Women in armor thread

At my weekly game. Does anyone have the sequel to this picture that shows dead bimbos around the feet of the armored female fighter? It's full color painting IIRC. Thx. Also plausibly armored female thread.

...

Here you go OP.

Thank you. The one I had in mind has the armored woman victorious.

...

This one?

...

...

...

...

You can almost taste the butthurt in the second image. The lines express it so vividly.

...

...

...

Thank you! That's it

Yeah, because the first image was devoid of asshurt. Face it, if you're bothered enough by something to make a comic about it, especially one as well illustrated a the first, you don't get to pull the "Wow look how mad the person who shat out a reply lampooning me is."

Who's the artist behind these?

Oh god, I stopped posting that one because it always starts arguments.

And because the chick in the doorway creeps me out.

Still got a few of these left over from last time.

I used to be an autist about muh function and historical accuracy, but I've learned to appreciate aesthetic.

That's only half the explanation, though. The first is taking the side of reality. Armoured bikini's are a pretty stupid trope on account of them not working. That's the joke in the first comic. The second comic has no joke except "lol she magically wins weren't expecting that huh smart guy". Yeah, thanks, we already knew your shit operates under that logic and that's what we're making fun of, here.

The second comic basically brings no rebuttal to the table. That's the point of it being asshurt. If had shown, I don't know, the armoured women just magically hitting her armoured tits, THAT would funny. Because that would be a visual joke about why bikini armour wins.

...

>implying historically accurate armours aren't also the most aesthetic ones

So the first is Autists who get so angry at people enjoying fantasy bullshit they made a drawing about it. Gotcha.

>implying I disagree

>comic
Yes, and, hey, whould you look at that, comic book logic worked in a comic. What a surprise.

>I used to be an autist about muh function and historical accuracy, but I've learned to appreciate aesthetic.
Oh, it still gets on my nerves sometimes, I just learned to keep my yap shut.

Christ on a crutch trim your straps woman.

That still sounds like someone being assmad about the original image, user.

>comic book logic

There is no such thing. And it's not even a comic book trope.

>comic book logic worked in a comic
You understand that's not a joke right

>And because the chick in the doorway creeps me out.
That's why I like it so much. It's like she saw one of those dumb troll images and just snapped.

I'd argue that the idea of the fantasy armor chick utterly destroying her opponents despite her gear and being a dumb bimbo is plenty funny, though.
Never mind that two distinct styles clashing is just as pointless as powerlevel discussions. What works in high fantasy, i.e. armored thongs, combat high-heels and the like, will obviously not work in low fantasy and vice versa, bar some very minor exceptions.

I enjoy historicalaccuracycore metalbikinicore, and genderneutral70sdungeonexplorerwithahugebackpackfullofsurvivalgearcore but can't stand pauldroncore. That's only because I don't like the types of stories associated with pauldroncore, so it's less compelling and doesngive me any kind of feels that I care about when I look at it.

Chick in the bikini is better.

Reality is trash and nothing should be based on it.

chick in the bikini has never even heard of a leg day and is therefore the worst

MISOGYNY

looks shit

Make me.

If you think calling something stupid when it is stupid is being "upset", you're a moron.

>being this mad that other women are more attractive than you

Kill all the sluts you want, you will never get laid.

and is therefore the best*

The thing it is calling stupid isn't stupid, and you're mad.

>The first is taking the side of reality.
No, the first is based on the uneducated, anachronistic assumptions about a circumstance that the artist doesn't agree with.

>Armoured bikini's are a stupid trope on account of them not working
So is the idea of allowing women to go to war in pre-industrial birth and death-rate societies. Armored women in battle is a significantly greater deviation from history and reality than having skimpy clad women (or men for that matter, depending on climate and time) in battle.

>you will never get laid.
Don't worry, I'm sure she'll find herself a nice whiteknight.

...

This is the correct armor progression

Same here. Western fantasy art is in decline thanks to shit like WoW and Warhammer.

Who will friendzone her.

>no bum
>no thighs
>no calves
worstest of the worst

WoW and Warhammer's art direction is objectively correct.

And those broad shoulders. Disgusting!

Not that the Japs don't have their own issues with style but I find I like their fantasy armour alot more because they aren't so obsessed with pauldrons the way Western artists are.

Incorrect.

>not liking pauldroncore
>liking backpackcore
What is wrong with you?

>Armored women in battle is a significantly greater deviation from history and reality than having skimpy clad women (or men for that matter, depending on climate and time) in battle.

Jesus fucking Christ dude, what are you smoking that this seems like a good argument?

SURE IS OBJECTIVELY CORRECT HERE!

How is it not?

Pauldron obsession is correct; Japanese artists are wrong.

...

