Reaper Bones review part 3

So as I posted originally, I've been curious about the Reaper Bones line for some time now. I decided to go ahead and buy one because of the Reaper Bones Kickstarter. I wanted to at least check one out before dropping $100+ on a big bag o' minis. To be very conservative I only bought one, and did not go for the free shipping (perhaps my only regret as I ended up really liking the model).

Because of other reviews I read here and here I did not bother trying to remove mold lines and I did not use a guide coat (a light paint wash on the white model). The mold lines weren't bad - a bit on the helmet and on the legs, might be more of an issue on a different model.

As mentioned before the model was a bit bent, but very hot water allowed me to reshape it.

Now for painting and some pictures! I've never photographed my miniatures before so it was a bit of an experiment, I think the pictures turned out okay though.

Here is the unpainted model:

I painted on three base colors  and then added a brown wash. I found that if the paint was thinned at all that it slid around a lot on the plastic so I had to keep my brushes and paints quite dry. The only issue was that it meant I had to be extra careful not to fill in details - on the finished model there are a few places where the paint on the chainmail is a little too thick.

Because of the paint slipping on the plastic I had to do some evening out of the base layer, mostly accomplished with dry-brushing. I followed that with detailing and dry brushing, along with some additional washing, brown or black depending on the area. I think it turned out looking pretty decent, and the model is definitely a value at $2.

These models are definitely intended for play. They are cheap and durable (I did a lot of bending of it trying to straighten out the sword before I was successful). If you want perfect control, go for more expensive metal models. I don't know about other people, but I don't like other people handling my metal models, whereas this I will not be fussy about.

It looks like many of the bones line also come in prepainted versions, but frankly mine looks a lot better than the prepainted version and I'm by no means an expert painter. Also, the unpainted models are a good bit cheaper (even counting the paint).

So the upshot is that I am totally satisfied and I will by buying more of these and I can't wait to use them.

Reaper Bones review part 2

Read the final review here.

Quick update:

Over the last few days I've corresponded with someone at Reaper who gave me a number of suggestions for fixing the bentness of the warrior's sword. Finally hit upon one that worked very well: soak briefly in hot water then reform, hold until cool. I tried first with just using water hot from the tap, didn't work, but then microwaved the water until nearly boiling and just dipped in the sword arm - the sword basically straightened itself. It is not totally perfect looking but weapons on metal miniatures rarely end up being perfectly straight either so I'm not going to fuss. As I said, I don't think being terribly finicky is worth it for a $2 miniature. That being said, now that I know I can fix bent weapons I am much more likely to buy more of the line and will likely wind up contributing to the kickstarter campaign.

Once I put some paint on it I'll update again.

Reaper Bones review part 1

Read the final review here.

I like miniatures.

I've been curious about the Reaper Bones line since it was launched and with the associated Kickstarter campaign going on I thought it was a good chance to check them out. At this point the deal at the $100 level especially is really very good.  So I resisted the temptation to go for free shipping and I ordered just one miniature: the "male human warrior" or as the box tells me "Garrick the Bold."

First off, the detail is really excellent. Much better than any other soft plastic miniatures I have seen before. There are a few mold lines but they are pretty minimal. I have read in other reviews that the mold lines are difficult to remove cleanly so I might just live with them. I think a few mold lines may be better than spending a ton of effort on a $2 mini with the chance of making it look messier.

The plastic is pretty soft however and my figure is suffering from a modest case of bent-sword. My guess is that is something that may be inevitable with this type of plastic. I'd like to fix that if possible. If anyone has any tips they'd be appreciated.

They claim it is paintable right out of the box without priming - which I might test for a part 2 of this review. However, I have read in other reviews that washes don't stick well to the bare plastic, so I am tempted to at least dull-coat it first. Also, I usually prime my models black so I might end up priming it anyways for the look I am accustomed to (the model is white).

I'll post more if I am able to fix the bent sword and when I have painted it.

I love you DCC RPG

The DCC RPG arrived this week. I fell instantly in love. I waited to write this post until I had read the whole book (minus spell and monster descriptions) and had a chance to reread some sections. I wanted to make sure I had read thoroughly and the fires of lust had cooled a bit before commenting.

This is a game for a specific audience, and being part of that audience I am very happy. I love that this is not a game for beginners. Assuming that the readers are experienced is a great place to start. There is no attempt to make the game bad-DM proof.

They have taken the good of modern D&D - the d20 system and the save system - and combined it with many things I find excellent about traditional D&D: simple combat, skills based on profession, race as class, single axis alignment, and high-risk adventuring. Something that I in particular find appealing but others may not: institutionalized low-magic. Throughout the book it talks about the rarity of magic, the specialness of magical items, the unusual nature of adventurers.This is something I have tried to bring into D&D but the systems often seemed geared towards high-fantasy play.  I also love the focus on low-level play. I suspect that DCC will become my fantasy RPG of choice.

With the possible exception of halflings as two-weapon fighters I love the treatment of every class. Clerics are awesome holy crusaders, thieves are cool and useful, warriors are mighty, wizards are probably about as much as fun as I can imagine (although if you don't like randomness they won't be for you), and the demihumans are special. I also like how alignment plays into actual game mechanics.

The elimination of wisdom and charisma is an excellent choice. Personality is a much more useful statistic and I like the way luck plays into the game in a variety of ways.

The experience framework is brilliant. Getting experience granted for surviving encounters and based on the difficulty of the encounter can help solve some of the fairness issues I have been talking about. An example of a 4xp encounter is one in which you expend all of your resources and have to retreat. So even if you run, you can still potentially learn something and advance.

That being said there are some annoying vague areas and contradictions. The book explicitly states that it is not intended to be comprehensive (that it is a framework not a straightjacket) and that one should feel free to fill in the blanks but there are areas where clearer intent would be appreciated. For example, as one spends luck (which for most classes is a permanent expenditure) does your luck bonus degrade? Basically, is luck spent like a regular statistic or like hit points? The fact that it is a statistic (and that there are areas where luck uses the initial bonus) says the former is probably accurate but it would be nice if that was a little more spelled out. Likewise, it is not entirely clear that deeds of arms do not need to succeed for the attack to succeed (I am almost certain this is the correct interpretation, but again, not entirely spelled out).

The one major contradiction I have found is with wizard spells known. Most parts of the book seem to imply that the wizard's "spells known" is the maximum spells that they can know. So a 10th level wizard can know up to 16-18 spells depending on intelligence. However, the book also says (on p. 126) that if a wizard "should ever know more than this many spells [referring to the master spell list] he will be a great mage." Since a 10th level character is a semi-divine, a few times in history power level character, he would certainly seem to be a great mage. So what exactly is the spells known? Is it supposed to be a minimum? There is other evidence in a few places in the book for each interpretation.

I realized that I spent more space talking about what I didn't like than what I did, but that does not reflect how much I love this game. There is just more to talk about with the confusions.

***Update***

Probably should have posted this a while ago . . . . Got some clarification on this apparent contradiction from the man himself here.

I also wanted to add that there has been some people confused and or unhappy with the treatment of alignment in DCC. I will definitely go on the record saying I love it. First of all, it is single axis which is good. Second, at least under my interpretation, law is not at all a proxy for good, and chaos is not a proxy for evil. Elves are chaotic, goblins are lawful. This bothers a lot of people on the forum. I like the nuance of it. Elves, while being generally non-destructive, traffic with outsiders, exchanging favors, souls, whatever, for personal power.  While goblins might generally be in opposition to humans, live in communities and pursue their own communal goals. Law and chaos is not the same thing as good guys and bad guys.