Dagnamit, is I have an image of an even more burly Gerard Butler screaming “this is not squat, this is Votann!” And kicking the admech guy into a big hole. And then later the admech guy floats out on integral AG looking vaguely embarrassed. Maybe they should be kicked into a blender like a Pufferbird into a Meat Vortex.
Gratlugg wrote: AoS over-designed? It has a lot cleaner lines than lots of 40k minis. To each their own, though.
When I think over-designed and AoS, I think of character models like Nagash, Archaon, and Avalenor, these massive centerpiece models festooned with filigree, knicknacks and/or skulls. They're also overdesigned specifically for use as gaming pieces, having fragile components, complicated three-dimensional poses, and/or massively elevated stature and size. AoS does occasionally feel like the artists are still flexing and relishing not being tied to a regiment-based ruleset or metal/resin materials and as such are joyfully creating these previously-impossible miniatures to show off their skills.
It's not all bad, I quite like what they did with Light of Eltharion, and rare among named AoS characters, he's actually possible to fit in a miniature case for transport :-P And sometimes the weightless, ethereal floatiness thing works, Lady Olynder stands out to me as being fantastically executed, one of the best-sculpted miniatures of the past decade - fragile and impractical for transport as she is.
Apart from the faces, male or female, which seem very pinched to me. I'll be replacing those with some Durgin Paint Forge heads, which are far more expressive IMO.
schoon wrote: More or less liking what I'm seeing thus far...
Apart from the faces, male or female, which seem very pinched to me. I'll be replacing those with some Durgin Paint Forge heads, which are far more expressive IMO.
Obviously the correct solution is to replace them with Genestealer Cultist heads. Might have to sneak in an extra arm here and there, too.
crumby_cataphract wrote: Honestly? These are outstanding. Each of the models has so much character. There's definitely some similarity to Starcraft marines, but that doesn't particularly bother me.
Like others have said, I hope we have the option to equip a full squad with sealed helmets. I like the faces, a lot, but the visors also look cool.
And those weapon designs! Man...I love all of them. It's genuinely so fascinating to see how each of the weapons systems clearly descends from the same tech tree as the IoM, but is more sophisticated.
It looks like its going to be a really cool set to pick up with lots of options. hoping for lots of different head/helmet options plus there are probably more weapon options like the missile launcher, power fist etc. I think might do the vizors in dark bronze with glowing eyes, I like how the Theyns have at least two different totems -a wolf and a boar [plus there is a hawk in the rumour engine]. Looks to be a set with packed sprues.
Looking forward to seeing some character models and I wonder if they will get a heavy weapon squad as well as the Beserks and the Einhyr.
Mentlegen324 wrote: This rumour engine picture from june last year is definitely another one of those backpack banner things:
Good catch!
Am I the only one getting strong Kill Team vibes from some of the war gear options? I mean, we all know it'll be a full faction, but I wonder if the first release will be part of a Kill Team set.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I like the Ion Blasters and the magnarail rifle. I think those have an overall nice design.
The sights on most of the weapons seem impractical though.
I would very much like a 5 page arguement on the efficacy of Votann iron sights please!
CthuluIsSpy wrote: No bolters, oddly enough. I see the Ion Blasters, the Magnarail, the revolvers and the hylas, but not the volkite, the bolter and the missile launcher.
I wonder if the handgun in the top right LEFT is supposed to be the bolter? It's definitely different than the bolt-revolver, but seems too short squat for a full bolter.
Mentlegen324 wrote: It does have some similarities to the Autoch Bolter, but having bolt revolvers and bolt pistols would seem a bit odd.
After GW gave Primaris dozens of different bolt weapons, I don't know if two different style pistols should qualify as odd. It's kind of modest. Depending on the edition, stubguns, laspistols and auto pistols are mechanically interchangeable and pretty much just different names and looks for "Imperial low end sidearm". It could be as simple as that for Squats, just a bit of visual variation that the sculptors liked. Of course the rules writers will likely want to differentiate them, as they are prone to these days, so maybe two shots for the pistol and more strength for the revolver or something.
KillerAngel wrote: I wonder if the handgun in the top right is supposed to be the bolter? It's definitely different than the bolt-revolver, but seems too short squat for a full bolter.
Spoiler:
Bolt pistol, I would hazard. We do know what a full sized bolter looks like from the weapons preview. Note the angle of the magazine. Also seems kind of longer? It could just be a case of the art not matching the models, mind you. I for one was not expecting the hylas to be that round. Not sure I like the design that much. It's not bad per se, but it reminds me a little of a super soaker.
As for the ironsights, they just look kind of small to me on the model. In the picture they looked a little larger, and imperial bolters have much larger iron sights, more comparable with what you would see on actual rifles. Could be worse I suppose, there could be no sights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mentlegen324 wrote: It does have some similarities to the Autoch Bolter, but having bolt revolvers and bolt pistols would seem a bit odd.
Kind of, yeah. We do have revolvers and semi-autopistols today so I guess it sort of makes sense?
I find it interesting that most of the infantry models we've seen are armed with the Ion Blaster. That seems to be what GW has decided the standard Votann weapon is going to be. Which is great, having yet another army of bolter users would be a bit banal. Problem though is that Tau ion weapons at least seem to be high strength with decent armor penetration (average of -2) and range. An army of that seems...excessive. I'm going to assume that they'll be something like S5 AP-1 D1 at 24" range. That seems kind of reasonable?
KillerAngel wrote: I wonder if the handgun in the top right is supposed to be the bolter? It's definitely different than the bolt-revolver, but seems too short squat for a full bolter.
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mentlegen324 wrote: It does have some similarities to the Autoch Bolter, but having bolt revolvers and bolt pistols would seem a bit odd.
Kind of, yeah. We do have revolvers and semi-autopistols today so I guess it sort of makes sense?
I find it interesting that most of the infantry models we've seen are armed with the Ion Blaster. That seems to be what GW has decided the standard Votann weapon is going to be.
Which is great, having yet another army of bolter users would be a bit banal.
Problem though is that Tau ion weapons at least seem to be high strength with decent armor penetration (average of -2) and range. An army of that seems...excessive.
I'm going to assume that they'll be something like S5 AP-1 D1 at 24" range. That seems kind of reasonable?
I get the impression this is just a squad specialized in the "sundering the defences of heavily-armoured opponents with ion blasters and HYLas auto-rifles" role and that the Autoch Bolter will also be a standard weapon.
As for that pistol though, it's a surprise it doesn't have an angled magazine considering nearly every other magazine-loaded weapon we've seen from them so far does.
Flinty wrote: Pretty sure it’s a bolt pistol as well due to the design on the side. The energy weapons don’t have that same design, while the autochs does.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So the Votann like artisanal weapons, but only if they are automatic bolt style weapons
Oh, I dunno about that. Artisanal doesn't necessarily mean fancy or decorated, it just means crafted by an artisan, in order words, a skilled craftsman. Whilst an artisan can add a bunch of hand crafted decorations, it is not obligatory.
Being artisanal does, however, imply that every gun the Votann uses was made by hand. Much like the Vostroyans, iirc.
Yeah, but stuff that is artisanal is usually fiddly and twiddly, otherwise how do Tarquin and Felicity know that what you have bought is properly made by a specially trained carver ferret from Kenya (Kenya believe it?)
I notice in the images, there's a Votanni lady armed with a bolt revolver and a knife, which looks quite small. Perhaps the revolver is the typical sidearm.
The larger weapon the Thayn is carrying looks a lot like the Autoch pattern bolter but a little smaller. Is it perhaps some sort of odd "SMG style" weapon the squad leader is using or indeed just a straight up bolter as opposed to it being a pistol?
Olthannon wrote: I notice in the images, there's a Votanni lady armed with a bolt revolver and a knife, which looks quite small. Perhaps the revolver is the typical sidearm.
The larger weapon the Thayn is carrying looks a lot like the Autoch pattern bolter but a little smaller. Is it perhaps some sort of odd "SMG style" weapon the squad leader is using or indeed just a straight up bolter as opposed to it being a pistol?
Yeah I'd say the bolt revolver is a back up side arm and the Theyn's gun is more of a SMG with either a higher rate of fire/higher strength as it's her main weapon.
Hadn't noticed they all had the Ion Blasters- which looks cool to me, I'd say they would have a shorter range than Tau so I'd say you're right @CthululSpy.
Looking back at the gun art - none of those heavy weapons are listed with this squad and they all look man/kin portable -so maybe a heavy weapons squad [thunderers] to come?
I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that this is going to be like the Corsairs sprue, ie. gives you multiple very different layouts - one of which, and its the one shown, is very kill-teamy due to the amount of specialists on display.
N3p3nth3 wrote: I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that this is going to be like the Corsairs sprue, ie. gives you multiple very different layouts - one of which, and its the one shown, is very kill-teamy due to the amount of specialists on display.
And I'm going to say no, because it's not a Kill Team sprue but a Necromunda one.
Oh and because we already saw the sprues.
All the Necromunda squat weapons have two barrels and they all look terrible. I think the Votann weapons look much better, even with a few weird choices like the bolt shotgun.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with double-barrelled weapons - and I think most of the Squat guns look pretty cool - but I have to draw the line at the revolver. How is the top barrel being fed?
Those Ironhead Prospectors definitely look better with a different paint scheme than GW choose.
I still have absolutely no idea how their double barrel weapon work. Isn't that an ejection port for casings on the other side, which a revolver doesn't need?
Being charitable you could say it was like a single shot additional barrel for adding special ammo… but that turns it into a combo weapon rather than a double barrelled revolver. I just don’t like the weapon style which is a shame as I quite like the rest of the models.
Look, at least that was actually a thing once or twice, historically speaking.
Was also a thing in Devil May Cry.
The problem though isn't the second barrel, the problem is that the cylinder isn't aligned with the top barrel.
Like, do the bullets magically teleport upwards? Is there a second magazine that feeds into the top barrel?
If they just copied the Blue Rose I'd get it, but the current design? A bit awkward looking.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with double-barrelled weapons - and I think most of the Squat guns look pretty cool - but I have to draw the line at the revolver. How is the top barrel being fed?
looks like a single shot to me, similar to the LeMat revolver of 1856 which had a single shot large barrel (for buckshot), plus a revolver cylinder for 'normal' shooting firing through a smaller barrel(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeMat_Revolver)
GaroRobe wrote: I feel like my liking of the squats will go up a loooot when people get their hands on them, and give them a better paint scheme.
I mean, just look at how much better this necromunda squat looks. I actually want to get them now
Spoiler:
Who painted that one, Garorobe?
Harley Joseph Brown (HjosephP, hjoseph_painting)
Thanks for that, JWBS - always a good move to give proper credit for these things.
Purely on the basis of that photo of a different pose and colour scheme I ordered a box today. I'd put it off because I didn't think the Necromunda ones looked brill. But I've a mind for something now.
Look, at least that was actually a thing once or twice, historically speaking.
There is currently a double barreled revolver being manufactured. It's side by side though. Each barrel fires a round from the cylinder simultaneously. Three trigger pulls gives 6shots.
The problem though isn't the second barrel, the problem is that the cylinder isn't aligned with the top barrel.
Like, do the bullets magically teleport upwards? Is there a second magazine that feeds into the top barrel?
it does not need to align with the barrel because it is not a revolver drum you are seeing but a drum magazin that feeds both barrels
or why do you think the gun has an eject port, not because it is a revolver
you were just mislead by the look of the drum magazine, everything is fine here.....
The problem though isn't the second barrel, the problem is that the cylinder isn't aligned with the top barrel.
Like, do the bullets magically teleport upwards? Is there a second magazine that feeds into the top barrel?
it does not need to align with the barrel because it is not a revolver drum you are seeing but a drum magazin that feeds both barrels
or why do you think the gun has an eject port, not because it is a revolver
you were just mislead by the look of the drum magazine, everything is fine here.....
The other types shown on the models are just drum magazines, but aren't the grooves on the side of the cylinder of the one shown on the previous page something to do with revolvers?
Games Workshop designers either don't understand weapons at all beyond a basic cargo-cult level, or they intentionally make most of their designs terrible as a joke.
The problem though isn't the second barrel, the problem is that the cylinder isn't aligned with the top barrel. Like, do the bullets magically teleport upwards? Is there a second magazine that feeds into the top barrel?
it does not need to align with the barrel because it is not a revolver drum you are seeing but a drum magazin that feeds both barrels
or why do you think the gun has an eject port, not because it is a revolver you were just mislead by the look of the drum magazine, everything is fine here.....
Ok, but aren't drum magazines situated outside of the weapon, rather than inside? I don't see how the drum is feeding bullets into both barrels.
Agamemnon2 wrote: Games Workshop designers either don't understand weapons at all beyond a basic cargo-cult level, or they intentionally make most of their designs terrible as a joke.
Six of one, half dozen of the other?
It’s certainly a distinctive style. And solely a poser, and not a conclusion? Is it better to pretend you know how guns works, or to just go for what’s cool in your head?
Please note this isn’t me defending owt. I’ve no opinion either way.
Agamemnon2 wrote: Games Workshop designers either don't understand weapons at all beyond a basic cargo-cult level, or they intentionally make most of their designs terrible as a joke.
Six of one, half dozen of the other?
It’s certainly a distinctive style. And solely a poser, and not a conclusion? Is it better to pretend you know how guns works, or to just go for what’s cool in your head?
Please note this isn’t me defending owt. I’ve no opinion either way.
"Six and two threes" is the formulation of that idiom where I'm from (I know the one you use here is the standard saying but I always liked this other version a lot more, it just rolls off the tongue so much better. The syllables, the cadence, it's just superior in every way).
There's been all sorts of experimentation with guns in the few years guns have been a thing. In 40,000 years I'm sure a few new ideas and ways of manufacturing weaponry to fire through multiple barrels at once or indeed alternate between them really shouldn't be a such a difficult concept to accept.
40,000 years ago multiple hominin species still lived on Earth, a lot can happen in that time frame.
It’s the uncanny valley problem though. If they made stuf that looks just like what we have today, it’s easy enou fun tianccept. The classics never go out of style. If instead they do something that is totally out there, then also fine. What they have is something the has familiar elements, it if you look a bit closer just don’t fit together in a logical manner and it bugs me. The positioning of the ejection ports, magazines/drums/cylinders/clips/whatevers and the barrels just don’t line up when they really should. Mechanical elegance is a thing as well.
Mr_Rose wrote: Look, at least that was actually a thing once or twice, historically speaking.
I knew someone was going to post this. Yes, multi-barrel revolvers have existed. There are even triple barrelled shotguns and all sorts of weird combi-weapons. I know that already.
But this double barrelled revolver doesn't have anything aligned with the top barrel, so, like I said a few posts ago: How is the top barrel being fed?
Mr_Rose wrote: Look, at least that was actually a thing once or twice, historically speaking.
I knew someone was going to post this. Yes, multi-barrel revolvers have existed. There are even triple barrelled shotguns and all sorts of weird combi-weapons. I know that already.
But this double barrelled revolver doesn't have anything aligned with the top barrel, so, like I said a few posts ago: How is the top barrel being fed?
‘Tis in fact all a cunning ruse. Neither barrel is real; the weapon simply teleports a primed micro grenade into the target. No need for messy powder charges, and you can make it look however you want on the outside.
Mr_Rose wrote: Look, at least that was actually a thing once or twice, historically speaking.
I knew someone was going to post this. Yes, multi-barrel revolvers have existed. There are even triple barrelled shotguns and all sorts of weird combi-weapons. I know that already.
But this double barrelled revolver doesn't have anything aligned with the top barrel, so, like I said a few posts ago: How is the top barrel being fed?
‘Tis in fact all a cunning ruse. Neither barrel is real; the weapon simply teleports a primed micro grenade into the target. No need for messy powder charges, and you can make it look however you want on the outside.
There's been all sorts of experimentation with guns in the few years guns have been a thing. In 40,000 years I'm sure a few new ideas and ways of manufacturing weaponry to fire through multiple barrels at once or indeed alternate between them really shouldn't be a such a difficult concept to accept.
That's a weird approach to the argument. Multiple barrels exist on multiple 40k weapons.
Its just that usually, the firing chamber is at least vaguely aligned with the barrel (or obscured so you can't really see it).
On these, repeatedly on both squat and Votann models, the barrels and firing chambers just visibly don't line up and are painted to actually stand out. It doesn't take expert knowledge or second guessing. They're just visibly wrong.
GaroRobe wrote: I feel like my liking of the squats will go up a loooot when people get their hands on them, and give them a better paint scheme.
I mean, just look at how much better this necromunda squat looks. I actually want to get them now
Despite the derpy double barrels, this guy looks LOADS better than the GW paint jobs.
I am still not happy with the kit, though. The Necromunda squats have options for three different 'backpack' weapons. The kit comes with two of one, and no indications that I can find of what the other two are even supposed to look like.
Every single squat model can take a 'stone saw', or a power axe, or a power pick. None are included in the kit.
Squat Flamers and Squat Meltas have different stats than normal Necromunda meltas and flamers. Any leader, champ, or specialist can take one. None are included in the kit.
This is a good looking kit, but even for Necromunda, egregiously lacking in options. It's like the basic box won't really be complete until they release an upgrade sprue in a year.
I like the models. I like the options. But why skimp on so many weapons options, GW?
There's been all sorts of experimentation with guns in the few years guns have been a thing. In 40,000 years I'm sure a few new ideas and ways of manufacturing weaponry to fire through multiple barrels at once or indeed alternate between them really shouldn't be a such a difficult concept to accept.
That's a weird approach to the argument. Multiple barrels exist on multiple 40k weapons.
Its just that usually, the firing chamber is at least vaguely aligned with the barrel (or obscured so you can't really see it).
On these, repeatedly on both squat and Votann models, the barrels and firing chambers just visibly don't line up and are painted to actually stand out. It doesn't take expert knowledge or second guessing. They're just visibly wrong.
Are they though?
All these Squat weapons are slightly different but likely have the same method of firing. The main difference being the exposed ammo for some reason and the ejection ports being on different sides. Exposed rounds seems daft but there you go. I guess looks like MGL mags. Let's consider them all as helical drum magazines. I mean the bottom machine gun things are just roided PP19s with another barrel plonked on top. I would assume they alternate at a very quick rate and likely both barrels fire nigh on simultaneously. So in order for that to work there must be a synchronisation gear that allows a different opening for spent cases to eject. It's possible the upper barrel on these guns has a round already in the breech in a closed bolt position. As that fires, the second one fires a moment later. I dunno it's 2am here. Maybe it's like some nuts version of the Evans repeater but fully automatic and double barrelled. It has to have some rotating mechanism within that housing at the front that pushes rounds through and fires the spent casings back out. It doesn't have to do that immediately, the spent casing could be retained for a split second and eject when the action allows.
That mechanism must be very intricate which is why the the barrels line up strangely. In order for the gun to work they probably would have to be off set.
Heat dissappation must be a problem which is why the larger barrelled weapons have the big ass holes.
Our current weaponry uses gas and springs to create automatic fire. There could be a toty wee shell loader platform in there that guides each round into the barrels in nanoseconds and pops them back out. It could all be entirely mechanised on runners. Sure its complicated as hell but why not.
Point is the guns are there in the game so in universe they work. Pick a reason to ease the turbulence.
None of that really has to make sense though because the aesthetic purpose of these models is all that really matters.
I do agree with Flinty that it's annoying that some of the guns have "modern" designs. That's the fault of the designers going for a spec ops style look. I'd rather the guns look mental as possible. Therefore there can be no doubt that there's not some normal mechanism in place. It's 40k, realism isn't necessary.
...yes?
I'm really not sure why this is a question. The chamber goes into the casing, and that line is roughly in line with the upper half of the bottom barrel (at best), and it clearly rotates above that, in between the two barrels.
The drum ones are even dumber. The 'intricate mechanism' you're proposing would feth itself even if things were in line, and I have no idea at all how one ejection port is supposed to work with any of that.
Point is the guns are there in the game so in universe they work. Pick a reason to ease the turbulence.
The designers screwed up. That's the only reason that matters.
None of that really has to make sense though because the aesthetic purpose of these models is all that really matters.
Well, ok, aesthetically I also find them awful, so... yeah. If that's all that matters, they're still just bad.
I dunno, maybe each round is fired by an electric priming system where an electric current from a firing lead passes through the firing pin to the primer as each round is rotated into the firing position? With the ones that don't have an ejection port, the spent casings could simply end up back in the magazine. Logically, a small hydraulic system could feed the barrels almost simultaneously as I said in my other post.
Fair enough if you don't like them. I'm not trying to convert anyone just suggesting the possibility that they would work after all.
It's 40k that's a lot of time in the future the bullits could literally teleportto where they need to be for all we know. Trying to figure out why a gun that far in the future works using today's knowledge of fire arms is daft. If humanity makes it any ware near that far into the future I promise we will be able to make guns look like anything we want them to and fire any way we like.
I hope that this doesn't come across as hostile, but I have to say that I just don't understand why the LoV weapons merit this much scrutiny. I'm not suggesting that we should just do away with any semblance of verisimilitude, but it just seems like dubious chambering mechanisms or gratuitous propulsion modes don't rank very high on the "40k absurdisms" index.
Astartes power armour would never be able to articulate with a human inside of it. And there is no way that a "miniature nuclear / fusion / black magic" generator like the one found in their backback would be able to generate the kind of power needed, certainly not without irradiating the wearer to death, melting it's confinement chamber, or just breaking at the first bullet impact.
The Imperial Guard use tanks that any Middle-Eastern militia could disable with Cold-War era weaponry, yet we're asked to believe that they can withstand the weaponry of Kardashev level three civilizations?
"But they have strong armour!"
No, there is no material known to science that could deal with the kind of attacks that they face.
Fully-mature rail gun technology? Toast.
Directed energy weapons with outputs on the order of giga- or *tera*watts? Donezo.
Weaponized heatguns that (somehow) generate temperatures sufficiently high to sublimate steel? Forget it.
Don't get me started on the Eldar's absurd "throwing star" guns.
Or the ridiculousness that is bi-pedal walkers.
Or the fact that a civilization as advanced as the Necrons would never do something as asinine as field armies of robots, but would probably just turn the galaxy into a soup of grey-goo using endless swarms of weaponized Von Neumann machines, and there would be exactly nothing that anyone could do to stop them.
I just don't see how the Votann using strange or superficially nonsensical analogues to real-world weaponry really deserves this much criticism when we've just accepted all of the other weirdness that is 40k as part of the charm. I mean, come on.
crumby_cataphract wrote: I hope that this doesn't come across as hostile, but I have to say that I just don't understand why the LoV weapons merit this much scrutiny. I'm not suggesting that we should just do away with any semblance of verisimilitude, but it just seems like dubious chambering mechanisms or gratuitous propulsion modes don't rank very high on the "40k absurdisms" index.
In much the same way a starship is protected by a gellar field and the golden throne is sustained by sacrifices of thousands of souls daily, Dakka Dakka is maintained by the act of constant nitpicking. If it ever ceased I'm not sure what would happen, but I'm certain it would be dark and terrible and also somehow involve daemons.
It’s because they are, very obviously, weapons that could theoretically be made. Except for the pretty obvious flaw.
People don’t question meltaguns because the mechanism is both hidden and outright fictional, so we have no frame of reference to say whether it looks like it could work or not. Bullet spitters on the other hand have real counterparts and the problem is self-evident to anyone who’s even slightly familiar with them.
Also marine armour and Guard tanks are frequently criticised in terms of mechanical effectiveness. Most of the rest is clear space magic that gets a pass as Mr Rose said
crumby_cataphract wrote: I hope that this doesn't come across as hostile, but I have to say that I just don't understand why the LoV weapons merit this much scrutiny. I'm not suggesting that we should just do away with any semblance of verisimilitude, but it just seems like dubious chambering mechanisms or gratuitous propulsion modes don't rank very high on the "40k absurdisms" index.
