So, did Daughters of Khaine and Idoneth Deepkin sell poorly

[Nos]

21 minutes ago, Yoshiya said:

I mean using anecdotal evidence doesn't really help your cause. DOK are one of the few factions my wife likes as she doesn't go in for the whole muscular warriors with huge weapons thing that many of the factions ultimately fall into. Is her opinion any less valid than your friends? That's why it's best to leave anecdotal stuff out of these conversations because all that happens is things get personal (as it seems things are already starting to do so).

Either way I don't this is steering offtrack now and we'd do better to get back on it. You may think that DOK being problematic led to lose sales but as of yet no one has proved there even was lower sales for them which is OPs question.

Literally every opinion on here is anecdotal. I didn't say my wife and my friends are the gospel on this. I brought up their opinion as a counterpoint to someone's assertion that they have a right to escapism by stating that what they see as escapism is for some other people what they want to escape *from*. At no point have I stated that they or I am representative of the female perspective on this.

I have been very careful and considered with what I have written. If people can't read things in context that's not my fault.

I'm not even bothered about discussing it further, it's manifestly obvious that people who disagree with me aren't interested in listening to a different opinion. An opinion that I brought up in passing that has only gotten to this point because of the sensitivity with which it was received, despite, again, the act that I stated categorically that I do not feel DOK or those who play them to be morally wrong or bad. I'm really hopeful there will be a Shadespire set for them as I love the Gorgon aesthetic. But for me personally I would not want to collect the army would find it embarrassing or problematic for the reasons I have stated politely and carefully. Those reasons are entirely valid. Nobody has a right to tell me otherwise. 

[Yokai]

23 minutes ago, Nos said:

It's cool that you feel as though you can dispute my friends valid opinions as nonsense,  thanks for that!

Sure thing. Opinions can be dismissed as nonsensical if the arguments that form the basis of the opinion are flawed. I think I pointed that out.

[Nos]

12 minutes ago, Yokai said:

Sure thing. Opinions can be dismissed as nonsensical if the arguments that form the basis of the opinion are flawed. I think I pointed that out.

No you didn't at all, because you asserted they exist within a vacuum, which they don't.

Issues around gender, race, politics, all that Human stuff, it's in art whether you like it or not. To state the DOK are representative of nothing but a fiction that was written and is consumed by people who engage with these issues all the time is naive at best. They are not real or organic. They are a product, produced by people, who bring all of their biases, vices and virtues to production. A painting is representative of its painter, book is representative of it's author, a meal representative of its chef etc.

DOK are the way they are because of multiple aspects but concept of gender is obviously going to be pretty important in a faction in which their gender is a repeated Chief element .  And that interpretation of gender is coming from those involved in the creation of their lore and aesthetic, which I'm not even judging or discussing . But they didn't create themselves. They aren't sentient. They exist as representation of in part what GW deems to be noteworthy about gender. And much as you want to diminish the opinions of my friends of that gender on how they engage with it, their opinion is as valid as your own. 

[Aeryenn]

To interfere in author's work is always a bad idea. He saw DoK that way and that way he/she made them. Allow every issue into design and we will end up with all factions containing blacks, jews, cripppled, homosexual and vegans. Don't like it, don't buy it. There might be a faction with muscular women on the way that might feel your tastes (darkoath perhaps). 

[Nos]

30 minutes ago, Aryann said:

To interfere in author's work is always a bad idea. He saw DoK that way and that way he/she made them. Allow every issue into design and we will end up with all factions containing blacks, jews, cripppled, homosexual and vegans. Don't like it, don't buy it. There might be a faction with muscular women that might feel your tastes (darkoath perhaps). 

You don't "allow" issues into design.  It's not possible for any creator to be entirely objective in every issue when they create. Which is good, that would be incredibly boring. But because there is the personality and their interpretation of societal issues  in whatever they create, those issues exist in the fibre of the product whether you like it or not and people are free to discuss that whether you like it or not. 

By the way there is no reason to believe that literally everyone in AOS isn't homosexual or bisexual. That's a completely blank canvas for the hobbyist currrently as GW have not chosen to go into such territory as things stand. The Stormcast (and Space Marines) draw a heck of a lot of inspiration from martial cultures and societies in which homosexuality was par for the course for example. 

