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.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Where are the beefcake demons of Slaanesh for the female and gay male players?

Those players are free to go snog a Bloodletter.

 harlokin wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

ccs wrote:
$$.
It's simple. They're selling to the majority.

Then the current sculpts are fine and people should stop complaining. Model and print your own if you want a different look.

This is a forum for discussing the 40K hobby, and some people on it don't like the current sculpt and wish to talk/complain about that.

Why should that be a less appopriate topic than other people whining for 30 pages that their MUHREENS aren't super-special enough?

We have grown ass men complaining that they can't fatasize over how hot their plastic toys are... They don't deserve my respect.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

ccs wrote:
$$.
It's simple. They're selling to the majority.

Then the current sculpts are fine and people should stop complaining. Model and print your own if you want a different look.

This is a forum for discussing the 40K hobby, and some people on it don't like the current sculpt and wish to talk/complain about that.

Why should that be a less appopriate topic than other people whining for 30 pages that their MUHREENS aren't super-special enough?

We have grown ass men complaining that they can't fatasize over how hot their plastic toys are... They don't deserve my respect.

I can't comment on the fantasising, but the aesthetics of the models can be a very important aspect of the hobby for people. I play Drukhari, in part, because I really love the sculpts, and I probably wouldn't be if they still had the older (pre 5th? edition) designs.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

ccs wrote:
$$.
It's simple. They're selling to the majority.

Then the current sculpts are fine and people should stop complaining. Model and print your own if you want a different look.

This is a forum for discussing the 40K hobby, and some people on it don't like the current sculpt and wish to talk/complain about that.

Why should that be a less appopriate topic than other people whining for 30 pages that their MUHREENS aren't super-special enough?

We have grown ass men complaining that they can't fatasize over how hot their plastic toys are... They don't deserve my respect.

Says the guy who asked about the lack of models catering to niche/minority tastes....

 harlokin wrote:
I can't comment on the fantasising, but the aesthetics of the models can be a very important aspect of the hobby for people. I play Drukhari, in part, because I really love the sculpts, and I probably wouldn't be if they still had the older (pre 5th? edition) designs.

They're also 100% subjective. Which is what I was getting at when I asked about sculpts for Slaaneshi units that don't cater to the hetero male gaze.

Give me models that look like something from Magic Mike, a leather bar, the lesbian float at a pride rally, covered in cake, popping a balloon. Show off how these demons play to the desires of all who look at them, not just the assumed fatty nerds they're currently marketed to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
Says the guy who asked about the lack of models catering to niche/minority tastes....

I said it in response to post about how 'the boobies aren't big enough' and posters calling the new Jan Zar scupt a hermaphrodite because she doesn't look like Pam Anderson. Context matters.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
I can't comment on the fantasising, but the aesthetics of the models can be a very important aspect of the hobby for people. I play Drukhari, in part, because I really love the sculpts, and I probably wouldn't be if they still had the older (pre 5th? edition) designs.

They're also 100% subjective. Which is what I was getting at when I asked about sculpts for Slaaneshi units that don't cater to the hetero male gaze.

Give me models that look like something from Magic Mike, a leather bar, the lesbian float at a pride rally, covered in cake, popping a balloon. Show off how these demons play to the desires of all who look at them, not just the assumed fatty nerds they're currently marketed to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
Says the guy who asked about the lack of models catering to niche/minority tastes....

I said it in response to post about how 'the boobies aren't big enough' and posters calling the new Jan Zar scupt a hermaphrodite because she doesn't look like Pam Anderson. Context matters.

So you want to throw out the entire aesthetic tradition of an entire model range that has existed for decades? Daemonettes have had variations but they've traditionally been hermaphroditic monsters, pretty far from attractive to anyone, "fatty nerds" or otherwise. Nice bit of generalising and tar brushing btw, very progressive!
Who complained she didn't look enough like Pamela Anderson? Certainly not me, I was referring to the sculpt looking like it might have been redesigned with the Yncarne in mind. I did say however that I thought she looked too human and if anything too curvaceous, Elves traditionally being more svelte.

 kingheff wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 harlokin wrote:
I can't comment on the fantasising, but the aesthetics of the models can be a very important aspect of the hobby for people. I play Drukhari, in part, because I really love the sculpts, and I probably wouldn't be if they still had the older (pre 5th? edition) designs.

They're also 100% subjective. Which is what I was getting at when I asked about sculpts for Slaaneshi units that don't cater to the hetero male gaze.

Give me models that look like something from Magic Mike, a leather bar, the lesbian float at a pride rally, covered in cake, popping a balloon. Show off how these demons play to the desires of all who look at them, not just the assumed fatty nerds they're currently marketed to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
Says the guy who asked about the lack of models catering to niche/minority tastes....

