You realize that a unit of arkanauts have the exact same variance as say, a unit of CoS steelhelms?
So you're saying that the fully helmeted (i.e. including facemasks) KO match the open faced CoS Steel Helms in terms of variance. I'd say that is pretty darn good on the sculptors part then. The only thing they lack then is seeing their hair. Does that in your eyes mean that they have, as you put it, "no personality"? Not only do they have personality, but they are much more unique in the GW range as a whole. They're probably the most distinctive helms I've seen a model, or at least one of them.
And even from unit to unit, the variation is limited to some basic variations like slightly longer beards or a slightly different lens. They're still largely interchangeable faceless models when an army is placed on the table.
That's pretty much how (human/humanoid) faces work. The basic elements are the same: two eyes, one nose and mouth. And then there are slight variations among these features, which is exactly what we get with the KO masked helms.
weirdly enough you didn't include the one KO that is actually unique, which is kind of funny. Brokk grungson, who is one of the few KO to stand out in a crowd, because he's the only KO to get a hat.
What are you talking about? He was literally the
first example I provided you!...
That was literally less than 24 hours ago, and you even replied to it so you can't claim that you missed it.
So at this point, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but either you are just raising points of contention for their own sake or I very strongly suggest that you get your memory checked out. Why should I present the exact same evidence a second time? If I'm having a discussion with someone, I assume that they have a basic retention of what has been said and presented beforehand. Especially over such a short time period. It would be extremely monotonous to keep repeating the exact same things over and over at nauseum.
And Disney's Star Wars isn't a spiritual successor, it just is Star Wars, as much as you might dislike that.
Well, it's not. We have hundreds of posts across several threads on this forum saying otherwise. The internet is littered with millions and millions of posts and arguments that draw a very clear distinction between the George Lucas era of Star Wars and the Disney iteration. Disney Star Wars has been largely rejected, not by everyone, but by enough of the fan base that it is cratering (low viewership for their shows, diminishing box office returns, poor merchandise sales, low guest counts at Galaxy's Edge, failed "Star Wars" hotel, etc.). Someone would have to have been living under a rock not to have noticed (whether they enjoy the ST or not).
But if fan backlash and criticism doesn't sway you, Bob Iger (Disney President) openly admitted that George Lucas (the actual creator of Star Wars) did not approve of Disney Star Wars. You don't get a more official source than that!
If you can't see it, that's on you friend. I digress though, I don't want to rant too much about Star Wars here (for everyone's well-being).
You've decided all on your own to identify them as female, GW didn't actually tell you they were female. So clearly they are identifiable....
Remember that benefit of the doubt that I mentioned to you earlier in this post, well at this point, your argumentation is beginning to look increasingly deceitful. You are misrepresenting how things played out.
Let's take a look at how we first identified that they were female models:
One thing I really can't stand are the beardless Chaos Dwarfs mixed throughout. Maybe they are supposed to be female Chaos Dwarfs?
I also thought they were weird-looking beardless Chaos Dwarfs to begin with, which indeed sounded a heretical idea... then I noticed the Warhammer Underworlds Warband with a couple in and they were given female names, so yes, they are indeed female Dawi-Zharr.
So in the first quote you can see that I'm taking a
guess that they might be female models. The sentence includes a "maybe", a "supposed to be" and a "?". So it is speculative in nature (I mean they are either male beardless CD or female beardless CD, so 50/50).
It was then
@Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl who did the detective work (as presented in the second quote above) by noticing that the Warhammer Underworlds Warband (which also included some beardless CD) had been confirmed by GW to have female names.
Not only that, but even after all this, you yourself, were not
fully convinced that they were in fact female models:
I don't think GW has actually stated that they made female chaos dwarfs. So really this whole discussion is just the grumbling of longbeards that the new thing doesn't look like the old thing, and some speculation as to why that is the case
So your assertion is blatantly false. I
did not decide all on my own that they were female models. Those above are the facts. Receipts provided. Maybe you are misremembering, but that would be the second time in the same post. I'm trying to have a good faith discussion with you, but I can't help but feel that you are presenting disingenuous arguments, whereby you twist and distort the truth. Either to try to win the debate (which only works against you when the opposing party can go back an quote exactly what was said word for word) or just to disagree (which is pointless).
When I use the word identifiable, I mean easily identifiable with nothing required outside of a picture of the model itself. It should be blatantly obvious, with no room for guesswork. I've been clear on this from the start [emphasis mine]
They don't have sufficient aesthetic elements at their disposal to land the effect. Consequently, the end result is that the models do not effectively convey that these are female Chaos Dwarf models.
Don't get me wrong, if a beardless female Chaos Dwarf was done properly (meaning the model looked unmistakably female, without need of investigative work or lore confirmation) I'd likely buy some.
Sure, suggest an alternative. And I mean an actual alternative, not vague suggestions that aren't actually helpfull. So something concrete that
1) maintains the faction aesthetic of bulky plate armour
2) maintains their monstrous visage.
3) Is actually visible on such short & squat miniatures.
What exactly are you looking for here? I've already given you examples of potential design elements. That was my alternative. Stopping short of sculpting you a model, rendering you a 3d computer image or drawing a concept sketch, I'm not sure what you want from me.
To repeat, I suggest some combination of these elements should be employed alongside of the beardlessness:
- hair (usually longer, with a hair style that is more consistent with how women in the real world wear it)
- slightly softer facial features (via google AI: Men generally have more prominent brow ridges, larger jaws and noses, and thinner lips compared to women. Women tend to have fuller cheeks, smaller chins, and noses that may be shorter or have a slight upward curve at the tip)
- attire (alter their uniform in some way, it doesn't have to be boob armour but it can be. The alteration can be a complete overhaul or a series of slight modifications)
- body proportions (hips, chest and shoulder ratios differ between the average male and female)
If that is not enough for you, then go out in the world and actively look at how men and women differ physically. While the translation won't be exactly one-to-one between humans and Chaos Dwarfs, the basic elements remain the same. A female CD will not be as feminine in appearance as a woman, but more so than a male CD (and in more ways than beard or no beard).
Yes, it's a weird macabre thing designed by an insane necromancer god. It's supposed to look odd and mad.
It is however, not goofy. It's not presented as a joke, it is presented as a serious, if weird & insane, threat.
At this point you're just dumping good money after bad. You'd be better off to concede the point and maintain some level of credibility than try futilely to save a sinking ship that is beyond saving.
The final result is so bad that the intention behind it only makes it worse. At least if it was purposefully goofy, it could be
partially forgiven. But to fail so miserably is just laughable. It's not only goofy, its ridiculously stupid. Imagine trying to pitch that design concept in a meeting. How does that go?
It doesn't come off as serious or as a threat. It comes off as a poor joke. Whatever it was supposed to be, it didn't stick the landing.
But don't take my word for it, here is a second opinion provided by
@J.Logan :
This is about to be the easiest debate point of all time. Words not required...