[Kramer]

21 minutes ago, Nos said:

Literally every opinion on here is anecdotal. I didn't say my wife and my friends are the gospel on this. I brought up their opinion as a counterpoint to someone's assertion that they have a right to escapism by stating that what they see as escapism is for some other people what they want to escape *from*. At no point have I stated that they or I am representative of the female perspective on this.

I have been very careful and considered with what I have written. If people can't read things in context that's not my fault.

I'm not even bothered about discussing it further, it's manifestly obvious that people who disagree with me aren't interested in listening to a different opinion. An opinion that I brought up in passing that has only gotten to this point because of the sensitivity with which it was received, despite, again, the act that I stated categorically that I do not feel DOK or those who play them to be morally wrong or bad.

And yet you do present it all as the fault of people responding. While you have clearly chosen to ignore the certain counter arguments to your first post. Which in my mind could have been a nice discussion and instead focussed on all inds of external factors. Also agreed that @Yokai post calling your post nonsense is not helpful to a conversation. If you can't be bothered anymore to write out the arguments don't respond. 

But in the same manner when you say 'it's manifestly obvious that people who disagree with me aren't interested in listening to a different opinion.' etc. You are dismissing everyone just because you feel different about the issue than the people responding. After which you bring the argument to a close by putting all sensitity with the others than yourself. Additionally repeating that you don't judge people playing DoK as morally wrong or bad. (although you did call the faction immature & too embarrassing to collect) But that wasn't what I read in MOST responses. You chose to focus on those and ignore some recurring arguments that are the essence of where the conversation started. 

I, of course, can't speak for others so here's the deal. I still think its an interesting conversation to be had. If you don't want to, fine then we'll leave it. 

But if you will I have a question for you. The essence of the conversation for me was your statement about a very serieus real world problem. (unrealistic body expectations). In your statement you said that there was no basis in fiction for them to look like that, calling one basic female shape for a faction 'weak', and jokingly said:

21 hours ago, Nos said:

It's almost like they're some kind of separate women race, like orcs.

And that's the essence of the conversation for me. You took an fantasy body shape (their elves, not real) and linked them to the real world problem of unrealistic body types. Almost everything else in the conversation was adjacent but not alway relevant in my opinion. So question time. 

Do you feel that a creator of entertainment should take responsibility for body types of fantasy races and the way people might try to emulate that bodytype?

Because I feel it might help the conversation I'll also answer it myself: 
I say no. This is personal responsibility of the consumer. I'm a filmmaker by trade and I sure as hell try to be conscience of not casting by physical appearance but by skill. If a role demands a certain body type that's fine it's for the immersion of the story. That is part of the qualification. If the story is about a sprinter in her prime, the talent needs to have a suitable body type. But if it's fantasy, it's fantasy. It's not real & it's often not even an exaggeration of reality. It's a whole new reality. If humans appear in that fantasy world, previous conditions apply. If it's a fantasy race. It's going to be that! It's about the 'realism' in that sense. 
Adding to that some general mussings: I feel part of this issue is being highjacked by a certain sense of avoiding personal responsibility. Secondly I also feel that as a culture we need to be careful of picking the right arguments for issues. To keep it close to this conversation. Anyone in this thread could come away with an 'anacdote' of outrage culture. And with that anecdote diminish the discussion when there is a crystal clear discussion. Which would be hurtful to the cause.  

 

[Kirjava13]

@Nos, just wanna say I'm all outta likes but consider me to have popped one on all your posts.

[Redmanphill]

My local store (which is also part of a very large online store) claimed that the Idoneth are the worst sales of all AoS ranges and while Daughters of Khaine didn't sell much they were doing okay. Take it for what it's worth!

[Yokai]

35 minutes ago, Nos said:

No you didn't at all, because you asserted they exist within a vacuum, which they don't.

I would like to believe I argued that they make perfect sense in the context they are created in. Their bodies look the way the do because they have been selected because they are the best at what they do - dance around the enemy with as little restrictive armour as possible, and killing by a thousand cuts. Granted, the gold bikinis and purple loincloths are not necessary for combat, but that can be attributed to elven vanity in general (which is readily apparent in elven males and females in equal measures) - and that their leader is vain to the extreme in particular.

35 minutes ago, Nos said:

Issues around gender, race, politics, all that Human stuff, it's in art whether you like it or not. To state the DOK are representative of nothing but a fiction that was written and is consumed by people who engage with these issues all the time is naive at best. They are not real or organic. They are a product, produced by people, who bring all of their biases, vices and virtues to production. A painting is representative of its painter, book is representative of it's author, a meal representative of its chef etc.