I said it in response to post about how 'the boobies aren't big enough' and posters calling the new Jan Zar scupt a hermaphrodite because she doesn't look like Pam Anderson. Context matters.

So you want to throw out the entire aesthetic tradition of an entire model range that has existed for decades? Daemonettes have had variations but they've traditionally been hermaphroditic monsters, pretty far from attractive to anyone, "fatty nerds" or otherwise. Nice bit of generalising and tar brushing btw, very progressive!
Who complained she didn't look enough like Pamela Anderson? Certainly not me, I was referring to the sculpt looking like it might have been redesigned with the Yncarne in mind. I did say however that I thought she looked too human and if anything too curvaceous, Elves traditionally being more svelte.

Look at Vipoids post about old versus new demonette models and the discussion around that. Also, tradition can be a blessing or a burden depending on how it is used. In this case I can see an argument for showing Slaanesh models as their victim would see them and designing sculpts that show them catering to more than a single desire.

Your own posted suggested a hermaphroditic aspect because the changed the model to look how a person with breasts would look going into battle and then you moved on to complaining that her thighs were thicker than you'd like for an Eldar... The new model looks built like a woman who fights while still having a distinct Eldar look that's recognizable from across the table.

I really don't get why you even created this thread at all.

My original post made no judgement as to her appearance, more a fluff related post if anything. Even then I acknowledged that I could be reading too much in to it. I specifically asked if anyone saw what I thought I might be seeing, some did, some didn't.
I then noted, after staring at the model for literally hours while painting it, that she had lost some of the eldar look. No other eldar model has a figure like hers, unless I missed some. Even the other new banshees in the box set have typical eldar legs and bums.

We don't seem to get threads dissecting the physical appearance of male models, how big their codpieces should be or whether their jaws are wide enough.

It's just the same old discussion about how women should look to satisfy a specific demographic.

Banshee thighs too thick, repentia not Barbie doll curvacious enough etc etc.

If prince yriel and a catachan are both acceptably male, then it should be just as easy to accept some body variation in female models.

The end.

No idea why this keeps being rehashed as some kind of sexist thing, maybe it's the daemonette tangent from earlier.
Let me restate it again, it's an aeldari thing not a gender thing.
If asurman got resculpted, I can but dream, in a way that made him as burly as a space marine it would be equally jarring.
I'll say it again, I really like the model but it has become more human looking in some regards.

Hellebore wrote:
We don't seem to get threads dissecting the physical appearance of male models, how big their codpieces should be or whether their jaws are wide enough.

It's just the same old discussion about how women should look to satisfy a specific demographic.

Banshee thighs too thick, repentia not Barbie doll curvacious enough etc etc.

If prince yriel and a catachan are both acceptably male, then it should be just as easy to accept some body variation in female models.

The end.

I think you have missed the time, when Imperial Fist got their hero or the Raven Guard had to learn how to put a helmet on to theirs and remove it from his hip.

Hellebore wrote:
We don't seem to get threads dissecting the physical appearance of male models, how big their codpieces should be or whether their jaws are wide enough.

Feel free to start one if it bothers you.

Hellebore wrote:

It's just the same old discussion about how women should look to satisfy a specific demographic.

You realise that making female (or female-looking) models as ugly as possible is also done to satisfy a specific demographic, right?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
We have grown ass men complaining that they can't fatasize over how hot their plastic toys are... They don't deserve my respect.

 Geifer wrote:
Worth considering that 40k is presented with a human centric perspective. It makes sense that if something is supposed to be alluring, it would be presented in a way that allures to a human. Not an Ork or Tau. Similar to how blood is red for Khorne. Why? Humans have red blood.

Remember that the recipient is a human looking at plastic models, not some in universe character that may not even be familiar with human anatomy.

Interestingly enough I think GW took their elves, who don't use magic to veil their true forms and whose shapes can pretty much objectively judged, a lot more in the direction of human anatomy. The first instance of this that I can think of is the Dark Eldar remake with their heavily muscled arms. I think Jain Zar is the latest example of this. GW elves aren't lithe anymore and look a lot more like humans with pointy ears.

I get the impression GW's designers don't get enough oversight from an IP manager. This is possibly not true and they may work in more bogus ways than I can imagine, but I like to give them the benefit of the doubt and think their designers just get carried away with their passions, even if the resulting model isn't as good as it could be.

 Overread wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The plastic daemonettes are ugly thats true but not because of their faces but because the "agile" small demons have the most static poses. Even MORE static than plaguebearers I mean WTF.