Mostly because it would have cost GW literally nothing to get it right, and there's zero payoff to their extremely visible visible disregard for basic physics. The absurdity of Space Marine armor or Dreadnoughts is more egregrious in scope but more palatable for it, because or suspension of disbelief is "rewarded" by allowing the existence of those extremely iconic creations who simply could not exist without those absurdities. "The rule of cool", as it's called. To a slightly lesser extent the same is true for things like Imperial Guard tanks.
Squat and Votann weapons, on the other hand, have nonsensical ammunition feeds for no readily apparent reason. It's also annoying me because it's the largest fault I can find in those ranges. In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man sticks out.
GaroRobe wrote: I feel like my liking of the squats will go up a loooot when people get their hands on them, and give them a better paint scheme.
I mean, just look at how much better this necromunda squat looks. I actually want to get them now
Yeah that scheme is really good.I've seen a few unboxing videos showing them off sprue and they look a lot better than the promo art. tempted to get a set to play around with paint schemes although I'm not entirely sold on the weapons .
The designers screwed up. That's the only reason that matters.
GW can never screw up, those are the best designed models out there, everything works as shown and you just fail to understand the advanced tech of the far future
GaroRobe wrote: I feel like my liking of the squats will go up a loooot when people get their hands on them, and give them a better paint scheme.
I mean, just look at how much better this necromunda squat looks. I actually want to get them now
Yeah that scheme is really good.I've seen a few unboxing videos showing them off sprue and they look a lot better than the promo art. tempted to get a set to play around with paint schemes although I'm not entirely sold on the weapons .
That does look so much better than GW's paint scheme.
Poor paintjobs have been letting down Necromunda minis since the relaunch. At least the minis themselves are usually really good, barring some (mostly early) fw sculpts.
Edit: Hilariously, the same guy is behind the official minis and the one here. I am… speechless.
N3p3nth3 wrote: I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that this is going to be like the Corsairs sprue, ie. gives you multiple very different layouts - one of which, and its the one shown, is very kill-teamy due to the amount of specialists on display.
And I'm going to say no, because it's not a Kill Team sprue but a Necromunda one.
Oh and because we already saw the sprues.
xttz wrote: In much the same way a starship is protected by a gellar field and the golden throne is sustained by sacrifices of thousands of souls daily, Dakka Dakka is maintained by the act of constant nitpicking. If it ever ceased I'm not sure what would happen, but I'm certain it would be dark and terrible and also somehow involve daemons
And the sad part is, 90% of the time said nitpicking is completely wrong (see all the whining about primaris tanks, literally the only SM design based nearly 1:1 on RL vehicle tested in multiple wars, said geniuses complaining it's ""unrealistic"" unlike terribad squat SM designs that wouldn't be able to drive over fallen branch or aim the gun at standing infantry). Go figure.
Mr_Rose wrote: It’s because they are, very obviously, weapons that could theoretically be made. Except for the pretty obvious flaw.
People don’t question meltaguns because the mechanism is both hidden and outright fictional, so we have no frame of reference to say whether it looks like it could work or not. Bullet spitters on the other hand have real counterparts and the problem is self-evident to anyone who’s even slightly familiar with them.
Erm, no. People here know guns from Hollywood or at best from shooting some M16 clone. Put unusual design in front of them and they would be complaining it's 'problematic' and 'unrealistic' too.
Case in point, this Russian GSh-23 gun produced by the thousands. Two barrels, one ammo feed, one side switching twin mechanism, one ejection port. Gee, what does this remind you of?
Mr_Rose wrote: It’s because they are, very obviously, weapons that could theoretically be made. Except for the pretty obvious flaw.
People don’t question meltaguns because the mechanism is both hidden and outright fictional, so we have no frame of reference to say whether it looks like it could work or not. Bullet spitters on the other hand have real counterparts and the problem is self-evident to anyone who’s even slightly familiar with them.
Erm, no. People here know guns from Hollywood or at best from shooting some M16 clone. Put unusual design in front of them and they would be complaining it's 'problematic' and 'unrealistic' too.
Case in point, this Russian GSh-23 gun produced by the thousands. Two barrels, one ammo feed, one side switching twin mechanism, one ejection port. Gee, what does this remind you of?
I don’t think the double barrel thing has been tagged as a problem in isolation. It’s the position of the barrels (and by extension the breech, feed mechanisms, etc) in relation to whatever ammo holding device tue gun has. It looks incredibly awkward for a bullet to go from storage into the shooty bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean all they really had to do was put the magazine cylinders obviously in the outside of the gun, rather than having the worky bits of the lower barrel taking up space that could have been holding bullets. For the revolver, they could have added a second cylinder up top feeding the upper barrel. But they didn’t. They went half way and ended up with something that makes me think “yuck, why would you do that”, and then I’m not interested any more. I realise that I’m not the only audience, but it would have taken minimal effort to not be in this position.
When I eventually get some of these, I'll be removing the lower barrels and replacing the revolving cylinder with a magazine... probably by just filling the dimples in the cylinder with green stuff.
I'm not a fan of the odd positioning of the cylinders or the extra barrels but that isn't going to stop me from getting some.
It will take minimal work and all the problems just ebb away... .
Yeah but the way a helical magazine works you can jam it in whereever and the follower should do the job.
The Evans repeater had a 26 round helical magazine in the stock. Had problems early on but the fixed that with the new model. That Russian gun there works fine too.
Like I said earlier on the machine guns they have are clearly modelled on PP19s.
The way I see it, the offset of the barrel and magazines has to look wonky for the double barrel nature of the gun to work successfully.
You can just hate how they look as an aesthetic. Like that's totally fine I'm not disputing that at all in this thread because that's people's opinions. I just think the guns would work okay. To dislike them based on the fact they might not work I don't understand
Erm, no. People here know guns from Hollywood or at best from shooting some M16 clone. Put unusual design in front of them and they would be complaining it's 'problematic' and 'unrealistic' too.
Case in point, this Russian GSh-23 gun produced by the thousands. Two barrels, one ammo feed, one side switching twin mechanism, one ejection port. Gee, what does this remind you of?
Not the Squat guns, I can tell you that. A revolver cylinder is not a belt feed.
You can just hate how they look as an aesthetic. Like that's totally fine I'm not disputing that at all in this thread because that's people's opinions. I just think the guns would work okay. To dislike them based on the fact they might not work I don't understand
But again, each to their own.
What if the reason one doesn't like the aesthetic is because it looks unfeasible? Similar to how some people don't like boob plates, gunblades, impractically large swords, guns with exposed wiring and lightsabers with laser hilts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inso wrote: When I eventually get some of these, I'll be removing the lower barrels and replacing the revolving cylinder with a magazine... probably by just filling the dimples in the cylinder with green stuff.
I'm not a fan of the odd positioning of the cylinders or the extra barrels but that isn't going to stop me from getting some.
It will take minimal work and all the problems just ebb away... .
Just turn one of the barrels into a flashlight. Surely they still have weapon attachments like that in the 41st millennium.
Erm, no. People here know guns from Hollywood or at best from shooting some M16 clone. Put unusual design in front of them and they would be complaining it's 'problematic' and 'unrealistic' too.
Case in point, this Russian GSh-23 gun produced by the thousands. Two barrels, one ammo feed, one side switching twin mechanism, one ejection port. Gee, what does this remind you of?
A revolver cylinder is not a belt feed.
Is it definitely meant to be a revolver cylinder, though?
Erm, no. People here know guns from Hollywood or at best from shooting some M16 clone. Put unusual design in front of them and they would be complaining it's 'problematic' and 'unrealistic' too.
Case in point, this Russian GSh-23 gun produced by the thousands. Two barrels, one ammo feed, one side switching twin mechanism, one ejection port. Gee, what does this remind you of?
A revolver cylinder is not a belt feed.
Is it definitely meant to be a revolver cylinder, though?
It looks a lot like one due to the grooves and the placement. It could very well be that it's just a drum magazine, but in that case it should really be under the gun. Sort of like this, but replace the box mag with a drum mag
You know you done goofed, when your faction of craftsmen makes less plausible weapons than orks.
What if the reason one doesn't like the aesthetic is because it looks unfeasible?
Similar to how some people don't like boob plates, gunblades, impractically large swords, guns with exposed wiring and lightsabers with laser hilts.
Again fair enough. However, I'd argue there's been lots of guns throughout our history that have looked unfeasible, and yet they have still been feased.
What if the reason one doesn't like the aesthetic is because it looks unfeasible?
Similar to how some people don't like boob plates, gunblades, impractically large swords, guns with exposed wiring and lightsabers with laser hilts.
Again fair enough. However, I'd argue there's been lots of guns throughout our history that have looked unfeasible, and yet they have still been feased.
“Feased” - that will win you any argument, have an exalt! Bravo!
The more I see what GW decided to go with for the Votann, the less I like it, and what makes it worse is that they tried to piggyback on the thing that people actually wanted, ie the Squats, ie Space Miner Dwarfs, pretended that's what they were going for at the start just to pull a bait a switch to go into something totally different.
And just to make it EVEN WORSE they are releasing in parallel something way, WAY closer to what I, and many others, expected the new Squats to be with... welp, the "Squats" of Necromunda.
What did that last reveal gave us?
Female heads that looks like the Bogdanofs.
The robot heads that are a total waste of a cool idea "oh yeah, they got quasi man of iron, but that's just a headswap compared to a standard guy".
And other heads look very samey to the point that the best look one are the helmeted with open visor one because it makes the whole armor feel more bulky and help the mini look better overal.
And speaking of armor, its just not dwarvish enough (which could be fine) but then they randomly slap a very out of place piece of "dwarvish" stuff on the sergeant that just don't match with the rest. They don't seem to know what they want to do with these faction look.
Also... sword, really? Short sword on top of that. That just doesn't match, give them axes (which they have), hammer, powerfist or something cool and unique.
They could have had a more coherent dwarvish look on thos armor by simply slapping some motifs on their armors like on that portrait
After thinking a bit more about it, I think one of the thing I like the least about thos votanns are the legs. Where on the squats the armored legs look great and help giving an armored look to the mini, the weld astronaut pant they gave to the votann just doesnt work, especially with how heavy the top armor look.
If you swapped the votann legs and belt for the squat's, the result would be way better.
I did a quick mockup of that, trying to bring more dwarfish vib to the Votann and I don't know about you, but I find the merging of both way more interesting.
The squat sergeant legs with the cloth on top of the legs looks ever better, it makes the thing look more, well, squatter.
Also painting some parts as brass goes a long way to tie the whole thing together
Nope. In the mines the miners need their miner helms to protect from falling rocks and miner lights to see in the dark... Necromunda heads are fine, specially the fully enclosed ones.
Yeah, I agree that that relatively thin ankles is not a great choice. Sturdy armoured boots would be better. And whilst I don't greatly dislike the Votann, I like the Necromunda iteration of them more. Then again, there really isn't anything stopping one from using the Necromunda models for 40K squats, or kitbashing the two. (And perhaps throwing in some Khadaron bits for good measure.)
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Wait, does that image imply that 'Munda Squats, already pretty tol for a Squat, are significantly shorter than Votann Squats?
Necro Squats are about as tall as the Slayers from AoS. Don't have any KO to compare but guess they are the same size and would make sense to expect LoV to be the same, no?
NAVARRO wrote: Nope. In the mines the miners need their miner helms to protect from falling rocks and miner lights to see in the dark... Necromunda heads are fine, specially the fully enclosed ones.
Riiight, just like how spacemarines need a helmet because it would be frankly stupid to wear a massive armor to leave your most vulnerable spot open, right?
That example is a sergeant (the guys that love to not wear helmets) but ofc the standard dudes would have one and I actually quite like the Necromunda helmets, well, the version on the artwork at least, because the minies looks hilariously bad in comparison.
A better illustration there never has been of the inadequacies of some of the drooling halfwit dregs GW lets operate their CAD programs and calls "sculptors" these days.
Gotta say, though, too, that only a halfwit dreg would really expect painted artwork to fully match up to sculpted details. When does that ever really happen? Particularly when you're having to reconcile the practicalities of casting, modularity, scaling of detail, etc.
ekwatts wrote: Gotta say, though, too, that only a halfwit dreg would really expect painted artwork to fully match up to sculpted details. When does that ever really happen? Particularly when you're having to reconcile the practicalities of casting, modularity, scaling of detail, etc.
You're taking it a bit far there if we're still talking about the helmets. GW is perfectly capable of making a helmet that's similarly proportioned to that artwork, the Cadian one for instance. There's no reason to believe that the wider appearance on model is caused by some physical limitation. They wanted those helmets to be wide.
GW has in the past demonstrated the ability to draw Space Marine artwork with a lot closer fidelity to the miniatures' proportions and design elements than that, even with the practicalities of their sculpting taken into account. Perhaps they just couldn't be bothered to put the same effort in for a minor faction in a secondary game.
ekwatts wrote: Gotta say, though, too, that only a halfwit dreg would really expect painted artwork to fully match up to sculpted details. When does that ever really happen? Particularly when you're having to reconcile the practicalities of casting, modularity, scaling of detail, etc.
Lul, are you implying that GW couldn't have done from a technical standpoint that illustration helmet?
Really now?
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: I can't get this out of my head everytime I see the Necromunda' Squat helmets
The funny part is that if you tried to draw a proper face here, the eyes would still be way, WAY too high to see trough that glass.
There's no two ways about it, these minies helmets are dog gak on every aspect.
Hell, even just as a simple piece of gear, it's so large it's the same size that the space it's supposed to fit in thus restricting hard the head movement of its user.
There's no excuse here, the guy that made their 3D model just fethed up adapting the artwork (because I refure to believe that artwork was done after the models).
Is a visor, there's a head included with just glasses on and no visor. I guess you could even just not put the visors on at all if you want to see their eyes so badly.
Togusa wrote: So basically when there is no news, y'all just sit around arguing about weapon ejection systems and visor placement?
And draw conclusions on miniature height based on pictures with different scales.
I missed that one. Is there a difference between the Necromunda ones and the LoV ones? When I played a little Necromunda back in March, something just really felt off about the scale to me. Couldn't put my finger on it, but it was weird.
NAVARRO wrote: Nope. In the mines the miners need their miner helms to protect from falling rocks and miner lights to see in the dark... Necromunda heads are fine, specially the fully enclosed ones.
Riiight, just like how spacemarines need a helmet because it would be frankly stupid to wear a massive armor to leave your most vulnerable spot open, right?
That example is a sergeant (the guys that love to not wear helmets) but ofc the standard dudes would have one and I actually quite like the Necromunda helmets, well, the version on the artwork at least, because the minies looks hilariously bad in comparison.
Well the question would be... what was done first? Was the cover art based on the sculpt or the sculpt based on the cover art? For all we know the original concept art may have been different and closer to the sculpt and then the cover art was done later, with artist liberties.
I know, I never managed to sculpt one mini close to my 2d art but then again I suck at it.
But yes primaris should have helmets too and sergeant extra Helmets like a Matryoshka doll XD XD
Speaking of helmets the Optional visors are news to me, just look at those sweet cheeks! I like them even more now.
The visors being separate is a big plus. I'd have preferred all heads to have both a mustache and a beard, not either or, but the heads work. The top one is the best IMO, but the mustache one is good too
I like how the guy's blogspot review sawed off the second gun barrel on all the weapons. Between that and the visors being optional, the kits looks a lot better than my initial impression.
KidCthulhu wrote: I like how the guy's blogspot review sawed off the second gun barrel on all the weapons. Between that and the visors being optional, the kits looks a lot better than my initial impression.
Ha, that's actually pretty funny. And looks pretty good.
I think I have enough dwarf runes from Fantasy to place over the secondary gun barrel to both cover up the spot and make it more dwarfy
This would have been a great chance for GW to create a new 'faction geometry'. Like, Tau armor plates and panels are unmistakable due to their specific geometries, same with Eldar an their fiddly bits. Orks have the square-edged and triangular aesthetic, and Mahrines are the round circly ones. Squats ought to have been obtuse angles and flat plates.
The guns are VERY much problematic. I totally agree that Ork weapons look more viable, which is just embarrasing.
And on the aspect of 'well can you really expect'...
Yes. YES. That's what Critique is FOR. When someone is doing art for fun, that's one thing. Who cares, hope they're having fun. Great. Fine. But when someone is being PAID to create a SPECIFIC PRODUCT for a company and further for the consumers of that product, they MUST be held to at least a certain minimum standard. And this is a case of the shown sculpts being of LOWER quality than prior sculpts, from a company who's ONLY saving grace is the supposed superiority of their sculpts and sprues. (Because it's certainly not in rules or customer service.)
This is genuinely my favourite bit of a new release, especially Interesting ones, such as Squats returning to the fold.
And it’s seeing what others do with the models. Because this when we get a real idea of what the kit or kits can really do.
I genuinely don’t care what the next person might think of the kit or kits, because opinions are opinions, and someone not enjoying something doesn’t really impact the next person.
I've had a couple collector models sitting around. I have a White Dwarf as a Techmarine, and the White Dwarf in marine Power armor. I'm hoping that the LoV will look enough like them so I can include them in my army, but how many people would consider it sacrilege to cut open those packages?
I’m probably in the vast minority but I greatly prefer the Necromunda Squats to the LoV troopers. Kinda wish I could just use the squats as the troop units for a LoV force instead but 8 to a box and likely the wrong basic weapons probably nixes that :( Too bad
John D Law wrote: I’m probably in the vast minority but I greatly prefer the Necromunda Squats to the LoV troopers. Kinda wish I could just use the squats as the troop units for a LoV force instead but 8 to a box and likely the wrong basic weapons probably nixes that :( Too bad
Feel like you are in the vast majority on the contrary. The Squats looks way more like what people wanted from a return of that faction as an army than the LoV will ever be.
John D Law wrote: I’m probably in the vast minority but I greatly prefer the Necromunda Squats to the LoV troopers. Kinda wish I could just use the squats as the troop units for a LoV force instead but 8 to a box and likely the wrong basic weapons probably nixes that :( Too bad
Feel like you are in the vast majority on the contrary. The Squats looks way more like what people wanted from a return of that faction as an army than the LoV will ever be.
I'm not sure about that being the majority, but I do get the impression a lot of people are unhappy with the lack of Dwarf theming present.The high-tech slightly classic sci-fi astronaut is an interesting direction to take the Leagues and by no means is that something that should be lost, but they are missing something ontop of the Astronaut theme to add a little bit more, whether that's the usual Dwarf aesthetics or something different to that.
The usual Dwarf stuff does seem to be what a lot want from them though and the Leagues are meant to be themed on that usual Dwarf style anyway. Whether you like it or think that's important to the archetype or not, they're going for the most well-known Dwarf theming involving runes, gold embellishments/decoration, the beards, geometric patterns, their faction logo and all that. That's evident in the artwork for the Votann, the art of the ship with the leader guy, the Exo-suit, the Bolter and the Banner on the Theyn; those all include Dwarf theming so it's part of the Leagues, as well as in their lore. They're stoic Hardy Space Miners who are skilled craftsmen with a martial society, they value their individuality because they're clones, they hold their ancestors in very high regard and worship the Votann as diety-like machines integral to their society, and they're proud of their heritage. They're Dwarfs.
But then that hasn't been factored into the Hernkin or Hearthkin or Ironkin, the Dwarf theming that should be present throughout their miniatures to at least some extent isn't there except for two very basic parts - the Theyn Banner, and the bolter (and seemingly some on the Exo-suit and leader, but those are elites/HQ so the effect is different to having it on the basic troops) but it isn't present throughout their range like it should be. There's almost nothing to link back to the Ancestors or Votann, they don't have runes or sigils forged onto their armour to show their heritage, there's no elaboration or patterns on their armour or weapons, not even a little. They haven't had sense of life and culture the Dwarf theme would give integrated into their miniatures overall and so something like the Theyn banner feels out of place. It's odd how so far only the bolter is the only weapon we've seen with any sort of decoration when theres been room of other stuff to include that sort of thing in places too.
I totally get not wanting them to go too far with it, something like Mantics Forgefathers where that part is pretty much the core theme of their look is a little boring I think. Grendlesen had the right amount with the Space Dwarf stuff - just a belt buckle, backpack icon, some beard decoration and something on his weapon. Even just including one or two of those aspects would have made the Leagues feel more Dwarfy and add something they're missing to show the heritage side of things on their actual miniatures overall. The Necrons and Genestealer cults have stuff in way of that, but a new army that by way of both the Dwarf Archetype and their lore you'd expect to have something like that, doesn't. It just leaves them looking a bit too basic and the very few things that are there feel like they've been put on as an afterthought rather than done in a way that feels like it fits properly.
Those just saying things like "It's good to change the archetype to make them more interesting! or "You just want them to be fantasy Dwarfs in space!"" are missing the point I think. Dwarf aspects and a new unique direction are not mutually exclusive, you can include keep them as the high-tech Astronauts and still have parts of that included in the same way as Kharadron and Lumineth went in a new direction - or in the say way some of their stuff clearly will be. It just isn't part of them overall even though it should be there because of their lore. It wouldn't even really matter if it was the typical Nordic theming or some other style anyway. They're just missing something to show what that part of the archetype and their lore represents - the culture, history and such. They should be a new direction on the classic theme, but so far their miniatures have been missing that and not really having much of what people like about Dwarfs included. They're been high-tech short astronauts with Dwarf lore, rather than High Tech Astronaut Space Dwarfs aesthetically. They don't need a huge change or to be "Fantasy Dwarfs in space" whatever that means, just small additions to implement what they should have / somewhat already have better than the 3 miniatures shown. The basic infantry of an army should be what showcases the factions core aesthetics overall to some extent as they're one of the most important parts, but these don't seem to represent that well outside of the high-tech astronaut part of the Leagues.
The Necromunda Squats have some of that that's missing from the Leagues and elements that just feel more suitable for Space Dwarfs; the boots that don't make their ankle proportions feel weird and the belt decoration, for example.
This part for me is the main failing of the Votann design, it's the same mistake they made with the early Primaris where they thought what people wanted to marines to be was generic mass produced space soldier in generic gear instead of space crusader monk in relic gothic ornate armor. That's not what ANYONE wanted and it goes against the core principle of 40k.
It's the same thing happening again with the squat. The only reason they are suddenly randomly bringing them back is because it was on top of the player wishlist for decades now, so when was the time to add a new faction they went with it.
The problem is that they seem to have totally missed the mark on what people meant when they asked for squat. What people obviously meant was for space dwarfs, but for some reason GW decided to do its best to NOT deliver on that and just went with... welp "sci-fi astronaut" is the perfect way to put it and I'll quote myself from a couple of pages ago :
After thinking a bit more about it, I think one of the thing I like the least about thos votanns are the legs. Where on the squats the armored legs look great and help giving an armored look to the mini, the weld astronaut pant they gave to the votann just doesnt work, especially with how heavy the top armor look.
If you swapped the votann legs and belt for the squat's, the result would be way better.
I did a quick mockup of that, trying to bring more dwarfish vib to the Votann and I don't know about you, but I find the merging of both way more interesting.
The squat sergeant legs with the cloth on top of the legs looks ever better, it makes the thing look more, well, squatter.
Also painting some parts as brass goes a long way to tie the whole thing together
Still not amazing, but already way better imho.
Even if we ignore the painfully obvious lack dwarvish iconography (like rune gravings on the armors) the thing that really doesn't work here beside most of the faces are thos legs.
They are clearly meant to be "sci-fi astronaut" legs, but not only they don't work well with the head armor, making the whole thing look goofy but it's also very similar to a lot of other minies design like the genestealer cult (thos streaked kneepads in particular).
And sure, doing Space Kharadron Overlord would have been a bit too on the nose, but there's a middle ground between over the top dwarvish and just not dwarvish at all.
