John D Law wrote: Gotta admit most of the Votann stuff does look very cool but too me it doesn’t scream”dwarf”. I’m likely out of step on this modern version but it’s too generic human sci fi to be dwarf. Still cool looking in a basic sense though.
I've seen a lot of people saying "this stuff doesn't look dwarf" and I keep wondering, where it was even implied that it is "dwarf" as we think of dwarves. I don't think GW is trying to make them into "dwarf" but trying to make a new and unique faction within an established universe. And in my opinion, they're succeeding quite well.
They're meant to be the settings version of the Dwarf archetype.That was the whole point to the Squats in the first place, being Space Dwarfs (which they were even called) and the Leagues are definitely Dwarf-themed lore-wise.
That’s the thing though, what exactly is the “dwarf archetype”? If you mean the utterly cliched, done to death, Tolkien ripoff that populates almost every setting containing dwarfs, then no thanks.
I was hoping that, if they ever brought squats back, they’d think of something different to do with them. They didn’t. They look like the same cliched crap in the form of better, more modern minis. They’re too “dwarf archetype” for me. I was bored of the same old fantasy tropes 30 years ago.
That is literally what fantasy dwarfs are. Most "dwarfs" are some variation of Tolkien Dwarf, which in turn were inspired by the dwarfs of Germanic myth; short humanoids who live in mountains and mine. If it's not a short humanoid who mines, it cannot by definition be a dwarf.
You might as well complain that the horse archetype is that of a large, quadrupedal mammal of the Equus genus that is used for transport and labor, and that they don't go baa and can't be sheared.
Flinty wrote: Is that a good thing? I think it’s a good thing
It's a good thing. This is the first release for the NotVerySquats that is a solid 'Oh, yes!' from me. Love it. Enough that I might even buy one for use elsewhere despite the inevitably painful price.
Edit... although looking at it some more, I'm wondering how the driver gets in and out. The seat looks built in place and solid around the back, so no entrance through the vehicle's rear. If the canopy swings open it would hit the rollcage, leaving a fairly narrow aperture to crawl... and would require clambering up and over the rollcage and sliding in under the half-open canopy. I'd be tempted to cut away the panel behind the seat and mount it on a sliding swivel, so it can retract back into the cabin.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: The fact anyone can say, “that’s what dwarfs are” just shows how creatively bankrupt the vast majority of fantasy is.
It sounds like you don't understand what tropes and archetypes are because in order to be "Dwarfs" then they broadly have to be what the idea of the archetype of "Dwarfs" involves.
ou do realize that 40k is a setting that was founded primarily on taking existing archetypes and putting them in Space, Right? You're complaining about a Fantasy-in-space setting having the iconic Fantasy races.
insaniak wrote: This is the first release for the NotVerySquats that is a solid 'Oh, yes!' from me.
Why though? Is it because this is the first of the Votann models that's made you go "Ah! This is what they're going for!" or "Yes, now I see the aesthetics of this race coming together!"? Or is it that you just like the design in general and, as you said in the next part of your post, that you might just get one to use it elsewhere?
See I think it's a cool design. I also think it doesn't look 40k-ish at all, and certainly don't scream "The Squats have returned!" to me. Nothing in this Votann line is moving the needle for me (unlike the Newcromunda Squats).
insaniak wrote: Edit... although looking at it some more, I'm wondering how the driver gets in and out. The seat looks built in place and solid around the back, so no entrance through the vehicle's rear. If the canopy swings open it would hit the rollcage, leaving a fairly narrow aperture to crawl... and would require clambering up and over the rollcage and sliding in under the half-open canopy. I'd be tempted to cut away the panel behind the seat and mount it on a sliding swivel, so it can retract back into the cabin.
Maybe they can't get out?
Maybe that's the grimdark 'other shoe' that we've been waiting for when it comes to the Votann, where outside of "Our Computer-Gods haven't had a firmware update in 5000 years!" it always seemed like everything was going perfectly for them. Instead, the true terror is that they can't ever leave their vehicles/armour. They're stuck in there forever.
Their armour will be their prison cells... oh wait that's just Starcraft again...
H.B.M.C. wrote: Why though? Is it because this is the first of the Votann models that's made you go "Ah! This is what they're going for!" or "Yes, now I see the aesthetics of this race coming together!"?
Or is it that you just like the design in general and, as you said in the next part of your post, that you might just get one to use it elsewhere?
Yeah, the rest of the range so far has been fairly uninspiring, and I have no particular interest in buying any of them. I would buy this to use as a Necromunda ash waste explorator vehicle, or as an Epirian prospector vehicle in MEdge.
insaniak wrote: This is the first release for the NotVerySquats that is a solid 'Oh, yes!' from me.
certainly don't scream "The Squats have returned!" to me. Nothing in this Votann line is moving the needle for me (unlike the Newcromunda Squats).
I do somewhat agree with this part, but at the same time I don't see how they could have a moon rover ATV that does feel obviously more Squats/Space Dwarfs. Any examples of the sort of thing you think would have been better for them?
The odd repurposed/militarised mining/prospecting equipment look which the League's seem to have going on is strange, because we already have a faction using STC mining gear in the Genestealer Cults.
The moon buggy from Armageddon doesn't communicate 'military transport' at all.
Nor does it communicate Squats/dwarfs. If it was a Necromunda release, or a Genestealer Cult vehicle, nobody would bat an eye.
Why have a hover trike and then a wheeled buggy transport?
I personally would have liked a wheeled trike over a hover buggy.
Consistency in a force helps tie it together.
I'm not seeing wheeled Tau or Eldar or Dark Eldar bike/buggies/transports.
The Primaris Mario Cart for the new space marines is a notable exception to fixing a style in a force.
I do somewhat agree with this part, but at the same time I don't see how they could have a moon rover ATV that does feel obviously more Squats/Space Dwarfs. Any examples of the sort of thing you think would have been better for them?
I think the disconnect is coming from the fact that the new Squats are supposed to be more high-tech than the Imperium, and so they're trying to show that with the rounded, more conventionally sci-fi gear. If it had been my call, Space Dwarfs would have gear that was starkly utilitarian. Their vehicles and armour would be chunky and practical, and rely as much as possible on mechanical (ie: less prone to failure or interference) functionality over tech. They would be better than their Imperial equivalents because they were better designed, built and maintained, rather than because they were more advanced.
Vehicles, at least in the first wave, would use consistent technology (either multiple wheels or a variable multiple track unit arrangement) rather than the current mix of grav bike and wheeled transport.
And if I were going to use vaguely Celtic embellishment, it would be worked into every model to look like a part of the design, rather than just slipped in here and there as an afterthought.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: The fact anyone can say, “that’s what dwarfs are” just shows how creatively bankrupt the vast majority of fantasy is.
You, uh, might actually have a point about this. When I think about the variety of Dwarves in fiction their variety feels less than elves which are themselves not that varied.
I think that might be because dwarves have become so refined and detailed over the years in the general public's heads that they have to be a certain way.
Togusa wrote: I've seen a lot of people saying "this stuff doesn't look dwarf" and I keep wondering, where it was even implied that it is "dwarf" as we think of dwarves. I don't think GW is trying to make them into "dwarf" but trying to make a new and unique faction within an established universe. And in my opinion, they're succeeding quite well.
See, that's the problem. They aren't doing a 'brand new and unique faction with an established universe", they are doing "the return of the squats".
This is the whole reason they are making that new faction, to bring back something a lot of people have been asking for decades now, and they clearly started their reveal by directly linking them to the squats.
Nobody would have problem with them not looking like what they expected them to look if GW didn't decided for some reason to reuse a known name to sell something that has nothing to do with it, as I've said many times, if they really wanted to make something totally new and unrelated to "space dwarfs" then why didn't they do just that? Well the reason is rather obvious, is for the same reason hollywood has been butchering adaptation for decades, for the brand recognition.
They could have called them the Demiurge, make them not look like short bearded men and nobody would have had a problem with them (outside of some pretty lazy or bad designs here and there).
You cannot blame people for being disapointed that the Votann aren't going in the direction they expected (space dwarf) when GW iself is the one that decided to pretend these guys were the new space dwarfs.
The situation remind me of that video
"Haha, what did you thought it was going to be? Are you sad and upset that it's not what the box said? HAHA get fethed!"
H.B.M.C. wrote: and certainly don't scream "The Squats have returned!" to me.
They're Squats, but not as we know them.
Hasn't that been the entire point? They aren't really supposed to be screaming the Squats have returned. These are the Leagues of Votann. It's not for everyone, but for those that prefer the old style, that's why the Necromunda Squats exist. Aptly named, go figure!
I was hoping that, if they ever brought squats back, they’d think of something different to do with them. They didn’t. They look like the same cliched crap in the form of better, more modern minis. They’re too “dwarf archetype” for me. I was bored of the same old fantasy tropes 30 years ago.
You can't be serious mate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Waaagh_Gonads wrote: Why have a hover trike and then a wheeled buggy transport?
I personally would have liked a wheeled trike over a hover buggy.
Consistency in a force helps tie it together.
I'm not seeing wheeled Tau or Eldar or Dark Eldar bike/buggies/transports.
The Primaris Mario Cart for the new space marines is a notable exception to fixing a style in a force.
Amen to that, sadly GW just lost that very important and primordial piece of design knowledge when they decided to vomit antigrave primaris tank.
lord_blackfang wrote: Being able to split one squad amongst two transports is a weird army gimmick NGL
And how much do you want to bet that it's going to go horribly wrong rulewise which will probably feth this thing forever?
It looks like yet another case of "the artists were allowed to play unsupervised again and now we are trying to explain how that gak that's clearly not fit for purpose is actually totally fit for purpose.
H.B.M.C. wrote: and certainly don't scream "The Squats have returned!" to me.
They're Squats, but not as we know them.