I don't like old daemonettes. I don't think warhammer and warhammer demons are the kind of cute succubi kawai desunee anime trope demons. If theres a setting were the daemons of lust should look horrible it is warhammer.
Thats why I love Fiends of Slaanesh. They are the best representation of what slaanesh body horror should be in warhammer.

In fairness they were made in an age when rank and file mostly dictated that sculpts be fairly bland in poses. Although I think it was a skill and design choice in equal parts because near the end of Old World we did get units like Witch Aelves which have very fancy poses and yet were made for rank and file. You can see similar stances in things like dryads and khorne demons. I'm sure if GW were to re-do Deamonettes now they'd be far more lithe and active (and we'd likely all be complaining about them all balancing on the thinnest bit of plastic ever). That said at least one boon of the current kit is they all interchange with the seeker and chariot kits. You can swap heads, arms, stances all around between them as you like for variety. Based on that I'd expect a re-do of the deaomettes would mean redoing the trio of chariot, seeker and deamonette - which is a big block of models to update all at once.

I don't think it's design choice at all. I agree with Galas that the biggest issue with the plastic Daemonettes, both mounted and on foot, is the poses. I do not see how the Seekers, possibly the fastest, most agile and graceful cavalry in Warhammer, is represented in a more static way than the old Empire Knights from 25 years ago.

At the time GW said the Daemonettes were supposed to be "dancing". I don't see it, and I think it's hard to do outside of single characters. The Masque is a much better effort at it, but at a squad level you'd have to have pretty impressive grasp of how to translate dance moves into static models. Which, unsurprisingly, I don't think GW had at the time. Like, at all.

Ranking up for Fantasy is an excuse that GW has disproved themselves. Both with "I'm so wide I'm always flanked by the same purpose built guys" Chaos Knights and the "Look at my masonry! Look at it!" Witch Elves. There were no technical limitations that forced Daemonettes into the poses they got. Nor Seekers. More likely just a lack of designers interested in doing Slaaneshi models.

I'm sorry, when were GW's dark eldar lithe instead of muscular? you talking about THESE chonky lads by any chance?

 kingheff wrote:
My original post made no judgement as to her appearance, more a fluff related post if anything. Even then I acknowledged that I could be reading too much in to it. I specifically asked if anyone saw what I thought I might be seeing, some did, some didn't.
I then noted, after staring at the model for literally hours while painting it, that she had lost some of the eldar look. No other eldar model has a figure like hers, unless I missed some. Even the other new banshees in the box set have typical eldar legs and bums.

Because GW was so good at scaling Eldar before to look lithe and skinny, amirite

I painted my copy of this old farseer with a blue star robe because he reminded me so much of Mickey Mouse wearing the wizard hat in fantasia. Old Eldar stuff is scaled like other miniature games scale their gnomes - 90% head unless they've got MASSIVE JACKED TORSOS and weirdly corset-esque waists.

Wrong witches is these witches he means.



Which were made before the end of the Old World and can rank and file up.




On the subject of skinny eldar though - the old Falon and Viper Pilots are almost identical to humans barring tiny hints of pointed ears. Otherwise proportion wise they are not any more lithe than a guardsman.

 Overread wrote:
Wrong witches is these witches he means.

Which were made before the end of the Old World and can rank and file up.

"Dark Eldar remake with their heavily muscled arms."

pm713 wrote:
I don't know about that. A big gun saying "hey there. I'm really noisy and make a lot of cool flashes. Come and use me!" seems like a pretty seductive offer to an Ork.

Hold on, hold on.

I'm not getting involved with the argument.

i just want to say that i have a new army project, and it's daemonettes as giant walking guns.

Wow, there are some real beauties in the back catalogue!

I think that is a more accurate image of a typical eldar physique than those frankenstein's monsters!

 kingheff wrote:
Wow, there are some real beauties in the back catalogue!

(Insert link to the Xenology Eldar autopsy here...can't get it to work on my phone.)

I think that is a more accurate image of a typical eldar physique than those frankenstein's monsters!

I'm a bit of a connoisseur of terrible old eldar stuff, mostly because I find all of it so absolutely hilarious. My personal favorites are the original dark reapers with the fantastic rocket hats and skeletor grins, and the second model range they made of eldar harlequins (after they moved past the "jumping jack" poses that the original sets had). The second iteration of banshees are also just excellent, where they had headdresses the size of the rest of the entire model and the big fat banana/pool noodle swords.

