Sunday, March 18, 2018

Dragged into Turbolasers Episode 36: The Daughters of Khaine and GW’s new effort to make female models


We talk about the newest Age of Sigmar army, the Daughters of Khaine with Aletheia, one of our good friends. We discuss how the new models fit alongside Games Workshop’s other female models and all of their models as a whole, speculating on what they are trying to convey with their design choices. We end the episode talking about the newly revealed plastic Van Saar Necromunda gang, and how pleasantly surprised we were to discover that it is mixed gendered.


Listen to current episode on Dragged into Turbolaser's website.

- Eric Wier

46 comments:

  1. In Terry Pratchetts Discworld books, Elves are portrayed as beeing obsessive with themselves and everything that's beautiful. They have no sense of depth or inner values. To think that a lesser beeing (which would be less beautiful) than themselfes could beat them is beyond their imagination.
    They are a symbol of the part of human nature that's seeking for beauty instead of wisdom. Or personifications of the fate that comes about those who are facile.
    So, an elf would never choose something practical over something good looking, may it be clothing or whatever. The point is, that elves use their aura of beauty to distract the minds of humans. Only those who are able to see behind the fassade can stand them. That has, in my opinion, not much to do with sexuality.
    Disworld is not warhammer, but the motifs are more or less the same in every fantasy universe that shares the tolkien archtypes. I'd say that high elves lean more in the direction of tolkiens elves while the dark elves are more alike to pratchetts interpretation.
    I'm asking myself, if that aspect of elvishness is beyond young people to see, shouldn't it then be more concerning that the games are all (except bloodbowl maybe) about killing others, and the glory and heroism that lies in that?
    Anyway, thank you for all your effort. Even if warhammer is not, Sexism is a serious topic and always worth thinking about. And Warhammer should have more women in it. On and beside the table!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. honestly -no one? That train went through quite fast.

      Delete
    2. I guess my thoughts on this are, this is a fantasy set tens of thousands of years in the future, and the models mentioned in this context depict a nonhuman species. If the premise is that aelves value beauty over practicality, what exactly do these future fantasy alien beings find to be beautiful, and why?

      I'm not saying they DON'T canonically think that restricting women's movement (hobbled by high heels, head unable to turn easily due to a weird metal helmet, strange and restrictive bras keeping the torso still or moving slowly/carefully) is beautiful, but, again, this is a fantasy. Someone wrote the specs, sculpted the models. This is a human fantasy of what alien beings in the future think and do. Who is imagining this, and why? Whose fantasy is it, and why is that fun for them?

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the insight into how elves are portrayed in Pratchett’s series of novels. It is an interesting interpretation of elves, and not one that I ever really considered when seeing elves in other settings (though, the settings that I am most accustomed to are fantasy settings heavily influenced by Tolkein). I am more familiar with them being depicted with a haughty nobility, looking down on all other races. This is nearly always accompanied by some element of beauty, surpassing that of human beauty (though, this is from the perspective of what a human finds beautiful). I am not accustomed to that beauty coming at the expense of insight and wisdom.

      Pratchett is something of a legend in the fantasy genre, so surely his influence could have been felt in the development of some of GW’s elven races. Did GW decide to make the Witch elves dancing around in metal bikinis because they are obsessed with themselves and beauty? I would be inclined to think the reason for that design choice was less introspective.

      That so many of us derive enjoyment from games which focus on killing others is certainly a topic that is worth discussing. Is Warhammer 40,000 glorifying violence? Is it a commentary on it? I would be interested in seeing a modelling project that looks at the ramifications of all the violence in the 41st millenium, and how it affects the inhabitants of the universe.

      Sorry for not commenting earlier, el paso. It is not that I do not appreciate your insights. Sometimes other obligations keep me away from comments.

      Delete
    4. No, I shouldn't have been so impatient. After all, it's one of the hardest topics to discuss on the net. You deserved a break. And I also don't know if my pratchett-comment was helpful. In his universe, races like elves are in many ways metaphorical, and meant to be. The whole world is. I mean - it's flat! Guess that says everything. So please forget about that. But what do you think about the malcador/emperor thing? (Think it's in one of the Garro books) Ain't that sick? He walked earth for maybe thousands of years before he even began actively doing something. Just watching and studying humanity. And he Laughed!

