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.

Even if I were the type to post image macros, I do not believe I have a facepalm image macro epic enough for my feelings on your previous post.

Suffice it to say, this is off topic and let's drop it and talk about hermaphroditic daemons.

Melissia wrote:Even if I were the type to post image macros, I do not believe I have a facepalm image macro epic enough for my feelings on your previous post.

Suffice it to say, this is off topic and let's drop it and talk about hermaphroditic daemons.

Ooh, a facepalm. Perhaps if I educate you enough you can learn to use words as well as pictures and internet memes.

But since we're just discussing your opinion of neuter daemons, and your opinion is far less important than the facts of the matter, I think I'll take the opportunity to step out of this thread so you can continue telling people about your fantastic and wonderful opinion, and I can go discuss facts in other threads.

Why do people think 6-breasted, crab-clawed, fish-faced daemons were alluring? The new daemonettes are fine, they look, well, daemonic. I think the faces should repulse you, in fact the entire thing is supposed to be repulsive and awkward. That's kinda Slaanesh's thing, not to mention you can't sculpt personality or whatever onto a model so the whole "superficially beautiful, but ugly on the inside" thing would be pretty hard to do. They look more like classic christian succubi than the "Amazing 3 Breasted Fish Women from the Planet Erotica V!"

But the greater daemon is made of vomit and broken dreams

asimo77 wrote:I think the faces should repulse you, in fact the entire thing is supposed to be repulsive and awkward. That's kinda Slaanesh's thing,

Daemons of Slaanesh are supposed to be repulsive because of what they are, not what they look like. They should look alluring, and inspire self-loathing for the fact that you find them alluring. That is Slaanesh's thing.

not to mention you can't sculpt personality or whatever onto a model so the whole "superficially beautiful, but ugly on the inside" thing would be pretty hard to do.

If you can't sculpt "ugly on the inside", then don't. But don't use that as an excuse to replace "superficially beautiful" with "superficially ugly". We've already got more than enough daemons that are superficially ugly, but ugly on the inside, and we don't need to destroy Slaanesh's distinguishing feature in order to create more.

They look more like classic christian succubi than the "Amazing 3 Breasted Fish Women from the Planet Erotica V!"

No, they don't.

Ok all that aside, did people find the old ones pretty? Is there no one who thinks both were ugly? Besides don't they use musk, sorcery, and such to appear beautiful? Besides I don't think there's one piece of artwork that has good looking daemonettes (in the codicies at least).

That being said I'm about to collapse out of exhaustion so I'm not suprised if my last few posts have not been too articulate.

asimo77 wrote:Why do people think 6-breasted, crab-clawed, fish-faced daemons were alluring? The new daemonettes are fine, they look, well, daemonic. I think the faces should repulse you, in fact the entire thing is supposed to be repulsive and awkward. That's kinda Slaanesh's thing, not to mention you can't sculpt personality or whatever onto a model so the whole "superficially beautiful, but ugly on the inside" thing would be pretty hard to do. They look more like classic christian succubi than the "Amazing 3 Breasted Fish Women from the Planet Erotica V!"

But the greater daemon is made of vomit and broken dreams

They look like Night Hags to me, but then I AM a huge nerd who has played DnD for too long.

My grandmother was a night hag, I demand you rescind your offensive claims this instant!

Slaanesh Daemonettes have more than one pair of boobies... how is that not pretty?

If I was playing daemonettes, I would mix up the squads with the current models and something from the fantasy line of pretty female models to represent daemonettes with their aura NOT broken.

I don't mind the new Daemonettes, I guess. I do miss the old ones, though. I tend to think of them as more representative of what a Daemonette might actually look like. I mean, yeah, they were shapely enough, but they also had huge talons and tendrils for hair.

Brother Ramses wrote:If I was playing daemonettes, I would mix up the squads with the current models and something from the fantasy line of pretty female models to represent daemonettes with their aura NOT broken.

I did that. Mine are a mix of half new demonettes, and half converted Dark Elf witches. Add a few claws and demon bits to demon them up, and they are excellent.

Frazzled wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:If I was playing daemonettes, I would mix up the squads with the current models and something from the fantasy line of pretty female models to represent daemonettes with their aura NOT broken.

I did that. Mine are a mix of half new demonettes, and half converted Dark Elf witches. Add a few claws and demon bits to demon them up, and they are excellent.

Well I think that is an issue that people are having with the models. What daemon player wants to play daemonettes with just their disguise up all the time? The current models represent the un-glamorized demon beneath the allure.

I certainly disagree with that-- rather, they look like they merely represent a Daemonette who has gotten a bit to close to papa nurgle and contracted a few disfiguring diseases.

I am thinking(see, my opinion ) that the current Daemonettes models are a representation closer to their "True form". Since beauty is subjective the sculptors stopped making them is a "beautiful/sexy" image and left that to obscure fluff about them being encased in a "Glamour" appearing as the most beautiful/sexy women in the eyes of the beholder.

Let's face it, Daemonettes are a 40k representation of the old Succubus legends; but they also take a more direct route in combat.

All that said i do still miss the "anatomically approximate"(they certainly were not "correct") models; and I do feel the rest could use updating as well(hopefully also going back to some previous models but looking, you know, good).

Brother Ramses wrote:Well I think that is an issue that people are having with the models. What daemon player wants to play daemonettes with just their disguise up all the time?

I am not a daemon player (and never will because I prefer previous codices that showed their reliance on the actions of mortals to get from the Warp to the material universe), but if I was, I would never use the plastic Daemonettes. Not because I want them to have their disguise up all the time, but because I hate the models and think the idea that daemonettes need to have a disguise up all the time to avoid looking like that is stupid.

