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.

But why even (re)produce a metal model that was specifically replaced by a better plastic version?

Nostalgia

As I have already replied, vintage seems to be en vogue in Warhammers.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's... so frustratingly stupid.

WHY????

The current Treeman model is a Treeman. Not an "Age of Sigmar Treeman".

Wait until Arcane Journal: Wood Elves comes out. The current model in Age of Sigmar can be built as a 'Spirit of Durthu', which, in 8E, was just 'Durthu'. Will they release his old metal model?

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's... so frustratingly stupid.

WHY????

The current Treeman model is a Treeman. Not an "Age of Sigmar Treeman".

Wait until Arcane Journal: Wood Elves comes out. The current model in Age of Sigmar can be built as a 'Spirit of Durthu', which, in 8E, was just 'Durthu'. Will they release his old metal model?

Hold to assume he’ll get rules.

There’s only 3 characters per AJ. I’d imagine Orion and Sisters are likely as they have fairly nice nostalgia bait metal models, so that’s one left. Could be Araloth who had an 8th Ed model or could be they want min 1 FW resin character and it ends up being someone new or a returning character like Naith or even Ariel.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But why even (re)produce a metal model that was specifically replaced by a better plastic version?

Because people will buy them?

I'm hoping for a 5th Ed Brets MTO and will be shelling out if / when they do.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But why even (re)produce a metal model that was specifically replaced by a better plastic version?

As an owner of the old metal DP, i am sorry but some of the NEW models don't hold a candle to certain old ones.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But why even (re)produce a metal model that was specifically replaced by a better plastic version?

As an owner of the old metal DP, i am sorry but some of the NEW models don't hold a candle to certain old ones.

For example, the Diaz Deamonettes are far superior to the modern plastics and I’ll fight anyone who says otherwise.

You can keep the old treeman tho.

MaxT wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But why even (re)produce a metal model that was specifically replaced by a better plastic version?

As an owner of the old metal DP, i am sorry but some of the NEW models don't hold a candle to certain old ones.

For example, the Diaz Deamonettes are far superior to the modern plastics and I’ll fight anyone who says otherwise.

You can keep the old treeman tho.

Let's get to fighting then. Diaz made sexed up tit girls which might have titillated the player base but were far away from what daemonettes were supposed to be.

It doesn't matter how much better you think something is if it doesn't reflect what the concept is supposed to be.

Daemonettes were always androgynous hermaphroditic monsters, not pin up demon-chans.

 Hellebore wrote:

MaxT wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But why even (re)produce a metal model that was specifically replaced by a better plastic version?

As an owner of the old metal DP, i am sorry but some of the NEW models don't hold a candle to certain old ones.

For example, the Diaz Deamonettes are far superior to the modern plastics and I’ll fight anyone who says otherwise.

You can keep the old treeman tho.

Let's get to fighting then. Diaz made sexed up tit girls which might have titillated the player base but were far away from what daemonettes were supposed to be.

It doesn't matter how much better you think something is if it doesn't reflect what the concept is supposed to be.

Daemonettes were always androgynous hermaphroditic monsters, not pin up demon-chans.

Actually it depends. They have a glamour effect. In theory they could look perfectly human and highly sexualised and every bit inbetween that and their natural form. So you could argue that Diaz's interpretation is of them partly under their glamour effect. Enough that part of their real clawed self is showing, but not enough that all of their real self is showing.


That said you can certainly argue that in theory they should appear as male and female to appeal to all on the battlfield - although you could also argue that since most foes against them are male, that thye might well have a bias toward appearing as female on the battlefield. Certainly even in lore stories they do tend to lean more toward the feminine form over the masculine. Although I think that is honestly changing in some of the newer lore and models too

 Overread wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

MaxT wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But why even (re)produce a metal model that was specifically replaced by a better plastic version?

As an owner of the old metal DP, i am sorry but some of the NEW models don't hold a candle to certain old ones.

For example, the Diaz Deamonettes are far superior to the modern plastics and I’ll fight anyone who says otherwise.

You can keep the old treeman tho.

Let's get to fighting then. Diaz made sexed up tit girls which might have titillated the player base but were far away from what daemonettes were supposed to be.

It doesn't matter how much better you think something is if it doesn't reflect what the concept is supposed to be.