Even if they bring more of that dwarviness on the more elite units, that won't be good enough because what defines an army look is its basic infantry troop, not its elite choice.
The frustrating part here is the existence of thos Necromunda Squats. They feel like a salvaged early draft for the Votann, one that was way, WAY closer to what people wanted, but one that got discarded by some very stupid exec (probably the same one that thought astartes should be generic scifi space soldiers) in favor of something more """"original"""".
wonder if the necromunda squats slit helmets are calling back to this ancient rogue trader mini (image from Stuff of Legends) which is probably the first GW space dwarf
One of the earliest criticisms voiced when the first Squat model was shown off was that it looked like it belonged with Tau. That's an issue not just because the dwarf identity doesn't show, but because the lack thereof also makes it look like a part of an established army. That's not something a designer should want. Tau have the sleek, rounded sci-fi look covered at this point and if a new model looks like it's part of that army instead of having a recognizable identity of its own, I'd call that a problem with its design.
I can understand doing Necromunda Squats in such a way that they fit in with some of the Necromunda aesthetics and wouldn't look out of place next to Genestealer Cults models, because all of them are supposed to invoke that low level Imperial industrial setting they belong in. For the same reason I can understand not developing 40k Squats in a similar direction because they are supposed to be a faction of their own and specifically not connected to the Imperium, common ancestry notwithstanding. But to me they don't look like they have that identity of their own on their basic infantry. At least not to a large enough degree.
Although like I said before some of that is likely colored by my dislike for the studio paint scheme, and I like the helmeted egg armor look better than the bare headed one.
wonder if the necromunda squats slit helmets are calling back to this ancient rogue trader mini (image from Stuff of Legends) which is probably the first GW space dwarf
From what I've seen a lot of things back then (outside of leaders and such) didn't have much iconography on the miniatures though, not just the Squats.
Still, for an army that's meant to have that importance of their heritage, ancestors, family connection etc are their lore, you'd expect something on even the basic infantry. Especially when the majority
Geifer wrote: One of the earliest criticisms voiced when the first Squat model was shown off was that it looked like it belonged with Tau. That's an issue not just because the dwarf identity doesn't show, but because the lack thereof also makes it look like a part of an established army. That's not something a designer should want. Tau have the sleek, rounded sci-fi look covered at this point and if a new model looks like it's part of that army instead of having a recognizable identity of its own, I'd call that a problem with its design.
This is part of the problem I have too. The lack of Dwarf iconography, or any, is something that not only affects how their lore is showcased through the miniatures, but also takes away from giving the army a cohesive, distinct theme that isn't present elsewhere. I've seen people compare them to Space Marines because of their rounded bulky armour, and Tau because of the sleek high-tech style - the Armoured Sci-f Astronaut Dwarfs I think is a cool direction, but they need more to them so they stand out and the lack of decoration and iconography makes that problem worse. Even more so when they've got things that aren't too dissimilar from the Imperium's look, like their Plasma weapons and that Plasma Sword wouldn't be out of place on a Primaris Marine.
Togusa wrote: So basically when there is no news, y'all just sit around arguing about weapon ejection systems and visor placement?
And draw conclusions on miniature height based on pictures with different scales.
I missed that one. Is there a difference between the Necromunda ones and the LoV ones? When I played a little Necromunda back in March, something just really felt off about the scale to me. Couldn't put my finger on it, but it was weird.
The Necro minis tend to be on the larger end of the gw scale, being all essentially characters, but I was referring to just the pictures.
wonder if the necromunda squats slit helmets are calling back to this ancient rogue trader mini (image from Stuff of Legends) which is probably the first GW space dwarf
Personally I like the look of both the Necromunda squats and the Votann. Interestingly the artwork for the Votann gives off a more distinct vibe that doesn't completely translate onto the miniatures.
I don't really have the time or money to start a new army but if the Votann get rules for killteam then i'll pick up a box or two.
wonder if the necromunda squats slit helmets are calling back to this ancient rogue trader mini (image from Stuff of Legends) which is probably the first GW space dwarf
From what I've seen a lot of things back then (outside of leaders and such) didn't have much iconography on the miniatures though, not just the Squats.
Still, for an army that's meant to have that importance of their heritage, ancestors, family connection etc are their lore, you'd expect something on even the basic infantry. Especially when the majority
Geifer wrote: One of the earliest criticisms voiced when the first Squat model was shown off was that it looked like it belonged with Tau. That's an issue not just because the dwarf identity doesn't show, but because the lack thereof also makes it look like a part of an established army. That's not something a designer should want. Tau have the sleek, rounded sci-fi look covered at this point and if a new model looks like it's part of that army instead of having a recognizable identity of its own, I'd call that a problem with its design.
This is part of the problem I have too. The lack of Dwarf iconography, or any, is something that not only affects how their lore is showcased through the miniatures, but also takes away from giving the army a cohesive, distinct theme that isn't present elsewhere. I've seen people compare them to Space Marines because of their rounded bulky armour, and Tau because of the sleek high-tech style - the Armoured Sci-f Astronaut Dwarfs I think is a cool direction, but they need more to them so they stand out and the lack of decoration and iconography makes that problem worse. Even more so when they've got things that aren't too dissimilar from the Imperium's look, like their Plasma weapons and that Plasma Sword wouldn't be out of place on a Primaris Marine.
I’m glad they aren’t covered in dwarfish runes and stuff. That was never really part of the squat look, in the models or the artwork. It was there but in a very limited way. Dwarfs in space is not what’s needed really, times have moved on since we lazily ported fantasy tropes into 40k.
I’m hyped for votann but it’s a hard pass on the necromunda squats. The helmets look ridiculous, and barley like the old school ones at all. Can’t wait to see what votann character models look like.
wonder if the necromunda squats slit helmets are calling back to this ancient rogue trader mini (image from Stuff of Legends) which is probably the first GW space dwarf
From what I've seen a lot of things back then (outside of leaders and such) didn't have much iconography on the miniatures though, not just the Squats.
Still, for an army that's meant to have that importance of their heritage, ancestors, family connection etc are their lore, you'd expect something on even the basic infantry. Especially when the majority
Geifer wrote: One of the earliest criticisms voiced when the first Squat model was shown off was that it looked like it belonged with Tau. That's an issue not just because the dwarf identity doesn't show, but because the lack thereof also makes it look like a part of an established army. That's not something a designer should want. Tau have the sleek, rounded sci-fi look covered at this point and if a new model looks like it's part of that army instead of having a recognizable identity of its own, I'd call that a problem with its design.
This is part of the problem I have too. The lack of Dwarf iconography, or any, is something that not only affects how their lore is showcased through the miniatures, but also takes away from giving the army a cohesive, distinct theme that isn't present elsewhere. I've seen people compare them to Space Marines because of their rounded bulky armour, and Tau because of the sleek high-tech style - the Armoured Sci-f Astronaut Dwarfs I think is a cool direction, but they need more to them so they stand out and the lack of decoration and iconography makes that problem worse. Even more so when they've got things that aren't too dissimilar from the Imperium's look, like their Plasma weapons and that Plasma Sword wouldn't be out of place on a Primaris Marine.
I’m glad they aren’t covered in dwarfish runes and stuff. That was never really part of the squat look, in the models or the artwork. It was there but in a very limited way. Dwarfs in space is not what’s needed really, times have moved on since we lazily ported fantasy tropes into 40k.
I guess we then move forward to... making Mary Sue-esque factions that somehow simultaneously are buddy-buddy with the Imperium while keeping copious amount of extremely advanced, heretical xeno-technology, that they graciously gifted to the so-called "technologically-advanced" races to make inferior copies of, mass-produce Psyker clones, are incorruptible by Chaos, keep around fully sapient and sentient AI that has and will never cause a single problem, live in a idealistically egalitarian society even by modern day standards, when the life of every single person matters and everyone lives long, fulfilling lives because they were genetically engineered to be simultenously perfect and still completely individualistic, and keep literally all of this secret from everyone else while they keep playing them against each other.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: fulfilling lives because they were genetically engineered to be simultenously perfect and still completely individualistic,
That part is the "best". It's the writers getting your cake and eating it too.
"Look we are very diverse, all skin color, gender and even robots! But they are also all """clones""" that have been specifically genetically engineered to apparently be on the level of an astartes!"
These guys aren't really Dwarfs in space, they are actually Lizardmen in space, a "races" of bio-engineered creatures automatically spawn by arcane machinery from a lost age of technology.
wonder if the necromunda squats slit helmets are calling back to this ancient rogue trader mini (image from Stuff of Legends) which is probably the first GW space dwarf
From what I've seen a lot of things back then (outside of leaders and such) didn't have much iconography on the miniatures though, not just the Squats.
Still, for an army that's meant to have that importance of their heritage, ancestors, family connection etc are their lore, you'd expect something on even the basic infantry. Especially when the majority
Geifer wrote: One of the earliest criticisms voiced when the first Squat model was shown off was that it looked like it belonged with Tau. That's an issue not just because the dwarf identity doesn't show, but because the lack thereof also makes it look like a part of an established army. That's not something a designer should want. Tau have the sleek, rounded sci-fi look covered at this point and if a new model looks like it's part of that army instead of having a recognizable identity of its own, I'd call that a problem with its design.
This is part of the problem I have too. The lack of Dwarf iconography, or any, is something that not only affects how their lore is showcased through the miniatures, but also takes away from giving the army a cohesive, distinct theme that isn't present elsewhere. I've seen people compare them to Space Marines because of their rounded bulky armour, and Tau because of the sleek high-tech style - the Armoured Sci-f Astronaut Dwarfs I think is a cool direction, but they need more to them so they stand out and the lack of decoration and iconography makes that problem worse. Even more so when they've got things that aren't too dissimilar from the Imperium's look, like their Plasma weapons and that Plasma Sword wouldn't be out of place on a Primaris Marine.
I’m glad they aren’t covered in dwarfish runes and stuff. That was never really part of the squat look, in the models or the artwork. It was there but in a very limited way. Dwarfs in space is not what’s needed really, times have moved on since we lazily ported fantasy tropes into 40k.
I’m hyped for votann but it’s a hard pass on the necromunda squats. The helmets look ridiculous, and barley like the old school ones at all. Can’t wait to see what votann character models look like.
....I didn't say to "cover them in dwarfish runes and stuff". If that's what you thought was being said then then you're really missing the point entirely.
This whole "You just want them to be fantasy Dwarfs In space!" that keeps getting repeated is just utterly absurd, especially as it never seems to consist of anything more than that. It would be nice if the points mentioned already and how the lack of that stuff affects them would be engaged with rather than just giving a vague dismissal without any elaboration in any way. What's wanted is a basic level of theming to show the lore on their models in the same way so many other armies have theirs, not that stuff plastered all over their miniatures to the point it becomes their core trait. Subtle bits of it tie their army together in a way that makes sense and to realize the lore they have via the models. Just going "Dwarfs in Space would be lazy!" comes across as if you have some baffling idea that wanting more Dwarfy-ness means something like wanting them to just take Dwarf Ironbreakers and just stick them in 40k when no, that isn't it in the slightest.
Are Mantics' Forgefathers "Just Fantasy Dwarfs in Space"? Are the Deep Rock Galactic Dwarfs just "Just Fantasy Dwarfs in Space"? Grendl Grendlsen? Hardcore Miniatures Original Squat inspired miniatures? Scibors Dwarves? Wargames Atlantic's Einherjar? The Original Squats? They all have Dwarf archetype inspired elements in their look. Are the Eldar Lazy for being "Elves in Space"? If you don't like the Dwarf archetype, then that's Fine, but if any level of inclusion of the Dwarf Archetype theming to you makes them " just Fantasy Dwarfs In space" then I guess the Leagues aren't going to be something you like much then - because as was mentioned already, they're undeniably "Dwarfs in Space" with both their lore and parts of their look we've seen elsewhere. What's wanted is for that to be better showcased on their core infantry in the same way as something like the Necromunda Ironheads or Grendl Grendlesen.
Mentlegen324 wrote: This whole "You just want them to be fantasy Dwarfs In space!" that keeps getting repeated is just utterly absurd,
Yeah, the strawmaning on that point is getting really tiring ngl.
Mentlegen324 wrote: Subtle bits of it tie their army together in a way that makes sense and to realize the lore they have via the models.
That's the silliest part about how GW is going about it, so far the only "dwarvish" bit they gave to thos votann is that crest on the sergeant, and the fact that its not only the only piece of dwarvish element coupled with how STRONGLY dwarvish it is on a unit that has otherwise nothing dwarvish about it makes it comes of as painfully tacky.
It's as if you took a random fire warrior, and slapped on him a chaos skull rack, it just stick out like a sore thumb and do more harm than good to the unit overall coherence.
wonder if the necromunda squats slit helmets are calling back to this ancient rogue trader mini (image from Stuff of Legends) which is probably the first GW space dwarf
From what I've seen a lot of things back then (outside of leaders and such) didn't have much iconography on the miniatures though, not just the Squats.
Still, for an army that's meant to have that importance of their heritage, ancestors, family connection etc are their lore, you'd expect something on even the basic infantry. Especially when the majority
Geifer wrote: One of the earliest criticisms voiced when the first Squat model was shown off was that it looked like it belonged with Tau. That's an issue not just because the dwarf identity doesn't show, but because the lack thereof also makes it look like a part of an established army. That's not something a designer should want. Tau have the sleek, rounded sci-fi look covered at this point and if a new model looks like it's part of that army instead of having a recognizable identity of its own, I'd call that a problem with its design.
This is part of the problem I have too. The lack of Dwarf iconography, or any, is something that not only affects how their lore is showcased through the miniatures, but also takes away from giving the army a cohesive, distinct theme that isn't present elsewhere. I've seen people compare them to Space Marines because of their rounded bulky armour, and Tau because of the sleek high-tech style - the Armoured Sci-f Astronaut Dwarfs I think is a cool direction, but they need more to them so they stand out and the lack of decoration and iconography makes that problem worse. Even more so when they've got things that aren't too dissimilar from the Imperium's look, like their Plasma weapons and that Plasma Sword wouldn't be out of place on a Primaris Marine.
I’m glad they aren’t covered in dwarfish runes and stuff. That was never really part of the squat look, in the models or the artwork. It was there but in a very limited way. Dwarfs in space is not what’s needed really, times have moved on since we lazily ported fantasy tropes into 40k.
I’m hyped for votann but it’s a hard pass on the necromunda squats. The helmets look ridiculous, and barley like the old school ones at all. Can’t wait to see what votann character models look like.
....I didn't say to "cover them in dwarfish runes and stuff". If that's what you thought was being said then then you're really missing the point entirely.
This whole "You just want them to be fantasy Dwarfs In space!" that keeps getting repeated is just utterly absurd, especially as it never seems to consist of anything more than that. It would be nice if the points mentioned already and how the lack of that stuff affects them would be engaged with rather than just giving a vague dismissal without any elaboration in any way. What's wanted is a basic level of theming to show the lore on their models in the same way so many other armies have theirs, not that stuff plastered all over their miniatures to the point it becomes their core trait. Subtle bits of it tie their army together in a way that makes sense and to realize the lore they have via the models. Just going "Dwarfs in Space would be lazy!" comes across as if you have some baffling idea that wanting more Dwarfy-ness means something like wanting them to just take Dwarf Ironbreakers and just stick them in 40k when no, that isn't it in the slightest.
Are Mantics' Forgefathers "Just Fantasy Dwarfs in Space"? Are the Deep Rock Galactic Dwarfs just "Just Fantasy Dwarfs in Space"? Grendl Grendlsen? Hardcore Miniatures Original Squat inspired miniatures? Scibors Dwarves? Wargames Atlantic's Einherjar? The Original Squats? They all have Dwarf archetype inspired elements in their look. Are the Eldar Lazy for being "Elves in Space"? If you don't like the Dwarf archetype, then that's Fine, but if any level of inclusion of the Dwarf Archetype theming to you makes them " just Fantasy Dwarfs In space" then I guess the Leagues aren't going to be something you like much then - because as was mentioned already, they're undeniably "Dwarfs in Space" with both their lore and parts of their look we've seen elsewhere. What's wanted is for that to be better showcased on their core infantry in the same way as something like the Necromunda Ironheads or Grendl Grendlesen.
Wow, I haven’t been following this thread that closely and had no idea that it would be so triggering to say what I did. After the whole PL/points row I don’t have the energy for another argument.
I am just looking forward to this faction, I like the aesthetic, the fluff seems interesting and I am looking forward to more than just snippets of it and squats have long been a fave of mine.
Sorry they aren’t appearing to be to yours or others tastes. Bear in mind this is just the first wave, GW have form on adapting a new factions style quite quickly with future waves so you never know they might go more the way you want.
I realise people are enjoying having a moan, but most of you haven't really grasped the intent when it comes to the LoV visual design and why they have been shown they way they have been shown so far.
The Eldar is what GW has in mind when it comes to designing the LoV, that is, their own aesthetic that does not immediately scream elves! ELVES!, or in this case Dwarves! to anyone looking at it. The Eldar 'elves' aesthetic is very unique to warhammer 40k, that has value, its effectively its own brand, the Eldar feel distinct from typical elves.
The dwarf aesthetic should be subtle over the top of the underlying look and should be developed over years until it is its own distinct brand. The easy route is slapping a few dwarven hammers and dwarven belt buckles on them and calling it a day, the hard route is designing something that can stand on its own like the Eldar look can.
If I was trying to take my first steps down the hard route to having something like the Eldar but for Squats the very last thing I would want to do is ruin the first images shown to the world of this new brand aesthetic I'm trying to build by dumping dwarfy stuff all over it like giving them power hammers, or a dwarven belt buckle, or using nordic runes everywhere. Showing them with a sword and not a big power hammer was done very very intentionally.
I am sure you will be given the option of a dwarfy power hammer and dwarfy belt buckles at some point, but trying to achieve and present a brand look and image as distinct as the eldar are from elves is the current goal.
So far I think they are doing a good job. The helmets are distinct, the aesthetic feels like it holds its own and feels fresh. I do feel it is missing a little something, but I don't think its the soldiers shown, I think its the vehicles that have yet to be shown that will tie the range together. The Land Train and The Colossus are key. The Termite and the Goliath could be interesting possibilities too.
derpherp wrote: I realise people are enjoying having a moan, but most of you haven't really grasped the intent when it comes to the LoV visual design and why they have been shown they way they have been shown so far.
The Eldar is what GW has in mind when it comes to designing the LoV, that is, their own aesthetic that does not immediately scream elves! ELVES!, or in this case Dwarves! to anyone looking at it. The Eldar 'elves' aesthetic is very unique to warhammer 40k, that has value, its effectively its own brand, the Eldar feel distinct from typical elves.
The dwarf aesthetic should be subtle over the top of the underlying look and should be developed over years until it is its own distinct brand. The easy route is slapping a few dwarven hammers and dwarven belt buckles on them and calling it a day, the hard route is designing something that can stand on its own like the Eldar look can.
If I was trying to take my first steps down the hard route to having something like the Eldar but for Squats the very last thing I would want to do is ruin the first images shown to the world of this new brand aesthetic I'm trying to build by dumping dwarfy stuff all over it like giving them power hammers, or a dwarven belt buckle, or using nordic runes everywhere. Showing them with a sword and not a big power hammer was done very very intentionally.
I am sure you will be given the option of a dwarfy power hammer and dwarfy belt buckles, but trying to achieve and present a brand look and image as distinct as the eldar are from elves is the current goal.
So far I think they are doing a good job. The helmets are distinct, the aesthetic feels like it holds its own and feels fresh. I do feel it is missing a little something, but I don't think its the soldiers shown, I think its the vehicles that have yet to be shown that will tie the range together. The Land Train and The Colossus are key. The Termite and the Goliath could be interesting possibilities too.
Yeah except the Votann don't even have a distinct aesthetic to themselves. They just look like a mix of T'au and GSC stuff with a few extremly dwarvish stuff randomly stapled on top.
Yeah except the Votann don't even have a distinct aesthetic to themselves. They just look like a mix of T'au and GSC stuff with a few extremly dwarvish stuff randomly stapled on top.
That's your opinion, and you are welcome to it, but it is only an opinion and not a fact.
In my opinion they look very distinct. They feel more dark age of technology than anything current.
I feel like you have never seen UR-025 before when you say stuff like they look like the Tau...
They even have the same greenish white colour scheme as UR-025, the organically curved metal, the domed helmets, like.... *gestures broadly*
wonder if the necromunda squats slit helmets are calling back to this ancient rogue trader mini (image from Stuff of Legends) which is probably the first GW space dwarf
From what I've seen a lot of things back then (outside of leaders and such) didn't have much iconography on the miniatures though, not just the Squats.
Still, for an army that's meant to have that importance of their heritage, ancestors, family connection etc are their lore, you'd expect something on even the basic infantry. Especially when the majority
Geifer wrote: One of the earliest criticisms voiced when the first Squat model was shown off was that it looked like it belonged with Tau. That's an issue not just because the dwarf identity doesn't show, but because the lack thereof also makes it look like a part of an established army. That's not something a designer should want. Tau have the sleek, rounded sci-fi look covered at this point and if a new model looks like it's part of that army instead of having a recognizable identity of its own, I'd call that a problem with its design.
This is part of the problem I have too. The lack of Dwarf iconography, or any, is something that not only affects how their lore is showcased through the miniatures, but also takes away from giving the army a cohesive, distinct theme that isn't present elsewhere. I've seen people compare them to Space Marines because of their rounded bulky armour, and Tau because of the sleek high-tech style - the Armoured Sci-f Astronaut Dwarfs I think is a cool direction, but they need more to them so they stand out and the lack of decoration and iconography makes that problem worse. Even more so when they've got things that aren't too dissimilar from the Imperium's look, like their Plasma weapons and that Plasma Sword wouldn't be out of place on a Primaris Marine.
I’m glad they aren’t covered in dwarfish runes and stuff. That was never really part of the squat look, in the models or the artwork. It was there but in a very limited way. Dwarfs in space is not what’s needed really, times have moved on since we lazily ported fantasy tropes into 40k.
I’m hyped for votann but it’s a hard pass on the necromunda squats. The helmets look ridiculous, and barley like the old school ones at all. Can’t wait to see what votann character models look like.
....I didn't say to "cover them in dwarfish runes and stuff". If that's what you thought was being said then then you're really missing the point entirely.
This whole "You just want them to be fantasy Dwarfs In space!" that keeps getting repeated is just utterly absurd, especially as it never seems to consist of anything more than that. It would be nice if the points mentioned already and how the lack of that stuff affects them would be engaged with rather than just giving a vague dismissal without any elaboration in any way. What's wanted is a basic level of theming to show the lore on their models in the same way so many other armies have theirs, not that stuff plastered all over their miniatures to the point it becomes their core trait. Subtle bits of it tie their army together in a way that makes sense and to realize the lore they have via the models. Just going "Dwarfs in Space would be lazy!" comes across as if you have some baffling idea that wanting more Dwarfy-ness means something like wanting them to just take Dwarf Ironbreakers and just stick them in 40k when no, that isn't it in the slightest.
Are Mantics' Forgefathers "Just Fantasy Dwarfs in Space"? Are the Deep Rock Galactic Dwarfs just "Just Fantasy Dwarfs in Space"? Grendl Grendlsen? Hardcore Miniatures Original Squat inspired miniatures? Scibors Dwarves? Wargames Atlantic's Einherjar? The Original Squats? They all have Dwarf archetype inspired elements in their look. Are the Eldar Lazy for being "Elves in Space"? If you don't like the Dwarf archetype, then that's Fine, but if any level of inclusion of the Dwarf Archetype theming to you makes them " just Fantasy Dwarfs In space" then I guess the Leagues aren't going to be something you like much then - because as was mentioned already, they're undeniably "Dwarfs in Space" with both their lore and parts of their look we've seen elsewhere. What's wanted is for that to be better showcased on their core infantry in the same way as something like the Necromunda Ironheads or Grendl Grendlesen.