Well all I know is when I'm using daemons I want them to look like daemons, not super-models (not that the old ones were at all). Scary faces, claws, and the like are more daemonic than what the old ones were packing. Also the 1/2 male and female thing is pretty neat.

To be fair, the 3rd edition Daemonettes weren't ALL glamour. If you remember, they had crabby claws and tentacle horn hair. The new ones look no more daemonic than the 3rd edition ones. Plus, like I say, the fact that the embodiments of hedonism and forbidden desire are the only lesser daemons to keep themselves modest is......ludicrous.

Plus, you forget, the Daemonettes aren't the only Slaanesh Daemons I object to. You forgot about the backwards-ducks-legs-mutant-horned mouse-fiend and the WHATTHEHELLISTHAT Keeper of Secrets, a creature about as darkly alluring as a haemmaroid-I hope I spelt that right..

Oh, well I only run the lesser and greater daemons in my CSM list so I don't care either way for the fiends and what not. Also I objected to the greater daemon, like I said before

"But the greater daemon is made of vomit and broken dreams " That's why I'm getting the forgeworld one.

I like the daemonic evil dionysus feel of the keeper, but feel that it could probably be done better.
The fiends arent dynamic at all, which is their main let down IMO, but apart from that I can TOTALLY see them flicking those proboscis in and out lazily, their countless breasts rippling and undulating while they wait to tear and rend with their claws, hooves, horns and stingers in an orgy of destruction.
They symbolise the depths of depravity that Slaanesh encompasses. I agree the feet should be the right way round, they are real pain to put together, also the horns look crap and should probably be redone.

I think people are getting the wrong idea with the new daemonettes. IMO, it's more that you can't look away because of the perversion of beauty than the actual beauty itself.

I feel that the new plastics do a great job of portraying a succubus-esque daemon that is in combat not one that is lounging around busy corrupting people.

Shrike325 wrote:I think people are getting the wrong idea with the new daemonettes. IMO, it's more that you can't look away because of the perversion of beauty than the actual beauty itself.

People keep saying things like this, but you cannot have a perversion of beauty without beauty, superficial attractiveness without attractiveness, or be weirdly and disturbingly alluring without being alluring. A daemonette that has a face like a hag and hides its body is like a horror that looks stagnant, a plaguebearer that doesn't look infectious, or a bloodletter that looks like it couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag: a failure.

Melissia wrote:I certainly disagree with that-- rather, they look like they merely represent a Daemonette who has gotten a bit to close to papa nurgle and contracted a few disfiguring diseases.

Indeed!

Actually yes, you can have perversion of beauty without beauty, it's called "ugliness".

Nurgle, Tzeentch, and Khorne, by contrast, are not about perversion and consequently the comparison to a stagnant Horror, a non-infectious Plague Bearer, or anemic Bloodletter is invalid, logically speaking.

After all, if one were so inclined one could get a lot of mileage out of models of Medical Orderlies as Plaguebearers, geometrically precise Horrors, and pale Witch-Elves as Bloodletters.

The old models had much more dynamic poses, and looked like beings who prance and sashay into battle. The current designs are ok in thier basic form, but look really static. I am going to have to fix that on the ones I plan to use as Summoned Daemons.

That Daemonettes had their makeover, that's the problem. The older ones were a better sculpt, the new ones have lost that lithe graceful look and are a bit more comic book with silly big hair and armour to cover all the embarrassing bits...and that's the problem. It was the nipples that made them change the perfectly good range for these more kiddie friendly but inferior plastics. GW don't even offer the older daemonettes for sale through their collectors range unlike a lot of previous release figures. It's like they are determined people shouldn't be able to get the old ones.

The Daemonettes got their makeover and ended up in what some people apparently feel is a completely UNPRECEDENTED style, but is actually much closer to the style of their first releases. Isn't absolutely astonishing that GW would redo the figures to look more in line with what the previous appearances?

Now, please excuse me while I go run the kids off of my lawn.

Are the nipples really that important? Isn't it more immature to make such a fuss over the scantily clad ones than to have covered daemonettes?

I have a sneaking suspicion that the people who complain about the daemonettes also have problems with BA "nipple" armour.

Dare I say they might also harbor desires for slaaneshi SOB and even the dreaded lady marines?

I'm not bothered with the Sanguinary Guard nipple armour. In fact, I think they look awesome (the Sanguinary Guard, not the nipples!).

As for the Sisters of Battle, I think that the Canoness' chest armour is far too...pronounced. The standard Battle Sisters need a new multi-part plastic kit, and need their faces de-third edition-ifying. By which I mean, getting them properly proportioned and shrinking those ludicrously large lips-forgive my onematopeia.

I just think that you can't have "perverted beauty" if there is no beauty to pervert. Plus, I quite liked the "Coo-ee!" expression on the faces of the old Daemonettes, as opposed to the "BLEHBLEHBLEHBLEH!" expression on the new ones.

Hello? Anyone here?

Juan Diaz was it? His demon sculpt have a very smooth , graceful feel to it. Certainly does Deadly Quicksilver justice , especially the curve / angle of the horns on their head ( very beautiful in the art work , which his sculpt captured )
every "exposed" un armored body part existed to accentuate and emphasized the power and speed , which flowed right into their weapon arms and legs.
Original


New and "evolved" angry banshees in S&M attire. As most of the daemon fans say " sigh... we are getting aggravated ..." , "yes we are"