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.

I've been following the release of Wrath and Rapture, and while I think the new harp playing herald is spectacular, I have noticed GW's reluctance to place this miniature front and center in it's previews, as if it is being cautious with the imagery of Slaanesh. It was mentioned, but not shown in the pre-order piece (although it can be seen clearly in the actual image header to the article), and in today's new piece they show Karanak (again), plus the fiends (again), but the herald is only shown in a distant shot and not really shown as an individual piece. Not sure what this will mean for a new KoS and how much risk they are willing to take.

I think that reasoning falls flat, when you consider that they've shown frontal nudity on a model, in quite the close-up.

Redesigned Fiends of Slaanesh are front and center, in pictures all on their own and they have not one, but four pairs of naked breasts out in the open. If that's not Slaanesh imagery, I don't know what is.

However, I will concede that it's strange how they didn't show close-ups of an entirely new model and unit, that's the HQ of a battle force. And that's purely from a marketing standpoint that I find it strange

Because GW marketing still thinks 12 year olds somehow have £400 to drop on 5 pence of plastic. Their current business model is to make little Timmy spend his mummy's money and then quit after 3 weeks. And for some reason gore and violence are acceptable but nipples are verboten.

 Thadin wrote:
I think that reasoning falls flat, when you consider that they've shown frontal nudity on a model, in quite the close-up.

Redesigned Fiends of Slaanesh are front and center, in pictures all on their own and they have not one, but four pairs of naked breasts out in the open. If that's not Slaanesh imagery, I don't know what is.

However, I will concede that it's strange how they didn't show close-ups of an entirely new model and unit, that's the HQ of a battle force. And that's purely from a marketing standpoint that I find it strange

I'm not sure the boob thing really is that offensive, especially when it's on a beast......might as well just be a set of udders. The new herald has a far more twisted appeal to it, and that is what I'm referring to. It's basically the epitome of Slaanesh really, and it feels that GW is a little gunshy to really push it front and center. I will be curious to see how the rest of the line is released.

I'm still in shock that the forces of She Who Thirsts are going to be headlining a big box release. I can't imagine anyone saw that coming.

Seeing as when AoS launched it seemed perfectly plausible that they might squat Slaanesh in all but name I think they're doing just fine.

Yeah, I could see it in that way, that it's less 'offensive' since it's beast. However, I don't really see it as GW being shy about showing Slaanesh. Because, as BCB put it, I don't think mommy would buy little Timmy a board game that had figures with nipples showing.

To me, it's just so strange that they didn't show it in detail. A new, unique model that's likely to be a selling-point of the box, that's not shown as the center-piece that it is. To me, that's a marketing mistake and not purposefully hiding slaanesh imagery.

Makes one miss the days when chaos books had explicit content warnings on the cover

What I wanna know is why we see a lot of breasts with slannesh, but never any dicks. I mean, this is slannesh!

 Sir Heckington wrote:
What I wanna know is why we see a lot of breasts with slannesh, but never any dicks. I mean, this is slannesh!

For the same reason you don't see vaginas.

 Galas wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:
What I wanna know is why we see a lot of breasts with slannesh, but never any dicks. I mean, this is slannesh!

For the same reason you don't see vaginas.

I love the idea that selling bloated puss balls that probably have more diseases than we know exist is somehow worse than... a natural part of the human body.

Even if it's not front and center, it's still a model using a human's innards as a musical instrument. It's disturbingly awesome on multiple levels. I don't feel for an instant that they're shying away from Slaanesh; merely building up to the big explosion of excess!

It's probably because they are saving it for Thursday - you know spreading out the news so that it lasts all week, esp since its the most new item in the box and not just a resculpt

If GW were cautious they wouldn't make it at all. It's not ilke they can "hide it"

I really hate the widespread view that Slaanesh = sex. There is such a wide range of things that a god of excess could cover but people fixate on one tiny bit of it. It happens with all the gods to some extent, like Khorne = blood, but Slaanesh gets pidgeon-holed to an extreme degree. I guess it is just having something a bit rude is titillating to some people, and they fixate on it.

It is nice to see Slaanesh hasn't been squatted. I was afraid of that too when I saw the Sigmar fluff. Hopefully they have some good writers for this new release, which can add some depth to that area of lore.

 Trickstick wrote:
I really hate the widespread view that Slaanesh = sex. There is such a wide range of things that a god of excess could cover but people fixate on one tiny bit of it. It happens with all the gods to some extent, like Khorne = blood, but Slaanesh gets pidgeon-holed to an extreme degree. I guess it is just having something a bit rude is titillating to some people, and they fixate on it.

It is nice to see Slaanesh hasn't been squatted. I was afraid of that too when I saw the Sigmar fluff. Hopefully they have some good writers for this new release, which can add some depth to that area of lore.

The problem is how to reflect excess in miniatures. The Harpist is a good start at getting towards music, but what then? We already have Noise Marines. Should we have Music Daemons as well?

-Portray an excess of violence, now you're Khorne.
-Portray an excess of food/gluttony, now you're Nurgle.

What other excesses can be physically represented on a piece of plastic other than sexuality?