      Delete
    5. It sounds like a really interesting scene, and something I would like to read. While I have read quite a handful of the HH stuff, not many had too much with the Emperor or Malcador in them. I have been told that Master of Mankind is great in that way, that it develops the Emperor’s character a lot (and that he might be sort of an asshole, ha ha). That he would think such a matter is a joke certainly suggests he does not see women in a very good light, but I need to read it within the context of the book I suppose. Furthermore, even if the Emperor was supremely intelligent, the fact that he had such a “manifest destiny” outlook on humanity and the universe, and let all he built fall to ruin (by seemingly thinking that not telling people about the existence of the Chaos Gods was a good idea, among other things), suggests that he is a pretty flawed character (which by extension makes him an interesting one). Thanks for pointing the scene out, it makes me excited to get back to reading more of the HH books!

      Delete
  2. These guys were enjoying 40k and then they met Critical Theory lady. She expressly did not like 40k, until she read a novel about a man who couldnt touch a woman he loved, just worship her from afar.'She has helped us to think critically about models...background'.

    She expressly still does not like 'bolter porn' or mainstream warhammer, only Dan Abnetts more nuanced take. There are not offending, objectified models of the various catsuited and corsetted girls described within. Her critical lens means she is unable to work backwards from a minature of an objectified or idealised woman and construct a nuanced and real character who might choose to dress that way.

    This explains the previous post objecting to GW's female models. The fantasy/scifi hobby scene is being invaded and subverted by people who do not enjoy fantasy/scifi or classic sci-fi/fantasy tropes and staples.

    AoS is explicitly designed to be less grounded in Germanic-Tolkien-land and more fantastical- yet complaining about armoured bikinis persists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's one scene in a horus heresy book (I don't remember which one) that explains the problem very well: It's Malcador telling about the early years with the emperor and the making of the primarchs. Malcador says, that he suggested to the emperor to make the primarchs female. To avoid certain problems that can occur between brothers. The emperor reacts to that suggestion by laughing. He thought is was a joke. The smartest human beeing ever walked the universe didn't even consider making female leaders as an serious idea worth thinking about.
      That is the situation. GW doesn't have (i guess) an anti-feminist agenda going on. They just behave like nerds that know women only from certain internet sites.

      Delete
    2. If it's true that AOS is ment to be less like tolkien in terms of female participation, then of course we can all go home! Lord of the Rings has one female character in it that plays a bigger role. The movies added Arwen, which makes it two. But that's nitpicking right?

      Delete
    3. First 40k, then your workplace, then your home, then your very thoughts: we Critical Theory Ladies are taking over. There will be no escape. Best to get your affairs in order before it’s too late.

      Delete
    4. Our blog has always been one to look critically at many aspects of the miniature hobby, from anatomy considerations, to weapon design, to representation. Being critical about these things does not mean we do not enjoy the hobby. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t have this blog to begin with or record podcasts. We have always gravitated more towards more grounded realistic representations of characters in Warhammer 40k (like those Abnett often presents); other approaches are fine too, but it is not what we choose to pursue. Our critical lens does not prevent us from working backwards from an objectified miniature and creating a nuanced character from it, but does make it clear to us when a design is just a lazy trope.

      It is baffling to me someone would think that adding more female models, ones that more accurately reflect the state of constant warfare (like the male counterparts), could be seen as subverting the hobby. Oversexualized females were never a cornerstone of Warhammer 40k (or this hobby) to me. And more generally, I do not believe they are critical to the identity of fantasy or sci-fi either. To suggest that enjoyment of sexualized representations of women is a prerequisite to liking science fiction and fantasy is laughable. Furthermore, just because a trope exists does not mean it is correct or should be promoted.

      I believe that el paso is likely right in his assessment of GW. They have never actively been anti-feminist, just somewhat naive and not very introspective on the topic. This seems to be changing somewhat; thankfully, the Van Saar gang being mixed gendered is a good step in the right direction.

      Delete
    5. say! RSF_Angel, what think you of me being a "Critical Theory Gent"? I certainly think it's a very useful tool, and I also largely agree with the points raised in the episode (differing on semantics over how i'd argue stuff mostly).

