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.

now, don't get me wrong; I really don't care for the direction of GW. I'll have my own way of looking at it.

but it seems, there are situations where GW has become a little less out-there.

a good example, is in 'removing casualties' in the WHFB rules, it reads

'they're not necesarily dead; they may just have been seriously injured... though it is the same thing.' which kind of says they're trying to appeal to the whole no-death in games thing [such as in MW2 where cash is used instead of blood.] which has become a bigger thing as of late.

the other I've noticed, and this is just something brought to my attention, is the 'daemon coverup.' as I'll call it.

Slaneshi daemons used to have flailing boobs, but now they seem to wear clothes.

this points in the same direction, making the models a little less '''appealing''' [yes, I used triple quotes for emphasis] to the teenage mind. [If you've been to my GW, you might know what I'm on about.]

Boob daemons were kind of a realistic ideal of what we see the daemons as in game - ravenous, mindless [or semi-mindless] spawn attacking and hacking. why would they wear clothing? [Those nipples would've been hard to paint, I can see from that position ]

Anyone else notice this?

Well, you have to remember, when you break it down to the pure basics, Games Workshop is a toy company that wants to sell toys. Children are the largest consumers of toys. In order to market to children, you must make content that is not objectionable to their parents (well, not necessarily true, since the kids seem to love GTA...).

That's actually how they've always described it, depending on where you look.

And it makes sense. Casualties in combat aren't necessarily "killed". They're just no longer fit to fight.

They may have lost an arm, or been whacked upside the head with a mace and knocked out, etc.

About the casualties, I kind of like it. helps make me feel better about my warboss, or chaos lord when he loses all his wounds I can just say that he got hurt too much

Captain Solon wrote:'they're not necesarily dead; they may just have been seriously injured... though it is the same thing.' which kind of says they're trying to appeal to the whole no-death in games thing [such as in MW2 where cash is used instead of blood.] which has become a bigger thing as of late.

Quote from wiki: Casualty (person), a person who is killed or injured in a war or disaster

So basically someone unable to function or be a part of the war , they dont have to be actually dead.

Blitza da warboy wrote:About the casualties, I kind of like it. helps make me feel better about my warboss, or chaos lord when he loses all his wounds I can just say that he got hurt too much

My warboss never gets hurt too much. He just gets bored of all those weaklings trying to hurt him to no avail and walks off...

I'v ealways told people at my FLGS that casualties aren't neccessarily "deaths" (which all the younglings seem to think)

Obviously a Guardsmen hit by a meltagun is a goner, but one hit by Slugga might have a flesh wound.

Well, not a flesh wound. Thats a 3 on a 4+ roll to wound

Also keep in mind you're still in a apocalyptic future where Catholic Space Nazi's incinerate your entire family and homeworld if you're 5 minutes late to church.

It's only as PG as a galaxy full of grimdark and war allow it to be.

Jerk Post deleted by modquisiiton.

original post deleted so deleted the comment as unneeded now.

Uh yeah, as people have said GW has always had that blurb that wounded models aren't necessarily dead. This is to demonstrate the abstract nature of what is happening in the game, and to get away from the slightly ludicrous idea that one or both sides actually suffered 90% casualties in the fight.

Reading that and assuming it was somehow a new blurb of text, added to make it nice and non-violent for kids is ridiculous. It was added to give some semblance of plausibility, which would likely appeal to older fans, while kids would love the death and gore implied by wiping whole units off the field.

It's interesting to note how a narrative that people like the sound of, such as 'GW is kiddifying the game', begins to feed itself.

The first figs for Daemonettes had clothing on, more clothing than the current ones for that matter. It's not really an abrupt about face, just the ebb and flow over time.

Kanluwen wrote:And it makes sense. Casualties in combat aren't necessarily "killed". They're just no longer fit to fight.

I'm 100% with Kan on this one. That's the way they've been describing it for years.

Captain Solon wrote:
You realize catholic Nazi is redundant, right?

I'm sure this was supposed to be a joke, but if you could avoid comments like this, especially when attempting to discuss things with people you don't really know all that well, it'll make things much easier. Ta.

That's the way they've been describing it for years.

Indeed it is.

At least it's not like Pokemon:

"When you fail your save, your Space Marine passes out!"

I could be wrong here, but it's always seemed to me that the British and the Americans use the term "casualtiies" differently. In British usage, in the context I've seen it used, it refers to soldiers rendered combat-ineffective, either through injury or death. In American usage it always appears to refer to soldiers killed in after-action reports, although it can mean wounded, status uncertain during actual combat/before medical treatment.

To the OP: it makes a sense in a warfare perspective. It's one of the reasons the British army switched from 7.62 to 5.56 mm calibre rounds; because of the statistics on causing the maximum amount of damage to an opposing force.

One man killed = one man out of the fight.
One man shot in the arm = One man + 2 or 3 others to carry him off the field.

It is more effective to wound rather than to kill outright.