Wow, I haven’t been following this thread that closely and had no idea that it would be so triggering to say what I did. After the whole PL/points row I don’t have the energy for another argument.
I am just looking forward to this faction, I like the aesthetic, the fluff seems interesting and I am looking forward to more than just snippets of it and squats have long been a fave of mine.
Sorry they aren’t appearing to be to yours or others tastes. Bear in mind this is just the first wave, GW have form on adapting a new factions style quite quickly with future waves so you never know they might go more the way you want.
No insincerity here either, promise.
You haven't engaged with any of the points raised or seemingly read them, as it has just been said how they aren't what YOU want from them because they're evidently dwarfs in space which you don't want. To ignore all that entirely and just go "Oh they aren't what you want, sorry!" comes across as disingenuous.
derpherp wrote: I realise people are enjoying having a moan, but most of you haven't really grasped the intent when it comes to the LoV visual design and why they have been shown they way they have been shown so far.
The dwarf aesthetic should be subtle over the top of the underlying look and should be developed over years until it is its own distinct brand. The easy route is slapping a few dwarven hammers and dwarven belt buckles on them and calling it a day, the hard route is designing something that can stand on its own like the Eldar look can.
If I was trying to take my first steps down the hard route to having something like the Eldar but for Squats the very last thing I would want to do is ruin the first images shown to the world of this new brand aesthetic I'm trying to build by dumping dwarfy stuff all over it like giving them power hammers, or a dwarven belt buckle, or using nordic runes everywhere. Showing them with a sword and not a big power hammer was done very very intentionally.
I am sure you will be given the option of a dwarfy power hammer and dwarfy belt buckles at some point, but trying to achieve and present a brand look and image as distinct as the eldar are from elves is the current goal.
Eldar aren't really "distinct from Elves" though. They're a sci-fi version of the Elf Archetype which involves curved, sleek, elegant designs. They're broadly in line with what you'd expect of an Elf in Space.
Regardless of that it's strange how this keeps getting claimed as things like "You want Runes and Nordic stuff all over and fantasy Dwarf everything in place of what they have already!" which is missing the point entirely and not at all what has been said. Dwarf theming does not in any way mean they have to take away from the DAoT Armoured Astronaut look, especially as they have some aspects of it already. What they don't have is it done in a way that feels natural. The Dwarf Aesthetic should be integrated throughout their model line or else it feels jarring and out of place, like the Theyn Banner feels randomly stuck on. Grendlesen and the Ironheads have it to a subtle level, that sort of small amount ontop of - not instead of - what the Leagues have is what's lacking for their basic infantry, and it matters especially on the basic infantry because that's the core of their model line.
wonder if the necromunda squats slit helmets are calling back to this ancient rogue trader mini (image from Stuff of Legends) which is probably the first GW space dwarf
From what I've seen a lot of things back then (outside of leaders and such) didn't have much iconography on the miniatures though, not just the Squats.
Still, for an army that's meant to have that importance of their heritage, ancestors, family connection etc are their lore, you'd expect something on even the basic infantry. Especially when the majority
Geifer wrote: One of the earliest criticisms voiced when the first Squat model was shown off was that it looked like it belonged with Tau. That's an issue not just because the dwarf identity doesn't show, but because the lack thereof also makes it look like a part of an established army. That's not something a designer should want. Tau have the sleek, rounded sci-fi look covered at this point and if a new model looks like it's part of that army instead of having a recognizable identity of its own, I'd call that a problem with its design.
This is part of the problem I have too. The lack of Dwarf iconography, or any, is something that not only affects how their lore is showcased through the miniatures, but also takes away from giving the army a cohesive, distinct theme that isn't present elsewhere. I've seen people compare them to Space Marines because of their rounded bulky armour, and Tau because of the sleek high-tech style - the Armoured Sci-f Astronaut Dwarfs I think is a cool direction, but they need more to them so they stand out and the lack of decoration and iconography makes that problem worse. Even more so when they've got things that aren't too dissimilar from the Imperium's look, like their Plasma weapons and that Plasma Sword wouldn't be out of place on a Primaris Marine.
I’m glad they aren’t covered in dwarfish runes and stuff. That was never really part of the squat look, in the models or the artwork. It was there but in a very limited way. Dwarfs in space is not what’s needed really, times have moved on since we lazily ported fantasy tropes into 40k.
I’m hyped for votann but it’s a hard pass on the necromunda squats. The helmets look ridiculous, and barley like the old school ones at all. Can’t wait to see what votann character models look like.
....I didn't say to "cover them in dwarfish runes and stuff". If that's what you thought was being said then then you're really missing the point entirely.
This whole "You just want them to be fantasy Dwarfs In space!" that keeps getting repeated is just utterly absurd, especially as it never seems to consist of anything more than that. It would be nice if the points mentioned already and how the lack of that stuff affects them would be engaged with rather than just giving a vague dismissal without any elaboration in any way. What's wanted is a basic level of theming to show the lore on their models in the same way so many other armies have theirs, not that stuff plastered all over their miniatures to the point it becomes their core trait. Subtle bits of it tie their army together in a way that makes sense and to realize the lore they have via the models. Just going "Dwarfs in Space would be lazy!" comes across as if you have some baffling idea that wanting more Dwarfy-ness means something like wanting them to just take Dwarf Ironbreakers and just stick them in 40k when no, that isn't it in the slightest.
Are Mantics' Forgefathers "Just Fantasy Dwarfs in Space"? Are the Deep Rock Galactic Dwarfs just "Just Fantasy Dwarfs in Space"? Grendl Grendlsen? Hardcore Miniatures Original Squat inspired miniatures? Scibors Dwarves? Wargames Atlantic's Einherjar? The Original Squats? They all have Dwarf archetype inspired elements in their look. Are the Eldar Lazy for being "Elves in Space"? If you don't like the Dwarf archetype, then that's Fine, but if any level of inclusion of the Dwarf Archetype theming to you makes them " just Fantasy Dwarfs In space" then I guess the Leagues aren't going to be something you like much then - because as was mentioned already, they're undeniably "Dwarfs in Space" with both their lore and parts of their look we've seen elsewhere. What's wanted is for that to be better showcased on their core infantry in the same way as something like the Necromunda Ironheads or Grendl Grendlesen.
Wow, I haven’t been following this thread that closely and had no idea that it would be so triggering to say what I did. After the whole PL/points row I don’t have the energy for another argument.
I am just looking forward to this faction, I like the aesthetic, the fluff seems interesting and I am looking forward to more than just snippets of it and squats have long been a fave of mine.
Sorry they aren’t appearing to be to yours or others tastes. Bear in mind this is just the first wave, GW have form on adapting a new factions style quite quickly with future waves so you never know they might go more the way you want.
No insincerity here either, promise.
You haven't engaged with any of the points raised or seemingly read them, as it has just been said how they aren't what YOU want from them because they're evidently dwarfs in space which you don't want. To ignore all that entirely and just go "Oh they aren't what you want, sorry!" comes across as disingenuous.
derpherp wrote: I realise people are enjoying having a moan, but most of you haven't really grasped the intent when it comes to the LoV visual design and why they have been shown they way they have been shown so far.
The dwarf aesthetic should be subtle over the top of the underlying look and should be developed over years until it is its own distinct brand. The easy route is slapping a few dwarven hammers and dwarven belt buckles on them and calling it a day, the hard route is designing something that can stand on its own like the Eldar look can.
If I was trying to take my first steps down the hard route to having something like the Eldar but for Squats the very last thing I would want to do is ruin the first images shown to the world of this new brand aesthetic I'm trying to build by dumping dwarfy stuff all over it like giving them power hammers, or a dwarven belt buckle, or using nordic runes everywhere. Showing them with a sword and not a big power hammer was done very very intentionally.
I am sure you will be given the option of a dwarfy power hammer and dwarfy belt buckles at some point, but trying to achieve and present a brand look and image as distinct as the eldar are from elves is the current goal.
Eldar aren't really "distinct from Elves" though. They're a sci-fi version of the Elf Archetype which involves curved, sleek, elegant designs. They're broadly in line with what you'd expect of an Elf in Space.
Regardless of that it's strange how this keeps getting claimed as things like "You want Runes and Nordic stuff all over and fantasy Dwarf everything in place of what they have already!" which is missing the point entirely and not at all what has been said. Dwarf theming does not in any way mean they have to take away from the DAoT Armoured Astronaut look, especially as they have some aspects of it already. What they don't have is it done in a way that feels natural. The Dwarf Aesthetic should be integrated throughout their model line or else it feels jarring and out of place, like the Theyn Banner feels randomly stuck on. Grendlesen and the Ironheads have it to a subtle level, that sort of small amount ontop of - not instead of - what the Leagues have is what's lacking for their basic infantry, and it matters especially on the basic infantry because that's the core of their model line.
It’s not meant to, sorry. Please don’t read more into than that, I did not realise what I was wading into and am wholeheartedly back tracking. If you don’t want to accept that then that’s fine. As you were, pretend I was never here.
Eldar aren't really "distinct from Elves" though. They're a sci-fi version of the Elf Archetype which involves curved, sleek, elegant designs. They're broadly in line with what you'd expect of an Elf Aesthetic in Space.
Regardless of that it's strange how this keeps getting claimed as things like "You want Runes all over and fantasy Dwarf everything in place of what they have!" which is missing the point entirely. Dwarf theming does not in any way mean they have to take away from the DAoT Armoured Astronaut look, especially as they have some aspects of it already. What they don't have is it done in a way that feels natural. The Dwarf Aesthetic should be integrated throughout their model line or else it feels jarring and out of place. Like the Theyn Banner feels randomly stuck on.
If I knew nothing about 40k and individually saw a helmeted eldar, or an eldar tank, or an eldar titan I would not immediately think elves. I would very likely think asian influence first well before elven influence because I wouldnt be aware they aren't human. Asian influence isn't exactly typical tolkien mate.
Literally in this thread someone photoshopped a cliche hammer and a dwarven belt buckle onto a squat lmao.
The Votann have one rune icon logo on their right shoulders. They are short. They all wear tool belts as a natural nod to dwarven craftsmanship. Their guns have one gold rune marked on them.
These are good and cleverly made dwarven nods. It has just the right amount of runes.
Dwarven belt buckles and dwarven hammers are crude in comparison. They beat you over the head and scream dwarf. Sorry but they just do. They are bad for this presentation's intention.
How many more runes do you want to add? I'm sure there will be stickers that come with the kit to add more to them if you care that much, but for this presentation in which they wanted to avoid screaming dwarf! they picked the right amount of runes.
I think they are nailing the LoV to be honest, the creative director behind them has clearly put an incredible amount of thought into what they want squats to become and is handling them better than anything GW has done in a long time. As long as the vehicles yet to be revealed are at similar high standards then GW might pull of one of its best faction introductions ever.
Wow, I haven’t been following this thread that closely and had no idea that it would be so triggering to say what I did. After the whole PL/points row I don’t have the energy for another argument.
I am just looking forward to this faction, I like the aesthetic, the fluff seems interesting and I am looking forward to more than just snippets of it and squats have long been a fave of mine.
Sorry they aren’t appearing to be to yours or others tastes. Bear in mind this is just the first wave, GW have form on adapting a new factions style quite quickly with future waves so you never know they might go more the way you want.
No insincerity here either, promise.
What a guy.
Spew the most tiresome strawman, and then just pull a "u triggered mad" card when someone calmly call him out on his bs.
Yes, please, do not feel the need to continue.
As for derpherp point, about GW trying to do "something unique rather than just going for something that scream dwarf" it would have been a good point except :
1) LoV are supposed to be the return of the Squat, GW itself used that angle (pretty heavily) when they started to reveal them, and Squats are literally "space dwarfs"
2) The only reason they are bringing back that specific army is because people have been asking for them for a long time (like they did for the GC), and the thing people asked if "space dwarfs".
3) The thing they are going for is the exact opposite of original, as many have pointed out it looks like a mix of Tau and generic human tech (like the stuff you'll find in the "miner" side of the GC).
4) Eldars are indeed still very distinctly elvish and pretending otherwise is just being blatantly dishonest.
Spoiler:
The literally share the same gods for feth sakes.
If GW really wanted to make something totally different than the expected Dwarvish Squats, they should have just left them in the dust and have made a Demiurg army instead, nobody would have minded that new angle (well, I still would have minded the rather gakky mary sue lore and overall ugly and derivative minies).
Wow, I haven’t been following this thread that closely and had no idea that it would be so triggering to say what I did. After the whole PL/points row I don’t have the energy for another argument.
I am just looking forward to this faction, I like the aesthetic, the fluff seems interesting and I am looking forward to more than just snippets of it and squats have long been a fave of mine.
Sorry they aren’t appearing to be to yours or others tastes. Bear in mind this is just the first wave, GW have form on adapting a new factions style quite quickly with future waves so you never know they might go more the way you want.
No insincerity here either, promise.
What a guy.
Spew the most tiresome strawman, and then just pull a "u triggered mad" card when someone calmly call him out on his bs.
Yes, please, do not feel the need to continue.
As for derpherp point, about GW trying to do "something unique rather than just going for something that scream dwarf" it would have been a good point except :
1) LoV are supposed to be the return of the Squat, GW itself used that angle (pretty heavily) when they started to reveal them, and Squats are literally "space dwarfs"
2) The only reason they are bringing back that specific army is because people have been asking for them for a long time (like they did for the GC), and the thing people asked if "space dwarfs".
3) The thing they are going for is the exact opposite of original, as many have pointed out it looks like a mix of Tau and generic human tech (like the stuff you'll find in the "miner" side of the GC).
4) Eldars are indeed still very distinctly elvish and pretending otherwise is just being blatantly dishonest.
Spoiler:
If GW really wanted to make something totally different than the expected Dwarvish Squats, they should have just left them in the dust and have made a Demiurg army instead, nobody would have minded that new angle (well, I still would have minded the rather gakky mary sue lore and overall ugly and derivative minies).
Hostile much? And see if you can squeeze a few more clichés in there too, try virtue signalling, that one always goes down well. You’re a real treat.
Andykp wrote: Hostile much? And see if you can squeeze a few more clichés in there too, try virtue signalling, that one always goes down well. You’re a real treat.
Kekw, look at that one, pulling all the sophistry and fallacies he can after his bs got exposed.
How about you go gaslight somewhere else hm?
wonder if the necromunda squats slit helmets are calling back to this ancient rogue trader mini (image from Stuff of Legends) which is probably the first GW space dwarf
From what I've seen a lot of things back then (outside of leaders and such) didn't have much iconography on the miniatures though, not just the Squats.
Still, for an army that's meant to have that importance of their heritage, ancestors, family connection etc are their lore, you'd expect something on even the basic infantry. Especially when the majority
Geifer wrote: One of the earliest criticisms voiced when the first Squat model was shown off was that it looked like it belonged with Tau. That's an issue not just because the dwarf identity doesn't show, but because the lack thereof also makes it look like a part of an established army. That's not something a designer should want. Tau have the sleek, rounded sci-fi look covered at this point and if a new model looks like it's part of that army instead of having a recognizable identity of its own, I'd call that a problem with its design.
This is part of the problem I have too. The lack of Dwarf iconography, or any, is something that not only affects how their lore is showcased through the miniatures, but also takes away from giving the army a cohesive, distinct theme that isn't present elsewhere. I've seen people compare them to Space Marines because of their rounded bulky armour, and Tau because of the sleek high-tech style - the Armoured Sci-f Astronaut Dwarfs I think is a cool direction, but they need more to them so they stand out and the lack of decoration and iconography makes that problem worse. Even more so when they've got things that aren't too dissimilar from the Imperium's look, like their Plasma weapons and that Plasma Sword wouldn't be out of place on a Primaris Marine.
I’m glad they aren’t covered in dwarfish runes and stuff. That was never really part of the squat look, in the models or the artwork. It was there but in a very limited way. Dwarfs in space is not what’s needed really, times have moved on since we lazily ported fantasy tropes into 40k.
I’m hyped for votann but it’s a hard pass on the necromunda squats. The helmets look ridiculous, and barley like the old school ones at all. Can’t wait to see what votann character models look like.
....I didn't say to "cover them in dwarfish runes and stuff". If that's what you thought was being said then then you're really missing the point entirely.
This whole "You just want them to be fantasy Dwarfs In space!" that keeps getting repeated is just utterly absurd, especially as it never seems to consist of anything more than that. It would be nice if the points mentioned already and how the lack of that stuff affects them would be engaged with rather than just giving a vague dismissal without any elaboration in any way. What's wanted is a basic level of theming to show the lore on their models in the same way so many other armies have theirs, not that stuff plastered all over their miniatures to the point it becomes their core trait. Subtle bits of it tie their army together in a way that makes sense and to realize the lore they have via the models. Just going "Dwarfs in Space would be lazy!" comes across as if you have some baffling idea that wanting more Dwarfy-ness means something like wanting them to just take Dwarf Ironbreakers and just stick them in 40k when no, that isn't it in the slightest.
Are Mantics' Forgefathers "Just Fantasy Dwarfs in Space"? Are the Deep Rock Galactic Dwarfs just "Just Fantasy Dwarfs in Space"? Grendl Grendlsen? Hardcore Miniatures Original Squat inspired miniatures? Scibors Dwarves? Wargames Atlantic's Einherjar? The Original Squats? They all have Dwarf archetype inspired elements in their look. Are the Eldar Lazy for being "Elves in Space"? If you don't like the Dwarf archetype, then that's Fine, but if any level of inclusion of the Dwarf Archetype theming to you makes them " just Fantasy Dwarfs In space" then I guess the Leagues aren't going to be something you like much then - because as was mentioned already, they're undeniably "Dwarfs in Space" with both their lore and parts of their look we've seen elsewhere. What's wanted is for that to be better showcased on their core infantry in the same way as something like the Necromunda Ironheads or Grendl Grendlesen.
Wow, I haven’t been following this thread that closely and had no idea that it would be so triggering to say what I did. After the whole PL/points row I don’t have the energy for another argument.
I am just looking forward to this faction, I like the aesthetic, the fluff seems interesting and I am looking forward to more than just snippets of it and squats have long been a fave of mine.
Sorry they aren’t appearing to be to yours or others tastes. Bear in mind this is just the first wave, GW have form on adapting a new factions style quite quickly with future waves so you never know they might go more the way you want.
No insincerity here either, promise.
You haven't engaged with any of the points raised or seemingly read them, as it has just been said how they aren't what YOU want from them because they're evidently dwarfs in space which you don't want. To ignore all that entirely and just go "Oh they aren't what you want, sorry!" comes across as disingenuous.
derpherp wrote: I realise people are enjoying having a moan, but most of you haven't really grasped the intent when it comes to the LoV visual design and why they have been shown they way they have been shown so far.
The dwarf aesthetic should be subtle over the top of the underlying look and should be developed over years until it is its own distinct brand. The easy route is slapping a few dwarven hammers and dwarven belt buckles on them and calling it a day, the hard route is designing something that can stand on its own like the Eldar look can.
If I was trying to take my first steps down the hard route to having something like the Eldar but for Squats the very last thing I would want to do is ruin the first images shown to the world of this new brand aesthetic I'm trying to build by dumping dwarfy stuff all over it like giving them power hammers, or a dwarven belt buckle, or using nordic runes everywhere. Showing them with a sword and not a big power hammer was done very very intentionally.
I am sure you will be given the option of a dwarfy power hammer and dwarfy belt buckles at some point, but trying to achieve and present a brand look and image as distinct as the eldar are from elves is the current goal.
Eldar aren't really "distinct from Elves" though. They're a sci-fi version of the Elf Archetype which involves curved, sleek, elegant designs. They're broadly in line with what you'd expect of an Elf in Space.
Regardless of that it's strange how this keeps getting claimed as things like "You want Runes and Nordic stuff all over and fantasy Dwarf everything in place of what they have already!" which is missing the point entirely and not at all what has been said. Dwarf theming does not in any way mean they have to take away from the DAoT Armoured Astronaut look, especially as they have some aspects of it already. What they don't have is it done in a way that feels natural. The Dwarf Aesthetic should be integrated throughout their model line or else it feels jarring and out of place, like the Theyn Banner feels randomly stuck on. Grendlesen and the Ironheads have it to a subtle level, that sort of small amount ontop of - not instead of - what the Leagues have is what's lacking for their basic infantry, and it matters especially on the basic infantry because that's the core of their model line.
It’s not meant to, sorry. Please don’t read more into than that, I did not realise what I was wading into and am wholeheartedly back tracking. If you don’t want to accept that then that’s fine. As you were, pretend I was never here.
It's fine to not want to get involved in the discussion heavily, but saying something that entirely ignores what's been said to you as if you hadn't even read it, when it was something that countered your original point and showed you were wrong, and then conveniently backing out without even acknowledging that either after it's been pointed out, doesn't come across as good in the slightest.
Eldar aren't really "distinct from Elves" though. They're a sci-fi version of the Elf Archetype which involves curved, sleek, elegant designs. They're broadly in line with what you'd expect of an Elf Aesthetic in Space.
Regardless of that it's strange how this keeps getting claimed as things like "You want Runes all over and fantasy Dwarf everything in place of what they have!" which is missing the point entirely. Dwarf theming does not in any way mean they have to take away from the DAoT Armoured Astronaut look, especially as they have some aspects of it already. What they don't have is it done in a way that feels natural. The Dwarf Aesthetic should be integrated throughout their model line or else it feels jarring and out of place. Like the Theyn Banner feels randomly stuck on.
If I knew nothing about 40k and individually saw a helmeted eldar, or an eldar tank, or an eldar titan I would not immediately think elves. I would very likely think asian influence first well before elven influence because I wouldnt be aware they aren't human. Asian influence isn't exactly typical tolkien mate.
Literally in this thread someone photoshopped a cliche hammer and a dwarven belt buckle onto a squat lmao.
The Votann have one rune icon logo on their right shoulders. They are short. They all wear tool belts as a natural nod to dwarven craftsmanship. Their guns have one gold rune marked on them.
These are good and cleverly made dwarven nods. It has just the right amount of runes.
Dwarven belt buckles and dwarven hammers are crude in comparison. They beat you over the head and scream dwarf. Sorry but they just do. They are bad for this presentation's intention.
How many more runes do you want to add? I'm sure there will be stickers that come with the kit to add more to them if you care that much, but for this presentation in which they wanted to avoid screaming dwarf! they picked the right amount of runes.
I think they are nailing the LoV to be honest, the creative director behind them has clearly put an incredible amount of thought into what they want squats to become and is handling them better than anything GW has done in a long time. As long as the vehicles yet to be revealed are at similar high standards then GW might pull of one of its best faction introductions ever.
The way they've been chosen to be painted on this occasion =/= the extent the miniatures themselves showcase their identity. It's strange to take "wearing a belt with pouches" as being meant to be some sort of nod towards them being Dwarfs.
I guess you must think almost every other faction has their faction identity implemented in an overdone way. The Imperial Guard has their iconography on their Lasgun, Helmet and Chest, Space Marines on their chest and bolters, Skiitari with the Cog on their chest armour, Necrons with the Ankh, Genestealer cults have their symbol on their belts, Chaos has their stuff, The Necromunda Ironhead Squats have their belt decoration, Grendlesen has the Backpack and bolter and belt buckle, Orks have their Glpyhs, Tau have their shoulderpad. Then there's all the other little themed decorations included in kits too. The majority of armies - even the ones where that isn't extremely important to them - have something to connect their miniatures to their armies identity or culture, but when it comes to wanting the new army that is meant to be proud of their ancestors and heritage to have something like their faction icon on the backpack so that things like the Theyn banner feel more natural as the Dwarf theme does not consist of 1 part stuck onto 1 miniature in a Squad but it instead present throughout the army to some basic extent, that's suddenly "screaming Dwarf" in an extremely obnoxious way?
