Why didn't Archaon's mount have a Slaanesh head? Furthermore, to what extent does lore dictate design?

[Enoby]

**Before beginning, I would like to make clear that I know the lore reason as to why Archaon's mount does not have a Slaaneshi head. I am curious about the meta reasons for the decision, not the in universe reason**

When Archaon's new model was first announced, many were in awe at how awesome he looked. Others, especially those looking for bait at BoLS, gasped in horror at the sight - there was no Slaanesh head, which obviously means Slaanesh is dead! Clearly, this proved to be untrue and just another load of bait thrown into the "they're totally getting rid of Slaanesh any day now" crowd, but it does raise the question of 'why' in the first place.

Games Workshop writes the lore, and has total control of what happens in it, so there was no universal force saying that Archaon couldn't have a Slaaneshi head. In addition, even in keeping with the trapped god storyline (which I think is pretty cool), they could have easily written something along the lines of "to prove it was strong enough to overthrow the Dark Prince, [insert daemon name here] tried to kill Archaon but was slain and devoured" which would have given an excuse to include the fourth head (and also included the Pretenders Host in the lore). To quickly sum it up, I'm saying that the lore on its own was no reason not to include the head as they can easily change the lore to suit the model.

The reason it seems strange to me is that it is counterproductive to marketing. While some people playing a Slaanesh army may want to buy the Everchosen, others (including myself) have decided not to as it would clash with the army's aesthetic. I'm not sure many people would have been put off the Archaon model if it had the head of a Keeper of Secrets (even if they hated it, it's easier to remove a head than sculpt a new one). As an aside which may have nothing to do with anything, the fact that there was only three varangaurd in the box seemed odd (and only three in The Call of Archaon, who were Nurgle, Khornate, and Tzeentchian), almost if they wanted them to have very little to do with Slaanesh (but again, this may not mean anything). In addition, not including the head may have inadvertently made the Dark Prince less popular as it would have less exposure, and new players may not know it even exists as part of the Chaos pantheon. Finally, GW were almost certainly not blind to major online presence, so they had to know that that this would have stirred the 'Slaanesh is dead' pot and that's not positive to their image (especially when they recently canned Tomb Kings and Bretonnia), not to mention making some more wary to buy into the army if they're being bombarded with '''proof''' that the hosts are inches away from the chopping block. 

The only reasons I can think that they would have made this decision are:

• GW didn't know what to do with the aesthetics of Slaanesh at the time, and so elected not to include the head as they had a deadline and couldn't commit to the future of how Slaanesh would look
• They believed that the inclusion of the head would negatively impact sales, or would not positively impact sales enough to warrant designing it 
• GW were on the fence about the future of the Dark Prince, and thought it unwise to have a big presence on a major model in case they wanted to give the faction the Sisters of Battle treatment (when I started at the beginning of AoS, I didn't even know Slaanesh was an important thing until some time after the Archaon model)
  • While I don't ascribe to this point of view, some have argued that it was to give a more positive forward image to new customers - making sure that the big bad guy doesn't have anything sex-related on him as to appear more family friendly 
• The lore has a much larger impact on the models than I anticipated, and they deemed it unsuitable for the lore and so unsuitable for the model
• *tinfoil hat time* GW have a cunning plan to release Slaanesh Head DLC for Archaon
• A totally different reason that I haven't thought of 

This whole issue raises a second question - how much bearing does lore have on a model? Do they design the model first and then write lore for it? The other way around? I'd imagine the former (except in special cases like the Primarchs) as models are much more expensive than lore, and I imagine most players care more about the models than the lore.

This thread is for discussion and pondering, I don't expect anyone to provide the 100% true reason for the decision - I just think it's an interesting topic that I've rarely seen discussed. 

 

TL;DR - not including a Slaanesh head on Archaon's mount seemed like an odd decision if it was just for lore reasons, so I am wondering about why else it may have not been included. Furthermore, it begs the question of how much of an impact lore has on a model's design.

[Overread]

The line between does the lore dictate models and do models dictate lore is one of those things that is impossible to outline unless one knos the internal workings of GW and even then I suspect that there is no answer. 

 

 

It is very clear that lore does dictate elements of design and the units that come out; however army visual design; practicalities of casting; designer bias; artwork; inspiration; market research; product sales etc... All these things and more are going to come into play as well. Plus there's team elements, a team working on models for a faction or group of models is going to influence each other. 