Intersectionality it is, then. Sure, it can be a very powerful tool when appropriate. But as the old saying goes, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything will look like a nail".

 

 

[Aeryenn]

I guess that whenever people ask authors for their work to be more representative they forget that USA and western Europe is not by all means representative for the World as a whole and their way of life or society isn't superior to those of Asian, African or even Eastern Europe. It's just different. Therefore most of western pop culture including games has little with represantation of Saudi Arabian, Mexican, Indian or Chinese. If that's the case, if we want to be all that fair and tolerant, why would we impose western problems into a FANTASY world? Don't care about representing the World? 

[Rekmeister]

 

6 hours ago, Nos said:

As I said very carefully they are not wrong or immoral, but they are problematic. Politics exist within everything. It is not injected, it is latent. People make these things and people paint and play with them and discuss them, they don't suddenly exist within a non political vacuum. The entire reason GW's fictions even exist is political satire. AOS and 40K and all associated fictions have grown out of narratives that were expressly, darkly comical political commentary.

The thing about being a guy is that we are in a position to often ignore these things because they don't affect us so we can choose to ignore it. But for women this is less the case.

This debate is a good example actually. You obviously feel prickled because you just want to play your game-your "right to escapism" as it were, you don't want to have to defend your choices or feel personally judged, just play!  There have in fact been numerous sensitive and affronted responses to my observations which never in fact called anyone a perve or sexist or mysogonist or anything of the sort. My mere questioning of some of the concepts though has been enough to make people feel judged somehow,

So, this isn't how discourse works. Calling something 'problematic' is the exact same as calling it sexist. If you want to go on a little power trip and defend women from the 'problematics' in the community; you have to deal with the backlash in an honest manner. You can't swap out one word with another when they both mean the same thing. Also, your original post ended with an assertion 'they are a statement to collect, and it is not a wholly positive statement you are making' - that's an insult, or at very least a claim that you are more moral than everyone who makes the arbitrary decision to collect DoK. 

I don't know how much you know about politics outside of the cult of outrage, but politics is a very subjective subject (hence why people argue and riot over it); it is not 'latent' in anything. People infer what they want to infer from art. You choose to be a white knight, decided that something was offensive, and set out trying to enforce your idea upon everyone else; and now you are doubling down instead of admitting you were way too heavy handed with your questioning, and ventured far into the territory of being rude and unnecessarily political.

[Kyriakin]

I have anecdotally heard from a few FLGS owners/managers that Fyreslayers were the worst-selling new or partially-new range.

Even a GW redshirt once hinted that they weren't the biggest success.

For what it's worth, the Fyreslayers thread on TGA has just five pages, while their Dwarf brethren have fifteen (KO) and nine (Dispossessed) pages, respectively.

[Rekmeister]

1 minute ago, Kyriakin said:

Moving away from the identity politics and virtue-signalling, I have anecdotally heard from a few FLGS owners/managers that Fyreslayers were the worst-selling new or partially-new range.

Even a GW redshirt once hinted that they weren't the biggest success.

This really doesn't surprise me. They only released 2 models. Magmadroth and Naked Dwarf. Not a compelling aesthetic. I know a few people who had to sell the army mid-painting because they got too bored. Doesn't help that you need lots of them. They should have been a low number-high damage army.

[Enoby]

I wonder what the worst selling (but still supported) army is. 

[Kyriakin]

1 minute ago, Enoby said:

I wonder what the worst selling (but still supported) army is. 

Firebellies.

However, I am about to buy three as BCR allies, so that should take them above Fyreslayers.

[Nos]

55 minutes ago, Kramer said:

And yet you do present it all as the fault of people responding. While you have clearly chosen to ignore the certain counter arguments to your first post. Which in my mind could have been a nice discussion and instead focussed on all inds of external factors. Also agreed that @Yokai post calling your post nonsense is not helpful to a conversation. If you can't be bothered anymore to write out the arguments don't respond. 