      I can only speak for myself, but honestly... characterising these criticisms as coming from nefarious infiltrators out to... destroy science fiction... or something? just pitiful. posting a big list of stuff I like would be gauche, but you're looking at someone that's had strong opinions on Star Trek: The Motion Picture (it's a good movie, fite me) since they were like... nine. hardly an 'outsider', for what little that's worth.

      this is something that you will find to be quite consistent from people criticising media like this, as the harshest critiques are often directed at that which we love the most!

      and... I mean, if you wanna start no true scotsman-ing... ya even read any Stanislaw Lem u fuckn' casual??? D.C. Fontana? betcha haven't read any Q Hayashida huh??/ HUH?1?!!/? ya fuckn' fake-ass nerd!!1!

      (I'm joking, just in case the hyperbole isn't obvious)

      as a last point, accusing Aletheia, or anyone, of lacking the imagination to conceive of a woman who would dress a certain way... just immensely childish. creating detailed and realistic characters is all well and good (keep an eye out for my upcoming video game work; projected completion date is 2258) but ultimately it's still fictional people we're talking about, every detail of which is the decision of someone quite real. thus, to use the creation to shield the creator in this way is a quite feeble attempt to deflect criticism.

      after all, the models can hardly decide how you make them.

      (that's a colloquial "you", just to be clear)

      Delete
    6. Late to the party here but I'd like to make two points:

      1) How does Aletheia expressly dislike sci-fi when she specifically stated she likes the Eisenhorn trilogy? Isn't that also sci-fi?

      2) Why are armored bikinis a thing to begin with? Just because they are a common trope in fantasy-type settings dont make them any less stupid. I would challenge anybody who disagrees to think about how they would potentially explain armored bikinis to their daughter.

      GW has been focusing lately on bringing outsiders into the hobby, but representation of women has continued to be a huge business opportunity for them. This is a company that literally said about a year ago on the community page that their company is not at fault for misogyny in the hobby, that it is the community's fault... wut? They need to be as good as they can be to bring new people to the hobby- including potential female gamers- or they will see it reflected in their bottom line.

      Delete
    7. In all seriousness, though, sure, I can work back from a Male Gazey female model to create a character who would "choose" to dress that way, probably a hell of a lot better than you can given my considerable experience as a female who wears clothes. And the reasons a woman would "choose" to dress that way all involve some kind of social pressure/coercion due to men being in power and women having to navigate around that. It's not a free choice, and it's not female sexuality - it's female performance in service of straight male sexuality. In a world with no men in power, no woman chooses to dress that way.

      That means that, since this is a fantasy world that humans created, those humans who created it and those who like it are fantasizing about not only the pervasive social coercion that pushes women into performing for the Male Gaze in the real world. They're fantasizing about a world where there's MORE coercion. Women are squeezed into a narrower range of shapes, dressed more uncomfortably/painfully, and forced to perform even more for the gratification of straight men. Imagery tells a story and builds a world, and that's what this imagery says.

      I do love scifi and fantasy, just not... well, shitty, lazy scifi and fantasy. I mean, really, why would I want to spend time in a world that's a crappier version of my own, with the exact same people calling the shots but to an even greater degree? It's not only profoundly unfun (as someone who would in this world be coerced into wearing fetish gear for ogling men), but is also just... boring and played-out. Give me scifi like The Great Silence, or fantasy like The Traitor Baru Cormorant, something that isn't just the same old unimaginative shit, and I will be happy as can be.

      Delete
    8. ' I mean, really, why would I want to spend time in a world that's a crappier version of my own, with the exact same people calling the shots but to an even greater degree?'

      Warhammer 40,000 is explicitly a reflection of the worst of humanity, dialled up to 11 with fantasy and scifi elements. Rogue Traders actively traffic people as slaves and genocide populations for resources. The church burns witches and others born different, and is right to do so! On glorious Macragge, babies born with deformities are left on the side of a mountain to die.

      Abnett tends to write about relatable people who live in this tortured universe full of extreme elements and people. 40k's broken world is designed to provide conflict- (the bolter porn and flaring muzzles of Blanche's excess) between extreme antagonists who do not possess the moral highground.

      I hesitate to say that you are in the wrong hobby- the galaxy is big enough to have worlds and cultures and indeed conflicts that you might enjoy. They won't represent much of the Imperium though- an institution expressly set up through violence and the threat of violence, in order to coerce people to resist alien and chaos coercion.

      Delete
    9. If the objectifying parts of the hobby were well-considered satire, then sure, I'd say leave them as-is. But they're not, and if they ever were, your reactions here (and those of the myriad anonymous posters who at least have the good sense not to have their garbage opinions traced back to them) indicate that any satirical value has been lost. Well-done satire is great; contributing to structural inequality is not.