 

In general I expect that its a huge mish-mash of things that come into pay and lore is but one part of those elements. Trying to rank them in importance would be a futile effort. Plus I would wager it changes a lot model to model. For something big and inspired by the lore like Acharon its clear that the model and lore were tied together pretty tightly; the lore defined how the model should look and why in terms of its core components - ergo no Slaanesh head at the time due to Slaanesh's status in the lore of the game at that point in time. 

 

 

Also don't forget forgetting! Many a thing has happened because designers forgot to check something or simply were not even aware of things in the lore or such. (it has been argued that Tomb Kings were forgotten when AOS was made originally which was why they were cut - most people of a sane mind don't believe that  It might be true that the didn't do anything with them ,but one does not drop a whole army line because the lore writers didn't give them a short story - esp considering how 6 paragraphs would be an AOS intro story and there are loads of places in the realms to hide whole races. 

[Melcavuk]

As you've said you know the lore reasons so I'll break down my own personal opinions on the make up of the mount:

Lore relation: Whilst as fans of both warhammer 40k and fantasy would know there are 4 major chaos gods newcomers to AOS arrive at a point that slaanesh has been missing for most of the history of the realms, thus as an introduction point having these three and exclusively these three gods heads makes the most sense. It isnt a mount of "stuff archaon killed" or you might aswell have hundreds of heads for every minor gods champion he would of snuffed out in time, it is specifically the three gods in ascendancy.

Conversation starter: For more experienced fans the question of the three not four heads generates buzz, conversation, lore exploration. As a company having people engaging with, talking about and developing your lore is fantastic. The more people talking about and discussing potentials for the model means more promotion of said model, more awareness of it in the marketplace which as a relatively high cost GW model it makes sense to want as much awareness as possible.

Timeline tracker: Lore related again but this is Archaon on his conquest, at a time when only three of the four gods are active in the pantheon, we might get a new model in time but for the period this model is from it makes most sense to have him with a three headed mount. Otherwise the Horus Heresy range would all be MKV armour as at some point in the storyline all marines had access so they could of just stuck with that, but for the purposes of a story the other modelling was relevant.

Mood: The very fact a head is missing highlights to longer term fans the dire straits slaanesh is in right now, he isnt features on the biggest champion of chaos at all. This could be a major story hook further down the line, it could blossom into major internal chaos conflict, it could sprout new modelling potential for Archaon when slaanesh breaks loose.

 

To summarise, Archaons mount has 3 heads because for this point in the setting it only needs 3 heads.

[Arkiham]

also, allows them to make a new model with all 4 heads in future if needed 

[novakai]

I remember there was a lot of chattering going about around that time that GW (old GW) where going for a more kid friendly setting with Warhammer and they where going to discontinue Slaanesh and replace the god with the Great Horned Rat in the chaos pantheon. however this felt like it was baseless fearmongering at the time and it probably wasn't true. Granted this was Old GW and it wasn't out of the realm of possibility for them especially with what happen Bretonnia and TK  but I don't think they would squat something that Iconic to their chaos IP but who knows.

my guess would have been that they thought four heads would clutter the model up, they didn't want to put a pink anteater dragon head on Dorghar, or they want to adhere to the current lore more so.

I am not sure if they ever going to give him another head though, feel like it one of those what's done is done moments until they feel  they need to give him a new model which could be decades from now.

[Yoshiya]

I actually think the argument that a fourth head could lead to clutter is pretty compelling. I think the three heads already push the limit of fitting.

I think what might have happened is they set out to put four heads on (maybe it worked in artwork) and then found that only three worked when sculpting faced with the question of a complete redesign or only having three heads, they turned to the lore which led them in the direction of not including slaanesh.

In turn this makes the lore more compelling (Slaanesh being absent is having real world impacts) as well as fixing their design issue.

Of course it could be nothing to do with this or this could be partially true. I just really think looking at Archaon that I'm not sure where the fourth head would even fit.

[Bloodmaster]

Thing is, the new "better" Dorghar was originally sculpted as a new chaos dragon. Changes to Archaon as the rider and Dorghar as the stead where relatively last minute. Changes had to be done quick and without major resculpts. So what do you do? Take away the old double heads and replace them with heads of greater demons that are available in cad and can be altert quickly. Tzeentch was well in the work, Khorne already done, Nurgle was in the concept phase - and the dark Prince, well, she wasn't available, due to different reasons*. 