What a guy.
Spew the most tiresome strawman, and then just pull a "u triggered mad" card when someone calmly call him out on his bs.
Yes, please, do not feel the need to continue.
As for derpherp point, about GW trying to do "something unique rather than just going for something that scream dwarf" it would have been a good point except :
1) LoV are supposed to be the return of the Squat, GW itself used that angle (pretty heavily) when they started to reveal them, and Squats are literally "space dwarfs"
2) The only reason they are bringing back that specific army is because people have been asking for them for a long time (like they did for the GC), and the thing people asked if "space dwarfs".
3) The thing they are going for is the exact opposite of original, as many have pointed out it looks like a mix of Tau and generic human tech (like the stuff you'll find in the "miner" side of the GC).
4) Eldars are indeed still very distinctly elvish and pretending otherwise is just being blatantly dishonest.
Sorry to break it to you mate but you show the average person something like this and they do not immediately think elf. Nice failed attempt at a deflection, but the eldar as they currently are look nothing like the elf on the horse, which itself doesnt fully look 100% like a generic tolkien elf in the first place because warhammer elves are their own slight slant on generic tolkien elves. In fact I showed this to a friend who knows nothing about warhammer and their description of it was "Anime Gundam" lmao
1. The Squat soldiers were barely space dwarf in model. They didn't wear armour. They had no runes. They had no hammers. They had no dwarven Belt buckles. They have less about them that make them dwarfy than the LoV does.
2. They are a company, yes, amazing observation sherlock, they like to make money. They also see a better stronger brand that has more staying power by going the distinct route of the eldar rather than just dwarves in space! Remember, the reason Squats were discontinued originally was literally because they were just dwarves in space lol.
3. The original soldier squats are generic asf. They are soldiers wearing normal clothing who are short and have guns. They aren't the peak of design like you seem to imagine.
4. The eldar are pretty far from generic tolkien elves as I just demonstrated by showing my friend, its blatantly dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.
As I said, what we have been shown is designed for first impressions and to build the LoV as being a distinct aesthetic, not to push 'dwarves in space'. If you care that much about dwarfiness then I am certain you will be able to give every one of your plastic space dwarf soldiers a power hammer and cover them in rune stickers as part of the kit.
What a guy.
Spew the most tiresome strawman, and then just pull a "u triggered mad" card when someone calmly call him out on his bs.
Yes, please, do not feel the need to continue.
As for derpherp point, about GW trying to do "something unique rather than just going for something that scream dwarf" it would have been a good point except :
1) LoV are supposed to be the return of the Squat, GW itself used that angle (pretty heavily) when they started to reveal them, and Squats are literally "space dwarfs"
2) The only reason they are bringing back that specific army is because people have been asking for them for a long time (like they did for the GC), and the thing people asked if "space dwarfs".
3) The thing they are going for is the exact opposite of original, as many have pointed out it looks like a mix of Tau and generic human tech (like the stuff you'll find in the "miner" side of the GC).
4) Eldars are indeed still very distinctly elvish and pretending otherwise is just being blatantly dishonest.
1. The Squat soldiers were barely space dwarf in model. They didn't wear armour. They had no runes. They had no hammers. They had no dwarven Belt buckles. They have less about them that make them dwarfy than the LoV does.
You know what other basic infantry was lacking in iconography for their faction actually as part of their miniatures back then? Several things, from what I can see looking at photos of them. Space Marines, Imperial Guard etc don't appear to really have Aquillas and such on them unless i'm just missing them, it was mainly champions and things like that that sort of thing was on. It not being present back for the Squats basic troops does not have much weight to this.
2. They are a company, yes, amazing observation sherlock, they like to make money. They also see a better stronger brand that has more staying power by going the distinct route of the eldar rather than just dwarves in space! Remember, the reason Squats were discontinued originally was literally because they were just dwarves in space lol.
Nope. People really need to stop parroting this nonsense. Their removal from the game wasn't because they were "Dwarfs in Space", they were removed beacuse they weren't that.
No, the reason that the Squats were dropped was because the creatives in the Studio (people like me, Rick, Andy C, Gav etc) felt that we had failed to do the Dwarf 'archetype' justice in its 40K incarnation. From the name of the race (Squats - what *were* we thinking?!?!) through to the short bikers motif, we had managed to turn what was a proud and noble race in Warhammer and the other literary forms where the archetype exists, into a joke race in 40K. We only fully realised what we had done when we were working on the 2nd edition of 40K. Try as we might, we just couldn't work up much enthusiasm for the Squats. The mistake we made then (deeply regreted since) was to leave them in the background and the 'get you by' army list book that appeared. With hindsight, we should have dropped the Squats back then, and saved ourselves a lot of grief later on.
...
Now, while this was all going on for 40K, we were actually doing some rather good stuff for the Squats in Epic. On this scale there was a natural tendancy to focus on the big 'hand-made' war machines the Squat artisans produced, and this created an army with a feel that was very different to the biker hordes in 40K. However, this tended to reinforce the problems we saw in the Squat background rather than alleviate them, underlining what we *should* have done with the Squats in 40K.
From Jervis Johnson. Removed because the silly bikers named Squats was not a good implementation of the proud, noble, stoic, master-craftsmen Fantasy Dwarf Archetype.
3. The original soldier squats are generic asf. They are soldiers wearing normal clothing who are short and have guns. They aren't the peak of design like you seem to imagine.
As I said, what we have been shown is designed for first impressions and to build the LoV as being a distinct aesthetic, not to push 'dwarves in space'. If you care that much about dwarfiness then I am certain you will be able to give every one of your plastic space dwarf soldiers a power hammer and cover them in rune stickers as part of the kit.
Once again, the same "You just want them to be Fantasy Dwarfs" line that is acting like the iconography and the DAoT aesthetic are mutually exclusive.
The way they've been chosen to be painted on this occasion =/= the extent the miniatures themselves showcase their identity. It's strange to take "wearing a belt with pouches" as being meant to be some sort of nod towards them being Dwarfs.
I guess you must think almost every other faction has their faction identity implemented in an overdone way. The Imperial Guard has their iconography on their Lasgun, Helmet and Chest, Space Marines on their chest and bolters, Skiitari with the Cog on their chest armour, Necrons with the Ankh, Genestealer cults have their symbol on their belts, Chaos has their stuff, The Necromunda Ironhead Squats have their belt decoration, Grendlesen has the Backpack and bolter and belt buckle, Orks have their Glpyhs, Tau have their shoulderpad. Then there's all the other little themed decorations included in kits too. The majority of armies - even the ones where that isn't extremely important to them - have something to connect their miniatures to their armies identity or culture, but when it comes to wanting the new army that is meant to be proud of their ancestors and heritage to have something like their faction icon on the backpack so that things like the Theyn banner feel more natural as the Dwarf theme does not consist of 1 part stuck onto 1 miniature in a Squad but it instead present throughout the army to some basic extent, that's suddenly "screaming Dwarf" in an extremely obnoxious way?
....The.... The... Votann... literally have their faction symbol.... on their right shoulder.... Did you, uh... not notice that?..... BIG oof there mate. Maybe look next time before going off on a normal one. Just a thought.
And yes, the LoV are being handled very well just as the eldar. A giant power hammer plus a giant metal buckle with a dwarf face and a big bushy beard on it while covering them in generic dwarf runes is just not good enough. Sorry. Better is expected.
The way they've been chosen to be painted on this occasion =/= the extent the miniatures themselves showcase their identity. It's strange to take "wearing a belt with pouches" as being meant to be some sort of nod towards them being Dwarfs.
I guess you must think almost every other faction has their faction identity implemented in an overdone way. The Imperial Guard has their iconography on their Lasgun, Helmet and Chest, Space Marines on their chest and bolters, Skiitari with the Cog on their chest armour, Necrons with the Ankh, Genestealer cults have their symbol on their belts, Chaos has their stuff, The Necromunda Ironhead Squats have their belt decoration, Grendlesen has the Backpack and bolter and belt buckle, Orks have their Glpyhs, Tau have their shoulderpad. Then there's all the other little themed decorations included in kits too. The majority of armies - even the ones where that isn't extremely important to them - have something to connect their miniatures to their armies identity or culture, but when it comes to wanting the new army that is meant to be proud of their ancestors and heritage to have something like their faction icon on the backpack so that things like the Theyn banner feel more natural as the Dwarf theme does not consist of 1 part stuck onto 1 miniature in a Squad but it instead present throughout the army to some basic extent, that's suddenly "screaming Dwarf" in an extremely obnoxious way?
....The.... The... Votann... literally have their faction symbol.... on their right shoulder.... Did you, uh... not notice that?..... BIG oof there mate. Maybe look next time before going off on a normal one. Just a thought.
I'm guessing you didn't even read what was said:
The way they've been chosen to be painted on this occasion =/= the extent the miniatures themselves showcase their identity.
We're talking about what's part of the miniature design itself. Not the way they've been chosen to be painted at this time.
And no, that isn't their "faction symbol" anyway, that's a League symbol, their faction symbol is the Dwarf head. That decal is no more representative of their faction as a whole than the Ultramarines Chapter Symbol is of the entire Imperium.
Sorry to break it to you mate but you show the average person something like this and they do not immediately think elf. Nice failed attempt at a deflection, but the eldar as they currently are look nothing like the elf on the horse, which itself doesnt fully look 100% like a generic tolkien elf in the first place because warhammer elves are their own slight slant on generic tolkien elves. In fact I showed this to a friend who knows nothing about warhammer and their description of it was "Anime Gundam" lmao
Tell me you have no idea what a warhammer elf looks like without telling me you don't know gak and still want to talk.
Nobody gives a gak about what normies think a tolkien elf look like, it's pretty obvious people are talking about warhammer elf here, so either you are literally too dumb to get that obvious fact or you are just intentionally being disenginous just to make a gakky point.
derpherp wrote: 1. The Squat soldiers were barely space dwarf in model. They didn't wear armour. They had no runes. They had no hammers. They had no dwarven Belt buckles. They have less about them that make them dwarfy than the LoV does.
Again, you are just proving that you have no fething clue what warhammer fantasy battle is and it's getting very cringy.
These guys have literally Dwarf Rangers.
I bet in your mind Dwarfs are only Gimli and that's it.
I wont even wast more of my time with the rest of your garbage post, you clearly don't know gak, have no clue what warhammer fantasy was and have been talking out of your ass.
I'll tell you again, cut your loss, you are just embarrassing yourself.
You know what other basic infantry was lacking in iconography for their faction actually as part of their miniatures back then? Several things, from what I can see looking at photos of them. Space Marines, Imperial Guard etc don't appear to really have Aquillas and such on them unless i'm just missing them, it was mainly champions and things like that that sort of thing was on. It not being present back for the Squats basic troops does not have much weight to this.
"1) LoV are supposed to be the return of the Squat, GW itself used that angle (pretty heavily) when they started to reveal them, and Squats are literally "space dwarfs""
So you just openly admitted they have barely anything dwarfy about them. Cool, good to know champ.
Nope. People really need to stop parroting this nonsense. Their removal from the game wasn't because they were "Dwarfs in Space", they were removed beacuse they weren't that.
"just dwarves in space" literally, without flavour. That's why I prefaced the sentence with Eldar, they are elves with flavour.
They were dropped because they were incredibly shallow, they were just dwarves in space, aka literally just short people, with no actual flavour or distinction like warhammer fantasy.
They did not want to create cardboard 2 dimensional generic dwarves in space with hammers and runes, they wanted to create the equivalent of the Eldar but with dwarves. Distinct.
What they are doing now is what they wanted to do back then.
Once again, the same "You just want them to be Fantasy Dwarfs" line that is acting like the iconography and the DAoT aesthetic are mutually exclusive.
Okay Mentlegen. Explain to me how you want them to be more dwarfy in a way that doesnt include more runes, more hammers, silly things like dwarven belt buckles, and does not affect their dark age of technology aesthetic, because you seem to be demanding something that directly conflicts with these things.
The only thing I might agree with is bigger beards, but then that means no closing of helms lol.
All comments on design and lore are markedly the opinion of the person espousing them, and neither of the 'sides' here has some absolute 'rightness' about anything at all.
Is this not getting close to being woefully off topic now that we're getting into heated tangents about he-said/she-said?
You know what other basic infantry was lacking in iconography for their faction actually as part of their miniatures back then? Several things, from what I can see looking at photos of them. Space Marines, Imperial Guard etc don't appear to really have Aquillas and such on them unless i'm just missing them, it was mainly champions and things like that that sort of thing was on. It not being present back for the Squats basic troops does not have much weight to this.
"1) LoV are supposed to be the return of the Squat, GW itself used that angle (pretty heavily) when they started to reveal them, and Squats are literally "space dwarfs""
So you just openly admitted they have barely anything dwarfy about them. Cool, good to know champ.
Nope. People really need to stop parroting this nonsense. Their removal from the game wasn't because they were "Dwarfs in Space", they were removed beacuse they weren't that.
"just dwarves in space" literally, without flavour. That's why I prefaced the sentence with Eldar, they are elves with flavour.
They were dropped because they were incredibly shallow, they were just dwarves in space, aka literally just short people, with no actual flavour or distinction like warhammer fantasy.
They did not want to create cardboard 2 dimensional generic dwarves in space with hammers and runes, they wanted to create the equivalent of the Eldar but with dwarves. Distinct.
What they are doing now is what they wanted to do back then.
Once again, the same "You just want them to be Fantasy Dwarfs" line that is acting like the iconography and the DAoT aesthetic are mutually exclusive.
Okay Mentlegen. Explain to me how you want them to be more dwarfy in a way that doesnt include more runes, more hammers, silly things like dwarven belt buckles, and does not affect their dark age of technology aesthetic, because you seem to be demanding something that directly conflicts with these things.
The only thing I might agree with is bigger beards, but then that means no closing of helms lol.
Just got told they weren't removed for being Dwarfs in Space but instead removed because they weren't that, so you once again claim it was because they were Dwarfs in Space. Not only that but a lot of your argument seems to rely on you making up your own absurd narrative about "what they wanted back then" without even the slightest basis.
I'm not going to bother responding if you're going to be disingenuous and condescending.
Tell me you have no idea what a warhammer elf looks like without telling me you don't know gak and still want to talk.
Nobody gives a gak about what normies think a tolkien elf look like, it's pretty obvious people are talking about warhammer elf here, so either you are literally too dumb to get that obvious fact or you are just intentionally being disenginous just to make a gakky point.
Goddam you are ultra seething mad lmao.
Yes, the layman's opinion absolutely matters on this because it is a question of how generic something is. They are only familiar with generic elves, they actually have a superior point of view on this that both of us as they haven't been influenced by other sources. It's the perfect demonstrator of how Eldar are distinct from the generic. Which they are.
Using niche warhammer elves that the general public aren't really aware of is on you. And for that matter that last image you linked of the Lumineth is another step removed from generic tolkien elves, its certainly less elf like than the elf on the horse you linked although it still has an elfy feel, I think elf first and not asia or whatever. The same cant be said for an Eldar in its suit.
Dwarf Rangers.
Wow. Rangers not soldiers. Got my memory there. Fortunately literally all of my points still stand for these and the adventurers and warriors.
Lul, ofc you would also pull the "u mad" card too. You are so predictable is honestly pretty boring.
But just so we are clear I'm just having fun roasting your clueless ass and it looks like I'm not the only one. The simple fact that you didn't got that shows a quasi autistic lack of selfawarness.
derpherp wrote: Using niche warhammer elves that the general public aren't really aware of is on you.
That argument is so inane I don't know what to say, so I'll just point out and laugh at you.
Wow. Rangers not soldiers. Got my memory there. Fortunately literally all of my points still stand for these and the adventurers and warriors.
This is what the terminal level of Dunning Kruger looks like.
"Rangers" are a specific archetype of dwarfs, one that use almost the same kind of "light" quilted cloth than thos squat, and use ranged weapons.
The point I was making isn't that you got the name wrong (the fact that you thought that shows how incredibly stupid you are), it's the fact that they are one of the main achetype of dwarfs out there. Because they are SPACE DWARFS has the writing on the box of thos guys said.
Btw, gotha love how you just dodge the eldar miniature comparison. What a pathetic loser.
Just got told they weren't removed for being Dwarfs in Space but instead removed because they weren't that, so you once again claim it was because they were Dwarfs in Space. Not only that but a lot of your argument seems to rely on you making up your own absurd narrative about "what they wanted back then" without even the slightest basis.
I'm saying you misunderstood what I meant.
"we had failed to do the Dwarf 'archetype' justice in its 40K incarnation."- Jervis. aka Justice like the Eldar.
But whatever, its not important.
I'm not going to bother responding if you're going to be disingenuous and condescending.
Well I apologise, I may have had some spill over from how snarky that other guy was being, I struggle to manage 2 similar conversations at once on old style forums and they kind of blur together.
I am actually genuinely curious what your answer to this is:
"How do you want them to be more dwarfy in a way that doesnt include generic things like more runes, more hammers, things like dwarven belt buckles, and does not affect their dark age of technology aesthetic?"
Because I don't see how this can be done. The major thing you could do is make blockier armour, but that ruins the DaoT aesthetic, big beards don't fit in helms, and more generic dwarven stuff like hammers has the problem of moving away from the goal which is to make a dwarven 'eldar'.
Do you want a small amount of more subtle things? like a couple of celtic knots sculpted into the armour perhaps?
Just got told they weren't removed for being Dwarfs in Space but instead removed because they weren't that, so you once again claim it was because they were Dwarfs in Space. Not only that but a lot of your argument seems to rely on you making up your own absurd narrative about "what they wanted back then" without even the slightest basis.
And I'm saying you misunderstood what I meant.
"we had failed to do the Dwarf 'archetype' justice in its 40K incarnation."- Jervis. aka Justice like the Eldar.
But whatever, its not important.
You can't ignore what's being said and instead make up your own story and then try and use that to support it. You're the one who's decided all by yourself without any basis that there's an Eldar comparison.
The "Justice" in that situation was that the Short silly Biker Dwarfs - which, in their 40k depiction was pretty much the core of their identity - was a terrible way to have Dwarfs a 40k version of the Fantasy Dwarf archetype. They were dropped because they didn't do a good job at being "Fantasy Dwarfs in Space".
As he said, in that very quote I gave, the mastercraftsmen with big hand-crafted war Machines and intricate technology was more the direction they wanted.
I'm not going to bother responding if you're going to be disingenuous and condescending.
Well I apologise, I may have had some spill over from how snarky that other guy was being, I struggle to manage 2 similar conversations at once on old style forums and they kind of blur together.
I am actually genuinely curious what your answer to this is:
"How do you want them to be more dwarfy in a way that doesnt include generic things like more runes, more hammers, things like dwarven belt buckles, and does not affect their dark age of technology aesthetic?"
Because I don't see how this can be done. The major thing you could do is make blockier armour, but that ruins the DaoT aesthetic, big beards don't fit in helms, and more generic dwarven iconography has the problem of moving away from the goal which is to make a dwarven 'eldar'.
Do you want a small amount of more subtle things? like a couple of celtic knots sculpted into the armour perhaps?
Again, you are the one who has decided that they want to "make a dwarven 'eldar' even though nowhere has that been even slightly implied. You can't use that to try and counter anything without any actual evidence.
This has been explained multiple times over the past few pages though.
The DAoT space suit direction left as it (Maybe some better boots though) is because that's a cool unique idea for Space Dwarfs, but with a few Dwarf embellishments to showcase the factions lore and the archetype they're based on. Their faction icon - the Votann Head - on the backpack, a knot or similar pattern on the side of the weapons (for some reason, it's only on the bolter). Like these here:
Same basic level of ornamentation seen on nearly every other army in the game. Dwarf culture/lore implemented to a better extent without loosing the style they have. Infact you can't say that would take away from their style when you consider that it's already part of them with the Theyn and other parts we've seen having stuff like it, it's just for some reason not present on the basic miniatures at the core of the faction like Hearthkin, Hernkin and Ironkin. That's the issue.
Nothing drastic, nothing that makes it their entire look and takes away from what they're going for. Just something simple to add a little bit of Dwarf theme to them rather than the almost none they have and so things like the Theyn banner aren't just jarringly stuck ontop of them for some reason. The Dwarf side of their look needs to be implemented throughout their miniatures to feel more natural than it does so far.
A new take that integrates the Dwarf Archetype in the same way the Kharadron Overlords does in AoS, not at the expense of the Dwarf aesthetics.
Mentlegen324 wrote: Same basic level of ornamentation seen on nearly every other army in the game. Dwarf culture/lore implemented to a better extent without loosing the style they have.
Nothing drastic, nothing that makes it their entire look and takes away from what they're going for. Just something simple to add a little bit of Dwarf theme to them rather than the almost none they have and so things like the Theyn banner aren't just jarring stuck ontop of them for some reason.
A new take on the classic Dwarf Archetype in the same way the Kharadron Overlords are for AoS.
Something like what they shown here:
They just had to add a bit more dwarvish iconography on thos armors... and also make armors that don't look as bad as the once they ended up with.
Again, I know I keep getting back to it, but I find just mindbogling that they discarded the way better "Squat" design to Necromunda to pick that frankly silly looking one for LoV.
Even without the belt buckle, the legs of thos Squats are so much better when it comes to defining a silhouette than ... that gak they went with in the end.
I suspect that they are going to keep all the dwarvish icons and runes for the more elite unites, which is an incredibly stupid idea since, as I've already said, an army core identity is always tied to their main troop, not some random elite ones.
was a terrible way to have Dwarfs a 40k version of the Fantasy Dwarf archetype. They were dropped because they didn't do a good job at being "Fantasy Dwarfs in Space".
As he said, in that very quote I gave, the mastercraftsmen with big hand-crafted war Machines and intricate technology was more the direction they wanted.
The new squats are master craftsman with big war machines and intricate technology. I don't think this means generic dwarves when he said this and I say that because when he says "Doing justice" it makes me think of the eldar and the necron, they were done justice and are several steps detached from their archetype despite having elements, such as crafting, that still exists with them.
The original squats in comparison were just plain vanilla short dudes with trikes.
To add to why I get that from 'doing justice': "The 'art' of working on an army as a designer is to find the thing that you think is cool and exciting about an army, and work it up into a strong theme." - Jarvis.
A strong theme like the eldar and necron. Strictly generic space dwarves wouldnt be strong like those two imo.
I've read what Jervis Johnson said before and I get a different interpretation than you. Shrug.
Again, you are the one who has decided that they want to "make a dwarven 'eldar' even though nowhere has that been even slightly implied. You can't use that to try and counter anything without any actual evidence.
Okay, then what other reason is there to abandon going hard on the crowd pleasing generic dwarven feel other than wanting to build a dwarf that feels unique to 40k? Because I look at the pattern of previous imported races and that seems to be what they like doing.
Their faction icon - the Votann Head - on the backpack, a knot or similar pattern on the side of the weapons (for some reason, it's only on the bolter). Like these here:
So another icon like on the shoulder on the powerpack... have we seen the backs? how do you know there isn't an icon or something already there?
and the guns, more stickers like on the bolter... the guns which all seem to have suspiciously nice clean flat spots perfect for kit stickers. Hmmm.
Fair enough, but my OP was about how GW seem to want to go down their own road to make something visually distinct for dwarves like Eldar, and wanted to give this impression for their first presentation, and how they might be intentionally holding back more obviously dwarfy things like giant hammers, hence the sword.
I suspect that it will be possible to go pretty dwarfy if a person wants to.
Its the 3rd time this discussion of " they are not good dwarf designs cause they need loads of little icons spam to make them so " leads to nothing. I can understand new people chipping in but the same posters flooding the same opinion does not help. Its just spam.