Daemonettes were always androgynous hermaphroditic monsters, not pin up demon-chans.

Actually it depends. They have a glamour effect. In theory they could look perfectly human and highly sexualised and every bit inbetween that and their natural form. So you could argue that Diaz's interpretation is of them partly under their glamour effect. Enough that part of their real clawed self is showing, but not enough that all of their real self is showing.


That said you can certainly argue that in theory they should appear as male and female to appeal to all on the battlfield - although you could also argue that since most foes against them are male, that thye might well have a bias toward appearing as female on the battlefield. Certainly even in lore stories they do tend to lean more toward the feminine form over the masculine. Although I think that is honestly changing in some of the newer lore and models too

That's a copout. No other gw model is designed to look like a field or special effect they possess. The Harlequins aren't modelled to look like Picasso balls of fractured light (3 diamonds on a coat doesn't count), the callidus assassin isn't modeled to look like something they are imitating and no daemonette before Diaz or after can be accused of that.

And if they were designed to look like a glamour then they wouldn't still have claws and tentacle hair or sharp teeth and digitigrade clawed feet.

You are left trying to argue with a straight face that only their chests, shoulders and cheekbones are under a glamour, to justify making them look sexy just in the areas the purchaser will like rather than what their glamoured opponent will see.

 Overread wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

MaxT wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But why even (re)produce a metal model that was specifically replaced by a better plastic version?

As an owner of the old metal DP, i am sorry but some of the NEW models don't hold a candle to certain old ones.

For example, the Diaz Deamonettes are far superior to the modern plastics and I’ll fight anyone who says otherwise.

You can keep the old treeman tho.

Let's get to fighting then. Diaz made sexed up tit girls which might have titillated the player base but were far away from what daemonettes were supposed to be.

It doesn't matter how much better you think something is if it doesn't reflect what the concept is supposed to be.

Daemonettes were always androgynous hermaphroditic monsters, not pin up demon-chans.

Actually it depends. They have a glamour effect. In theory they could look perfectly human and highly sexualised and every bit inbetween that and their natural form. So you could argue that Diaz's interpretation is of them partly under their glamour effect. Enough that part of their real clawed self is showing, but not enough that all of their real self is showing.


That said you can certainly argue that in theory they should appear as male and female to appeal to all on the battlfield - although you could also argue that since most foes against them are male, that thye might well have a bias toward appearing as female on the battlefield. Certainly even in lore stories they do tend to lean more toward the feminine form over the masculine. Although I think that is honestly changing in some of the newer lore and models too

Agreed - they are partially shaped by the perceiver - so both versions are "correct" - I personally really like the Diaz models - not just becuase they are lovely but also the movement in them which is a large part of Slaanesh - speed, agility, dance fighting Official art work has them in both forms -some near human - others monsterous - some inbetween

 Hellebore wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

MaxT wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But why even (re)produce a metal model that was specifically replaced by a better plastic version?

As an owner of the old metal DP, i am sorry but some of the NEW models don't hold a candle to certain old ones.

For example, the Diaz Deamonettes are far superior to the modern plastics and I’ll fight anyone who says otherwise.

You can keep the old treeman tho.

Let's get to fighting then. Diaz made sexed up tit girls which might have titillated the player base but were far away from what daemonettes were supposed to be.

It doesn't matter how much better you think something is if it doesn't reflect what the concept is supposed to be.

Daemonettes were always androgynous hermaphroditic monsters, not pin up demon-chans.

Actually it depends. They have a glamour effect. In theory they could look perfectly human and highly sexualised and every bit inbetween that and their natural form. So you could argue that Diaz's interpretation is of them partly under their glamour effect. Enough that part of their real clawed self is showing, but not enough that all of their real self is showing.


That said you can certainly argue that in theory they should appear as male and female to appeal to all on the battlfield - although you could also argue that since most foes against them are male, that thye might well have a bias toward appearing as female on the battlefield. Certainly even in lore stories they do tend to lean more toward the feminine form over the masculine. Although I think that is honestly changing in some of the newer lore and models too

That's a copout. No other gw model is designed to look like a field or special effect they possess. The Harlequins aren't modelled to look like Picasso balls of fractured light (3 diamonds on a coat doesn't count), the callidus assassin isn't modeled to look like something they are imitating and no daemonette before Diaz or after can be accused of that.