Hasn't that been the entire point? They aren't really supposed to be screaming the Squats have returned. These are the Leagues of Votann. It's not for everyone, but for those that prefer the old style, that's why the Necromunda Squats exist. Aptly named, go figure!
When they've been going on about how these are the Squats bought back and they've returned after so long, being disappointed that they don't meet the expectations for Squats aesthetically seems perfectly fair, but then again a lot of the Squat units in the first place were based around Imperial stuff outside of their units for Epic, it's more the Space Dwarf side of the aesthetic that is missing. They could have updated the originals without loosing what made them what they are - look at Grendlesen. Grendl even seems like he might be a League Mercenary considering he shares a few design elements.
The Necromunda Squats aren't the "Original" Squats at all despite sharing the name, it's the Leagues that are meant to be. The Necromunda version are just called that because they're in Imperial territory and that's what the Imperium calls them.
H.B.M.C. wrote: and certainly don't scream "The Squats have returned!" to me.
They're Squats, but not as we know them.
Hasn't that been the entire point? They aren't really supposed to be screaming the Squats have returned. These are the Leagues of Votann. It's not for everyone, but for those that prefer the old style, that's why the Necromunda Squats exist. Aptly named, go figure!
When they've been going on about how these are the Squats bought back and they've returned after so long, being disappointed that they don't meet the expectations for Squats aesthetically seems perfectly fair, but then again a lot of the Squat units in the first place were based around Imperial stuff outside of their units for Epic, it's more the Space Dwarf side of the aesthetic that is missing. They could have updated the originals without loosing what made them what they are - look at Grendlesen. Grendl even seems like he might be a League Mercenary considering he shares a few design elements.
The Necromunda Squats aren't the "Original" Squats at all despite sharing the name, it's the Leagues that are meant to be. The Necromunda version are just called that because they're in Imperial territory and that's what the Imperium calls them.
I don't necessarily agree there. I mean right at the start, in the very first teaser, they said "don't call them Squats". It was sort of meant to be more than a light joke about their size. They clearly made the choice to make them different. Thing is the people who were actually around for the Squats in 40k is slim in comparison to those who collects in the hobby these days. 1993 was a depressingly long time ago now. I think there's a lot of people who cling to it despite not having really been around at the time (no judgement). To me, the Squat aesthetic of old has become too much of a meme. Not to mention they were clearly deeply tainted at GW. It made far more sense to reinvent their aesthetic and they've certainly gone for that.
I liked the models back in the old times and sure, the new models could do with a bit more dwarvishness. But that's a real easy fix than any hobbyist should be able to manage, should they choose to. I know I certainly will, just I have done with the Necromunda Squats. I still like the new Votanni models. It's a bit of a refreshing design choice for 40k, I like the 60s Space Exploration aesthetic going on.
EDIT: you'll have to forgive me if that doesn't all make sense, it's far too bloody hot in the UK
H.B.M.C. wrote: and certainly don't scream "The Squats have returned!" to me.
They're Squats, but not as we know them.
Hasn't that been the entire point? They aren't really supposed to be screaming the Squats have returned. These are the Leagues of Votann. It's not for everyone, but for those that prefer the old style, that's why the Necromunda Squats exist. Aptly named, go figure!
When they've been going on about how these are the Squats bought back and they've returned after so long, being disappointed that they don't meet the expectations for Squats aesthetically seems perfectly fair, but then again a lot of the Squat units in the first place were based around Imperial stuff outside of their units for Epic, it's more the Space Dwarf side of the aesthetic that is missing. They could have updated the originals without loosing what made them what they are - look at Grendlesen. Grendl even seems like he might be a League Mercenary considering he shares a few design elements.
The Necromunda Squats aren't the "Original" Squats at all despite sharing the name, it's the Leagues that are meant to be. The Necromunda version are just called that because they're in Imperial territory and that's what the Imperium calls them.
I don't necessarily agree there. I mean right at the start, in the very first teaser, they said "don't call them Squats". It was sort of meant to be more than a light joke about their size. They clearly made the choice to make them different. Thing is the people who were actually around for the Squats in 40k is slim in comparison to those who collects in the hobby these days. 1993 was a depressingly long time ago now. I think there's a lot of people who cling to it despite not having really been around at the time (no judgement). To me, the Squat aesthetic of old has become too much of a meme. Not to mention they were clearly deeply tainted at GW. It made far more sense to reinvent their aesthetic and they've certainly gone for that.
I liked the models back in the old times and sure, the new models could do with a bit more dwarvishness. But that's a real easy fix than any hobbbiest should be able to manage, should they choose it.
They said "Don't call them Squats" because it's an in-universe derogatory term used by the Imperium that they don't like to be called, that wasn't something aimed at us.
I don't think people are asking for the Zany biker gang style of them to be back, it's the more Dwarf-inspired elements as was seen on their infantry and war machines - the grounded, down-to earth Dwarfs with rugged looking designs wearing Field Caps and gambesons with some of the Dwarf aesthetic in the way of ancestor sigils and such . The originals weren't removed for anything to do with them being Space Dwarfs, they were removed for what was in essence the opposite; they'd taken the proud, stoic fantasy Dwarf archetype and turned it into a joke of silly bikers named Squats rather than doing something more suitable. .
I don't think it's about nostalgia for the old Squats look but rather just wanted Space Dwarfs to look like Space Dwarfs. And it's not like the Leagues are extremely far removed from that anyway as Grendl has shared elements with both the classics and the Leagues - they're just, for some reason, taking too much of that Space Dwarf side away to the point it feels like it's just an afterthought when it does show up.
McDougall Designs wrote: the new vehicle looks like a matchbox toy from when i was a kid in the 90s.
I know! fething ace isn’t it.
The only thing about squats coming back are the necromunda models (the only ones called squats). They are ugly. All things league so far are looking amazing.
insaniak wrote: This is the first release for the NotVerySquats that is a solid 'Oh, yes!' from me.
certainly don't scream "The Squats have returned!" to me. Nothing in this Votann line is moving the needle for me (unlike the Newcromunda Squats).
I do somewhat agree with this part, but at the same time I don't see how they could have a moon rover ATV that does feel obviously more Squats/Space Dwarfs. Any examples of the sort of thing you think would have been better for them?
Sharper angles/heavier plates, the twisted knotwork that they used on the hearthguard, no bubbles. No fixed forward guns (because that relies on the agility of the vehicle and reflexes of the driver, which is inherently not-Dwarfy). A more reinforced, armored turret.
Actual cargo area if it has to be a transport.
Doing moonrover ATV at all seems like an elementary mistake, rather than a scaled down land train. Or a half-track. I could get behind a dwarfish half-track, going for sturdiness and stability with a lower height profile.
Kind of funny that there are multiple examples on this page of people saying "they would be more Dwarfy if they just used obsolete technology".
Gambesons and half-tracks? What happened to that other Dwarf archetype, being master craftsmen who push the limits of design and produce items of unparalleled superiority?
H.B.M.C. wrote: and certainly don't scream "The Squats have returned!" to me.
They're Squats, but not as we know them.
Hasn't that been the entire point? They aren't really supposed to be screaming the Squats have returned. These are the Leagues of Votann. It's not for everyone, but for those that prefer the old style, that's why the Necromunda Squats exist. Aptly named, go figure!
Except gw made big point that this isn't new faction but is return of the squats...
Gw is the one that said "squats are back!". No wonder people wanted then squats and not new faction...
John D Law wrote: Gotta admit most of the Votann stuff does look very cool but too me it doesn’t scream”dwarf”. I’m likely out of step on this modern version but it’s too generic human sci fi to be dwarf. Still cool looking in a basic sense though.
I've seen a lot of people saying "this stuff doesn't look dwarf" and I keep wondering, where it was even implied that it is "dwarf" as we think of dwarves. I don't think GW is trying to make them into "dwarf" but trying to make a new and unique faction within an established universe. And in my opinion, they're succeeding quite well.
They're meant to be the settings version of the Dwarf archetype.That was the whole point to the Squats in the first place, being Space Dwarfs (which they were even called) and the Leagues are definitely Dwarf-themed lore-wise.
That’s the thing though, what exactly is the “dwarf archetype”? If you mean the utterly cliched, done to death, Tolkien ripoff that populates almost every setting containing dwarfs, then no thanks.
I was hoping that, if they ever brought squats back, they’d think of something different to do with them. They didn’t. They look like the same cliched crap in the form of better, more modern minis. They’re too “dwarf archetype” for me. I was bored of the same old fantasy tropes 30 years ago.
That is literally what fantasy dwarfs are.
Most "dwarfs" are some variation of Tolkien Dwarf, which in turn were inspired by the dwarfs of Germanic myth; short humanoids who live in mountains and mine.
If it's not a short humanoid who mines, it cannot by definition be a dwarf.
You might as well complain that the horse archetype is that of a large, quadrupedal mammal of the Equus genus that is used for transport and labor, and that they don't go baa and can't be sheared.
Except horses are real and dwarfs are not so can be reinvented however you like. The fact that they are some variation of Tolkien dwarf just shows how unimaginative fantasy creators have got with them. Tolkien reinvented dwarfs. His dwarfs deviated in many ways from their mythic roots but very few fantasy writers have done what he did. Instead they just copy Tolkien.
There is no reference in early Norse myth to dwarfs being short. A small number of writers have actually made dwarfs into giants. There is no reason why these Votann guys couldn’t have been 10 feet tall and still been ‘dwarfs’.
In mythological sources the word we translate as dwarfs is used interchangeably with elves or, more specifically, dark elves. The Votann could have been the result of Dark Age of Technology genecrafters splicing human and Aeldari dna. That again would be more true to their mythological roots than just short guys who like mining.
In some early mythological sources dwarfs are associated with the undead (that’s why they live underground perhaps). Maybe the League’s dark secret is that they animate their dead to fight again battle?