Furthermore, three heads where already cramped, four would have been a very tight fit - so let's leave the pleasure dude out. The Fluff writers will find a way to explain it, they already have to make up all AoS background on the fly, what does one more little text do? Like early AoS, Archaon was pretty much half-assed on the fly

 

 

*= "More kids friendly, less bare ******, sex and excess for the God/Godess of sex and excess.What do you mean, the direction where to take him is unclear and you don't know what to do? ah, know what leave him out for now, no one will notice or even care. But don't kill it of either, maybe someone will come up with something." - Kriby, probably

[Enoby]

26 minutes ago, Bloodmaster said:

Thing is, the new "better" Dorghar was originally sculpted as a new chaos dragon. 

That does sound interesting - is there much information on the chaos dragon sculpt, or even a picture of what it was envisioned to look like? 

[Bloodmaster]

3 minutes ago, Enoby said:

That does sound interesting - is there much information on the chaos dragon sculpt, or even a picture of what it was envisioned to look like? 

no picture, at least "officially" and to my knowledge. The rest I can't say. But in addition there were some rumours about a new chaos dragon being done by very reliable sources some time before the whole end time thingy hit the fan. 

[amysrevenge]

Didn't the Archaon model come out during the End Times of the Old World?  When Slaanesh was still doing just fine?

[michu]

Nope, it was released after End Times.

[sorokyl]

Lore wise,  Dhorgar is the same horse Archaon always had.  The Chaos Gods were getting worried about Archaon becoming too powerful so they each sent a champion after him.  Archaon defeated the champions and Dhorgar ate them, sprouting a head for each.   Slaneesh is busy, so did not send a champion against Archaon

[Nos]

I think there has been a wider problem with Slaanesh as a concept which explains the absence and mystefious removal from both Fantasy and 40k.

Not really the sexual nudity aspects per se, they balanced that pretty effectively for years and it's not like Warhammer hasn't been something marketed to kids for decades now.

But Slaanesh's other chief characteristics was principally around gender fluidity and kink and these were connoted with being exemplars of what it is to twisted and wicked and depraved. In the lore there was much more examination into what the excess and pleasure of Slaanesh was but increasingly visually speaking it was evident GW didn't know how to do anything with it other than pan sexual Bondage Lobsters.

So I think they've been trying to work out how to do sinister and weird without a) shaming things which are perfectly societally acceptable and b) having a deity who is meant to be charismatic, endlessly fascinating and scarily attractive be instead routinely grotesque and pretty uniform. Of all the pantheons it was by far the least flesh(lol)ed out for various reasons so I think they wanted to do it properly. But narratively at least in AOS that decision has been ingeniously implemented and the absence of Slaanesh from Archaon's steed is a perfect example of why.

[NurglesFirstChosen]

I have no idea  if there was an agenda behind the lore of Dorghars current form.  But lore wise,  @sorokyl is correct - Dorghar the shape shifting horse took on the heads of the 3 greater daemons that Archaon defeated.  

The rune of Slannesh remains on Archaons shield, which does indicate Archaon still views Slannesh as viable.  That being said however, the shield was crafted long before and was wielded by Morkar, which makes this entire paragraph pointless ???

[Kirjava13]

2 hours ago, NurglesFirstChosen said:

Archaon still views Slannesh as viable.

Well, with the Depravity points mechanic for summoning they can definitely be very scary. Good to know the Everchosen agrees!

[Ar-Pharazôn]

I think a valid argument could be made that three heads was all they could realistically fit. The Archaon model remains one of the most detailed, one could say overwrought, models ever made. It is possible that a fourth head could have been impossible. I do have an alternative take. 

As shown with the Horned Rat-inspired tail, the head were not the only parts that were capable of being altered. If they wanted to include all the Chaos Gods, why not just adjust the body itself? A Khornate head, Slaaneshi forelimbs, Tzeentchian wings, etc. 

[Cambot1231]

It wont matter when the Slaanesh backed Warqueen Marakarr usurps Archaon and smites him and Dorghar! ?

[Kronos]

I can’t imagine they’ll do another Archaon with An extra head. We don’t know very much what role Slaanesh is going to play once its found/released or escaped. 