And if they were designed to look like a glamour then they wouldn't still have claws and tentacle hair or sharp teeth and digitigrade clawed feet.

You are left trying to argue with a straight face that only their chests, shoulders and cheekbones are under a glamour, to justify making them look sexy just in the areas the purchaser will like rather than what their glamoured opponent will see.

It's also assuming they only appear to humans with an attraction to those features/areas. What would their "glamour" look like to a genestealer? Or a kroot? Not a petite humanoid pin up with 3 racks out I'd guess.

 Mr Morden wrote:


Agreed - they are partially shaped by the perceiver - so both versions are "correct" - I personally really like the Diaz models - not just becuase they are lovely but also the movement in them which is a large part of Slaanesh - speed, agility, dance fighting Official art work has them in both forms -some near human - others monsterous - some inbetween

For me there are two things they model get really right. One is the agile nature of the riders, the second is the relative size of them compared to their mount. The plastic Deamonette, Seeker rider and chariot kits are honestly really impressive for how much they can interchange parts between them. However the seekers are tiny compared to their riders (really shown off with the human riders who are hunched on the seekers in a silly pose); and the deamonettes lack any of the dancing grace that they have in lore.

Now granted they were earlier models and by the end of 8th edition we had models like the Daughters of Khaine who were far more dynamic in pose and yet could still rank up. Since AoS we've also had the mortal seeker riders with the Exalted Seekers which honestly are much better scaled for their riders. It would not surprise me if in the future we get a new Deamonette on Exalted seeker rider kit that replaces the current. We might lose the interchangeability of heads/arms and such between the kits, but we might well gain with much more dynamic and better scaling.

Of course I don't expect such an update for a long long time as the current kits do work well. If anything I'd welcome a new kind of demon being added first. Fiends are utterly awesome (esp the new kits) but I'd love to see them get another demonic creature


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

It's also assuming they only appear to humans with an attraction to those features/areas. What would their "glamour" look like to a genestealer? Or a kroot? Not a petite humanoid pin up with 3 racks out I'd guess.

To be fair you can argue the lack of variety for every faction. Imperial Guard have vast untold legions with different uniforms and equipment; Tyranids have different evolution appearances for each Hive Fleet and each unique world they invade etc.... In the end we have to accept that GW can only make one of most things because anything else would just be nuts (unless youre Space Marines)


I'd figure that for some factions the Deamonettes appear with a glamour; for some a partial and for some they won't appear with one at all. I figure against Tyranids they likely seeing the Demons possibly the most as the "truly" are. Every other faction and race might vary considerably.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's... so frustratingly stupid.

WHY????

The current Treeman model is a Treeman. Not an "Age of Sigmar Treeman".

Are we talking this version is getting released?


Or the one that was eventually finecast?


Give me the first ones all day anyday.

Its the same with the undead - we know that Necromancy raises orcs, goblins, lizardmen, elves, minotaurs, beastmen whatever but there was only ever a few models for the Cursed Compans that depcit the vast numbers of non human undead.

Tau, Eldar, Kroot etc themed Daemonettes would be very cool IMO.

An daemonette fighting Ogres would likely look very different to one fighting wood elves

In terms of Treemen - the Blood Bowl one would also be fun in a WE army although I have and really like the one just before this post

 Hellebore wrote:
It doesn't matter how much better you think something is if it doesn't reflect what the concept is supposed to be.

I'm not a fan of the Diaz Daemonettes but the plastic models aren't much better. If you go back to Slaves to Darkness for the concept, the plastic models have the wrong breast covered. Their faces are also off since they are not meant to be ugly or monstrous, but pretty much human female with saucer eyes.

Execution beyond that isn't great either. The poses are not very dynamic, especially in the case of Seekers. If your Khornate cavalry is more dynamic than your Slaaneshi cavalry, you did something wrong.

Add to that the feet from a time when GW was still making very oversized hands, heads and feet, and you get models that aren't very good nor all that representative of the original idea. The claws are very well sculpted and have a nice bit of variety, but that's about it.

 Hellebore wrote:

That's a copout. No other gw model is designed to look like a field or special effect they possess. The Harlequins aren't modelled to look like Picasso balls of fractured light (3 diamonds on a coat doesn't count), the callidus assassin isn't modeled to look like something they are imitating and no daemonette before Diaz or after can be accused of that.