I think tall but bulky abhumans created using xenos dna, who use animated corpses as cannon fodder would be a legitimate take on mythological dwarfs and far more interesting than Gimli in space. But that’s just off the top of my head. I’m not a professional creative type who’s paid to spend months developing an idea.
And if GW had wanted to go for that fine. But instead they marketed votan as RETURN OF THE SPACE DWARVES.
They rode on the image of classic dwarves. If they had marketed them as anything other than return of the classic squats it would be fine but they instead chose deliberately to use squats instead.
Blatant exploiting affraid of losing money if they don't try to piggyride on space dwarf idea.
Currently they look like they fit better in a more generic scifi setting than they do in the gothic grimdark/derp of 40k.
The very few "dwarf" details (particularly the leaders' animal drakkar heads) look even worse because they feel so out of place.
So, I kinda like some of the designs, I kinda not like some others (no real strong reaction either way), but mostly they leave me cold and wondering if they were meant for another game.
Albertorius wrote: Currently they look like they fit better in a more generic scifi setting than they do in the gothic grimdark/derp of 40k.
The very few "dwarf" details (particularly the leaders' animal drakkar heads) look even worse because they feel so out of place.
So, I kinda like some of the designs, I kinda not like some others (no real strong reaction either way), but mostly they leave me cold and wondering if they were meant for another game.
I think that’s the root of my objects too. Adding a new faction to 40K is a big deal and this feels so underwhelming. Everything feels very generic. It’s like the entire design language was just the first thing they thought of.
My other concern about current GW is the way their move towards increasing diversity seems to have stalled. Yes, it is a step forward to paint some of their minis in different skin tones. It’s a step forward to model some heads with a diversity of features. I don’t want to take away from that. However, here’s a “new” faction and it’s just the same old northwestern European archetypes that already dominate the model ranges.
Albertorius wrote: Currently they look like they fit better in a more generic scifi setting than they do in the gothic grimdark/derp of 40k.
The very few "dwarf" details (particularly the leaders' animal drakkar heads) look even worse because they feel so out of place.
So, I kinda like some of the designs, I kinda not like some others (no real strong reaction either way), but mostly they leave me cold and wondering if they were meant for another game.
I think that’s the root of my objects too. Adding a new faction to 40K is a big deal and this feels so underwhelming. Everything feels very generic. It’s like the entire design language was just the first thing they thought of.
My other concern about current GW is the way their move towards increasing diversity seems to have stalled. Yes, it is a step forward to paint some of their minis in different skin tones. It’s a step forward to model some heads with a diversity of features. I don’t want to take away from that. However, here’s a “new” faction and it’s just the same old northwestern European archetypes that already dominate the model ranges.
I think GW is better served on the diversity front by expanding the current ranges like the cadian upgrades or various marine chapters than by making a new race specifically ethnic, which could lead to unfortunate implications or idiot racists latching on to make noise.
Albertorius wrote: Currently they look like they fit better in a more generic scifi setting than they do in the gothic grimdark/derp of 40k.
The very few "dwarf" details (particularly the leaders' animal drakkar heads) look even worse because they feel so out of place.
So, I kinda like some of the designs, I kinda not like some others (no real strong reaction either way), but mostly they leave me cold and wondering if they were meant for another game.
Yea it's like they wanted to try something new, weren't sure where they wanted to take and then affraid it will fail decided post-fact that let's ride on squat fame to try to get money that way.
John D Law wrote: Gotta admit most of the Votann stuff does look very cool but too me it doesn’t scream”dwarf”. I’m likely out of step on this modern version but it’s too generic human sci fi to be dwarf. Still cool looking in a basic sense though.
I've seen a lot of people saying "this stuff doesn't look dwarf" and I keep wondering, where it was even implied that it is "dwarf" as we think of dwarves. I don't think GW is trying to make them into "dwarf" but trying to make a new and unique faction within an established universe. And in my opinion, they're succeeding quite well.
They're meant to be the settings version of the Dwarf archetype.That was the whole point to the Squats in the first place, being Space Dwarfs (which they were even called) and the Leagues are definitely Dwarf-themed lore-wise.
That’s the thing though, what exactly is the “dwarf archetype”? If you mean the utterly cliched, done to death, Tolkien ripoff that populates almost every setting containing dwarfs, then no thanks.
I was hoping that, if they ever brought squats back, they’d think of something different to do with them. They didn’t. They look like the same cliched crap in the form of better, more modern minis. They’re too “dwarf archetype” for me. I was bored of the same old fantasy tropes 30 years ago.
That is literally what fantasy dwarfs are.
Most "dwarfs" are some variation of Tolkien Dwarf, which in turn were inspired by the dwarfs of Germanic myth; short humanoids who live in mountains and mine.
If it's not a short humanoid who mines, it cannot by definition be a dwarf.
You might as well complain that the horse archetype is that of a large, quadrupedal mammal of the Equus genus that is used for transport and labor, and that they don't go baa and can't be sheared.
Except horses are real and dwarfs are not so can be reinvented however you like. The fact that they are some variation of Tolkien dwarf just shows how unimaginative fantasy creators have got with them. Tolkien reinvented dwarfs. His dwarfs deviated in many ways from their mythic roots but very few fantasy writers have done what he did. Instead they just copy Tolkien.
There is no reference in early Norse myth to dwarfs being short. A small number of writers have actually made dwarfs into giants. There is no reason why these Votann guys couldn’t have been 10 feet tall and still been ‘dwarfs’.
In mythological sources the word we translate as dwarfs is used interchangeably with elves or, more specifically, dark elves. The Votann could have been the result of Dark Age of Technology genecrafters splicing human and Aeldari dna. That again would be more true to their mythological roots than just short guys who like mining.
In some early mythological sources dwarfs are associated with the undead (that’s why they live underground perhaps). Maybe the League’s dark secret is that they animate their dead to fight again battle?
I think tall but bulky abhumans created using xenos dna, who use animated corpses as cannon fodder would be a legitimate take on mythological dwarfs and far more interesting than Gimli in space. But that’s just off the top of my head. I’m not a professional creative type who’s paid to spend months developing an idea.
They aren't meant to be a take on mythological Dwarfs at all. They're a take on the Fantasy Dwarf archetype.
Just like Eldar aren't a take on mythological Elfs but the fantasy elf archetype. The 40k settting is fantasy-in-space.
I think tall but bulky abhumans created using xenos dna, who use animated corpses as cannon fodder would be a legitimate take on mythological dwarfs and far more interesting than Gimli in space. But that’s just off the top of my head. I’m not a professional creative type who’s paid to spend months developing an idea.
Aren't those just Plague Marines? Swap out xenos with chaos taint and the Emperor's genetic space magic and that pretty much matches them.
There is no reference in early Norse myth to dwarfs being short. A small number of writers have actually made dwarfs into giants. There is no reason why these Votann guys couldn’t have been 10 feet tall and still been ‘dwarfs’.
In early dwarf myths, yes. In later myths, such as the in the Legendary Sagas, they became short. Those are the myths that spread, not the early ones. And yeah, there is a reason why they couldn't be ten feet tall and be dwarfs - look up the very definition of "dwarf". A dwarf star isn't called that because it's huge. If it's 10 feet tall it's a giant, not a dwarf.
Yes, I know they’re meant to be a take on the fantasy dwarf archetype. That’s exactly why I don’t like them.
If they’d simply announced, ‘hey we’re making a new faction for 40K and the twist is we’re going to make it the laziest, most derivative stereotype we can think of’, it wouldn’t have been far off the mark.
Anyway, I’ve had my say. I’m mostly just disappointed because of all the existing factions that need further development, but they’re giving us this crap instead. Crap which is now going to be shoehorned into every novel to drive model sales.
You don't like that the army that they introduced to cash in on the squats nostalgia is catering to squats nostalgia?
I mean, I sort of get what you mean, cash ins suck, but expecting them to not make an army of space dwarfs when they did it to respond to about 20+ years of "Squats when GW, give me back squats!" is a bit of an odd take.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Yes, I know they’re meant to be a take on the fantasy dwarf archetype. That’s exactly why I don’t like them.
If they’d simply announced, ‘hey we’re making a new faction for 40K and the twist is we’re going to make it the laziest, most derivative stereotype we can think of’, it wouldn’t have been far off the mark.
Anyway, I’ve had my say. I’m mostly just disappointed because of all the existing factions that need further development, but they’re giving us this crap instead. Crap which is now going to be shoehorned into every novel to drive model sales.
Again, just my opinion.
Once again, you're calling them "lazy" "derivative" "stereotypes" for being what they're meant to be as if for some absurd reason you think something can magically still be considered Dwarf without meeting any of the critera for what defines the Dwarfs.You don't like the Fantasy Dwarfs idea in general, That's fine, but it's absurd to complain about the new army who's whole purpose is to be the Dwarf archetype being the Dwarf archetype and whining that they get rid of everything that defines the idea in the first place.
It really gives the impression that you absolutely do no understand what archetypes, The Dwarfs, or even 40k in general is meant to be. The whole origins of the 40k setting was to be those typical beloved Fantasy tropes in Space, that was the point of it. I guess you don't like the Eldar or Orks either, because they're also Fantasy Archetypes in Space. Would you have seen the Eldar originally and also gone "Wow, they're typical tall pointy eared fantasy elves with sleek, elegant designs, high use of magic, and a big sense of self superiority, such generic lazy stereotypes!"?
Personally I just think it's very impressive we have people in this very threat, arguing that they're the laziest, most derivative stereotype of dwarves ever, and then, simultenously, other people arguing that they're not remotely looking or feeling like dwarves.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: Yes, I know they’re meant to be a take on the fantasy dwarf archetype. That’s exactly why I don’t like them.