But in the same manner when you say 'it's manifestly obvious that people who disagree with me aren't interested in listening to a different opinion.' etc. You are dismissing everyone just because you feel different about the issue than the people responding. After which you bring the argument to a close by putting all sensitity with the others than yourself. Additionally repeating that you don't judge people playing DoK as morally wrong or bad. (although you did call the faction immature & too embarrassing to collect) But that wasn't what I read in MOST responses. You chose to focus on those and ignore some recurring arguments that are the essence of where the conversation started. 

I, of course, can't speak for others so here's the deal. I still think its an interesting conversation to be had. If you don't want to, fine then we'll leave it. 

But if you will I have a question for you. The essence of the conversation for me was your statement about a very serieus real world problem. (unrealistic body expectations). In your statement you said that there was no basis in fiction for them to look like that, calling one basic female shape for a faction 'weak', and jokingly said:

And that's the essence of the conversation for me. You took an fantasy body shape (their elves, not real) and linked them to the real world problem of unrealistic body types. Almost everything else in the conversation was adjacent but not alway relevant in my opinion. So question time. 

Do you feel that a creator of entertainment should take responsibility for body types of fantasy races and the way people might try to emulate that bodytype?

Because I feel it might help the conversation I'll also answer it myself: 
I say no. This is personal responsibility of the consumer. I'm a filmmaker by trade and I sure as hell try to be conscience of not casting by physical appearance but by skill. If a role demands a certain body type that's fine it's for the immersion of the story. That is part of the qualification. If the story is about a sprinter in her prime, the talent needs to have a suitable body type. But if it's fantasy, it's fantasy. It's not real & it's often not even an exaggeration of reality. It's a whole new reality. If humans appear in that fantasy world, previous conditions apply. If it's a fantasy race. It's going to be that! It's about the 'realism' in that sense. 
Adding to that some general mussings: I feel part of this issue is being highjacked by a certain sense of avoiding personal responsibility. Secondly I also feel that as a culture we need to be careful of picking the right arguments for issues. To keep it close to this conversation. Anyone in this thread could come away with an 'anacdote' of outrage culture. And with that anecdote diminish the discussion when there is a crystal clear discussion. Which would be hurtful to the cause.  

 

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

My response would be that I think a creator should be mindful of sensitive issues in what they do yes. This does not mean that nothing should ever be produced which touches upon difficult issues, absolutely not.

But, and I think this is really the crux of my point, a creator is rarely in a position to be the sole arbiter of whether something is sensitive or not and they should therefore research and canvass the experience and opinion of multiple demographics before committing to their vision if they truly are seeking to produce something which is meaningful, as opposed to just being a reiteration of their own opinion. Which you know, is fine. But rarely is that going to touch people. And I'm not saying by that that every opinion needs to be respected or represented at all. But multiple dimensions to draw upon tend to provide more rounded and interesting characters and perspectives which in turn are less likely to offend people unnecessarily. Not by virtue of slavish adherence to political correctness, just by the virtue of being more representative of the wider human condition and experience.

It's just a feeling and I couldn't ascertain it from leafing through my own copy because there is, as far as I can see, no indication of individuals being credited in the book, but I sincerely doubt that there were many, if any, females consulted in the production of DOK. In no small part because the design team seems to have no females on it. I think the product would have been far richer and more interesting if there had been. Because creatively it's actually very weak. The femine aspect of the DOK is *aesthetically* very much to the fore. But in the lore itself? You could literally replace them with dudes. The fact they are women *does not matter*. You could have exactly the same fiction with alternate gender pronouns and nothing, honestly nothing, would change. 

Now you could say that with any of the factions to be honest. Orruks could all be lasses really, as I was saying above, you could make everyone bisexual if you want etc. 

But in a wider hobby (WarGames/Boardgames/RPGs)  in which women quite notoriously struggle to feel accepted and frequently experience harassment or bullying or worse I personally would not want to author an exclusively female race in which the only aspect that their gender was represented was because the models had bumps and long hair and make up. It's not that I'm saying GW are being aggressively, intentionally sexist or anything of the sort, but they haven't done enough in their treatment of DOK to avoid leaving many valid questions hanging.

Of course I understand *why* DOK look as they do (although I still maintain they are flimsy, look at Lelith Hesperax from the Druchii for an example of something I feel to be more athletically appropriate) as warriors. But when the fiction is so weak that they could literally be guys, and there's no reason for them to be even women in the first place, it raises wider issues for me as to why they are a) women at all and b) women who look as they do.