And if they were designed to look like a glamour then they wouldn't still have claws and tentacle hair or sharp teeth and digitigrade clawed feet.

You are left trying to argue with a straight face that only their chests, shoulders and cheekbones are under a glamour, to justify making them look sexy just in the areas the purchaser will like rather than what their glamoured opponent will see.

But ultimately boobs sell. The glamour isn't for ingame persons but for the players buying the models

tneva82 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

That's a copout. No other gw model is designed to look like a field or special effect they possess. The Harlequins aren't modelled to look like Picasso balls of fractured light (3 diamonds on a coat doesn't count), the callidus assassin isn't modeled to look like something they are imitating and no daemonette before Diaz or after can be accused of that.

And if they were designed to look like a glamour then they wouldn't still have claws and tentacle hair or sharp teeth and digitigrade clawed feet.

You are left trying to argue with a straight face that only their chests, shoulders and cheekbones are under a glamour, to justify making them look sexy just in the areas the purchaser will like rather than what their glamoured opponent will see.

But ultimately boobs sell. The glamour isn't for ingame persons but for the players buying the models

True and "No other gw model is designed to look like a field or special effect they possess" - really?

 Olthannon wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's... so frustratingly stupid.

WHY????

The current Treeman model is a Treeman. Not an "Age of Sigmar Treeman".

Are we talking this version is getting released?


Or the one that was eventually finecast?


Give me the first ones all day anyday.

Not that one, the 6th Ed one. May have been sold in finecast at one point, but looks like TOW is reverting to metal thankfully (all the old TK models are metal, even the 8th Ed ones that were always in finecast).

This guy, right?

Yes, that one.

Oh, right. The 'wooden tyranid' era.

I prefer Stumpy.

Yeah, some of those Marauder Miniatures are stone-cold classics, and that treeman is one of them. I hope they MTO the Marauder giant someday.

*deleted*

I think this is one of those things which is subjective.

I.E. I don't really love the ancient treeman mini. But it is classic - and so I get a bit of nostalgia from it. Certainly more than from the abomination just above. Arguably the latest treeman is starting to get into silly scale compared with classic WHFB minis.

I think the Diaz daemonettes are better miniatures than the current plastics (although they have grown on me over the years). But equally, I think they are overrated - probably for the reasons people have outlined. Bring back the classic giant crab claw ones.

While I'm on the fence as to how to feel about the scope and contents of this release thus far (some parts of the rules look promising, others too old-fashioned - and the same about rereleased models I suppose!), the fact that returning models are metal, even those that have never been metal in the past, is the best news I've read in years. Hopefully not too long a wait until other armies see some (re-)releases, but certainly won't spend a penny on overpriced eBay listings for OOP models that will almost certainly come back into production.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But why even (re)produce a metal model that was specifically replaced by a better plastic version?

While the 6th ed Treeman looked like a construct brought to life from a pile of dead wood (which I think was the lore for Treekin at the time, but not the Treemen), the later plastic set (and later Sylvaneth models in the same style) have always felt off to me too; as if created by an Eldar Bonesinger instead of organic tree-like beings in their own right (though I have no idea what the lore became later, if it changed). Would be hard pressed to say which I like more, but certainly don't consider the plastic one much better - the metal one looked quite okay with some foliage added.

Thankfully, there's a (fairly?) recent plastic Treebeard in the Middle-earth range that's an upgrade to either of those in my eyes; great looking treedude:
That said, I had forgotten about that Blood Bowl Treeman; might have to find a reason to get that jolly little stump in an Asrai army one day too - it's adorable.

IMO, Treebeard is too... well, Treebeard. Too much like dropping a Darth Vader miniature into a WFB army.

I do like the BB model. The pic without the helmet and... briars? mystic smoke? green goo? looks quite good. Dropping that on a 50x50 would look quite nice, and its less than half the cost of the Wood Avatar of Khaine treeman.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But why even (re)produce a metal model that was specifically replaced by a better plastic version?

Have you ever tried to beat someone with a primaris dreadnought in a sock?
Some things just don't work.

The rules support both Treeman models regardless.

In the unit entry it allows for them to be on either a 50x50 (old model) or a 50x75 (plastic one)

The giant is the same way.