Even when it comes to the comparatively much more restrained plastic guardians, I am...juuust not seeing where people are getting that they're some super-skinny lithe models. Just for starters the fact that they've got absolutely jacked-up chests and abs and an armor design that includes gigantic shoulder...um...vents? If you put them next to cadians, sure, they look less stubby because they don't have the absolute tree-trunk legs that GW thought humans looked like back in 3rd ed, but one of the major things that kept me from collecting an eldar army was how bizarrely clunky these dudes looked. These are the lithe agile speedsters? The ones with the weird cone heads and the giant shoulderpads?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kingheff wrote:
Wow, there are some real beauties in the back catalogue!

I think that is a more accurate image of a typical eldar physique than those frankenstein's monsters!

I mean, you can say that, but the fact remains that if you're looking at the eldar model range as a whole, no eldar barring maybe the old 3rd ed haemonculus has had anywhere near those kinds of proportions, and there is NO universe in which the plastic 5th ed Dark Eldar remake made them MORE chunky and muscular. That remake made the models either far more slender (in the case of things like wyches, beastmasters, hellions, etc) or made them about the same but with smaller heads in proportion to their bodies, in the case of incubi and warriors.

Unless we're talking Grotesques? I'm guessing the guy wasn't originally talking about grotesques, and was more talking out his butt :/

Don't get me wrong, I know nothing from the eldar ranges has ever captured that level of litheness. I don't think the medium of inch tall plastic figures will ever capture the fluff fully but I still think Jain zar has got an arse that too closely resembles a beach volleyball player for my liking, I mean I like beach volleyball players arses just fine but not on my ancient warriors.

 vipoid wrote:

Hellebore wrote:
We don't seem to get threads dissecting the physical appearance of male models, how big their codpieces should be or whether their jaws are wide enough.

Feel free to start one if it bothers you.

That's entirely my point, no one does because no one cares. It's only when the sexiness quotient of a woman comes up that suddenly every nerd is an aesthete that absolutely has to tell you what a woman should look like.

Which leads into...

 vipoid wrote:

You realise that making female (or female-looking) models as ugly as possible is also done to satisfy a specific demographic, right?

No because you are taking your definition of 'as ugly as possible' as a truth, which it is not, making your argument fallacious.

People have a wide range of body shapes and types, yet when it comes to these discussions only do the female models have their measurements scrutinized and gatekeeped to the pathological level seen in the warhammer community.

The closest equivalent for male models was when people made fun of Shrike's emo haircut, but no one complained his codpiece was too big, or his shoulders weren't wide enough. Even when a person is literally an object, a male miniature doesn't garner the amount of objectification female models do on the daily.

And it always comes back to people's need to define what a women's arse, boobs, or thighs is acceptable... because anything else is 'ugly'.


I find it remarkable women even managed to get into this hobby with the sheer amount clinical objectification of their bodyparts whenever a model that represents their gender appears...

Hellebore wrote:

That's entirely my point, no one does because no one cares.

Phew. Glad we cleared that up. What was your point again?

Hellebore wrote:
. It's only when the sexiness quotient of a woman comes up that suddenly every nerd is an aesthete that absolutely has to tell you what a woman should look like.

You say that but I've actually seen plenty of people (myself included) talk about, for example, the horrendously proportioned and potato-faced guardsmen models.

Hellebore wrote:

No because you are taking your definition of 'as ugly as possible' as a truth, which it is not, making your argument fallacious.

I'm taking it to be true because it is true. I'm not even sure how you'd argue otherwise. They are obviously ugly, so I can't see how you'd object to that. And GW is clearly capable of making female models that look nice (or at least not hideously ugly), so one would also assume that Daemonettes are ugly by design. What were you objecting to again?

Hellebore wrote:

People have a wide range of body shapes and types, yet when it comes to these discussions only do the female models have their measurements scrutinized and gatekeeped to the pathological level seen in the warhammer community.

Also, I see Mr. Nauance has regrettably gotten lost once again. To reiterate, the only female models I have questioned the design of are the ones representing lust daemons that are specifically supposed to be attractive to males. It seems strange, therefore, that they barely even resemble females, let alone beautiful humans or Eldar. You can argue that they do this with illusion or enchantment, but it still seems logical to at least depict some of the models with their enchantments active (so we'd see some of the unit as humans or Eldar see them and others as the ugly creatures they really are). Having the entire unit be ugly and unattractive doesn't really bring across the whole 'lust/succubus' aspect.

Hellebore wrote:

The closest equivalent for male models was when people made fun of Shrike's emo haircut, but no one complained his codpiece was too big, or his shoulders weren't wide enough. Even when a person is literally an object, a male miniature doesn't garner the amount of objectification female models do on the daily.