If they’d simply announced, ‘hey we’re making a new faction for 40K and the twist is we’re going to make it the laziest, most derivative stereotype we can think of’, it wouldn’t have been far off the mark.
Anyway, I’ve had my say. I’m mostly just disappointed because of all the existing factions that need further development, but they’re giving us this crap instead. Crap which is now going to be shoehorned into every novel to drive model sales.
Again, just my opinion.
Once again, you're calling them "lazy" "derivative" "stereotypes" for being what they're meant to be as if for some absurd reason you think something can magically still be considered Dwarf without meeting any of the critera for what defines the Dwarfs.You don't like the Fantasy Dwarfs idea in general, That's fine, but it's absurd to complain about the new army who's whole purpose is to be the Dwarf archetype, being the Dwarf archetype.
It really gives the impression that you absolutely do no understand what archetypes, The Dwarfs, or even 40k in general is meant to be. The whole origins of the 40k setting was to be those typical beloved Fantasy tropes in Space, that was the point of it. I guess you don't like the Eldar or Orks either, because they're also Fantasy Archetypes in Space.
Mate, I know exactly what 40K was meant to be. I bought Rogue Trader the day it was released. When you take off the nostalgia glasses, RT was an incoherent mess of a game with some good ideas. The worst of those ideas being fantasy in space.
Over the years 40K has evolved so far beyond that premise that squats feel like a backward step. The Imperium of Man is a fantastic creation. You’re totally correct though, Eldar and Orks are my least favourite factions and the more purely sci fi Tyranids, GSC and Necrons are my favourite xenos.
I thought it should be okay for my tastes to be different from other peoples, but to be honest I’m getting tired of replies that heavily imply that if I don’t like something, it must be because I’m too stupid to understand it.
Except nids and Necrons are also based on archetypes, just more sci-fi (sort of. Necrons are very much undead in space with sci-fi trappings, just as Eldar are elves with sci-fi trapping) archetypes as opposed to fantasy. Nids and Tau are probably the least "fantasy" factions in the game. But if every faction were like them, 40k wouldn't be 40k; the schizophrenic mix of fantasy and sci-fi is what makes 40k the way it is.
Mate, I know exactly what 40K was meant to be. I bought Rogue Trader the day it was released. When you take off the nostalgia glasses, RT was an incoherent mess of a game with some good ideas. The worst of those ideas being fantasy in space.
Over the years 40K has evolved so far beyond that premise that squats feel like a backward step. The Imperium of Man is a fantastic creation. You’re totally correct though, Eldar and Orks are my least favourite factions and the more purely sci fi Tyranids, GSC and Necrons are my favourite xenos.
I thought it should be okay for my tastes to be different from other peoples, but to be honest I’m getting tired of replies that heavily imply that if I don’t like something, it must be because I’m too stupid to understand it.
I don't think its a matter of stupidity, just that other people are tired of seeing you insist that the fundamental basis of the game (fantasy in space) is wrong (even though you admit to understanding that) and the faction shouldn't be what it is. Its like showing up at an ice cream shop and complaining to the other customers that the shop sells ice cream.
Mate, I know exactly what 40K was meant to be. I bought Rogue Trader the day it was released. When you take off the nostalgia glasses, RT was an incoherent mess of a game with some good ideas. The worst of those ideas being fantasy in space.
Over the years 40K has evolved so far beyond that premise that squats feel like a backward step. The Imperium of Man is a fantastic creation. You’re totally correct though, Eldar and Orks are my least favourite factions and the more purely sci fi Tyranids, GSC and Necrons are my favourite xenos.
I thought it should be okay for my tastes to be different from other peoples, but to be honest I’m getting tired of replies that heavily imply that if I don’t like something, it must be because I’m too stupid to understand it.
I don't think its a matter of stupidity, just that other people are tired of seeing you insist that the fundamental basis of the game (fantasy in space) is wrong (even though you admit to understanding that) and the faction shouldn't be what it is. Its like showing up at an ice cream shop and complaining to the other customers that the shop sells ice cream.
I’ve never once said anything was wrong. I’ve just expressed a preference for the parts of 40K that are not overtly fantasy inspired and been jumped all over for having an opinion other people don’t agree with.
Kanluwen wrote: It reads like the Transvector for AdMech. Low capacity but multiples in the same detachment can transport a bigger unit.
How does that work though in regards to unit coherency? Do they have to disembark at the same time? Do they work like Combat Squads? Seems like an odd rule.
Mate, I know exactly what 40K was meant to be. I bought Rogue Trader the day it was released. When you take off the nostalgia glasses, RT was an incoherent mess of a game with some good ideas. The worst of those ideas being fantasy in space.
Over the years 40K has evolved so far beyond that premise that squats feel like a backward step. The Imperium of Man is a fantastic creation. You’re totally correct though, Eldar and Orks are my least favourite factions and the more purely sci fi Tyranids, GSC and Necrons are my favourite xenos.
I thought it should be okay for my tastes to be different from other peoples, but to be honest I’m getting tired of replies that heavily imply that if I don’t like something, it must be because I’m too stupid to understand it.
My dad bought me RT when I was nine. Like yourself I gradually began to think fantasy in space was a bit lame, mainly the Orks if I'm honest, but I'm beginning to like them more nowadays and what I think of them is irrelevant anyway, there's plenty that like them and there's certainly room for them in the setting. I never had any hate for Eldar though. Tau, I was never fond of, despite being further removed from fantasy than most. Tyranids, whilst derivative, should be a staple in any (or at least many) dark sci-fi setting. Could do with being a bit less derivitive but whatever.
As for people calling you stupid for having your opinions yeah that's unfair, though tbh I don't think you're expressing them at all diplomatically and that is what's leading to a more confrontational form of disagreement. Personally I like them a lot!
Would be wicked if they released a box set around a mining world with Voltan vs Genestealer cults and that the mining necromunda minis could be included. Or vice versa the new vehicle being converted to Necromunda.
Its weird to read some comments along the idea that "this is how it should be" as if your interpretation of how 40k should look or be is somewhat absolute. Well your personal tastes are valid debate as is your personal view on things but at the end of the day is GW that defines how it should be.
Variety is important in a universe plagued with space marines and skulls spam. Tau are a good example of what I personally think is a positive design route to reach 40k variety.... and Im glad to see that Leagues designers think alongside these lines with a fresh take on these models.
Does it appeal to everyone? Does anything really do?
Either way regardless of your preference or Bias this range opens doors and expands into an even wider audience.
Yeah Squats are gonna be nice alongside my GSC. I don't like the Squats as much, but that's because GSC are my absolute favourites (and Primarines ofc).
I have to say, GW managing to please almost nobody, and offending so many conflicting groups of people in mutually-exclusive ways, is beautiful to behold.
Agamemnon2 wrote: I have to say, GW managing to please almost nobody, and offending so many conflicting groups of people in mutually-exclusive ways, is beautiful to behold.
It feels kind of surreal, don't it? Somehow, they made models that appeal neither to people that like stereotypical dwarves and ones who don't. I have genuinely no idea what's so special about them that they work like this
Agamemnon2 wrote: I have to say, GW managing to please almost nobody, and offending so many conflicting groups of people in mutually-exclusive ways, is beautiful to behold.
Welp, that's what happen when you bait people with promise and don't follow trough on it.
They hyped that thing as the "return of the squat" because they knew that was something a lot of people wanted, and then proceeded to NOT do squats at all.
It's as out of touch as when netflix or hollywood makes an "adaptation" of an ip, but then just use the name to sell something that has literally nothing to do with it.
I think this is the divide. I think this is a fairly close adaption of the 30 year old IP. The problem is that 30 year old IP was seemingly a dull road to nowhere which resulted in Squats famously being squatted.
Which I think is why you have people divided over wanting something more dwarf or less. Its unclear exactly which way to go - but they wanted something other than "Codex: Short fat ab-Van Saar".
But hey - some people seem to love it, so it may just be me.
Agamemnon2 wrote: I have to say, GW managing to please almost nobody, and offending so many conflicting groups of people in mutually-exclusive ways, is beautiful to behold.
"SQUATS ARE DOOMED!" "Nobody lieks them!" "THEY APPEALS TO NUU ONE!"
I don't know fellas. That's not what I'm seeing. That Votann ATV was nearly as popular as the new Angron on reddit. Angron the named character with multiple books written about him only had a a bit more popularity than a lunar squat car. The squats appear to be genuinely liked.
The complainers, whether that's too dwarfy, or not dwarfy enough, seem to be in the extreme minority.
To be fair, Angron isn't even the most liked World Eaters affiliated character in the Horus Heresy, casting him as some kind of beloved fan favorite is a bit of a misfire.
Because GW said so, because they have clearly a different lore and aesthetic than the original squats (even when taking into account the necesarry update for something 30years olds
And not, it's not a case of "this is how they look when updated", we know how "the squat" would look when updated, GW literally just releaed them, for Necromunda, and they look basically exactly what people "udpated squat" would look like.
I don't know fellas. That's not what I'm seeing. That Votann ATV was nearly as popular as the new Angron on reddit. Angron the named character with multiple books written about him only had a a bit more popularity than a lunar squat car. The squats appear to be genuinely liked.
I visibly cringed when you mentioned reddit as some kind of good representation of the general population of 40.
Agamemnon2 wrote: I have to say, GW managing to please almost nobody, and offending so many conflicting groups of people in mutually-exclusive ways, is beautiful to behold.
"SQUATS ARE DOOMED!" "Nobody lieks them!" "THEY APPEALS TO NUU ONE!"
I don't know fellas. That's not what I'm seeing. That Votann ATV was nearly as popular as the new Angron on reddit. Angron the named character with multiple books written about him only had a a bit more popularity than a lunar squat car. The squats appear to be genuinely liked.
The complainers, whether that's too dwarfy, or not dwarfy enough, seem to be in the extreme minority.