Both conclusions lead me to believe that the look came first, a look that I don't object to at all, but one which suggets a fundemental absence of consideration in their design which would have made them less likely to provoke sensibility but fundamentally just creativley better and more interesting  anyway.  

Bottom line, a faction manifestly invested in how women look but not who they are is just the nth reiteration of that particular, harmful, boring story. For several reasons, of which respect for others is one, I'd prefer fantasy to be inventive and creative  rather than just restate stale tropes which is what the DOK faction is at heart. I think unintentionally so, I must stress that, and in a relatively benign manner. But the problems remain nonetheless due to the lack of rigour in engaging with wider issues besides treating it like a product. 

[Nos]

46 minutes ago, Aryann said:

I guess that whenever people ask authors for their work to be more representative they forget that USA and western Europe is not by all means representative for the World as a whole and their way of life or society isn't superior to those of Asian, African or even Eastern Europe. It's just different. Therefore most of western pop culture including games has little with represantation of Saudi Arabian, Mexican, Indian or Chinese. If that's the case, if we want to be all that fair and tolerant, why would we impose western problems into a FANTASY world? Don't care about representing the World? 

Bless you if you think gender inequality is a Western problem.

AOS is hardly a good example of a non western culturally inspired fiction. But it dosent have to be and I'm not saying that at all. 

[Nos]

34 minutes ago, Rekmeister said:

 

So, this isn't how discourse works. Calling something 'problematic' is the exact same as calling it sexist. If you want to go on a little power trip and defend women from the 'problematics' in the community; you have to deal with the backlash in an honest manner. You can't swap out one word with another when they both mean the same thing. Also, your original post ended with an assertion 'they are a statement to collect, and it is not a wholly positive statement you are making' - that's an insult, or at very least a claim that you are more moral than everyone who makes the arbitrary decision to collect DoK. 

I don't know how much you know about politics outside of the cult of outrage, but politics is a very subjective subject (hence why people argue and riot over it); it is not 'latent' in anything. People infer what they want to infer from art. You choose to be a white knight, decided that something was offensive, and set out trying to enforce your idea upon everyone else; and now you are doubling down instead of admitting you were way too heavy handed with your questioning, and ventured far into the territory of being rude and unnecessarily political.

Thanks for the lecture Dad. You sound pretty outraged!

Calling something problematic is calling something problematic I think you'll find. Words have meanings and definitions. If I'd meant sexist, especially when I've used the term repeatedly, I'd say sexist. You're inferring.

In fact using your own argument, I'm afraid that all of the above is inference sorry. 

 

[Nos]

26 minutes ago, xking said:

Whats wrong with sexual looking models?  I don't think a faction that has sexuality as a core aspect should be called immature.  People can like sexuality in their art and models and still be mature. heck, it's not like adults are 100% "mature" all the time anyway. 

 

I'd suggest you find the post where someone said there was or problem with it, otherwise you're debating no-one. I've repeatedly stressed that there is nothing wrong with sexual looking models, so no argument here!

[hughwyeth]

2 minutes ago, Nos said:

I'd suggest you find the post where someone said there was or problem with it, otherwise you're debating no-one. I've repeatedly stressed that there is nothing wrong with sexual looking models.

Do you think the Great Unclean One is sexy? What is the sexiest GW model? Troggoth Hag perhaps? Maybe we need a "Miss/Mr 8 Realms". 

[Enoby]

3 minutes ago, hughwyeth said:

Do you think the Great Unclean One is sexy? What is the sexiest GW model? Troggoth Hag perhaps? Maybe we need a "Miss/Mr 8 Realms". 

You may not like it, but this is the ideal female (and male) body. 

[Nos]

1 minute ago, hughwyeth said:

Do you think the Great Unclean One is sexy? What is the sexiest GW model? Troggoth Hag perhaps? Maybe we need a "Miss/Mr 8 Realms". 

Cuddly certainly. 

[Overread]

Everyone enjoys hugs from Pappa Nurgle!

[Nos]

8 minutes ago, Enoby said:

You may not like it, but this is the ideal female (and male) body. 

I know right. Who could possibly resist? I always laughed when I saw the models and images of Slaanesh that men were apparently so captivated by. They deserved everything they got.

[Kirjava13]

"Crab claws and a writhing mass of tentacles atop a head bearing a striking resemblance to a traffic cone, with a tongue like a monster python? That's my fetish!"