Zarakynel has sculpted genitals, FWIW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Slaaneshi excess manifests as kink, not sex.

Vastly different things.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What other excesses can be physically represented on a piece of plastic other than sexuality?

Pride and artistry come to mind. Or blissful indolency. Wealth and temptation.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What other excesses can be physically represented on a piece of plastic other than sexuality?

Pride and artistry come to mind. Or blissful indolency. Wealth and temptation.

How do you physically reflect those, though? What would the models look like while still being diverse?

A model with a paintbrush, perhaps? That's like this harpist, a one-use thing before it just becomes silly (Here's my daemonette unit, the Infernal Artists, who stab people with pens!). A pile of gold as a base? Sure, but again, maybe for one model. Basing the entire army and having gold underneath them is cool, but what stands atop them? Sexy daemonettes...

My question isn't "what other than sex is slaanesh" but "what other than sex is slaanesh that you can make convincing, unconfusing, and alluring models out of?

 Trickstick wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What other excesses can be physically represented on a piece of plastic other than sexuality?

Pride and artistry come to mind. Or blissful indolency. Wealth and temptation.

It has to be excess that fits within the context of a wargame. Excess violence and you have Khorne. The excess sexuality of slaanesh works as it distracts the enemy long enough that they lower their guard and get killed. Other forms of excess are fine in the fluff, but don't translate as well onto the gaming table.

Now I'm imagining a daemon with a flayed person as a canvas...

I'll admit that carnality is the easiest of Slaanesh's six temptations to represent, but there has to be a way to not have it be the sole focus. Greed may be possible, with tempting treasures and such.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What other excesses can be physically represented on a piece of plastic other than sexuality?

Pride and artistry come to mind. Or blissful indolency. Wealth and temptation.

How do you physically reflect those, though? What would the models look like while still being diverse?

A model with a paintbrush, perhaps? That's like this harpist, a one-use thing before it just becomes silly (Here's my daemonette unit, the Infernal Artists, who stab people with pens!). A pile of gold as a base? Sure, but again, maybe for one model. Basing the entire army and having gold underneath them is cool, but what stands atop them? Sexy daemonettes...

My question isn't "what other than sex is slaanesh" but "what other than sex is slaanesh that you can make convincing, unconfusing, and alluring models out of?

One of my favorite models that have come out of slaanesh is Sigvald the Magnificent, showing off the idea of Pride.
I would love to see more of that angle get looked at by GW, and not as just a one-off model. I just find the "Sex, Drugs, Rock and Roll" side of slaanesh utterly boring at this point, with the few bright spots being the new Harpist and the new Noise Marines. Otherwise, they are just a boring army.

 Trickstick wrote:
Now I'm imagining a daemon with a flayed person as a canvas...

I'll admit that carnality is the easiest of Slaanesh's six temptations to represent, but there has to be a way to not have it be the sole focus. Greed may be possible, with tempting treasures and such.

Greed is already present in the rules, at least for AOS, with rules that let you make an opponent's Artefacts (i.e. relics) actively harm them, or the "Whispered Temptations" rule on a Keeper of Secrets that gives an enemy hero a bonus, but if they accept the bonus there is a good chance they will be immediately slain and have their soul devoured.

And yeah, singularly, things like an artist here and there, or a harpist, or whatever, can be reflected. But the entire army basically has to be about sex, because it'd be ridiculous to sculpt huge numbers of minis for the other temptations. They'd just look silly.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because GW marketing still thinks 12 year olds somehow have £400 to drop on 5 pence of plastic. Their current business model is to make little Timmy spend his mummy's money and then quit after 3 weeks. And for some reason gore and violence are acceptable but nipples are verboten.

 Sir Heckington wrote:
I love the idea that selling bloated puss balls that probably have more diseases than we know exist is somehow worse than... a natural part of the human body.

This has always puzzled me. It is especially bad in the United States where violence is extremely culturally acceptable, but sexuality is not. I used to work at a video game retail store and this scenario would happen all the time:

-Mother comes into store with 12 year old little Timmy,
-Little Timmy picks out M rated game (In America, M rated games are for 17 year olds+)
-Mother comes up to register to buy game
-I would say: "Ma'am, I am legally required to notify you that you are buying an M rated game for someone who is under the age of 17. This game contain realistic depictions of violence such as decapitation, torture, and cannibalism..."
-Mother would cut me off saying: "Oh yes I know, that is okay, my little Timmy is mature enough to handle that."
-I would finish: "...and certain scenes depicting nudity."
-Mother would completely change her tack, stare angrily at little Timmy and declare: "And just what kind of game are you trying to get me to buy you!"
-Mother would force little Timmy to pick another more violent game with no nudity in it.

I always used to think this was because Americans were prudes with hangups around sex that were cultural holdovers from our puritan roots as a country, but apparently this is a thing in Europe as well?

 AUGmaniac wrote:
One of my favorite models that have come out of slaanesh is Sigvald the Magnificent, showing off the idea of Pride.
I would love to see more of that angle get looked at by GW, and not as just a one-off model. I just find the "Sex, Drugs, Rock and Roll" side of slaanesh utterly boring at this point, with the few bright spots being the new Harpist and the new Noise Marines. Otherwise, they are just a boring army.