      Delete
    10. "and those of the myriad anonymous posters who at least have the good sense not to have their garbage opinions traced back to them."

      To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.

      Delete
  3. I had to laugh when you guys grovelingly admitted that what got you into the hobby in the first place was the bolter porn she had just disparaged.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not ashamed to say that a John Blanche painting of a Space Marine was what first drew me to the hobby. I still like that artwork, and I still like Space Marines, despite the laughable proportions and anatomy on most of the basic models. But if Space Marines and oversized firearms were all the setting had to offer, I would have lost interest long ago. It should also be noted that sexualized female miniatures and imagery is not what drew us to Warhammer 40,000 either.

      We started this blog some 5 years ago to show our vision of Warhammer 40k. To add some additional realism and detail, like what is seen on some of our favorite GW artwork (Kopinski, Dainton, Boyd). Ultimately, without the nuance and depth added to the universe by art like this, or games like Inquisitor, or the novels of people like Dan Abnett, we wouldn’t still be here posting on this blog.

      Delete
    2. For me, images of Space Marines shooting stuff with bolters and high-fiving is absolutely the hobby. Though, as a Black Templars player, the equivalent for me is Space Marines stabbing things and getting overly angry because citizens have not attended mass three times a day. I enjoy reading about the modeling and conversion opportunities in this blog, but most would agree that Space Marines play a huge role in the universe.

      I'm not sure if there was a point to this post aside from lending additional support to Space Marines.

      Delete
  4. Hi guys, I'm new to your podcast but the issue of women representation in wargaming is very near and dear to my heart. I'm really excited to check out this episode and i'll reply to this comment with my thoughts on it shortly!

    I also thought you might be interested to check out a 2-part article I spent a lot of time working on in 2016. It compares how relatively problematic women sculpts are across several different systems. It seems to be particularly relevant to the subject and the recent DoK release!

    Part 1 can be found here: http://bit.ly/2IDJ267
    Part 2 can be found here: http://bit.ly/2GMGjqh

    Thanks so much!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I liked your two-part article. I may not have drawn all the same conclusions you did about the models (you were far more forgiving than I am), but it was a good read.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for making us aware of your collection of articles. I really appreciate the methodical approach that you took to addressing this issue. You did not take anything for granted, and took pains to carefully explain everything, which is important considering the crowd you are hoping to reach (many males are not affected by the problems of objectification, and likely have not had strong reason to consider it).

      The more hobbyists that read your article the better. Great work.

      Delete
    3. Hi both! Thank you so much for the kind words. I'm glad you found something of value in my article.

      I just finished listening to your episode today and I thought it was great! I think it's a testament to how problematic these depictions of women are when we reached similar conclusions working completely independently. I thought all your comments regarding the sculpts were pretty spot on and we overlap a lot in the problem areas.

      I also agree that the Black Library tends towards better, or at least a little more nuanced, depictions of women. But as you guys concluded/implied yourself when talking about Morathi's "shape-shifting" abilities, background fluff alone isn't enough to justify objectifying portrayals.

      Aletheia, I particularly liked how you acted as a critical voice by asking really incisive questions of the guys. I can see how that would work really really well in casual setting or gaming group to force people to start thinking about these topics. It's something I'll keep in mind myself!

      I also agree with you that I was definitely quite forgiving in my article overall. I wrote it specifically to target guys who play wargames who had never really thought about this stuff before, so it is definitely beginner steps. Wargaming as a whole remains a hobby I cannot recommend to people who value good representation of people of color, women, LGBTQ, etc. But that's something I'm hoping will change in the near future in the way it's started to change for other aspects of geekdom like comics, boardgames, videogames, etc. I'm still hopeful!

      Thanks for a great episode and I'm looking forward to working through the backlog! You've definitely got a new subscriber :)

      Delete
  5. Great as always, good to put a voice to Aletheias face as well.I am not really interested in the new Witch Elves or Daughters of Khaine whatever they are now. Agree as always with the points made regarding the models in question. These discussions make me want to try my hand at the Adeptus Sororitas.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Get this bullshit outta my hobby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It’s MY hobby now!