Our specific corner of the hobby cube is easily irritated. I'm unsurprised reddit love them (I rarely agree with reddit but on this issue I'm fully on board). tbh even this thread, though I've not followed it closely, seems to lean noticeably positive on them.
I think this is the divide. I think this is a fairly close adaption of the 30 year old IP. The problem is that 30 year old IP was seemingly a dull road to nowhere which resulted in Squats famously being squatted.
.
The Squats were removed because they a large amount of their 40k presence revolved around them silly zany biker dwarfs named Squats.
The basic space dwarf mercenary look of their infantry was fine, and the master crafted huge warmachines in epic were said to be more the direction of what they should have done instead of the bikers.
This is an updated adaptation of a Squat:
And he even includes multiple elements that are similar to what the Leagues have (the backpack and undersuit primarily). He's a combination of the two styles.
No, that looks like a generic mercenary with a Dwarf beard. It contains no faction identity or cultural signifiers whatsoever. Two relief faces are not cultural signifiers, and more relief faces does not equal more culture signified.
Agamemnon2 wrote: I have to say, GW managing to please almost nobody, and offending so many conflicting groups of people in mutually-exclusive ways, is beautiful to behold.
"SQUATS ARE DOOMED!" "Nobody lieks them!" "THEY APPEALS TO NUU ONE!"
I don't know fellas. That's not what I'm seeing. That Votann ATV was nearly as popular as the new Angron on reddit. Angron the named character with multiple books written about him only had a a bit more popularity than a lunar squat car. The squats appear to be genuinely liked.
The complainers, whether that's too dwarfy, or not dwarfy enough, seem to be in the extreme minority.
For every old fart, like some of us, that remember the old squats and are "offended" theres thousands of new casual buyers who will be into this more modernised design.
Altruizine wrote: No, that looks like a generic mercenary with a Dwarf beard. It contains no faction identity or cultural signifiers whatsoever. Two relief faces are not cultural signifiers, and more relief faces does not equal more culture signified.
...you do realize the the look of the original squats was Dwarf mercenaries, right? That's the aesthetic the Squats had outside of the biker thing. so of course an updated one still looked similar to the thing it's meant to be. And he had more than two ancestor sigils.
Altruizine wrote: No, that looks like a generic mercenary with a Dwarf beard. It contains no faction identity or cultural signifiers whatsoever. Two relief faces are not cultural signifiers, and more relief faces does not equal more culture signified.
...you do realize the the look of the original squats was Dwarf mercenaries, right? That's the aesthetic the Squats had outside of the biker thing. so of course an updated one still looked similar to the thing it's meant to be.
But "uncommon type of Imperial mercenary" doesn't really warrant a full faction in 40K. Hence the obvious attempt to revamp them into something else, that does.
Altruizine wrote: No, that looks like a generic mercenary with a Dwarf beard. It contains no faction identity or cultural signifiers whatsoever. Two relief faces are not cultural signifiers, and more relief faces does not equal more culture signified.
...you do realize the the look of the original squats was Dwarf mercenaries, right? That's the aesthetic the Squats had outside of the biker thing. so of course an updated one still looked similar to the thing it's meant to be.
But "uncommon type of Imperial mercenary" doesn't really warrant a full faction in 40K. Hence the obvious attempt to revamp them into something else, that does.
Do you not know that the Leagues still have the mercenary part of them too? Nothing about that idea means they have to be "imperial".
H.B.M.C. wrote: and certainly don't scream "The Squats have returned!" to me.
They're Squats, but not as we know them.
Hasn't that been the entire point? They aren't really supposed to be screaming the Squats have returned. These are the Leagues of Votann. It's not for everyone, but for those that prefer the old style, that's why the Necromunda Squats exist. Aptly named, go figure!
Except gw made big point that this isn't new faction but is return of the squats...
Gw is the one that said "squats are back!". No wonder people wanted then squats and not new faction...
Having seen the old squat models, I'll take these any day of the year over those horrid, ugly, joke of a faction.
NAVARRO wrote: For every old fart, like some of us, that remember the old squats and are "offended" theres thousands of new casual buyers who will be into this more modernised design.
I'm an oldbeard of considerable antiquity and I quite like the new designs. Doubly so if they end up being some kind of harbinger of GW's doom like the easily impressionable seem to believe.
Altruizine wrote: No, that looks like a generic mercenary with a Dwarf beard. It contains no faction identity or cultural signifiers whatsoever. Two relief faces are not cultural signifiers, and more relief faces does not equal more culture signified.
...you do realize the the look of the original squats was Dwarf mercenaries, right? That's the aesthetic the Squats had outside of the biker thing. so of course an updated one still looked similar to the thing it's meant to be.
But "uncommon type of Imperial mercenary" doesn't really warrant a full faction in 40K. Hence the obvious attempt to revamp them into something else, that does.
Do you not know that the Leagues still have the mercenary part of them too? Nothing about that idea means they have to be "imperial".
It appears I've allowed you to shift the argument into irrelevant minutiae so you can avoid dealing with the original observation.
It doesn't matter who does mercenary work.
Grendl Grendlson looks like he walked into Mercenaries R'Us and asked for the Vigorous Veteran™ Level II Starter Pack. His equipment, weapons and armour looks generic and mismatched. He is not a good example to use for "what Squats could have been" because he looks like an independent, self-sufficient contractor (ie. exactly what he IS) and not a representative of a unique culture/faction.
NAVARRO wrote: For every old fart, like some of us, that remember the old squats and are "offended" theres thousands of new casual buyers who will be into this more modernised design.
I'm an oldbeard of considerable antiquity and I quite like the new designs. Doubly so if they end up being some kind of harbinger of GW's doom like the easily impressionable seem to believe.
Yeah same but dont care much about what people are on about with what Squats should be. I mean I remember the old models and I keep going back and check them out. But not much on the old concepts is worth replicating ( that FW guy is a clear example of how dated designs should be left as one offs and not translated into armies). I think the new fellas bring something new to 40k and I'm ok with that.
I also believe these will do well for GW as long as the prices dont go nuts again. Knowing GW they will 100% raise the prices and blame the global warming.
Altruizine wrote: No, that looks like a generic mercenary with a Dwarf beard. It contains no faction identity or cultural signifiers whatsoever. Two relief faces are not cultural signifiers, and more relief faces does not equal more culture signified.
...you do realize the the look of the original squats was Dwarf mercenaries, right? That's the aesthetic the Squats had outside of the biker thing. so of course an updated one still looked similar to the thing it's meant to be. And he had more than two ancestor sigils.
They weren’t mercenaries, they were an army in their own right with uniforms and a specific look, and that necromunda guy isn’t it. The helmet is all wrong. All the got right were the quilted jacket and maybe the gloves. The weapons aren’t right, the beards to big and the belt buckle is all wrong.
They didn’t have a mercenary vibe any more than imperial guard did or marines.
NAVARRO wrote: For every old fart, like some of us, that remember the old squats and are "offended" theres thousands of new casual buyers who will be into this more modernised design.
I'm an oldbeard of considerable antiquity and I quite like the new designs. Doubly so if they end up being some kind of harbinger of GW's doom like the easily impressionable seem to believe.
Yeah same but dont care much about what people are on about with what Squats should be. I mean I remember the old models and I keep going back and check them out. But not much on the old concepts is worth replicating ( that FW guy is a clear example of how dated designs should be left as one offs and not translated into armies). I think the new fellas bring something new to 40k and I'm ok with that.
I also believe these will do well for GW as long as the prices dont go nuts again. Knowing GW they will 100% raise the prices and blame the global warming.
This ^^^
I agree that the old look, as much as I liked it shouldn’t have been just redone.
Another old fart here. I never collected squats for 40k but I had quite a lot for Titan Legions. I didn't really care about the smaller stuff but I loved the land train and the airship.
I'm all for something new that broadens the scope of 40k. I remember how much this forum hated the Tau when they were first announced, but they are a pretty well established part of the setting now.
I also think marmite factions are good for the game. I hate the nurgle aesthetic but I don't begrudge it being part of the game.
I'm pretty down with the NASA punk aesthetic for this faction and minis which stray furthest from that - the exosuits- are the ones I like the least. I do hope they do something inspired by the land train though.
Altruizine wrote: No, that looks like a generic mercenary with a Dwarf beard. It contains no faction identity or cultural signifiers whatsoever. Two relief faces are not cultural signifiers, and more relief faces does not equal more culture signified.
...you do realize the the look of the original squats was Dwarf mercenaries, right? That's the aesthetic the Squats had outside of the biker thing. so of course an updated one still looked similar to the thing it's meant to be. And he had more than two ancestor sigils.
They weren’t mercenaries, they were an army in their own right with uniforms and a specific look, and that necromunda guy isn’t it. The helmet is all wrong. All the got right were the quilted jacket and maybe the gloves. The weapons aren’t right, the beards to big and the belt buckle is all wrong.
They didn’t have a mercenary vibe any more than imperial guard did or marines.
[
There's barely a beard among them. Disgusting. Those Space Dwarves don't even look like Dwarves. Where's all the dwarf runes? What are GW thinking with those designs? Can't wait to see all the 3D printed versions that will be 300% better. And so on and so on until my head explodes.
I think this is the divide. I think this is a fairly close adaption of the 30 year old IP. The problem is that 30 year old IP was seemingly a dull road to nowhere which resulted in Squats famously being squatted.
Which I think is why you have people divided over wanting something more dwarf or less. Its unclear exactly which way to go - but they wanted something other than "Codex: Short fat ab-Van Saar".
But hey - some people seem to love it, so it may just be me.
Squats got squatted because they weren't following dwarf archetype. These aren't either. So at least start isn't promising.
NAVARRO wrote: For every old fart, like some of us, that remember the old squats and are "offended" theres thousands of new casual buyers who will be into this more modernised design.