LOL.

I have a friend that uses the Sigvald model as a Hexblade Warlock in our 5th ed. D&D game. I have never associated that specific model as being prideful or whatever. Looks like a fairly generic fighty guy with a sword, shield, and snake familiar.

How many models do you need?

I mean if you had the harpist, a painter and a sculptor that would be 3 heralds. Could you somehow do a poet too? I'm not sure how you would express that as a mini.

Is there a 40k named keeper secrets? Then another 2/3 variants? But that's probably just gear. Whip variant. Sword variant. Veiled and non-veiled versions.

Tyel wrote:
I mean if you had the harpist, a painter and a sculptor that would be 3 heralds. Could you somehow do a poet too? I'm not sure how you would express that as a mini.

The idea of a "Court of Patronage" sounds really awesome. Harpist, flay-painter, someone sculpting living flesh etc...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What other excesses can be physically represented on a piece of plastic other than sexuality?

Pride and artistry come to mind. Or blissful indolency. Wealth and temptation.

How do you physically reflect those, though? What would the models look like while still being diverse?

A model with a paintbrush, perhaps? That's like this harpist, a one-use thing before it just becomes silly (Here's my daemonette unit, the Infernal Artists, who stab people with pens!). A pile of gold as a base? Sure, but again, maybe for one model. Basing the entire army and having gold underneath them is cool, but what stands atop them? Sexy daemonettes...

My question isn't "what other than sex is slaanesh" but "what other than sex is slaanesh that you can make convincing, unconfusing, and alluring models out of?

I had the idea of Slaaneshi demons looking like 18th century aristocrats, in fancy and graceful outfits, which is juxtaposed by something grotesque. Like, one of them is playing a gilded violin that's made from some guy's ribcage, another one has a wine glass full of blood with someone's eyeball in it.
Basically anything written by Marquis de Sade, but toned down for a general audience.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I had the idea of Slaaneshi demons looking like 18th century aristocrats, in fancy and graceful outfits, which is juxtaposed by something grotesque. Like, one of them is playing a gilded violin that's made from some guy's ribcage, another one has a wine glass full of blood with someone's eyeball in it.
Basically anything written by Marquis de Sade, but toned down for a general audience.

You're on the right track, but I'm not sure an entire army of this would work. How many different iterations of this style of model can you think of, and then remember, you have to have ~90 daemonettes (at least in my army) that are all recognizably uniform but also aspects of the God of Excess.

I've noticed this too, and completely agree there's absolutely no way it isn't being avoided on purpose - the articles in question were explicitly focused on previewing "what's new in the box" and "chat with the designers about the new models".

In both cases, the hounds and fiends were shown in detail, because obviously that's what the topics call for.
Yet in both cases, the harp is clearly mentioned in text but either wasn't shown at all (in the preview article), or only in the distant background of a wide shot showing a crowd of models (in the design article, presumably because it would make even less sense here not to have it appear in some form).

Even if we can't agree why, it's very obviously a conscious choice being made by GW to shy away from showing it in promos.
There's been absolutely no other time in at least the previous year (which is about how long i've been seriously following the community site) of GW preview articles where a new figure release hasn't been accompanied by focused imagery (and naturally, since that's just what any business would do for a new product).

 Sentionaut wrote:
Even if we can't agree why, it's very obviously a conscious choice being made by GW to shy away from showing it in promos.

It's a bit odd, as I think it is one of the best models they have made in a while. I guess they just don't want it all over their website, where a parent could be shocked at an over-the-shoulder glance. Whereas a monster could be dismissed as just a monster.

 ashcroft wrote:
I'm still in shock that the forces of She Who Thirsts are going to be headlining a big box release. I can't imagine anyone saw that coming.

Seeing as when AoS launched it seemed perfectly plausible that they might squat Slaanesh in all but name I think they're doing just fine.

Anyone who paid any damn bit of attention to Age of Sigmar from its launch onwards saw this coming and knew it was only a matter of time. The "squat" treatment was never in the cards despite what clickbait sites would have you believe.

FFS, people tried to argue that Archaon not having a Keeper of Secrets head for his mount was "a sign!"...while ignoring that the fluff was that each of the Chaos Gods sent a Champion to fight Archaon and test him, and since Slaanesh couldn't exert its power? It couldn't send a Champion.

But that didn't stop a Slaaneshi rune from being on Archaon's shield. But noooooooooooooooooo..."squatting Slaanesh! squatting Slaanesh!" kept resonating with clickbait zombies.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

How do you physically reflect those, though? What would the models look like while still being diverse?

A model with a paintbrush, perhaps? That's like this harpist, a one-use thing before it just becomes silly (Here's my daemonette unit, the Infernal Artists, who stab people with pens!). A pile of gold as a base? Sure, but again, maybe for one model. Basing the entire army and having gold underneath them is cool, but what stands atop them? Sexy daemonettes...

My question isn't "what other than sex is slaanesh" but "what other than sex is slaanesh that you can make convincing, unconfusing, and alluring models out of?

Sigvald is a good example of this. Posing plays a part of it, as does the armor and equipment.