Squats designs are fresh deal with it. Some people dont like tau some do, some think Primaris are the work of the devil others love it.
Point being opinions are great but become obnoxious if you behave like a broken record and keep on spamming.
Andykp wrote: Hostile much? And see if you can squeeze a few more clichés in there too, try virtue signalling, that one always goes down well. You’re a real treat.
Kekw, look at that one, pulling all the sophistry and fallacies he can after his bs got exposed.
How about you go gaslight somewhere else hm?
Wasn’t actually dealing with you at all but thanks for the input and and for squeezing in gaslighting in there too. Bravo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NAVARRO wrote: Its the 3rd time this discussion of " they are not good dwarf designs cause they need loads of little icons spam to make them so " leads to nothing. I can understand new people chipping in but the same posters flooding the same opinion does not help. Its just spam.
Squats designs are fresh deal with it. Some people dont like tau some do, some think Primaris are the work of the devil others love it.
Point being opinions are great but become obnoxious if you behave like a broken record and keep on spamming.
Just realise the guy who jumped all over my comments and then graciously didn’t accept an apology is the same guy from 60 pages ago still complaining about the belt buckles. Points for persistence at least.
End of the day votann will look how they look. Don’t like it, tough I guess. I am still excited for this release. The new models look good to me, and only question mark is in bigger vehicles really?
Its been a long time something so fresh has got into 40k, we really need that to keep the universe engaging.
I would love to see some kind of giant Drill vehicle for Necro Squats. For 40k I have no idea what to expect after the first hoover vehicle and thats the exiting part.
Its been a long time something so fresh has got into 40k, we really need that to keep the universe engaging.
I would love to see some kind of giant Drill vehicle for Necro Squats. For 40k I have no idea what to expect after the first hoover vehicle and thats the exiting part.
At this point, my most fervent wishlisting would be to see the hybrid offspring of Ramshackle Games' Minimum Squat's Bounty Crew land train and Watcore's recent Giga Hauler!
That's never going to happen but some form of hover tank to outclass the various Primaris -sors would be nice.
I'm tired (heh) of all the hovering flyers everywhere, I want to see some ground-based vehicles for once again. Everyone and their mother gets flying tanks nowadays.
Its been a long time something so fresh has got into 40k, we really need that to keep the universe engaging.
I would love to see some kind of giant Drill vehicle for Necro Squats. For 40k I have no idea what to expect after the first hoover vehicle and thats the exiting part.
At this point, my most fervent wishlisting would be to see the hybrid offspring of Ramshackle Games' Minimum Squat's Bounty Crew land train and Watcore's recent Giga Hauler!
That's never going to happen but some form of hover tank to outclass the various Primaris -sors would be nice.
I like how some times they go totally in an unexpected direction like the last admech vehicles release which I didn’t see coming at all but still fit the overall aesthetic. So far I think they have the look spot on. Expect characters to be more ornate form the artwork and can’t wait for that too.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: I'm tired (heh) of all the hovering flyers everywhere, I want to see some ground-based vehicles for once again. Everyone and their mother gets flying tanks nowadays.
Its been a long time something so fresh has got into 40k, we really need that to keep the universe engaging.
I would love to see some kind of giant Drill vehicle for Necro Squats. For 40k I have no idea what to expect after the first hoover vehicle and thats the exiting part.
Yes I'm loving how new they are, great to see something so fresh coming into the setting and it seems [so far ]to be very well set out.
derpherp wrote:
The new squats are master craftsman with big war machines and intricate technology. I don't think this means generic dwarves when he said this and I say that because when he says "Doing justice" it makes me think of the eldar and the necron, they were done justice and are several steps detached from their archetype despite having elements, such as crafting, that still exists with them.
The original squats in comparison were just plain vanilla short dudes with trikes.
To add to why I get that from 'doing justice': "The 'art' of working on an army as a designer is to find the thing that you think is cool and exciting about an army, and work it up into a strong theme." - Jarvis.
A strong theme like the eldar and necron. Strictly generic space dwarves wouldnt be strong like those two imo.
Yes I totally get that- eldar had this unique take on "elves" -I remember them seeming so interesting when WD 127 came out- I jumped from squats to eldar pretty quick. Squats then seemed to be mostly just small imperials. This design approach for the Leagues is what I was hoping for, similar to what they did for the Kharadrons in AoS- a fresh take on the dwarf archetype. As a long time dwarf collector it was so exciting to see the KO and I have the same feeling for Leagues.
Its been a long time something so fresh has got into 40k, we really need that to keep the universe engaging.
I would love to see some kind of giant Drill vehicle for Necro Squats. For 40k I have no idea what to expect after the first hoover vehicle and thats the exiting part.
At this point, my most fervent wishlisting would be to see the hybrid offspring of Ramshackle Games' Minimum Squat's Bounty Crew land train and Watcore's recent Giga Hauler!
That's never going to happen but some form of hover tank to outclass the various Primaris -sors would be nice.
I like how some times they go totally in an unexpected direction like the last admech vehicles release which I didn’t see coming at all but still fit the overall aesthetic. So far I think they have the look spot on. Expect characters to be more ornate form the artwork and can’t wait for that too.
we have seen remarkably little so far -its going to be interesting to see the breadth and depth of the range unfold. I'm even just excited to see the characters and what special characters they get. The basic troops look excellent and they always tend to be sparing on the trooper designs so I'm expecting some of the other elements to have more ornate equipment. I'm expecting to be a little shocked by whatever comes next as I have no idea what anything is going to look like..
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: I'm tired (heh) of all the hovering flyers everywhere, I want to see some ground-based vehicles for once again. Everyone and their mother gets flying tanks nowadays.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: I'm tired (heh) of all the hovering flyers everywhere, I want to see some ground-based vehicles for once again. Everyone and their mother gets flying tanks nowadays.
Same. If the Landtrain exists as a model I really hope they didn't change it to be a hover train. I know a number of 40k tank collectors who would leap on it if it had tracks, for itself, and also for use in conversions.
I also hope the reworked colossus, which we think was maybe mentioned in the leaks, is a beast of a tracked tank like the Baneblade.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: I'm tired (heh) of all the hovering flyers everywhere, I want to see some ground-based vehicles for once again. Everyone and their mother gets flying tanks nowadays.
Okay, then what other reason is there to abandon going hard on the crowd pleasing generic dwarven feel other than wanting to build a dwarf that feels unique to 40k? Because I look at the pattern of previous imported races and that seems to be what they like doing.
Why do you just keep repeating "They're unique!" as if that's what's disliked? The issue has nothing to do with the Unique DAoT Astronaut style. The unique direction of high-tech Sci-fi Armoured Astrnoauts is great, no problems with that idea at all.
But if you've paid attention to the Leagues so far I don't see how you can think that they're "abandoning the Dwarf feel".
Lore wise? Short stocky Space Miners and master craftsmen with grudges, beards, beer, dislike of Elves, Ancestor worship, importance of their heritage and culture. They're Space Dwarfs themed with their lore.
Aesthetics? They are also themed on being Space Dwarfs with the various runes, decoration, patterns, beards, hammers and picks etc:
Several bits of the Dwarf Archetype theming seen there. They're a unique take on the Dwarf Archetype both in their lore and their look.
So show the theming that's part of them both in their lore and in other parts of their model range by having some of that on the basic infantry that makes up the core of their army. Do you honestly see that Dwarf animal banner thing on the Theyn Model there and go "Yes, that fits in with the look of the rest of the Squad perfectly fine"? Without the Dwarf aesthetics of the Leagues being present throughout the model range to a slight extent like on the rest of the Hearthkin Squad, the Hernkin Triker, or the Ironkin, it feels randomly stuck on and jarring rather than integrated in a way that feels natural to the model range overall. I really don't get how this is such a difficult thing to understand.
And really, Jervis says right there that they were removed because their theme revolving around Short silly bikers named Squats was a bad idea to use in their implementation of the Dwarf Archetype whereas the master craftsmen with big ornate handcrafted war machines was a better direction for the Dwarf Archetype...so you've decided that what he really meant was he didn't like the Dwarf aesthetics?
NAVARRO wrote: Its the 3rd time this discussion of " they are not good dwarf designs cause they need loads of little icons spam to make them so " leads to nothing. I can understand new people chipping in but the same posters flooding the same opinion does not help. Its just spam.
Squats designs are fresh deal with it. Some people dont like tau some do, some think Primaris are the work of the devil others love it.
Point being opinions are great but become obnoxious if you behave like a broken record and keep on spamming.
Oh look, it's the same meaningless obtuse non-argument of "You just want them to be Fantasy Dwarfs!" that keeps getting parroted even though it completely misses the point.
Andykp wrote: Hostile much? And see if you can squeeze a few more clichés in there too, try virtue signalling, that one always goes down well. You’re a real treat.
End of the day votann will look how they look. Don’t like it, tough I guess. I am still excited for this release. The new models look good to me, and only question mark is in bigger vehicles really?
Seems a little odd to say that having usual dwarf elements of runes and such would make them just "boring fantasy Dwarfs in space" and then say you like the look of the Leagues, considering that Dwarf aesthetic is undeniably a part of them.
Crimson wrote: So is there any idea of when the range will actually be released?
Nothing official. We can make a guess that it's this year because GW is not likely to announce Squats so early if they're only released next year, even if we account for the desire to make an April Fool's joke out of the announcement. And that it's before World Eaters because GW has announced Squats earlier and had a lot more Squat related previews than World Eaters. It might be between September and November, and provided it's before World eaters, it's likely sooner than later. But that's all just guesswork. Realistically we don't even have any idea what's going on with the Chaos models that are at best coming the week after the new paints.
We may have a better idea once GW has another preview event. I think aside from the Chaos Marine kits and Warcry we don't have any big stuff left from the last previews.
Chaos Daemons are likely just a book, and maybe has the new Daemon Prince release alongside it. That's not going to get in the way of anything.
We got a Guard preview because GW reacted to leaks, not because they were ready and willing. It stands to reason that Squats and World Eaters, factions GW was not pressured into acknowledging, come first.
Geifer wrote: Chaos Daemons are likely just a book, and maybe has the new Daemon Prince release alongside it. That's not going to get in the way of anything.
We got a Guard preview because GW reacted to leaks, not because they were ready and willing. It stands to reason that Squats and World Eaters, factions GW was not pressured into acknowledging, come first.
The mega leak from last year had Daemons on the list as getting some new stuff, so it's probable they'll get at least a few things. The codex is painfully slim even a decade on.
World Eaters I'm betting are the 10th edition focus. I reckon they were only announced so early because the CSM codex missing them was pretty much a confirmation by itself.
Arbitrator wrote: The mega leak from last year had Daemons on the list as getting some new stuff, so it's probable they'll get at least a few things. The codex is painfully slim even a decade on.
I can't say I remember any Daemon kits on that list. Been a while since I saw it, though.
NAVARRO wrote: Im kind of expecting something in August, seems doable.
Chaos Marines were likely supposed to come before Horus Heresy. Now they're after and it's only the book while the models are still without a release date. I'm not saying Squats can't come in August, but maybe more conservative expectations are in order to avoid disappointment.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: I'm tired (heh) of all the hovering flyers everywhere, I want to see some ground-based vehicles for once again. Everyone and their mother gets flying tanks nowadays.
Crimson wrote: So is there any idea of when the range will actually be released?
Nothing official. We can make a guess that it's this year because GW is not likely to announce Squats so early if they're only released next year, even if we account for the desire to make an April Fool's joke out of the announcement. And that it's before World Eaters because GW has announced Squats earlier and had a lot more Squat related previews than World Eaters. It might be between September and November, and provided it's before World eaters, it's likely sooner than later. But that's all just guesswork. Realistically we don't even have any idea what's going on with the Chaos models that are at best coming the week after the new paints.
We may have a better idea once GW has another preview event. I think aside from the Chaos Marine kits and Warcry we don't have any big stuff left from the last previews.
The last hover vehicle was what, the Gladiator? And before that, the Repulsor Executioner? But we've also gotten 6 ork buggies and a beast wagon, sisters rhino, immolator, exorcist, and castigator, hh deimos rhino, spartan, kratos and soon sicaran. Plus the 2 chaos knights.
It's mostly been wheels, tracks, and legs, not hover.
Release also depends on if GW has something big up their sleeve for Age of Sigmar. Because they were teased so far ahead of their main release its possible that there are other very major releases still to come before them. Since GW's typical preview period is around 3 months or so.
May also be the inevitable army box releases a month or two ahead of the rest of the range. Wasn't there a pretty decent gap of several months between the Sister box and the rest?
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: I'm tired (heh) of all the hovering flyers everywhere, I want to see some ground-based vehicles for once again. Everyone and their mother gets flying tanks nowadays.
It's honestly shocking how much better this is compared to the original.
That pic has been around for a while.
It looks horrible
Agreed. If that photoshopped bike was what had been first presented then the community would have eagerly taken massive dumps all over it. It looks like a low tech farmers tractor lol.
I do prefer the beard and sunglasses instead of the female squat head admittedly, but I wouldnt be surprised if a bearded head comes with the sprue as an alternative option.
Why do you just keep repeating "They're unique!" as if that's what's disliked? The issue has nothing to do with the Unique DAoT Astronaut style. The unique direction of high-tech Sci-fi Armoured Astrnoauts is great, no problems with that idea at all.
But if you've paid attention to the Leagues so far I don't see how you can think that they're "abandoning the Dwarf feel".
Amusing that you felt the need to quite literally retype my comment to change the meaning, and then state out of nowhere that I was referring to what so far appears to be unused concept art and not solely the models.
"Abandoning the Dwarf feel" does not even remotely equal: "Abandon going hard on the crowd pleasing generic dwarven feel (on the models we have seen so far and that we are talking about)."
But nice attempt to twist things.
I notice the models we have seen so far do not match up with the concept you are flapping around btw. And thank god for that, have you seen how weird the backs of the squats heads are in that concept art? The models don't have earrings like that portrait, nor do they have the scrolls on the armour. They very clearly looked at that concept art and decided to go down a subtler path with more unique thematics with the models, or at minimum this is how they are intentionally presenting them initially so they can avoid being pigeon holed into dwarfiness.
The environment piece might end up what some commander model looks like, but so far we have seen zero indication of that so its a moot point.
Crimson wrote: So is there any idea of when the range will actually be released?
Nothing official. We can make a guess that it's this year because GW is not likely to announce Squats so early if they're only released next year, even if we account for the desire to make an April Fool's joke out of the announcement. And that it's before World Eaters because GW has announced Squats earlier and had a lot more Squat related previews than World Eaters. It might be between September and November, and provided it's before World eaters, it's likely sooner than later. But that's all just guesswork. Realistically we don't even have any idea what's going on with the Chaos models that are at best coming the week after the new paints.
We may have a better idea once GW has another preview event. I think aside from the Chaos Marine kits and Warcry we don't have any big stuff left from the last previews.
They straight up said it would be this year.
Thanks for the reminder.
Arbitrator wrote: May also be the inevitable army box releases a month or two ahead of the rest of the range. Wasn't there a pretty decent gap of several months between the Sister box and the rest?
Sisters got the launch box in November (and thereby technically complied with GW's promise that Sisters would see a release in 2019). The codex and first half of the model kits followed in January, the second half in March.
I'm not a huge fan of it either. If the vehicle was just a ground trike, having it be that big would be kind of too goofy and the balloon tyres aren't exactly my favorite thing in the world. Having the physically shortest guys own the heaviest bikes might work, but to me it'd come across as too comical.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: I'm tired (heh) of all the hovering flyers everywhere, I want to see some ground-based vehicles for once again. Everyone and their mother gets flying tanks nowadays.
It's honestly shocking how much better this is compared to the original.
T
Why do you just keep repeating "They're unique!" as if that's what's disliked? The issue has nothing to do with the Unique DAoT Astronaut style. The unique direction of high-tech Sci-fi Armoured Astrnoauts is great, no problems with that idea at all.
But if you've paid attention to the Leagues so far I don't see how you can think that they're "abandoning the Dwarf feel".
Amusing that you felt the need to quite literally retype my comment to change the meaning, and then state out of nowhere that I was referring to what so far appears to be unused concept art and not solely the models.
"Abandoning the Dwarf feel" does not even remotely equal: "Abandon going hard on the crowd pleasing generic dwarven feel (on the models we have seen so far and that we are talking about)."
But nice attempt to twist things.
I notice the models we have seen so far do not match up with the concept you are flapping around btw. And thank god for that, have you seen how weird the backs of the squats heads are in that concept art? The models don't have earrings like that portrait, nor do they have the scrolls on the armour. They very clearly looked at that concept art and decided to go down a subtler path with more unique thematics with the models, or at minimum this is how they are intentionally presenting them initially so they can avoid being pigeon holed into dwarfiness.
The environment piece might end up what some commander model looks like, but so far we have seen zero indication of that so its a moot point.
Ok then, based on this post and the tone of your previous posts, i'm not going to bother responding after so many replies worded in a way that comes across as if you're not trying to discuss this in good faith. Utterly absurd how you for some strange reason think that summarizing things as "abandoning the Dwarf feel" rather than "Abandoning going hard on the Dwarf feel" was some attempt to twist things. They're both the same point of having a lack of the Dwarf aspects to a significant extent, that didn't "twist things" and wasn't some purposeful slight against you like you're trying to portray it as.
Outside of that though....seriously? It's evident you haven't paid any attention to the Leagues but are still trying to act like you know what's going on. Here's something that you might find a big surprise; That's not any of the units we've seen so far, that's the elite Exo-suit, so of course it doesn't match any of the models we've seen. That artwork of the head isn't "concept art", that isn't a test direction that they decided to then change to make subtler, that's artwork to show the Leagues as they are in the same way all the other armies art is for them. If you'd paid attention to the Leagues Lore you would know why the heads are like that there too.
And you're still repeating the same "they'd be pigeon holed into dwarfiness" nonsense which shows you've still missed the point entirely despite it being explained several times; a small amount of that dwarf theming present on the basic infantry would not be some overdone extremely Dwarfy change, and its strange if you think that the core units of a faction shouldn't be an indicator of the overall direction...and as has been said already, that stuff would showcase their lore further with the heritage and culture connections, something that's not even there to the same extent it is for the Genestealer cults, Tau, Necrons, Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Mechanicus, Orks or Chaos.
Now you're also trying to say that what we've seen of the Leagues isn't an indicator of how the Leagues will be so you can conveniently dismiss that artwork that shows the Dwarf theme they have (Like, it's not just the commander guy in that artwork - there are other Dwarf themed elements in the background style).
Okay, then what other reason is there to abandon going hard on the crowd pleasing generic dwarven feel other than wanting to build a dwarf that feels unique to 40k? Because I look at the pattern of previous imported races and that seems to be what they like doing.
Why do you just keep repeating "They're unique!" as if that's what's disliked? The issue has nothing to do with the Unique DAoT Astronaut style. The unique direction of high-tech Sci-fi Armoured Astrnoauts is great, no problems with that idea at all.
But if you've paid attention to the Leagues so far I don't see how you can think that they're "abandoning the Dwarf feel".
Lore wise? Short stocky Space Miners and master craftsmen with grudges, beards, beer, dislike of Elves, Ancestor worship, importance of their heritage and culture. They're Space Dwarfs themed with their lore.
Aesthetics? They are also themed on being Space Dwarfs with the various runes, decoration, patterns, beards, hammers and picks etc:
Several bits of the Dwarf Archetype theming seen there. They're a unique take on the Dwarf Archetype both in their lore and their look.
So show the theming that's part of them both in their lore and in other parts of their model range by having some of that on the basic infantry that makes up the core of their army. Do you honestly see that Dwarf animal banner thing on the Theyn Model there and go "Yes, that fits in with the look of the rest of the Squad perfectly fine"? Without the Dwarf aesthetics of the Leagues being present throughout the model range to a slight extent like on the rest of the Hearthkin Squad, the Hernkin Triker, or the Ironkin, it feels randomly stuck on and jarring rather than integrated in a way that feels natural to the model range overall. I really don't get how this is such a difficult thing to understand.
And really, Jervis says right there that they were removed because their theme revolving around Short silly bikers named Squats was a bad idea to use in their implementation of the Dwarf Archetype whereas the master craftsmen with big ornate handcrafted war machines was a better direction for the Dwarf Archetype...so you've decided that what he really meant was he didn't like the Dwarf aesthetics?
NAVARRO wrote: Its the 3rd time this discussion of " they are not good dwarf designs cause they need loads of little icons spam to make them so " leads to nothing. I can understand new people chipping in but the same posters flooding the same opinion does not help. Its just spam.
Squats designs are fresh deal with it. Some people dont like tau some do, some think Primaris are the work of the devil others love it.
Point being opinions are great but become obnoxious if you behave like a broken record and keep on spamming.
Oh look, it's the same meaningless obtuse non-argument of "You just want them to be Fantasy Dwarfs!" that keeps getting parroted even though it completely misses the point.
Andykp wrote: Hostile much? And see if you can squeeze a few more clichés in there too, try virtue signalling, that one always goes down well. You’re a real treat.
End of the day votann will look how they look. Don’t like it, tough I guess. I am still excited for this release. The new models look good to me, and only question mark is in bigger vehicles really?
Seems a little odd to say that having usual dwarf elements of runes and such would make them just "boring fantasy Dwarfs in space" and then say you like the look of the Leagues, considering that Dwarf aesthetic is undeniably a part of them.
I don’t think I did say that. I said I’m glad they are not covered I dwarf stuff, and aren’t just fantasy dwarfs ported over. I like the look of modern sleek but functional armour, the characters look more ornate but that’s cool too. The silly runic stuff on the leaders looks optional so might leave that off, not so keen. Less beards more guns, it looking good.
So, are annoyed that they aren’t dwarfy enough? Cos now you are saying they are dwarfy?
Arbitrator wrote: May also be the inevitable army box releases a month or two ahead of the rest of the range. Wasn't there a pretty decent gap of several months between the Sister box and the rest?
Sisters were slightly different in that they were a returning not a new army.
GW tends to prefer to launch new armies with multiple smaller boxes to present the option of a lower buy-in price to make them more tempting. SoB could survive a big expensive collectors box because they've had marketing behind them for over a decade (even if for a long period they were neglected). Squats are so so soooooooo old that they don't really have that same power.
I would expect a first wave of models in regular boxed sets along with your standard codex, cards, dice etc.... If GW wants to make them different or push them even more then they'll get what Lumineth got - a fairly quick second wave of models.
I would expect a first wave of models in regular boxed sets along with your standard codex, cards, dice etc.... If GW wants to make them different or push them even more then they'll get what Lumineth got - a fairly quick second wave of models.
As a reminder, the Lumineth wasn't intended to be like that for its setup.
Anyways, OK_E on Reddit has Guard as after Chaos and Daemons but before Leagues.
In case anyone wants to see the leak list from 2021:
I would expect a first wave of models in regular boxed sets along with your standard codex, cards, dice etc.... If GW wants to make them different or push them even more then they'll get what Lumineth got - a fairly quick second wave of models.
As a reminder, the Lumineth wasn't intended to be like that for its setup.
Anyways, OK_E on Reddit has Guard as after Chaos and Daemons but before Leagues.
In case anyone wants to see the leak list from 2021:
Spoiler:
I’m not aware of what went on with lumineth, what’s the story, thought it odd that they got big waves close together, thought it was just what they planned? Could you elaborate for those of us who are ignorant (me )
Basically, you can see when reading the initial launch book that they planned to have at least the Wind() and Stone Temple stuff(a big chunk of wave 1, but not in the launch box) in there, along with a fleshed out character roster. There was some scuttlebutt floating around about their printers having some C19 related issues in the run-up to 2020, with a few claims that GW rushed the initial book to just make sure that SOMETHING got out there.