>Warhammer

Nigger, you best be talking about space marines because WHFB armor is some of the best in fantasy.

>thanks to shit like WoW and Warhammer
I can understand WoW, but Warhammer's art was quite diverse and often very good. Drawing from real-life inspiration more often than not.

Yes, it is.

>what are you smoking
The truth?

The logic is quite simple:
>you say that women in bikinis aren't 'realistic'
>I say, women in armor is even less 'realistic'
we can argue about the points therein, but it's a fairly straightforward argument.

And if you think for a second that it would be acceptable in any (mostly west of Western Asian) culture in pre-industrial periods to allow women to go out in the battlefield, you're out of your goddamned mind.

I like the bikini bimbos though

>things that aren't realistic are bad!
>things that are realistic are good!

I defy any of you to prove that either of these statements is true.

I like practical looks and skimpy looks

I can never be upset unless the design, practical or skimpy, is just ass to begin with

You mean dare?

But user, you posed the same question twice.

Bikini bimbos aren't something I enjoy because I can't take them seriously.

Okay, warhammer fantasy's art isn't as WoW or 40k, but it's still degrading into pauldroncore.

There are plenty of historical records of women fighting on the battlefield, just not usually wearing armor.

I mean, things that are realistic CAN be good, and things that are unrealistic too CAN be good. Depends on the taste of the viewer

No, I defy you. Because you can't.

...

I know.

You can't defy people to something.
You either defy or dare to.

But there have been women in armor in battle in reality

>things that aren't realistic are bad!

I guess the entire fantasy genre across all mediums is always bad then.

I defy you not allowing me to defy.

Your logic is impeccably disastrous, my good user.

>it's still degrading into pauldroncore.

We try not to think about Age of Sigmar, user.

...

I do as I wish.

This user has the right of it.

Can't you just deify me instead?

My assertion is that the statement is false, retard.

You know damn well that those are statistical anomalies. Sexual dimorphism exists and men are biological better suited for combat. Deal with it.

If women are going to fight, they are going to fight in the accepted battledress of their age and for their means. They do not immediately start dressing like strippers. To argue that them doing so is just as realistic as them wearing said battledress is fucking ridiculous.

>And if you think for a second that it would be acceptable in any (mostly west of Western Asian) culture in pre-industrial periods to allow women to go out in the battlefield, you're out of your goddamned mind.

Except it happened. Not frequently, but it happened. And when they did, they wore... wait for it... whatever the fuck people at the time wore when fighting. Not a stripper getup.

And what would make sense to wear is the point. Not if women fighting is historically correct. Magic isn't historically correct, either. People don't complain about magic. People complain about shitty magic. Just like people complain about shitty armour.

And that's what's so goddamn stupid about your argument. It's like saying your running shoes are fucked, so you might as well wear clown shoes.

It`s not about realism. It`s just that women in chainmail bikinis are ridiculous and pathetic.

>but it's still degrading into pauldroncore
Hardly, outside of certain chaos models most humans have normally sized pauldrons. Elves, dwarves, undead, lizards and rats don't even use them, for the most part.

The only ones that make large use of bigass pauldrons are the orcs. And seeing how fucking everyone copied GW orcs wholesale, they must have done something right with the design.

I'm of the same mind, and that it never really looks good or well done.

>It`s not about realism. It`s just that women in chainmail bikinis are ridiculous and pathetic.

So are guys who argue about them

I just put them in my games and that's that

>If women are going to fight,
That's what the argument is about you twit. The basic premise is unrealistic so your argument of realism doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I don't really care about women explicitly noted to be exceptional outliers in combat.

I do find it retarded when people shoehorn women in as an actual appreciable percentage of a combat force, barring incredibly exceptional circumstances.

Not really solicited but I'm just throwing my opinion into the shitpile.

>I just put them in my games and that's that

Why make your game ridiculous? No armor at all is better than this crap.

Historically, people have fought naked, why is this even a big deal?

That image is rather ironic considering women in plate in general is just as farcical.

>If women are going to fight
Well that's the problem. A society that allows women to fight necessarily, as far as we know from our single case of history, must have sufficient population to overcome the specialization of work allowed for by sexual dimorphism.

Which is stupid in most medieval fantasy setting assumptions.

Furthermore, you're assuming that most people who did go into battle wore MAXIMUM armor or somesuch. Which is also inaccurate. Even by the time of the hundred years war, with gendarmes and the like, the average footslogger wore a metal (probably steel) cap and padded armor. That'd be it.

It's ____fun____ and we ___enjoy___ it

Yes, and? It stands to logic there have been women in armor, in battle, in reality making any depiction of a woman in armor, in battle realistic. Their numbers, purpose and outcome is ultimately irrelevant to this point.