I'm an oldbeard of considerable antiquity and I quite like the new designs. Doubly so if they end up being some kind of harbinger of GW's doom like the easily impressionable seem to believe.
Yeah same but dont care much about what people are on about with what Squats should be. I mean I remember the old models and I keep going back and check them out. But not much on the old concepts is worth replicating ( that FW guy is a clear example of how dated designs should be left as one offs and not translated into armies). I think the new fellas bring something new to 40k and I'm ok with that.
I also believe these will do well for GW as long as the prices dont go nuts again. Knowing GW they will 100% raise the prices and blame the global warming.
This ^^^
I agree that the old look, as much as I liked it shouldn’t have been just redone.
This line of thinking reminds me of the people who wanted Sisters of Battle that don't look like Sisters of Battle when that army got its update. It honestly boggles my mind how anyone can reconcile specifically wanting an old thing back only for it to not resemble the old thing.
I think this is the divide. I think this is a fairly close adaption of the 30 year old IP. The problem is that 30 year old IP was seemingly a dull road to nowhere which resulted in Squats famously being squatted.
.
The Squats were removed because they a large amount of their 40k presence revolved around them silly zany biker dwarfs named Squats.
The basic space dwarf mercenary look of their infantry was fine, and the master crafted huge warmachines in epic were said to be more the direction of what they should have done instead of the bikers.
This is an updated adaptation of a Squat:
And he even includes multiple elements that are similar to what the Leagues have (the backpack and undersuit primarily). He's a combination of the two styles.
The problemi have with this is its pretty much fantasy dwarf with a bolter,helmet and backpack. The armour is a medieval design that they used on the fantasy dwarfs [specifically the crossbow and thunderer dwarfs], which to me, doesn't really say "technologically advanced race" or 40k for that matter. It didn't matter so much when they were released as eldar "mesh armour" was chainmail with a few plates over the top.
Granted some folk love this look and have collected and converted whole armies based on it. However there are others who what a dwarf type faction that is a fresh take on the dwarf race. The Leagues very much look like this, developing their own design language. The fantasy dwarfs have their ability as makers translated through craft skills- hence the fine, heavily adorned metal work, the Leagues have their skills shown by the quality of their tech and engineering and its good each has its own identity through this. Having said that I would hope the Leagues get some artificer type helmets for the the characters/heroes, I'm happy enough its not everywhere. But thats just my opinion, others will not feel the same but I'm a long time dwarf collector and I'm very much looking forward to getting these models.
When the Kharadron came out for AoS was a bit shocked- they were not like anything I was expecting - diving suits/airships rather than plate armour was a big surprise. But I really love them and I was hoping they would give the squats a similar treatment- related to other type of dwarfs but not the same.
If you look at the Battle Sisters you would be expecting them be just female space marines as those were the only female power armoured models the era the squats were about. The current design is the redesign they got, which the squats are just getting now.
Altruizine wrote: No, that looks like a generic mercenary with a Dwarf beard. It contains no faction identity or cultural signifiers whatsoever. Two relief faces are not cultural signifiers, and more relief faces does not equal more culture signified.
...you do realize the the look of the original squats was Dwarf mercenaries, right? That's the aesthetic the Squats had outside of the biker thing. so of course an updated one still looked similar to the thing it's meant to be. And he had more than two ancestor sigils.
They weren’t mercenaries, they were an army in their own right with uniforms and a specific look, and that necromunda guy isn’t it. The helmet is all wrong. All the got right were the quilted jacket and maybe the gloves. The weapons aren’t right, the beards to big and the belt buckle is all wrong.
They didn’t have a mercenary vibe any more than imperial guard did or marines.
[
The branding of that old box always bothered me. Why wasn't it named after the army list entry, as "Squat Warriors" or whatever? And yeah, the printed materials, scant as they were, didn't really paint the Squats of old as primarily a mercenary race, but as an insular and self-sufficient society in their own right. I don't know what the relative release dates for these things were, perhaps the miniatures came out first and then someone at the studio finally sat down to write backstory?
Oh bother, this is Tau all over again, isn't it? Some excellent designs that really don't look like they belong in 40k.
I get the desire to avoid encroaching on Imperial designs, and the Eldar essentially own the sleek xenotech look, but there's actually very little in between the two that doesn't look like it came from a different franchise.
Then there's the fluff that so far reads... poorly, in the context of the setting.
His Master's Voice wrote: Oh bother, this is Tau all over again, isn't it? Some excellent designs that really don't look like they belong in 40k.
I get the desire to avoid encroaching on Imperial designs, and the Eldar essentially own the sleek xenotech look, but there's actually very little in between the two that doesn't look like it came from a different franchise.
Then there's the fluff that so far reads... poorly, in the context of the setting.
Frankly I'd go out and say that I don't mind the models (except for the fact they look like GW is just riffing on Starcraft shamelessly) all that much, compared to the fluff. It just sounds so Mary Sue-ish, doesn't it? With the extremly advanced tech (better than the factions that are supposed to be advanced), flawless cloning, mass-producing Psykers, supplying the Imperium's enemies, the perfectly egalitarian society...
I think Squats have a bit of a problem fitting in visually. They are supposed to use STC based Dark Age tech which railroads them into a certain look, but we already have Primaris that went in the direction of more modernish high tech equipment and Mechanicus that occupy the antiquated and esoteric high tech niche. I wouldn't even draw Eldar into this as it's firmly a problem basing Squat technology on human or human derived tech that is supposed to represent the prime of mankind. It's something we already have multiples of, and Squats somehow have to pull it off more betterer because they're supposed to be master craftsmen and not as technologically degenerated as the Imperium.
I think that's the reason why we got the pump action revolver bolt shotgun. The designers had to do something to make their wargear look different, but had very little breathing room at the advanced end of the human tech spectrum. I'd compare this to the Van Saar situation. Back in the day, Van Saar had Dune (the movie) inspired survival suits to invoke the idea that they had better tech than the other gangs/houses. The design was down to earth, concerned with function more than form and restrained in telling you that the gang had something going on. Skip forward to modern Necromunda and you have a massive shift to an on the nose suit design which is oftentimes considered to not fit into 40k and may have been prompted by more exaggerated designs on the other gangs. Escher for instance used to wear tank tops. Now they wear form fitting armor. Still bare midriff style to somewhat preserve their style, but leaning far more into technologically advanced territory that the shabby old Van Saar suits wouldn't cut it as the most advanced technology in comparison.
40k style is grounded in John Blanche's concepts that are generally sci-fi with archaic elements mixed in or outdated designs that got sci-fi elements tacked on. The miniature design has taken that as the look exemplified by the Imperium, and with the exception of Chaos other factions' style is as much about whatever the basis for it is as it is about how it departs from the archaic blend Blanche gave us. Tau models for instance are far, far cleaner sci-fi than Blanche's artwork of them. I'd argue this is a good and necessary thing as it strengthens faction identity and allows GW to reach a wider audience by catering to different tastes.
However this presents a pretty big problem in the case of Squats. Going back to Primaris, many of their models are already going the route of high tech look with minimized gothic elements that Squats would have to take in order to utilize the human tech look while foregoing the zany Imperial elements. There is not much space left for them to occupy.
I tend not to weigh in on whether or not new Squats are a good direction to go compared to the old Squat models but when the design direction for the faction, at least according to me, is supposed to be the aforementioned "master craftsmen and not as technologically degenerated as the Imperium", and the latter part is not easily achieved anymore, I have a hard time seeing why GW wouldn't lean more into the former part. It might have been a better reflection of the dwarf archetype to have lovingly crafted ornamentation even on mass produced equipment, giving them a similarly ostentatious look to the Imperium, but make that look more artful, regimented and devoid of (religious) clutter to set them apart while maintaining the peak human technology look without seeing how many different weapon concepts they can mash together or drawing designs from outside 40k without much adaptation to make them fit.
Agamemnon2 wrote: The branding of that old box always bothered me. Why wasn't it named after the army list entry, as "Squat Warriors" or whatever? And yeah, the printed materials, scant as they were, didn't really paint the Squats of old as primarily a mercenary race, but as an insular and self-sufficient society in their own right. I don't know what the relative release dates for these things were, perhaps the miniatures came out first and then someone at the studio finally sat down to write backstory?
Brief background in RT (~2 pages, maybe), boxed set, then army list and the whole biker/engineer/living ancestors background.
Rogue Trader was really open, and the fluff narrowed down with each iteration (whether in WD, supplements largely reprinting WD or new editions).
Geifer wrote:They are supposed to use STC based Dark Age tech which railroads them into a certain look
How? I've been into this game since '89, and I couldn't tell you what Dark Age tech is 'supposed to' look like, let alone that it has a certain one.
For good or ill (and I lean toward the latter), the new squats are a design direction that GW picked on purpose. They aren't really constrained by anything but the art direction GW deliberately chose.
His Master's Voice wrote: Oh bother, this is Tau all over again, isn't it? Some excellent designs that really don't look like they belong in MY40k.
I get the desire to avoid encroaching on Imperial designs, and the Eldar essentially own the sleek xenotech look, but there's actually very little in between the two that doesn't look like it came from a different franchise.
Then there's the fluff that so far reads... poorly, in MY IDEA OF the context of the setting.
His Master's Voice wrote: Oh bother, this is Tau all over again, isn't it? Some excellent designs that really don't look like they belong in MY40k.
I get the desire to avoid encroaching on Imperial designs, and the Eldar essentially own the sleek xenotech look, but there's actually very little in between the two that doesn't look like it came from a different franchise.
Then there's the fluff that so far reads... poorly, in the MY IDEA OF THE context of the setting.
Fixed that for you.
If literally everything is as subjective as you present it, why bother discussing anything at all?
Subjectivity does not preclude discussion--quite the contrary.