Remember that the "second wave"? It was basically the clamshell allotment that most of the AoS armies have, with a few boxes thrown in too.
Kanluwen wrote: Basically, you can see when reading the initial launch book that they planned to have at least the Wind() and Stone Temple stuff(a big chunk of wave 1, but not in the launch box) in there, along with a fleshed out character roster. There was some scuttlebutt floating around about their printers having some C19 related issues in the run-up to 2020, with a few claims that GW rushed the initial book to just make sure that SOMETHING got out there.
Remember that the "second wave"? It was basically the clamshell allotment that most of the AoS armies have, with a few boxes thrown in too.
Cheers wasn’t aware of that. Did seem out the way they came out.
Okay, then what other reason is there to abandon going hard on the crowd pleasing generic dwarven feel other than wanting to build a dwarf that feels unique to 40k? Because I look at the pattern of previous imported races and that seems to be what they like doing.
Why do you just keep repeating "They're unique!" as if that's what's disliked? The issue has nothing to do with the Unique DAoT Astronaut style. The unique direction of high-tech Sci-fi Armoured Astrnoauts is great, no problems with that idea at all.
But if you've paid attention to the Leagues so far I don't see how you can think that they're "abandoning the Dwarf feel".
Lore wise? Short stocky Space Miners and master craftsmen with grudges, beards, beer, dislike of Elves, Ancestor worship, importance of their heritage and culture. They're Space Dwarfs themed with their lore.
Aesthetics? They are also themed on being Space Dwarfs with the various runes, decoration, patterns, beards, hammers and picks etc:
Several bits of the Dwarf Archetype theming seen there. They're a unique take on the Dwarf Archetype both in their lore and their look.
So show the theming that's part of them both in their lore and in other parts of their model range by having some of that on the basic infantry that makes up the core of their army. Do you honestly see that Dwarf animal banner thing on the Theyn Model there and go "Yes, that fits in with the look of the rest of the Squad perfectly fine"? Without the Dwarf aesthetics of the Leagues being present throughout the model range to a slight extent like on the rest of the Hearthkin Squad, the Hernkin Triker, or the Ironkin, it feels randomly stuck on and jarring rather than integrated in a way that feels natural to the model range overall. I really don't get how this is such a difficult thing to understand.
And really, Jervis says right there that they were removed because their theme revolving around Short silly bikers named Squats was a bad idea to use in their implementation of the Dwarf Archetype whereas the master craftsmen with big ornate handcrafted war machines was a better direction for the Dwarf Archetype...so you've decided that what he really meant was he didn't like the Dwarf aesthetics?
NAVARRO wrote: Its the 3rd time this discussion of " they are not good dwarf designs cause they need loads of little icons spam to make them so " leads to nothing. I can understand new people chipping in but the same posters flooding the same opinion does not help. Its just spam.
Squats designs are fresh deal with it. Some people dont like tau some do, some think Primaris are the work of the devil others love it.
Point being opinions are great but become obnoxious if you behave like a broken record and keep on spamming.
Oh look, it's the same meaningless obtuse non-argument of "You just want them to be Fantasy Dwarfs!" that keeps getting parroted even though it completely misses the point.
Andykp wrote: Hostile much? And see if you can squeeze a few more clichés in there too, try virtue signalling, that one always goes down well. You’re a real treat.
End of the day votann will look how they look. Don’t like it, tough I guess. I am still excited for this release. The new models look good to me, and only question mark is in bigger vehicles really?
Seems a little odd to say that having usual dwarf elements of runes and such would make them just "boring fantasy Dwarfs in space" and then say you like the look of the Leagues, considering that Dwarf aesthetic is undeniably a part of them.
I don’t think I did say that. I said I’m glad they are not covered I dwarf stuff, and aren’t just fantasy dwarfs ported over. I like the look of modern sleek but functional armour, the characters look more ornate but that’s cool too. The silly runic stuff on the leaders looks optional so might leave that off, not so keen. Less beards more guns, it looking good.
So, are annoyed that they aren’t dwarfy enough? Cos now you are saying they are dwarfy?
To me it's an issue of that the theming that is part of the Leagues style and their lore is then missing from the miniatures that we've seen almost entirely, outside of on the Theyn banner thing, when it should be present in small amounts throughout their miniatures so something like that fits in in a natural way and doesn't seem jarring. It'll clearly be present on more elite models but that is besides the point as it's lack of it on the basic infantry that makes something like that banner seems out of place, if they had a little of it there wouldn't be as much of a clash. They don't need to be covered all over in runes and ornate elements and all that because that would be too much, just that culture/heritage aspect done to the same degree other armies get their level of faction identity shown on the miniatures so it's overall more cohesive. The modern sleek DAoT armoured astronaut thing a cool direction to that them but its the other side of the Leagues identity that isn't really present on the Hearthkin/Ironkin/Hernkin when it should be.
To me it's an issue of that the theming that is part of the Leagues style and their lore is then missing from the miniatures that we've seen almost entirely, outside of on the Theyn banner thing, when it should be present in small amounts throughout their miniatures so something like that fits in in a natural way and doesn't seem jarring. It'll clearly be present on more elite models but that is besides the point as it's lack of it on the basic infantry that makes something like that banner seems out of place, if they had a little of it there wouldn't be as much of a clash. They don't need to be covered all over in runes and ornate elements and all that because that would be too much, just that culture/heritage aspect done to the same degree other armies get their level of faction identity shown on the miniatures so it's overall more cohesive. The modern sleek DAoT armoured astronaut thing a cool direction to that them but its the other side of the Leagues identity that isn't really present on the Hearthkin/Ironkin/Hernkin when it should be.
Even if you totally ignore the whole "dwarf" thing. Their armor is just not good looking, mainly because of the stupid legs that just dont match with the heavy upper part of the armor.
Instead of having a good silhouette that conveil the idea of a sturdy unit, like the necrosquats, these guys just look silly.
Overread wrote: Release also depends on if GW has something big up their sleeve for Age of Sigmar. Because they were teased so far ahead of their main release its possible that there are other very major releases still to come before them. Since GW's typical preview period is around 3 months or so.
5 battletomes with at least 1, likely 2 paired boxes and at least one of them gets pile of new models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ProtoClone wrote: My money is, quite literally, on a Xmas release at the earliest.
LoV would be a great bump to their holiday sales.
I quite interested in seeing the full range.
Would they put new army and major range refresh same month though? Unless november classifies as winter std with big pile of models coming december
September is where i'm expecting. Maybe launch box august if gw does that. Gw doesn't do generally 6 month previews of models.
Okay, then what other reason is there to abandon going hard on the crowd pleasing generic dwarven feel other than wanting to build a dwarf that feels unique to 40k? Because I look at the pattern of previous imported races and that seems to be what they like doing.
Why do you just keep repeating "They're unique!" as if that's what's disliked? The issue has nothing to do with the Unique DAoT Astronaut style. The unique direction of high-tech Sci-fi Armoured Astrnoauts is great, no problems with that idea at all.
But if you've paid attention to the Leagues so far I don't see how you can think that they're "abandoning the Dwarf feel".
Lore wise? Short stocky Space Miners and master craftsmen with grudges, beards, beer, dislike of Elves, Ancestor worship, importance of their heritage and culture. They're Space Dwarfs themed with their lore.
Aesthetics? They are also themed on being Space Dwarfs with the various runes, decoration, patterns, beards, hammers and picks etc:
Several bits of the Dwarf Archetype theming seen there. They're a unique take on the Dwarf Archetype both in their lore and their look.
So show the theming that's part of them both in their lore and in other parts of their model range by having some of that on the basic infantry that makes up the core of their army. Do you honestly see that Dwarf animal banner thing on the Theyn Model there and go "Yes, that fits in with the look of the rest of the Squad perfectly fine"? Without the Dwarf aesthetics of the Leagues being present throughout the model range to a slight extent like on the rest of the Hearthkin Squad, the Hernkin Triker, or the Ironkin, it feels randomly stuck on and jarring rather than integrated in a way that feels natural to the model range overall. I really don't get how this is such a difficult thing to understand.
And really, Jervis says right there that they were removed because their theme revolving around Short silly bikers named Squats was a bad idea to use in their implementation of the Dwarf Archetype whereas the master craftsmen with big ornate handcrafted war machines was a better direction for the Dwarf Archetype...so you've decided that what he really meant was he didn't like the Dwarf aesthetics?
NAVARRO wrote: Its the 3rd time this discussion of " they are not good dwarf designs cause they need loads of little icons spam to make them so " leads to nothing. I can understand new people chipping in but the same posters flooding the same opinion does not help. Its just spam.
Squats designs are fresh deal with it. Some people dont like tau some do, some think Primaris are the work of the devil others love it.
Point being opinions are great but become obnoxious if you behave like a broken record and keep on spamming.
Oh look, it's the same meaningless obtuse non-argument of "You just want them to be Fantasy Dwarfs!" that keeps getting parroted even though it completely misses the point.
Andykp wrote: Hostile much? And see if you can squeeze a few more clichés in there too, try virtue signalling, that one always goes down well. You’re a real treat.
End of the day votann will look how they look. Don’t like it, tough I guess. I am still excited for this release. The new models look good to me, and only question mark is in bigger vehicles really?
Seems a little odd to say that having usual dwarf elements of runes and such would make them just "boring fantasy Dwarfs in space" and then say you like the look of the Leagues, considering that Dwarf aesthetic is undeniably a part of them.
I don’t think I did say that. I said I’m glad they are not covered I dwarf stuff, and aren’t just fantasy dwarfs ported over. I like the look of modern sleek but functional armour, the characters look more ornate but that’s cool too. The silly runic stuff on the leaders looks optional so might leave that off, not so keen. Less beards more guns, it looking good.
So, are annoyed that they aren’t dwarfy enough? Cos now you are saying they are dwarfy?
To me it's an issue of that the theming that is part of the Leagues style and their lore is then missing from the miniatures that we've seen almost entirely, outside of on the Theyn banner thing, when it should be present in small amounts throughout their miniatures so something like that fits in in a natural way and doesn't seem jarring. It'll clearly be present on more elite models but that is besides the point as it's lack of it on the basic infantry that makes something like that banner seems out of place, if they had a little of it there wouldn't be as much of a clash. They don't need to be covered all over in runes and ornate elements and all that because that would be too much, just that culture/heritage aspect done to the same degree other armies get their level of faction identity shown on the miniatures so it's overall more cohesive. The modern sleek DAoT armoured astronaut thing a cool direction to that them but its the other side of the Leagues identity that isn't really present on the Hearthkin/Ironkin/Hernkin when it should be.
Fair enough makes sense I suppose but I think we’ve still only seen a tiny section of the range to be and for me it’s not an issue, generally like the look so far. I wouldn’t mind if they dropped it all together, like i said I don’t think I will be adding the leader thing myself, keep them sleek.
Said Void Armor only is a 4+ though if that's what those Hearthkyn are wearing. Although perhaps it has other features or is more cost effective compared to power armor.
The Ancestors are Always Watching made me think of the Paranoia RPG.
Also if they offer up more knowledge to their Votann core, does that make it degenerate or slow down even faster?
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Nice, so their regular troops have better armour than Space Marines and are almost just as effective overall
Explain to me again how they aren't a Mary Sue faction
They're dwarfs- of course they are better...
But this is just fluff - in game they have a lower save of 4+
Could be they are just doing the old "positive spin" on a new faction leaving out the negatives or they could be a faction to contrast/give a bit of relief from the grimness.
The dude talking to the inquisitor/rogue trader reminds me a bit of one of the classic squat command models.
Nice. Liking the art a lot - the 3 profile pics and the meeting pic especially. The faction looks to have plenty of character which I'm loving.
Looking great to me, really cool art. Also I believe that based on the scale photo they are a little bit shorter than the Necromunda models, as predicted.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Nice, so their regular troops have better armour than Space Marines and are almost just as effective overall
Explain to me again how they aren't a Mary Sue faction
They're dwarfs- of course they are better...
But this is just fluff - in game they have a lower save of 4+
Could be they are just doing the old "positive spin" on a new faction leaving out the negatives or they could be a faction to contrast/give a bit of relief from the grimness.
Maybe that's the explanation for the S4 and T4?
Maybe it might be off-battlefield benefits like better survivability or overall more cost effective compared to power armor. A removed model of a human in carapace armor might be dead or permanently disabled, but a Kyn in Void Armor might be incapacitated for that battle but able to recover quickly enough to be combat effective for the next.
To me it's an issue of that the theming that is part of the Leagues style and their lore is then missing from the miniatures that we've seen almost entirely, outside of on the Theyn banner thing, when it should be present in small amounts throughout their miniatures so something like that fits in in a natural way and doesn't seem jarring. It'll clearly be present on more elite models but that is besides the point as it's lack of it on the basic infantry that makes something like that banner seems out of place, if they had a little of it there wouldn't be as much of a clash. They don't need to be covered all over in runes and ornate elements and all that because that would be too much, just that culture/heritage aspect done to the same degree other armies get their level of faction identity shown on the miniatures so it's overall more cohesive. The modern sleek DAoT armoured astronaut thing a cool direction to that them but its the other side of the Leagues identity that isn't really present on the Hearthkin/Ironkin/Hernkin when it should be.
Even if you totally ignore the whole "dwarf" thing. Their armor is just not good looking, mainly because of the stupid legs that just dont match with the heavy upper part of the armor.
Instead of having a good silhouette that conveil the idea of a sturdy unit, like the necrosquats, these guys just look silly.
Oh man I completely and totally disagree about the armor. It looks pretty badass (imo of course) and also has some (small) basis in realism. Have you ever plastered armor panels all over your legs and tried to move? Now shorten your legs by about 40% and add armor panels and try to move. Sure, in-universe power armor exists, but do we really want more power armor? I feel like we have that covered. . . . One thing I don't like that I'm sure others dont like either is the weird banner things, but I can very easily work around that.
And necro squats are the not silly ones? I mean it's fine to like the necro squats as they have certain charm, but it shouldn't be because they *don't* look silly, lol.
Geifer wrote: I see their armor is also much more betterer than anyone else's. Good. For a minute there I was worried they might be lacking in some field.
GW wrote:Measuring up at around 4ft (1.4m) on average...
And apparently GW's generous conversion rates do not just apply to currencies.
Clearly, WarCom are experienced in the arts of trying to make a Tinder profile
I wouldn't be surprised if we get a Tau situation.
The first lore we get is too positive for the 40k universe, and so the next iteration of the codex is much more grimdark. Like how they made etherals go from great leaders to possibly mind controlling them with phermones.
GaroRobe wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if we get a Tau situation.
The first lore we get is too positive for the 40k universe, and so the next iteration of the codex is much more grimdark. Like how they made etherals go from great leaders to possibly mind controlling them with phermones.
Its also probable that they are putting the lore out there in a manner to give the faction a "dwarf feel", it certainly gives me that warm fuzzy feeling think of dwarfs. The Votann probably aren't very nice I'm guessing and the Kin could be exceptionally mercenary.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Nice, so their regular troops have better armour than Space Marines and are almost just as effective overall
Explain to me again how they aren't a Mary Sue faction
They're absolutely a Mary Sue faction and I'm all for it. Because I've grown to hate 40k over the decades, watching other oldbeards go into convulsions of loathing over squats is a source of innocent merriment.
Marine is about 1,5 times the height of the squat. If we assume the metric measure to be the correctish one, that makes squat almost four and half feet, which makes the marine sevenish feet. Which is the size primaris are roughly scaled to GW's current normal humans. They have never been scaled to eight feet, which would be ogryn sized.
Squats are a tad too large for my liking, I'd prefer them to be a bit smaller and GW scaling continues to be a bit wonky.
I don't know. Your Gods steadily going insane, your populace based on cloned people at the whim of these Gods and the fact that they are also steadily replacing them with automata is pretty dark. The things that you have relied upon for generations to support you starting to fail. I think it's pretty clear they aren't all sunshine and smiles, they're just showing this particular side for now.
GaroRobe wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if we get a Tau situation.
The first lore we get is too positive for the 40k universe, and so the next iteration of the codex is much more grimdark. Like how they made etherals go from great leaders to possibly mind controlling them with phermones.
Its also probable that they are putting the lore out there in a manner to give the faction a "dwarf feel", it certainly gives me that warm fuzzy feeling think of dwarfs. The Votann probably aren't very nice I'm guessing and the Kin could be exceptionally mercenary.
That biker is practically demanding his pay from that human.
Crimson wrote: Marine is about 1,5 times the height of the squat. If we assume the metric measure to be the correctish one, that makes squat almost four and half feet, which makes the marine sevenish feet. Which is the size primaris are roughly scaled to GW's current normal humans. They have never been scaled to eight feet, which would be ogryn sized.
Squats are a tad too large for my liking, I'd prefer them to be a bit smaller and GW scaling continues to be a bit wonky.
Except first born 7 feet and primaris custodian size aka 8 feet.
GaroRobe wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if we get a Tau situation.
The first lore we get is too positive for the 40k universe, and so the next iteration of the codex is much more grimdark. Like how they made etherals go from great leaders to possibly mind controlling them with phermones.
From what I understand they are each made by an AI in a vat as clones, these AI then monitor them for their entire lives.
The AI has even modified the Squat's souls so that they barely show up in the warp. (This might actually be a hugely important piece of lore related to the DaoT and what has been mentioned about AI maybe trying to defeat Chaos by killing all Sapient life.)
The AI's that control the Votann are slowing and dying however, as they weren't meant to function without stop for ten thousand years, and with their death, If they are infertile, the entire squat race will perhaps die out? Or if they are fertile they still may face partial or complete civilizational collapse as so much is tied up in the AI.
I think they may be more grimdark than the Tau already
Crimson wrote: Marine is about 1,5 times the height of the squat. If we assume the metric measure to be the correctish one, that makes squat almost four and half feet, which makes the marine sevenish feet. Which is the size primaris are roughly scaled to GW's current normal humans. They have never been scaled to eight feet, which would be ogryn sized.
Squats are a tad too large for my liking, I'd prefer them to be a bit smaller and GW scaling continues to be a bit wonky.
Except first born 7 feet and primaris custodian size aka 8 feet.
But the models are not scaled to that size. Do what you will with that, but that is absolutely incontestable mathematical truth. Can you for once explain what is the point of you bringing this up every time scale is mentioned?
GaroRobe wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if we get a Tau situation.
The first lore we get is too positive for the 40k universe, and so the next iteration of the codex is much more grimdark. Like how they made etherals go from great leaders to possibly mind controlling them with phermones.
From what I understand they are each made by an AI in a vat as clones, these AI then monitor them for their entire lives.
The AI has even modified the Squat's souls so that they barely show up in the warp. (This might actually be a hugely important piece of lore related to the DaoT and what has been mentioned about AI maybe trying to defeat Chaos by killing all Sapient life.)
The AI's that control the Votann are slowing and dying however, as they weren't meant to function without stop for ten thousand years, and with their death, If they are infertile, the entire squat race will perhaps die out? Or if they are fertile they still may face partial or complete civilizational collapse as so much is tied up in the AI.
I think they may be more grimdark than the Tau already
I imagine it would be like WHFB Lizardmen. Spawnings of new generations become rarer and rarer or some clone templates become rarer and rarer. Eventually all the more specialized ones may die out leaving only the base template.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Y'all forgetting the most important picture:
While it's good to get a size comparison it would have been nice of GW to put the feet on the same level.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Too small and it is harder to keep the pose and details. I think they are about right compared to marines. Looks like a 28.5mm base too.
They should definitely be shorter. They should also have no knees.
MajorWesJanson wrote: I would like to see a comparison to other models though, like a guardsman, fire warrior, and a grot.
Putting a Fire Warrior next to a similarly posed Primaris, I'm getting the impression that the Squat is maybe half a head shorter than the Tau. Fish 'eads are pretty short themselves when it comes down to it.
So old marines 6ft primaris 7ft votan 4ft new imperial guard 6ftseems fine. But I haveto say they have lost me with the lore. So they have better tech than imperium, and seek knoledge like the admech? Well gak why even have the imperium and admech if these short basterds do it all? Ya I was getting a little interested but now I'm back to ignoring them completely. Votaan can suck it!
Boosykes wrote: So old marines 6ft primaris 7ft votan 4ft new imperial guard 6ftseems fine. But I haveto say they have lost me with the lore. So they have better tech than imperium, and seek knoledge like the admech? Well gak why even have the imperium and admech if these short basterds do it all? Ya I was getting a little interested but now I'm back to ignoring them completely. Votaan can suck it!
Loads of factions have better tech and seek knowledge other than the Imperium, Eldar, Necrons and Tau for starters, the Imperium have massive numbers, hence their dominance. Plus they always spin how amazing a faction is when they do these kinds lore articles..
Boosykes wrote: So old marines 6ft primaris 7ft votan 4ft new imperial guard 6ftseems fine. But I haveto say they have lost me with the lore. So they have better tech than imperium, and seek knoledge like the admech? Well gak why even have the imperium and admech if these short basterds do it all? Ya I was getting a little interested but now I'm back to ignoring them completely. Votaan can suck it!
The Mechanicus "searches for Knowledge" out of a religious fervour to technology and is primarily concerned with re-discovering what they've lost with a view that all that knowledge is divine and already exists somewhere. The Leagues are explorers seeking knowledge and adventure to live their lives as best they can for the benefit of their society and to please their ancestors. There's quite a difference.
As for the technology...so what if they have better tech than the Imperium? Part of the theming of the Imperium is that it's technological stagnant and has regressed. It would be strange if they had a lower level of tech.
This pic is the perfect example of everything wrong with the LoV lore and their use of antigrave tech.
Could the Imperium use abhuman mercs from time to time? Of course.
Would they hire the guys if they literally rolled around with what is CLEARLY heretek and/or archeotek without anyone raising an eyebrow?
Nop. That just doesn't make sens, that doesn't fit in the setting and just shows that the current writers have totally lost the plot of what 40k setting is supposed to be about.
Had they just given them actual trikes with wheels that kind of obvious problem wouldn't exist.
Sure but these guys litteraly get everything. Seems nonsensical that there is a race with all the answers that have been hiding away for all these years. It's all there lore together they are worse then marines wich are somehow great at everything so now the squats are just greatererer. Then everyone else. Look I am a chaos man at heart but these dwarfs are just embarrassing in a hell hole of a galixy the shortest among us have all the answers but won't share them with there nayber simply out of greed? Ya they can Gtfo as I'm concerned. I'll take another look once all the lore is out but if it continues in this fashion. I have no interest.
A good day to the rest of you that enjoy this kind of thing but they are not for me.
This pic is the perfect example of everything wrong with the LoV lore and their use of antigrave tech.
Could the Imperium use abhuman mercs from time to time? Of course.
Would they hire the guys if they literally rolled around with what is CLEARLY heretek and/or archeotek without anyone raising an eyebrow?
Nop. That just doesn't make sens, that doesn't fit in the setting and just shows that the current writers have totally lost the plot of what 40k setting is supposed to be about.
Had they just given them actual trikes with wheels that kind of obvious problem wouldn't exist.
Grav tech is uncommon, but why would it be assumed to be archaeotek or heretek just for being grav? Especially grav tech that is derived from stc patterns.
This pic is the perfect example of everything wrong with the LoV lore and their use of antigrave tech.
Could the Imperium use abhuman mercs from time to time? Of course.
Would they hire the guys if they literally rolled around with what is CLEARLY heretek and/or archeotek without anyone raising an eyebrow?
Nop. That just doesn't make sens, that doesn't fit in the setting and just shows that the current writers have totally lost the plot of what 40k setting is supposed to be about.
Had they just given them actual trikes with wheels that kind of obvious problem wouldn't exist.
Grav tech is uncommon, but why would it be assumed to be archaeotek or heretek just for being grav? Especially grav tech that is derived from stc patterns.