      *witchy cackling*

      Delete
    2. The intent of your comment is unclear, Anonymous. Do you want all of the objectified imagery to be removed from the hobby, or do you want people to stop being critical about the hobby? I personally would love if all the objectified imagery was out of the hobby.

      If you don’t want people being critical about how women are portrayed in the hobby, I would ask why? What makes you so uncomfortable about someone suggesting that GW’s portrayal of women might be problematic?

      Delete
    3. There is nothing wrong with GWs ART. If you and all the other Social Jihadis out there don't like it find some other art to enjoy. How come you are after GW to change? What about Infinity? How about Raging Heroes? Their whole stance on minis is overly sexualized female forms.

      Art is sacrosanct. All these energies would be better spent applied toward actual problems.

      Delete
    4. We have focused on Games Workshop because, of all of the miniature games, Warhammer 40,000 is our favorite. Just because we are critical of it does not mean that we hate it or want to see Games Workshop fail. But, I have already written articles that call out Infinity and other game companies. I have called out Kingdom Death for their outrageous sexualization of women.

      There is a substantial amount of research into how objectification of women is harmful. The American Psychological Association has compiled a lengthy report you could peruse (http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report.aspx). The sexualization of women in media (and wargaming) is not harmless.

      I am not demanding that all of the current imagery disappear. Games Workshop is never going to do that. But I am suggesting that they consider what their imagery is showing and consider the ramifications of all of it. I think they should start to offer a wider variety of female models. Models that are not virtually all sexualized to some extent. If there is evidence that objectified imagery is harmful, what is the problem with asking companies to offer larger varieties of female miniatures?

      That you want to force us out of a hobby that we love because you can’t handle criticism of it is pretty juvenile.

      Delete
    5. I would say that overly sexualized female forms in all model ranges should disappear. I just don't see the point, isn't this supposed to be war? Why not just focus on that? Sorry, but most people get into the hobby to play the game, so I don't really see where you could label wargaming minis as sancrosect art. In fact, I would argue that overly sexualized female forms should disappear from mainstram media entirely. Your argument is basically "things have always been like this so they always should". Go into business with this mindset and see how long you last.

      BTW- I also see no objection to a critique on models on a blog designed to critique models. But you're right, let's get back to all of the other critical issues in wargaming, such as "I hate teh Dark Reaperz spam, they cost too much money and are undercosted points-wise".

      Delete
    6. We’re not just going to find some other art to enjoy. We’re going to systematically take away everything you love, transform all your safe spaces full of toxic white masculinity into something you don’t even recognize. Before long, you’re not only going to have to treat women like actual people, but you’re going to slip into thinking of us as equal human beings with as much right to hobby spaces as you.

      Welcome to your nightmare.

      Delete
    7. I can't tell if this last comment was a joke or not, but aren't you explicitly stating that your goal, ultimately, is to change the hobby to suit your own preferences, and to hell with everyone else? The very thing you accuse others of being reactionary misogynists for even suggesting? Fuck right off. This hobby and its fanbase got along perfectly well until shrill malcontents like you and your sniveling male 'allies' came along. No, I suspect that what you really can't stand, is any place where males are free of your withering presence.

      On another note, Why do you lot never complain about shit like the lack of female garbage-collecters and plumbers? Just a thought.

      Delete
    8. And people accuse feminists of being humorless. Maybe you should lighten up and smile, sweetheart. It’s just a hobby.

      Delete
    9. If we are to believe that you are the same anonymous, you have already told us to leave the hobby once before, saying if we don’t like GW’s art, we should leave. Now you are just telling us to do it more forcefully.

      This has never been about changing the hobby to suit a few peoples’ preferences. Sexually objectified imagery is not a harmless thing. Keeping that imagery in our games and media continues to send the message, perhaps subconsciously but no less real, that women are things for men to use and enjoy, and then toss out. We are not advocating for the removal of that imagery just because we don’t like it. We think it should be removed because it is actively harmful.

      Delete
    10. Not the same anonymous, no.

      Aletheia, telling me 'lol it's just a hobby bro' after spending the amount of energy you apparently do insulting and arguing with people who disagree with you seems a bit of a cop-out, no?

      And Greg, harmful to who exactly? The hordes of women just dying to take up wargaming, if only there were just a few female heads in the guardsmen kits? there are a lot of strong statements here, but where is the actual evidence that slightly titillating models are the only thing keeping women from being at 50% participation in tabletop games? Of course, we can't listen to any of the women already IN the hobby who enjoy it for what it is, because according to Aletheia they're just browbeaten victims, 'internalised misogyny' and all that.