Oh I see that's why my Eldar disappear so quickly. It's not that they're killed it's just that one gets hurt and 3-4 others carry him to the medic (after all we're a dieing race we need to take as much care of the others as we can, not to mention their week little arms means they need more people to carry one person).

Thanks that makes me feel alot better now and clears up some questions.

Just read Codex: Dark Eldar, buddy.

"In the grim darkness of the future there is only war"

WARNING! May contain scenes of a graphic nature, violence, nuns with gunz, baldheaded screaming superhumans and flash photography.

Captain Solon wrote:...Slaneshi daemons used to have flailing boobs, but now they seem to wear clothes.

this points in the same direction, making the models a little less '''appealing''' [yes, I used triple quotes for emphasis] to the teenage mind. [If you've been to my GW, you might know what I'm on about.]

Boob daemons were kind of a realistic ideal...

Here's one of the ironies of our day, I don't think its just GW, and I think it's probably fair to say it's a little worse in the US than Europe, but generally:

It's ok to depict how people get destroyed, but depictions even suggesting how they get created is still sacrosanct for some reason.

Why it's ok to depict torture, oppression, grisly death and the demonic, but not, well, you know, is quite strange from a certain perspective.

I don't have kids, making it harder for me to understand, but I always thought that if GW games had the same rating as video games they would all be "M" anyway and require parental consent for purchase or buyers to be 18, this would make the issue of '''demon boobies''' moot, but without it, yea I suppose so, got to cover it up. Are the games for kids? Sure but IMO probably 18 year old ones (and 35 year old ones too I suppose).

On a related note, I think the current Demonettes look great, I do wish they'd redux the Greater demon version though, or at least make a female demon prince. I don't think they lost to much visually, just conceptually, the older demons, 80s/90s vintage were androgynous, and that was a very different flavor conceptually, the demonic creatures also had multiple breasts down only one side, and it was a repeating disturbing visual theme, I think those models have been gone for a long time.

Ermmm....GW have always listed casulaties that way. See Necromunda in particular, what with the injury chart.

Augustus wrote:http://www.solegends.com/citcat89/c890225chaosldemons-01.jpgthe older demons, 80s/90s vintage were androgynous, and that was a very different flavor conceptually, the demonic creatures also had multiple breasts down only one side, and it was a repeating disturbing visual theme, I think those models have been gone for a long time.

Boy these look really dated, I remember them as cooler:






(They all have the hermaphroditic single boob. Creepy)

As far as I know these were all the original designs and the first metals, largely dated as 1991. Yea I think it's safe to say they have PG rated the new stuff compared to this.

CREDIT: Images from Stuff of Legends: http://www.solegends.com/

The mount is kinda cool, eveything else...not a fan personally

I liked those older GD I would use them as a Herald or DP these days or bitz to mix in.

Aduro wrote:The first figs for Daemonettes had clothing on, more clothing than the current ones for that matter. It's not really an abrupt about face, just the ebb and flow over time.

I liked the old demonette designs and the 'flailing boobs' models really did nothing for me. They actually made me feel rather uncomfortable, and to me they didn't really look the way demonettes are described anyway. I love the new ones, though, and I'm glad they have gone back to the androgynous one-half male and one-half female look. I think it fits the army better overall (and I wish they would bring back the old minatur-style Keeper of Secrets too, actually... that thing was well creepy.)

Before the naked demonettes, GW had done very few, if any, Warhammer models that were actually fully topless or naked (as far as I know)- and the original demonettes were usually painted without nipples anyway, making the bare boob look... I dunno... not so boob-like. The game is aimed largely at anyone over the age of 10, so it makes no sense to have tons of naked people running about to offend parents- seeing as a lot of their money comes from parents, and not the kids themselves.


As for them tuning down the death and violence, I don't see that. The new Dark Eldar book is nasty as hell as far as torture and violence goes, and units like the Penitent Engine are not exactly for the faint hearted either. It's always been the way that sex offends more than violence, so I don't think GW will be tuning down the brutal beatings and skull-crushing any time soon, even if they have forced the demons to put their half-bras back on.

The line about casualties in WHFB to me is just practical- in warfare, an individual who is seriously injured is for all intents and purposes "removed" from the battle, just as someone who has been killed... they are no longer providing offensive support to the other side.

I don't think that line was included to make things PG, just to represent the fact that it doesn't mean all these models dropped dead on the spot- but they're for all intents and purposes out of the fight due to the severity of the damage / injury they've sustained.

And if you look at some of the artwork in the WHFB rulebook (the big hardcover one) you'll see that there's no strong move to PG (as far as violence goes, I'm not sure about nudity).

It is a game that includes a lot of kids, however, so it wouldn't bother me if GW were keeping that in mind, either.

I'm a big fan of the older Keeper of Secrets. The newer one just looks like some goth kid whose parents don't give a damn.

djones520 wrote:I'm a big fan of the older Keeper of Secrets. The newer one just looks like some goth kid whose parents don't give a damn.

Slightly OT: At our local store we call it the goat-goth of Slaanesh. Or Squidface Failpants, depending on which head you put on it.