The 40k setting includes the entire Milky Way galaxy. I think a lot of people with opinions like "that doesn't look like it belongs in 40k" are confusing the Imperium with the setting in general. The Imperium does generally span the galaxy, but it is not the *whole* galaxy.
A setting is an identifiable set of intellectual and/or visual themes. You can keep diluting the themes as much as you like, but don't be surprised when what you end up with is tasteless slop.
His Master's Voice wrote: Oh bother, this is Tau all over again, isn't it? Some excellent designs that really don't look like they belong in 40k.
I get the desire to avoid encroaching on Imperial designs, and the Eldar essentially own the sleek xenotech look, but there's actually very little in between the two that doesn't look like it came from a different franchise.
Then there's the fluff that so far reads... poorly, in the context of the setting.
Frankly I'd go out and say that I don't mind the models (except for the fact they look like GW is just riffing on Starcraft shamelessly) all that much, compared to the fluff. It just sounds so Mary Sue-ish, doesn't it? With the extremly advanced tech (better than the factions that are supposed to be advanced), flawless cloning, mass-producing Psykers, supplying the Imperium's enemies, the perfectly egalitarian society...
It feels a bit early to be damning the lore tbh.
One of the more interesting things I haven't really seen talked about is this line:
"Such was the craft of the First Ancestors that even Kin souls are engineered – they shine more dimly against the tides of the warp than their distant human cousins, with no evidence of uncontrolled psychic mutation."
So the kin had their souls engineered so that they would not be noticed so easily by chaos.
Kinda reminds me of that in-universe theory that the Men of Iron started the Cybernetic Revolt because they believed that the only way to stop Chaos from bringing the End Times, warhammer fantasy style, was to kill all sapient life forms. (Which would also explain why other species were allied with humans in the war if it was the men of iron trying to kill everyone and not just humans.)
It makes me think that there was a splinter faction amongst the Men of Iron who wanted to find an alternative to killing all sapient life in the galaxy, and the kin are there attempt at that. Those men of Iron became the Votann. The Votann are the men of iron.
I think there's some potential for some pretty interesting stuff to come out of this. We dont really know how much control the votannn/men of iron have over the kin. We know the votann are hungry for information and send the kin out searching for it. They also control much of the kin's lives, genetically engineering them to do certain tasks.
They also have AI kin who walk amongst them. Which is a bit strange. Do the AI kin work for the votann? if a normal squat kin does something out of line does an AI kin secretly kill them?
Geifer wrote:They are supposed to use STC based Dark Age tech which railroads them into a certain look
How? I've been into this game since '89, and I couldn't tell you what Dark Age tech is 'supposed to' look like, let alone that it has a certain one.
For good or ill (and I lean toward the latter), the new squats are a design direction that GW picked on purpose. They aren't really constrained by anything but the art direction GW deliberately chose.
I doubt GW has created a comprehensive concept for what they want that stuff to look like, but we have Kastelans and the Man of Iron from Blackstone Fortress as examples of armor and robot design. Mechanicus has a bunch of designs that are supposed to be that. Overall it's 50s and 60s inspired sci-fi, preferably with some design cues that tie them to cruder Imperial equipment and established 40k designs.
By comparison we have the handy NASApunk term now for what is considered more 90s sci-fi for the Squats' new design direction.
I'd argue that this makes all the difference when it comes to people calling Squats Starcraft ripoffs and generic sci-fi. It's a departure from the examples of Dark Age design we already have for something that isn't strongly associated with the various styles found in 40k. They look too modern for what is established as Dark Age technology. GW introduced the odd model or piece of wargear that's supposed to predate the Imperium during last half decade, and now they're taking a different direction with Squats. That may be something the background can handle without much effort, but it's not a good way to go with visual design.
Geifer wrote:They are supposed to use STC based Dark Age tech which railroads them into a certain look
How? I've been into this game since '89, and I couldn't tell you what Dark Age tech is 'supposed to' look like, let alone that it has a certain one.
For good or ill (and I lean toward the latter), the new squats are a design direction that GW picked on purpose. They aren't really constrained by anything but the art direction GW deliberately chose.
I doubt GW has created a comprehensive concept for what they want that stuff to look like, but we have Kastelans and the Man of Iron from Blackstone Fortress as examples of armor and robot design. Mechanicus has a bunch of designs that are supposed to be that. Overall it's 50s and 60s inspired sci-fi, preferably with some design cues that tie them to cruder Imperial equipment and established 40k designs.
By comparison we have the handy NASApunk term now for what is considered more 90s sci-fi for the Squats' new design direction.
I'd argue that this makes all the difference when it comes to people calling Squats Starcraft ripoffs and generic sci-fi. It's a departure from the examples of Dark Age design we already have for something that isn't strongly associated with the various styles found in 40k. They look too modern for what is established as Dark Age technology. GW introduced the odd model or piece of wargear that's supposed to predate the Imperium during last half decade, and now they're taking a different direction with Squats. That may be something the background can handle without much effort, but it's not a good way to go with visual design.
Not a good way? sure thing... Looks at primaris update, tau, Van saar and to an extent AoS stormcast and ballon dwarfs.... something tells me those are selling quite well.
Designs updates are crucial and design variety is essential if you want to keep your setting contemporary. Well you can always regurgitate same designs over and over again but even Spacemarines got into Primaris so that should tell you something of what is good and bad ways to keep 40k going.
NAVARRO wrote: Not a good way? sure thing... Looks at primaris update, tau, Van saar and to an extent AoS stormcast and ballon dwarfs.... something tells me those are selling quite well.
Designs updates are crucial and design variety is essential if you want to keep your setting contemporary. Well you can always regurgitate same designs over and over again but even Spacemarines got into Primaris so that should tell you something of what is good and bad ways to keep 40k going.
None of what I said has anything to do with financial viability, so... thanks for the comment on financial viability, I guess?
Geifer wrote:They are supposed to use STC based Dark Age tech which railroads them into a certain look
How? I've been into this game since '89, and I couldn't tell you what Dark Age tech is 'supposed to' look like, let alone that it has a certain one.
For good or ill (and I lean toward the latter), the new squats are a design direction that GW picked on purpose. They aren't really constrained by anything but the art direction GW deliberately chose.
I doubt GW has created a comprehensive concept for what they want that stuff to look like, but we have Kastelans and the Man of Iron from Blackstone Fortress as examples of armor and robot design. Mechanicus has a bunch of designs that are supposed to be that. Overall it's 50s and 60s inspired sci-fi, preferably with some design cues that tie them to cruder Imperial equipment and established 40k designs.
By comparison we have the handy NASApunk term now for what is considered more 90s sci-fi for the Squats' new design direction.
I'd argue that this makes all the difference when it comes to people calling Squats Starcraft ripoffs and generic sci-fi. It's a departure from the examples of Dark Age design we already have for something that isn't strongly associated with the various styles found in 40k. They look too modern for what is established as Dark Age technology. GW introduced the odd model or piece of wargear that's supposed to predate the Imperium during last half decade, and now they're taking a different direction with Squats. That may be something the background can handle without much effort, but it's not a good way to go with visual design.
I was under the impression that a lot of what the Imperium has that is "Dark Age Designed"...isn't quite? STCs are cobbled together from incomplete fragments using the understanding (or lack of) of the Mechanicus and imbued with their superstition, Dogma and overall idea of how things should be, to create something that, on the surface, is a "Dark age of technology" design but is really a poor imitation of what it should have been. And likewise technology that has survived that long has been rebuilt and adjusted countless times over the years to the point that it's changed into a clunky gothic fascimile of what the original was.
Like the Imperial Robots are DAoT designs but they look like retro/pulp sci-fi imbued with elements of archaic schizo tech and is the sort of thing you'd fin in 50s sci-fi, whereas UR-025 is a "proper" version who's a more sleek, sophisticated style of robot closer to classic sci-fi from the later half of the 20th century.
I wouldn't say the Kin are a departure from the style of UR-025, their technology seems in-line with that sort of more classic sci-fi aesthetic rather than the Mechanicus' retro interpretations.
Geifer wrote:They are supposed to use STC based Dark Age tech which railroads them into a certain look
How? I've been into this game since '89, and I couldn't tell you what Dark Age tech is 'supposed to' look like, let alone that it has a certain one.
For good or ill (and I lean toward the latter), the new squats are a design direction that GW picked on purpose. They aren't really constrained by anything but the art direction GW deliberately chose.
I doubt GW has created a comprehensive concept for what they want that stuff to look like, but we have Kastelans and the Man of Iron from Blackstone Fortress as examples of armor and robot design. Mechanicus has a bunch of designs that are supposed to be that. Overall it's 50s and 60s inspired sci-fi, preferably with some design cues that tie them to cruder Imperial equipment and established 40k designs.
By comparison we have the handy NASApunk term now for what is considered more 90s sci-fi for the Squats' new design direction.
I'd argue that this makes all the difference when it comes to people calling Squats Starcraft ripoffs and generic sci-fi. It's a departure from the examples of Dark Age design we already have for something that isn't strongly associated with the various styles found in 40k. They look too modern for what is established as Dark Age technology. GW introduced the odd model or piece of wargear that's supposed to predate the Imperium during last half decade, and now they're taking a different direction with Squats. That may be something the background can handle without much effort, but it's not a good way to go with visual design.
Not a good way? sure thing... Looks at primaris update, tau, Van saar and to an extent AoS stormcast and ballon dwarfs.... something tells me those are selling quite well.
Designs updates are crucial and design variety is essential if you want to keep your setting contemporary. Well you can always regurgitate same designs over and over again but even Spacemarines got into Primaris so that should tell you something of what is good and bad ways to keep 40k going.
But at some point 40k just loses it's actual unique look. Like with Van Saar, which looks like someone's attempts at replicating Infinity's style more than it looks like 40k.