If it's a pattern of grav vehicle they don't have, the Mechanicus would want it. It doesn't really matter what it is, if it's an STC design they wouldn't just ignore it.
Anti-grav tech being mostly lost was a retcon to begin with and the current lore is returned to Imperium using anti-grav more widely, so squats using it probably wouldn't be a huge problem.
And they're not part of the imperium anyway, they're not under Imperial jurisdiction. I'm sure Imperium has all sorts of dealings with xenos and non-imperial humans that have customs and practices that would be considered heretical in the Imperium.
If it's a pattern of grav vehicle they don't have, the Mechanicus would want it. It doesn't really matter what it is, if it's an STC design they wouldn't just ignore it.
Crimson wrote: Anti-grav tech being mostly lost was a retcon to begin with and the current lore is returned to Imperium using anti-grav more widely, so squats using it probably wouldn't be a huge problem.
And they're not part of the imperium anyway, they're not under Imperial jurisdiction. I'm sure Imperium has all sorts of dealings with xenos and non-imperial humans that have customs and practices that would be considered heretical in the Imperium.
Yea, but typically they would be at the business end of a bolter or fifty.
The Imperium doesn’t negotiate with Xenos much and in general it’s with the tone of “we have bigger problems to deal with now so you can live for the moment. Unless you do something stupid like becoming a bigger problem.”
Humans get even less consideration though; you’re either part of the Imperium (or Mechanicus) or you’re a heretic and deserve only the pyre. You’d have to be exceptionally strong and united to get even as much leeway as the Votann apparently get, much less the Adeptus Mechanicus who had the benefit of negotiating directly with the Emperor himself back in the day.
Crimson wrote: Anti-grav tech being mostly lost was a retcon to begin with and the current lore is returned to Imperium using anti-grav more widely, so squats using it probably wouldn't be a huge problem.
And they're not part of the imperium anyway, they're not under Imperial jurisdiction. I'm sure Imperium has all sorts of dealings with xenos and non-imperial humans that have customs and practices that would be considered heretical in the Imperium.
The point is if the Mechanicus found out they were using STC designed technology they'd try whatever they could to get hold of it, having grav-tech already wouldn't make a difference to them as it's still another "holy" STC design they'd want to get. If the Leagues end up using that sort of stuff infront of the Imperium then that issue needs to be reflected in the lore somehow.
The galaxy is an enormous place, and not every planet/sector in the Imperium is as dogmatically religious and xenophobic as the others. How do you think Rogue Traders exist? If you're some 'bumpkin' governor far away from any Space Marine homeworld or near to the core of an organized subsystem of the Imperium (Macragge, or Terra, or whatever), I'm gonna bet you'd look the other way and hire some abhumans with weird tech if it meant securing a critical supply line from ork raids or eldar pirates or even just human rebels.
I'm so tired of the assumption that somehow an entity as big as the Imperium is organized or self-aware enough to be apparently all-knowing and highly regulated - and that they all are as hardline as a Black Templar.
Moreover, that's just one example image - it said other species, so I'm willing to bet they have fought with Tau and potentially Eldar to boot, along with any number of other minor species that don't get their own armies on tabletop.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Grav tech is uncommon, but why would it be assumed to be archaeotek or heretek just for being grav? Especially grav tech that is derived from stc patterns.
Antigrav isn't "uncommon", it's basically lost tech and why the imperium use good old treads for their tanks and wheels for their bike outside of the highest echelon of its military (and some belasarius bs).
Shuma-Gorath wrote: Eldar have grav tech, pretty sure they don't share with the imperium either
Yes, and Tau too. And guess what?
Not only tho are xenotek , but also these guys aren't buddy buddy with the imperium.
Why do I have to state obvious things again?
Crimson wrote: Anti-grav tech being mostly lost was a retcon to begin with and the current lore is returned to Imperium using anti-grav more widely, so squats using it probably wouldn't be a huge problem.
That's literally 2 lies right there.
Crimson wrote: And they're not part of the imperium anyway, they're not under Imperial jurisdiction. I'm sure Imperium has all sorts of dealings with xenos and non-imperial humans that have customs and practices that would be considered heretical in the Imperium.
Yes, and just as I already stated, the point here is that the imperium will actively hunt people using these tech, not be buddy buddy with them.
Gratlugg wrote: The galaxy is an enormous place, and not every planet/sector in the Imperium is as dogmatically religious and xenophobic as the others. How do you think Rogue Traders exist? If you're some 'bumpkin' governor far away from any Space Marine homeworld or near to the core of an organized subsystem of the Imperium (Macragge, or Terra, or whatever), I'm gonna bet you'd look the other way and hire some abhumans with weird tech if it meant securing a critical supply line from ork raids or eldar pirates or even just human rebels.
I'm so tired of the assumption that somehow an entity as big as the Imperium is organized or self-aware enough to be apparently all-knowing and highly regulated - and that they all are as hardline as a Black Templar.
Moreover, that's just one example image - it said other species, so I'm willing to bet they have fought with Tau and potentially Eldar to boot, along with any number of other minor species that don't get their own armies on tabletop.
Good ol "let's take exception and use them to justify anything!
A great classic in sophistry.
Hot damn, the amount of lies and mental gymnastic here from people desperately trying to ignore how bad that lore is is just staggering, and that's even before wondering how the LoV somehow managed to dodge the great crusade.
Gratlugg wrote: The galaxy is an enormous place, and not every planet/sector in the Imperium is as dogmatically religious and xenophobic as the others. How do you think Rogue Traders exist? If you're some 'bumpkin' governor far away from any Space Marine homeworld or near to the core of an organized subsystem of the Imperium (Macragge, or Terra, or whatever), I'm gonna bet you'd look the other way and hire some abhumans with weird tech if it meant securing a critical supply line from ork raids or eldar pirates or even just human rebels.
I'm so tired of the assumption that somehow an entity as big as the Imperium is organized or self-aware enough to be apparently all-knowing and highly regulated - and that they all are as hardline as a Black Templar.
Moreover, that's just one example image - it said other species, so I'm willing to bet they have fought with Tau and potentially Eldar to boot, along with any number of other minor species that don't get their own armies on tabletop.
Yep, exactly. And the thing I really like about how the squats are handled, is that it shows that wider galaxy. I really want to see those punky, rogue tradery fringes of the 40K explored more.
I think what's lost in translation is just how 'needle in the haystack' reports of things like 'there ~might~ be functional STCs!' or 'there are short humans on anti-grav vehicles!' really are. There are entire passage in some novels about how Administratum operators/servitors mindlessly crunch near-limitless amounts of incoming reports, manifests, calls for aid, etc., and because of the volume and the sheer size of the Imperium (it being a bloated mess is part of its theme), they do things like - send Imperial Guard regiments to die on worlds they never even had to be on!
This type of resolution loss at scale is certainly also true for the likes of the Adeptus Mechanicus - how many hare-brained adepts and priests must be blaring the horn about STCs on a given day, incorrectly, because they are jockeying for prestige or stumble across dead ends? How many levels of bureaucracy must that get through, and how many times does a senior official roll their eyes and chalk it up to flights of fancy?
My suspicion is the Leagues, like the Tau, exist because they are not very large on the galactic scale, not particularly well known across the breadth of the Imperium, probably not in a critical place spatially relative to Imperial space, and are not really worth dedicated resources to subjugate when there are too many other active threats or unsolved mysteries directing the nature of Imperial supply lines.
Hot damn, the amount of lies and mental gymnastic here from people desperately trying to ignore how bad that lore is is just staggering, and that's even before wondering how the LoV somehow managed to dodge the great crusade.
You mean like the countless other worlds, species, and occasional undiscovered human populations that also didn't get met with the Great Crusade? There's nothing deceptive about my argument at all, you're just substituting your narrow vision of what the 40k galaxy looks like because you apparently either hate anything that brings into question the idea of the Imperium having absolute dominion and omniscience, or you don't understand scale.
Gratlugg wrote: You mean like the countless other worlds, species, and occasional undiscovered human populations that also didn't get met with the Great Crusade? There's nothing deceptive about my argument at all, you're just substituting your narrow vision of what the 40k galaxy looks like because you apparently either hate anything that brings into question the idea of the Imperium having absolute dominion and omniscience, or you don't understand scale.
Oh yeah, sure, there's a lot of species and world that didn't got touched by the great crusade, but guess what? There's even more of them that got touched by it.
The whole Votann premise only works if SOMEHOW the imperium never heard of them, otherwise you could be sure that trying to get their hand on Golden Age Super Computers would be on top of their todo list.
LoV isn't something like the Khrave or any other minor xenos race that the imperium can't really bother dealing with, it's a literal loot piniata that roll around using HUMAN golden age tech.
And from what we know of the dwarvish culture of the Kins, it's pretty obvious that they would hold a pretty big grudge against the imperium if they ever went after their machin gods.
I'm not being narrow in my vision of the 40k galaxy, quite the opposite, I can extrapolate how an isolated element will interact in the greater picture and history unlike you who are trying your hardest to focus on the idea that "oh yeah, well they are very VERY small and probably never really had to deal with anything other than very lax imperium representative" since the last 10 000 years, because that make sens and isn't showing an extrem narrow vision at all.
Knowing about the existence of the Squats =/= knowing the nature of the Votann, which the lore has already expressed is something the Kin are highly, highly secretive about. Likewise, their (pseudo) functional STCs exist, most likely, in their core worlds.
If their theme reflects dwarven elements, I am going to guess they are isolationist, even if they are xenophilic, so there is no way to know they have those things unless you actively violated their space.
An onlooker assuming they have STC-derived blueprints (just like everyone else does), to account for their various DAoT tech? Sure. But there are examples of that across the galaxy, some of which is jealously guarded by other factions like Space Marines.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Grav tech is uncommon, but why would it be assumed to be archaeotek or heretek just for being grav? Especially grav tech that is derived from stc patterns.
Antigrav isn't "uncommon", it's basically lost tech and why the imperium use good old treads for their tanks and wheels for their bike outside of the highest echelon of its military (and some belasarius bs).
I dunno. GW books have an awful lot of air cars and grav sleds for AG to be lost tech.
Made of uncommon materials. At least, the Imperial held STCs use uncommon materials.
But even then, uncommon is inherently a matter of perspective.
The wider issue for the Imperium is the innate paranoia and selfishness of the Mechanicus, and the knowledge to make anti-Grav being guarded and not widely disseminated.
Then there’s the simply supply/demand. You could have vast stockpiles of the materials required. But if you can churn out multiple tracked versions of a mainline battle tank? Well…the Imperial War Machine is a hungry beast, so you go with whatever is not only the easiest to produce? But ideally the easiest to maintain.
Remember that is what makes the Rhino, Chimera and Leman Russ chassis so common. They’re easily and readily adapted to changing supply lines,
Gratlugg wrote: Knowing about the existence of the Squats =/= knowing the nature of the Votann, which the lore has already expressed is something the Kin are highly, highly secretive about. Likewise, their (pseudo) functional STCs exist, most likely, in their core worlds.
Yes, obviously the knowledge of the Votann could indeed be secret I'm not disputing that, but the actual gear they are using on the battlefield can't.
What do you think any imperial guy would think when they see these squats roll around with all that very... "interesting" gear?
The answer is obviously going after them. Then what would happen if they ever manage to win a war against them?
The answer is obviously finding out about the Votann.
So in order for the Votann to still be a total mystery to the imperium it would require said imperium to never have won a war against the LoV, and never ask any question about all that shiny gears they are using.
Does that sound realistic to you? It doesn't to me.
Gratlugg wrote: If their theme reflects dwarven elements, I am going to guess they are isolationist, even if they are xenophilic, so there is no way to know they have those things unless you actively violated their space.
The article LITERALLY showed them dealing with an imperial, and the text speak about how they will live a life of discovery and adventure (as if that was some isekai world or something).
Come on, stop making up guess and start reading what GW itself is writting for a change.
Gratlugg wrote: An onlooker assuming they have STC-derived blueprints (just like everyone else does), to account for their various DAoT tech? Sure. But there are examples of that across the galaxy, some of which is jealously guarded by other factions like Space Marines.
It's not just about STC, it's literally just what they show to the world on the battle field.
Let's say you get in battle with the LoV, you kill a Kin. You get a body of a clearly bioengineered human with the constitution of a space marine, an armor that's as good as the Astartes one (without the need of all that fancy black carapace thing) and weapons that put Tau to shame, and god forbid the kin you killed turned out to be an Ironkin because that would suddenly be another level of redflag for the emperium to whome the simple idea of AI is heretical (and that's not just a "huuur that's fanatical BT level stuff", no, ALL imperial citizen have an ingrained disgust for Abominable Intelect).
Here's the thing, the kind of stuff LoV is rolling around with could get a pass if they were like the Tau something relatively new that the sluggish imperium is having a hard time reacting to, but this is not the case, these guys PREDATE the whole imperium.
Gratlugg wrote: Knowing about the existence of the Squats =/= knowing the nature of the Votann, which the lore has already expressed is something the Kin are highly, highly secretive about. Likewise, their (pseudo) functional STCs exist, most likely, in their core worlds.
Yes, obviously the knowledge of the Votann could indeed be secret I'm not disputing that, but the actual gear they are using on the battlefield can't.
What do you think any imperial guy would think when they see these squats roll around with all that very... "interesting" gear?
The answer is obviously going after them. Then what would happen if they ever manage to win a war against them?
The answer is obviously finding out about the Votann.
So in order for the Votann to still be a total mystery to the imperium it would require said imperium to never have won a war against the LoV, and never ask any question about all that shiny gears they are using.
Does that sound realistic to you? It doesn't to me.
Have you forgotten? The Votann are the absolute bestest and most awesome and all other tech is just inferior derivatives of glorious unfalliable Squat tech
MajorWesJanson wrote: Grav tech is uncommon, but why would it be assumed to be archaeotek or heretek just for being grav? Especially grav tech that is derived from stc patterns.
Antigrav isn't "uncommon", it's basically lost tech and why the imperium use good old treads for their tanks and wheels for their bike outside of the highest echelon of its military (and some belasarius bs).
I dunno. GW books have an awful lot of air cars and grav sleds for AG to be lost tech.
Just to try and get this out of the discussion, anti-grav tech has never been lost to the Imperium. It's just, in the words of the 2nd ed Chaos codex, complex in fabrication and maintenance.
Of course the same codex that told us that about skimmers said the same about jump packs as a rationale for Chaos not getting those things. One edition later GW wanted to sell us Raptors and what do you know, fabrication and maintenance issues got solved overnight. That was easy!
The moral of the story should be to never get too attached to small paragraphs of lore tucked away in codexes or rulebooks. GW can and will change them or ignore them in future editions if they decide it limits their creative space.
Antigrav isn't "uncommon", it's basically lost tech and why the imperium use good old treads for their tanks and wheels for their bike outside of the highest echelon of its military (and some belasarius bs).
Yes, antigrav is lost tech, that's why the skies of every imperial world are blackened with swarms of antigrav drones about the size of a human head.
Wasn't the thing about anti-grav being lost tech exclusive to large vehicles, like land speeders? Weren't land speeders special because they were a surviving example of a large anti-grav vehicle? I'm going off of old memory here, it was probably retconned.
Gosh, so much lost tech, the AdMech would flip out of they saw these.
Damn, you really got me there buddy.
A Belasarius tank that is not only wildly decried as being lorebreaking but also stated inlore as not being real antigrave but isntead a watered down bastardized version of it by some SMC that actually have seen true HH era antigrave.
A Custodes unit... yaknow, the guys that are literally the best of the best of the best of the whole imperium, so much so that they are the only one having access to now lost tech antigrave bikes? (Do you understand the oncept of relic? Yaknow, what use to be at the core of 40k, where the imperium use stuff they don't know how to make anymore?)
A Mechanicus vehicle that not only has one of the weakest type of antigrave system possible to the point that they barely over above the ground, but is also from... yaknow, the mechanicus, the faction that hoard as much lost tech as possible.
I have cleared out a bunch of off topic nonsense from the last page or so. If we could restrict ourselves to talking about the toy space dwarfs and refrain from insulting each other for having differing opinions, that would be helpful.
I'm enjoying the lore so far, curious to see what direction they take transports and tanks. Robot piloted perhaps?
Whether we'll get tunnelers, more grav vehicles, drop pod/trans-atmospheric craft since they're space-explorers.
Not sure if classic crawlers fits the direction they're taking them now.
As for the models, I like the necromunda ones more than the Leagues (which I don't hate).
I prefer subtle aesthetic nods to dwarven archetype than hit over the head. But I was going to sculpt my own anyway, and the models shown at scale are close to what I imagined proportionally. Still probably buy a few for painting fun and conversion bits measuring
Am surprisingly intrigued on the new ones, and am in anticipation of getting a few and adding them to the Outlaw gangs running around with the Land trains.
Has anyone picked up any of these new squats- How do they scale up to other company "Space Dwarfs"?
As to the "AntiGrav" tanks, they are lost tech from the days of Rogue Trader.
The original company that produced the Infamous death-dealer was called Righteous Guardeous.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Grav tech is uncommon, but why would it be assumed to be archaeotek or heretek just for being grav? Especially grav tech that is derived from stc patterns.
Antigrav isn't "uncommon", it's basically lost tech and why the imperium use good old treads for their tanks and wheels for their bike outside of the highest echelon of its military (and some belasarius bs).
Obviously the problem with antigrav in the Imperium isn't that it is lost technology, but that they use it all up on servo skulls and street gangs on necromunda.
Reading through this topic, I have come to the conclusion that there is too much of this:
and not nearly enough of this:
There are problems with all the ranges... and we haven't seen very much of these new Space Dwarfs yet... certainly not enough to get so tetchy about things... and don't forget that GW and Squats have always been a tricky subject so everything may change in the next preview/sneak peek .
I'm looking forward to seeing what turns up and once there is more "solid" information, with more context and miniatures, I am going to dive in and see what's what.
I quite like aspects of both the Necromunda Squats and the 40k Votann but there are things I may change... however, I'll worry that when I can see more of the ranges and get more of an overview of all the new fluff ... and this from a "die hard" Squat fan ... peace out, people ...
Grot 6 wrote: Digging out my old Squats for Prosperity.
Am surprisingly intrigued on the new ones, and am in anticipation of getting a few and adding them to the Outlaw gangs running around with the Land trains.
Has anyone picked up any of these new squats- How do they scale up to other company "Space Dwarfs"?
As to the "AntiGrav" tanks, they are lost tech from the days of Rogue Trader.
The original company that produced the Infamous death-dealer was called Righteous Guardeous.
Hard to say the precise scale at this point since we only have Necromunda models and they may well be scaled slightly differently.
Earlier in this thread there was link to a blog which had some head swap conversions with other dwarf minis.
Personally I think a tiny bit smaller would be perfect but scale is pretty close as it is.
Jidmah wrote: What makes you think that 40k miniatures are all using the same scale?
What sort of a question is this? Of course all 40k miniatures are all using the same scale. It would be borderline idiotic to deliberately produce miniatures for a tabletop game that are all out of scale with each other.
Jidmah wrote: What makes you think that 40k miniatures are all using the same scale?
Thats true we have in theory something between 28mm- 32mm. May seem a small difference but that range can produce different scales ranges, also if its measured to the eye or top of head and also the poses, hunched, doing the splits etc.
Jidmah wrote: What makes you think that 40k miniatures are all using the same scale?
What sort of a question is this? Of course all 40k miniatures are all using the same scale. It would be borderline idiotic to deliberately produce miniatures for a tabletop game that are all out of scale with each other.
There are problems with all the ranges... and we haven't seen very much of these new Space Dwarfs yet... certainly not enough to get so tetchy about things... and don't forget that GW and Squats have always been a tricky subject so everything may change in the next preview/sneak peek .
Right? throwing a fit over a range we haven't actually seen all of yet is very silly. I wouldnt surprised if the tanks, assuming there are tanks, are a little more dwarfy that what we've seen so far, and if not them then perhaps the commander units. It may turn out that more dwarfyness means more prestige and a higher rank in kin society, like how an Imperial guard soldier is relatively plain, but a commissar or higher is dripping in skulls and aquillas.
Once the whole range is together it might all appear cleverly thought out and designed so that it all ties together nicely. But then maybe not, who knows.
What sort of a question is this? Of course all 40k miniatures are all using the same scale. It would be borderline idiotic to deliberately produce miniatures for a tabletop game that are all out of scale with each other.
If I were to theorise the reason for having slightly inconsistent scales it would probably have to do with casting faces and other micro details below a certain point coming with casting problems, especially back in the day, and is also pretty hard to paint for customers, so making models a little larger than they technically should be has an advantage... even if not true today that could cause inherited legacy problems from older ranges.
Jidmah wrote: What makes you think that 40k miniatures are all using the same scale?
What sort of a question is this? Of course all 40k miniatures are all using the same scale. It would be borderline idiotic to deliberately produce miniatures for a tabletop game that are all out of scale with each other.
It definitely looks like he's meant to be a Hearthkin, he's pretty much the same but the chest armour looks as if it's slightly angular and flat whereas on the miniature it seems like it's slightly curved instead.
Am I misinterpreting something on either this art or the miniature? I'm not sure if it's just down to the art and miniatures not always lining up accurately or it's something else.
If I were to theorise the reason for having slightly inconsistent scales it would probably have to do with casting faces and other micro details below a certain point coming with casting problems, especially back in the day, and is also pretty hard to paint for customers, so making models a little larger than they technically should be has an advantage... even if not true today that could cause inherited legacy problems from older ranges.
Not just that... There's a very practical reason 90's models are a different scale to today: many were made from metal alloys, and using a larger scale meant a corresponding increase in material cost.
That's far less of an issue with plastic, which is why average model sizes have crept up over the last two decades.
Malika2 wrote: Is it just me or is a Squat now about the size of a regular human?
40k may just be getting the same treatment LOTR got when The Hobbit came out. Anyone else remember when the Hobbit starter set dwarves were suddenly nearly the size of a man of Rohan and the LOTR dwarves were Hobbits by comparison?
When it comes to protecting their all-important Ancestor Cores, the Leagues of Votann demand no less than the very best weapons and armour around. The honoured warriors who wield them are true elites, wading into battle clad in servo-assisted exo-armour, carrying a name that commands respect from all Kin – the Einhyr Hearthguard.
Selected from the most accomplished fighters in a Kinhold, the Einhyr Hearthguard have many roles – from bodyguards to deadly first-strike troops. Each Hearthguard has proved themselves over many years of front-line combat, ascending purely by the virtue of their deeds, just as the staunch meritocracy of the Leagues requires.
Like Hearthkyn Warriors, Hearthguard are dependable fighters, but their experience and inch-thick battle plating take the Kins’ natural durability to a whole new level. Crack units of Einhyr Hearthguard can be trusted to hold the line and inspire their fellows to stand firm even in the face of untold horrors.
They aren’t all take and no give, either. Each Einhyr is equipped with a Volkanite Disintegrator and a shoulder-mounted grenade launcher, laying down a solid curtain of fire as they advance. Once the Einhyr Hearthguard join the melee, they’re just as formidable, lashing out with devastating concussion gauntlets.
These marvels use ancient technologies to increase the mass of a warrior’s fist as they swing, turning an already burly uppercut into an earth-shattering blow that can lift a hulking Ork right off their feet. Those who prefer the deftness of a sword over the raw power of their gauntlets can fit a thrumming plasma blade to their wrist, perfect for slicing and dicing the galaxy’s less damage resistant dangers.
There’s plenty more to see from the Leagues of Votann, so stay tuned to Warhammer Community for even more reveals. You might be waiting a while for details from your own local Votann – they can get a bit slow in the summer months – so get to the front of the information queue by signing up to our newsletter and having every new tidbit beamed straight into your inbox.
/pic218394.jpg)
)