What is even your point here? That people are only allowed to question the purpose of having lust-demons (ones specifically designed to attract males to their doom) be as ugly and unappealing as possible if they also randomly question the size of a male model's codpiece?

Hellebore wrote:

And it always comes back to people's need to define what a women's arse, boobs, or thighs is acceptable... because anything else is 'ugly'.

What.

That sentence doesn't even make sense.

It also shows that you didn't even bother reading my posts (though for some reason that didn't stop you taking offence at them), because my main complaint was with their faces. The only comment I made about their boobs was that I didn't see the point of them having only 1 each. I made no comment on them having (to use your own bizarre language) unacceptable asses or thighs.

Hellebore wrote:

I find it remarkable women even managed to get into this hobby with the sheer amount clinical objectification of their bodyparts whenever a model that represents their gender appears...

How fortunate that you're here to defend women with the soft bigotry of low expectations and by declaring any celebration of the female form to be "objectification".

Incidentally, I love how you have repeatedly spoken about Daemonettes in your post as literal women. So apparently you see no difference between Daemonettes - literal lust daemons - and actual women. Frankly, the accusations you've made in this thread are completely overshadowed by your own misogyny (not to mention misandry) and general bigotry.

I wonder why Warhammer players have a reputation for being weird.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Wrong witches is these witches he means.

Which were made before the end of the Old World and can rank and file up.

"Dark Eldar remake with their heavily muscled arms."

Please go back a sentence to where i established that I was talking about GW elves, in general. Not just elves in space, not just the dark variety.

To elaborate, you could probably justify any crime against nature by contrasting it to the first Dark Eldar range. It was bad at the time of release and didn't get any better with age. The plastic remake, and yes, it was a remake, not just an update, was something I saw as a chance to rectify things and give Eldar a better look. GW certainly achieved this gloriously in stylistic terms. The range has cohesion, a distinct and fitting design style. I think in terms of the models they got, they got it real good. When I criticize Dark Eldar it's for one specific thing: GW didn't change the background (which is a good thing) and now just like half a century ago space elves are lean and lithe and lanky and none of that is represented in the models. That's a fact. Saying the new Wyches are better than the old ones is correct, but not relevant to that point because they are still heavily muscled when that's just not how GW used to describe elves of any variety (Haemonculi experiments aside).

I'd point to the last metal Witch Elves, or some of the Wood Elf range that shows elven physique as described in the background (and seen in artwork) better. I can acknowledge that that is in part because Fantasy got a different treatment than 40k and lagged behind in plastic kits in such a way 40k transitioned to chunkier plastic models sooner, on a larger scale, and so there's a bit of a divide between Fantasy elves and 40k Eldar. Still, as we can clearly see these days, the Fantasy side isn't immune to having jacked up elves either.

Which leads me to...

 kingheff wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I know nothing from the eldar ranges has ever captured that level of litheness. I don't think the medium of inch tall plastic figures will ever capture the fluff fully but I still think Jain zar has got an arse that too closely resembles a beach volleyball player for my liking, I mean I like beach volleyball players arses just fine but not on my ancient warriors.

It's not the medium that's at fault here but GW's (evolving) sculpting style. Other companies manage to make slim models in plastic just fine.

The reason I highlighted plastic Wyches is that they were designed in that blissful time before Age of Sigmar became a thing (and therefore fall into a time where I could have believed that models could become more realistically sculpted (or in case of fantastic beings, more to their background descriptions). There was a time I would call the game Age of Super Buff Dudes because is was months and months of roided up Sigmarines versus roided up Khornates, where the only saving grace was Sigmarines being so completely clad in armor that unlike on the Khornates you couldn't see that their muscles had muscles. Given this stylistic choice, it was inevitable (if somewhat sad to see) that even the elves in this new setting looked super buff. People I talked to in person that reacted to the release of Deepkin said two things the most: WTF at flying fishes and boy do they look jacked up for elves.

I'd be fine with that if it was contained to Age of Sigmar, because again, not knocking the game here, it's important that it has a distinct visual style to make the game's models its own rather than knockoffs of Old World stuff. It's important for the game's identity. However, it's not contained to Age of Sigmar and very much turned out to be GW's current house style. There's a bright side to it, of course. GW did look into more realistic human proportions with Sigmarines and that got extended to Primaris that, even if you don't like the armor styles, at least gives us Marines that look like there's someone with human anatomy under all that armor. Usually.

The not so bright side is that creatures that are supposed to be slimmer, like elves (in space), suffer from having to fit with the aesthetics and styles of the setting (for a unified appearance, to strengthen the game's visual identity) and that means they have to be chunkier than they should be, because everything else is beefed up as well.