them as possible without including the nipple too?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 carlos13th wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Precisely. Why is it necessary to post a picture of another manufacturer's model and say "look, this is different!!"

Somebody doesn't like model A, that's fine. Nobody needs to justify their preferences, and the insistence of some, not just on this topic, to try and rationalize that preference leads to some very dull and repetitive retreading of old ground.

Just go buy model B and let market forces do what they will.

Heaven forbid people discuss why the like or dislike a model and compare it to other models to show examples of what they would prefer on a forum for discussing war games and miniatures.

I think what Az is getting at is that, at this point in the history of Dakka, it's the equivalent of beating on the broken tombstone on the trampled down, dug up, buried again, grave of a dead horse.

Yup, and beyond that, it's simply boring at this point.

Carlos clearly didn't read more than a few posts back in the thread, otherwise he'd have seen that I'd already posted this

And yes, before anyone self righteously clambers on their high horse and decries me for trying to stifle their right to express their opinion, in this case your opinion would be better supported by keeping schtum and letting the thread drop away rather than keep debating it.

If the conversation has got so predictable that people's responses can be predicted with a reasonable degree of accuracy, what's the point in having it?

Ok, some models, Brother Vinni for example, do perhaps go far enough that I can understand how they would repeatedly provoke a response. But this model isn't particularly egregious, yet still we see the same ole same old trotted out once more.

I read it, I just don’t agree with you and think discussion in a forum is a positive thing even when people disagree.

My preference for a model without anti gravity breasts does not mean that I want the model buried in obscurity.

Furthermore if the discussion is so predictable it’s not worth participating why are you participating?

To try and encourage others to look to new ideas rather than retread old ground over and over.

They're not even "anti gravity" they're in a corset...

Yeah, that chainsword is not good. I like the nonchalant pose though. The size of her tits aren't overly relevant to me as I've long considered a good feminine sculpt to the face is more important and that's here. Gun isn't overly important, it's an easy swap if I don't like it. The backpack 'wing' thing isn't great and would likely also end up clipped off.

But I really like the model overall.