Now consider there’s a boxed game of Slaanesh v Khorne, and though they have been rivals and have warred with each other, it could also show us that Slaanesh is very much an outsider even to the forces of Chaos now. A reluctant member of the  Chaos Pantheon?

 

 

[NurglesFirstChosen]

@Kronos  it’s probbaly safe to say that every member of the chaos pantheon is a reluctant member ??

 

[Bloodmaster]

Guys, you think to much from a fluff perspective and less from a design one. GW quite often fits the Fluff around new models, not the other way around. As said, same goes for Archaon.  Dorhar wasn't done as a horse or a chimera made from body traits of greater demons, because a centre piece model for Chaos already did exist, changes were relativly minor and easy to implement to create what is now known of a near godlike Everchosen. 

That said, a smarter Thing would have been to keep Dorghar as the two-headed (and direly needed) chaos dragon and fix the heads of greater Demons of all four (4) Chaos Gods as trophies, say around the saddle horn, as a necklace for the dragon or dangling on a chain, hold by Archon like the Persian ambassador in 300.  Some versions even could have been made optional, adding some choice and variation. 

[Nos]

18 minutes ago, Bloodmaster said:

Guys, you think to much from a fluff perspective and less from a design one. GW quite often fits the Fluff around new models, not the other way around. As said, same goes for Archaon.  Dorhar wasn't done as a horse or a chimera made from body traits of greater demons, because a centre piece model for Chaos already did exist, changes were relativly minor and easy to implement to create what is now known of a near godlike Everchosen. 

That said, a smarter Thing would have been to keep Dorghar as the two-headed (and direly needed) chaos dragon and fix the heads of greater Demons of all four (4) Chaos Gods as trophies, say around the saddle horn, as a necklace for the dragon or dangling on a chain, hold by Archon like the Persian ambassador in 300.  Some versions even could have been made optional, adding some choice and variation. 

Slaanesh pretty much straight up disappeared from 40k as well though at the same time and the lore in that system  likewise started to work around that absence. It's definitely a Slaanesh thing.

Not to mention that given that the Chaos Pantheon *is* Warhammer and has been since it began, the idea that GW decided not to implement Slaanesh in their flagship model of Chaos undivided just because they couldn't find an appendage slot free for it is really not very credible at all. You're saying that at no point from proof to concept to model making no-one once said "Hey where's Slaanesh's bit?" They clearly did not ever intend, for whatever reason, to have all 4 there.

[Carnelian]

Did anyone check behind the hair on Dorgar's crotch? Maybe that's the Slaanesh influenced bit... ?

[Kirjava13]

54 minutes ago, Carnelian said:

Did anyone check behind the hair on Dorgar's crotch? Maybe that's the Slaanesh influenced bit... ?

Surely it would be a bit more, uh... sizeable then?

[Kronos]

4 hours ago, NurglesFirstChosen said:

@Kronos  it’s probbaly safe to say that every member of the chaos pantheon is a reluctant member ??

 

Yeah your not wrong. I was thinking, an dhoping not to mention, thta maybe Slaanesh is the Malal (as an outsider but still within). I think Slaanehs is truly out of the circle. I myself dont fully know what that means, but The lack of KoS head on Archie has to be a fairly good indication as to how Slaanesh is gonn aplay with its brothers, and what ever Tzeentch is.

[NurglesFirstChosen]

26 minutes ago, Kronos said:

Yeah your not wrong. I was thinking, an dhoping not to mention, thta maybe Slaanesh is the Malal (as an outsider but still within). I think Slaanehs is truly out of the circle. I myself dont fully know what that means, but The lack of KoS head on Archie has to be a fairly good indication as to how Slaanesh is gonn aplay with its brothers, and what ever Tzeentch is.

Yeah I see what you mean.

Not sure it’s got much to do with Slanneshs standing amoung the chaotic siblings, and more to do with the battle with the greater daemons. Although saying that, the very fact Slannesh chose not to send a representative against Archaon might point towards a difference in goals.

Maybe the fact Slannesh didn’t send a rep, was because Slannesh loves arrogance of Archaon in seeking not just the end of the world, but the gods themselves. So you could say that the fact there is no Slannesh head on Dorghar, means that it’s actually Slannesh who provides Archaon the most backing ???