      Delete
    11. You can't have it both ways, Anonymous. Either it's an important microcosm in which the same well-studied and documented principles of damage due to female objectification apply, or else it's just unimportant fun men are having that has no bearing on any of society (in which case your arguments are moot, because there'd be no harm in changing it all if it's not important to maintain the status quo). So, which is it? Are you arguing for the continued second-class status of women in society, or are you arguing that your dolls are unimportant but you're going to throw a tantrum if we change them anyway?

      Delete
    12. Harmful to who? Women. I am saying that objectification of women is harmful to women. This goes beyond miniature gaming. Sexually objectified miniatures in Warhammer 40,000 and other miniature games just adds to the larger problem of objectification in the media and entertainment. As I mentioned before, there are a sizeable body of research showing that objectifcation of women is harmful (http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report.aspx). Objectified imagery is so common that many people think nothing of it, but that does not mean it isn’t having an effect. If Games Workshop can do something to not contribute to the problem, I think they should. At the very least, they should consider what messages their imagery is suggesting, and decide if that is what they intend. Critically evaluating what messages your creations are sending is a valuable exercise that I think everyone should do.

      We are also not saying that objectified imagery is the only thing keeping women out of the hobby. Certainly the behavior of other players and the treatment women receive from other hobbyists plays a role.

      Delete
    13. Alethia is sweetyposting while arguing that things other people enjoy should change because she disapproves.

      Being critical of something is fine- I'm not a fan of Gravis armour- I think it looks horrible. If people enjoy it, power to them. I don't think some of the CAD designed models are well executed and some of the new background for 40k doesn't grab me.
      The attitude that 'people enjoy something and I don't like that they enjoy it' while assuming motives and passing moral judgements is not welcome in any community.

      Greg is citing the APA- the same organisation that thinks videogames and depictions of violence (warhammer?) increase actual violence
      http://www.apa.org/about/policy/interactive-media.pdf

      I'm actually one to come down on the side of modesty- I'd prefer less sexualised movies, media and advertising. I don't doubt that it has an effect when real women parade around in very little, or scream about their genitals in marches organised and funded by former Hitler youth.

      People have the right and the freedom to do this, and I don't have the right to tell them no.

      I also recognise that human sexuality is a core part of human expression and that the portrayal of Eschers as exaggerated women is the primary driver behind their faction and model sales. I don't find the models tittilating in the least and I prefer the sisters of battle/silence as models and warriors- but I don't object to 'Thots with poison guns' as a faction concept.

      Delete
    14. Because you don’t agree with a claim the APA made, you would discredit all of the peer-reviewed research that they cite? Surely that cannot all be bullshit? Would you discredit all of the research published by journals like Science and Nature because they have published some papers that were bad, or retracted? Psychology is always going to be a difficult field to study, as it is attempting to understand the human mind, and a person’s development is clearly affected by many things. Would it be better to just not do that research?

      Delete
    15. So what you're saying, RSF_Angel, is that you still just plain do not give a shit about women's second-class status in society, and will argue to the death against even making small changes in your life to remedy it. That's some privileged Trumpanzee-style shit right there.

      Delete
    16. You don't even know what you're saying anymore. What the fuck does Trump have to do with anything? People like you are why he won anyway.

      Delete
  7. Anonymous, keep your bullshit out of MY hobby.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good discussion, thanks again. I agree with a lot of your sentiments, in particular the comment about a hot woman's torso being grafted onto the body of a snake... I would have hoped the change to AoS would give the opportunity to do something a bit weirder.
    Re: the Van Saars, these are not bad models and I agree with most of your comments about the weapons. The pony tails are terrible and the lore is bad, as are the boob-plates but these are the only Necromunda models so far that I am even considering getting, even though I already have the old ones (which--let's face it--are far superior).

    ReplyDelete
  9. I swear to actual god all these "anonymous" punks are actually giving me an aneurysm

    Being afraid to have their comments tracked to them is the one red flag of a closeted alt-right man-child

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People have good reason to be afraid of having opinions that are 'wrong' or otherwise conflict with the current lefty social narrative. Your comment itself is a perfect example of that attitude. Trial by social media, public humiliation etc. are favoured tactics of SJWs. You can never be too careful.

      Delete