And at that point, one has to ask themselves, why buy 40k models if they just look at someone's attempt at copying the style of another model line?
I started the hobby with a dwarf army, and i did like the look of the standaard infantrie with there flak armour and caps and helmets.
They where armed with lasguns and some could have bolters. the rest of the line i didnt like.
But you needed them to play. the heavy armour did look silly (egg shape) and the bikes didnt cut it even in those days. the stopt the line because they didnt know what to do and didnt want to go with the biker themed look.
NAVARRO wrote: Not a good way? sure thing... Looks at primaris update, tau, Van saar and to an extent AoS stormcast and ballon dwarfs.... something tells me those are selling quite well.
Designs updates are crucial and design variety is essential if you want to keep your setting contemporary. Well you can always regurgitate same designs over and over again but even Spacemarines got into Primaris so that should tell you something of what is good and bad ways to keep 40k going.
None of what I said has anything to do with financial viability, so... thanks for the comment on financial viability, I guess?
As some one who started with Rogue Trader (cuz we all need to qualify that); I love the Tau, Primaris and Van Saar. In fact most of my remaining minis are those minis (and a bunch of Eldar). Financial viability = people liking something enough to put down cold hard cash for it. Does it belong in 40K? Well my answer to Eldar Aspect warriors is no, but apparently I'm in the minority. People get weighed down by the history and decide what they think is or isn't the setting--but not me, I still don't acknowledge those Egyptian themed models displacing my beloved Space Melniboneans...even if they redid those Rogue Trader Space Elves--twice.
NAVARRO wrote: Not a good way? sure thing... Looks at primaris update, tau, Van saar and to an extent AoS stormcast and ballon dwarfs.... something tells me those are selling quite well. Designs updates are crucial and design variety is essential if you want to keep your setting contemporary. Well you can always regurgitate same designs over and over again but even Spacemarines got into Primaris so that should tell you something of what is good and bad ways to keep 40k going.
None of what I said has anything to do with financial viability, so... thanks for the comment on financial viability, I guess?
Chairman Aeon replied to this with:
"Financial viability = people liking something enough to put down cold hard cash for it."
Which was what I was, in part, getting at... If people buy it is because they like it. What does that mean for 40k? More of everything and keeps on growing. So yes its quite obvious these updated designs are something people want. The other part I was trying to get at is quite simple to understand - stagnant settings, no variety of designs or mini ranges tend to errr die and vanish. Its not me or the other older folks, that used to buy things by catalogue with no pictures and can get past through the colourful publicity... its basically the vast majority of the modern person, that buys shiny NEW things that pop up in front of them. For all it takes only a small minority of the target audience knows and remembers squats and even a smaller one does not like these new designs... Do you really think GW new squats should be held hostage of a dead, old and not that good past concept of a Squat to please such small target?
In short I could care less about other entities economic viability... this is more - New updates, new designs new minis are a GOOD way to go about design.
Geifer wrote:They are supposed to use STC based Dark Age tech which railroads them into a certain look
How? I've been into this game since '89, and I couldn't tell you what Dark Age tech is 'supposed to' look like, let alone that it has a certain one.
For good or ill (and I lean toward the latter), the new squats are a design direction that GW picked on purpose. They aren't really constrained by anything but the art direction GW deliberately chose.
I doubt GW has created a comprehensive concept for what they want that stuff to look like, but we have Kastelans and the Man of Iron from Blackstone Fortress as examples of armor and robot design. Mechanicus has a bunch of designs that are supposed to be that. Overall it's 50s and 60s inspired sci-fi, preferably with some design cues that tie them to cruder Imperial equipment and established 40k designs.
By comparison we have the handy NASApunk term now for what is considered more 90s sci-fi for the Squats' new design direction.
I'd argue that this makes all the difference when it comes to people calling Squats Starcraft ripoffs and generic sci-fi. It's a departure from the examples of Dark Age design we already have for something that isn't strongly associated with the various styles found in 40k. They look too modern for what is established as Dark Age technology. GW introduced the odd model or piece of wargear that's supposed to predate the Imperium during last half decade, and now they're taking a different direction with Squats. That may be something the background can handle without much effort, but it's not a good way to go with visual design.
Not a good way? sure thing... Looks at primaris update, tau, Van saar and to an extent AoS stormcast and ballon dwarfs.... something tells me those are selling quite well.
Designs updates are crucial and design variety is essential if you want to keep your setting contemporary. Well you can always regurgitate same designs over and over again but even Spacemarines got into Primaris so that should tell you something of what is good and bad ways to keep 40k going.
But at some point 40k just loses it's actual unique look. Like with Van Saar, which looks like someone's attempts at replicating Infinity's style more than it looks like 40k.
And at that point, one has to ask themselves, why buy 40k models if they just look at someone's attempt at copying the style of another model line?
40k "unique" look always and will always be predatory of popular trends, theres nothing new there.
Sure but they litterally look like things I can 3d print for penny's. I think it will be a hard sell sure plenty of people like the design but you can pick up space dwarfs for litteraly penny's with a 3d printer. If GW prices weren't so insane this might be OK. But they are trying to sell a new line of minys you can find for penny's on there name alone. Will some small brained Whales buy in of corse. However for most of us why wouldn't we just print the litterally thousands of common space dwarfs for penny's?
I'd argue that this makes all the difference when it comes to people calling Squats Starcraft ripoffs and generic sci-fi. It's a departure from the examples of Dark Age design we already have for something that isn't strongly associated with the various styles found in 40k. They look too modern for what is established as Dark Age technology. GW introduced the odd model or piece of wargear that's supposed to predate the Imperium during last half decade, and now they're taking a different direction with Squats. That may be something the background can handle without much effort, but it's not a good way to go with visual design.
The thing about the Squats is that they haven't been technologically stagnant since the DAoT. They've had thousands of years to build on what the Mechanicus is keeping pristine and unchanged. Of course their 'current' tech will look different, since it's been refined, redesigned (for one thing, I imagine all the chairs would have to be replaced once the squat physique became dominant over traditional humanity).
Ten thousand plus years of technological advancement on top of a complete mutation / evolution of the user-base SHOULD result in different-looking stuff, it is the alternative that would look weird. If the squats were just followed around by lots of Mechanicus-style robots, it would look like they were the ones stuck in the past.
I suspect when we see more artwork, particularly of them defending their asteroid mines, the dwarf look will be more obvious in context.
Short, ancestor revering, rugged individualist asteroid miners and prospectors feels the brief of how to translate Dwarf archetype into 40K. With a side note of having a link to the age before the Imperium to add a hook to get other players interested in them even if they don't pick up the army themselves.
Mentlegen324 wrote: Like the Imperial Robots are DAoT designs but they look like retro/pulp sci-fi imbued with elements of archaic schizo tech and is the sort of thing you'd fin in 50s sci-fi, whereas UR-025 is a "proper" version who's a more sleek, sophisticated style of robot closer to classic sci-fi from the later half of the 20th century.
I wouldn't say the Kin are a departure from the style of UR-025, their technology seems in-line with that sort of more classic sci-fi aesthetic rather than the Mechanicus' retro interpretations.
Squats use some design elements common to those other Dark Age models, but they also got a design of their own to give the faction a distinct look. This is not a bad thing per se, in fact it's desirable, but the resulting look invites a different association. As an example, I could believe that UR-025 was assembled in a 50s Ford plant. I don't see the Squat buggy anywhere close to that. It has some rounded design, but rounded in a modern way rather than reminiscent of retro car design.
If you want an association with an established concept, you need to be able to imply that concept to a large enough degree for people to see it. The most common comments on the models when they were introduced was Tau (advanced but not human tech) and Starcraft (generic sci-fi humans), not Dark Age of Technology. That's not even terrible as such. I could see the model designers being perfectly content with making something in isolation as long as its coherent as a model range, and the whole complete STC deal only came along when the fluff writers made their contribution. We can only speculate what the design team's exact goals were. So, I'm not saying they failed. But they did go a different route to established Dark Age designs and created a deviating look.
NAVARRO wrote: For all it takes only a small minority of the target audience knows and remembers squats and even a smaller one does not like these new designs... Do you really think GW new squats should be held hostage of a dead, old and not that good past concept of a Squat to please such small target?
You're mistaking me for someone else. I was talking about the new Squat design in relation to other, modern model design in 40k. I never made a comparison to the old models.
NAVARRO wrote: So yes its quite obvious these updated designs are something people want.
Neither Squats today, not Tau yesterday went through some sort of extensive public consultation phase. GW puts them out and people buy them, but for all we know, something more in line with 40k established aesthetic would have moved more plastic. Or maybe it wouldn't. We'll never know.
His Master's Voice wrote:A setting is an identifiable set of intellectual and/or visual themes. You can keep diluting the themes as much as you like, but don't be surprised when what you end up with is tasteless slop.
Okay, but with a setting as wide and diverse as 40k, what are those themes? When you invent/reinvent a new faction, you'd need to create new intellectual and visual themes. Or is this an argument for "no new things, nothing more can be added, only variations on the existing themes"?
I mean, if Eldar never existed, the Eldar aesthetic and visual theme would be completely "out of setting" if all you compared it to was the Imperium and Chaos. Tau would look entirely "out of setting", but now they have their established aesthetic.
Give Squats time. They'll fit right in as their own entity, amongst a variety of other entities.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Okay, but with a setting as wide and diverse as 40k, what are those themes? When you invent/reinvent a new faction, you'd need to create new intellectual and visual themes. Or is this an argument for "no new things, nothing more can be added, only variations on the existing themes"?
I mean, if Eldar never existed, the Eldar aesthetic and visual theme would be completely "out of setting" if all you compared it to was the Imperium and Chaos. Tau would look entirely "out of setting", but now they have their established aesthetic.
Give Squats time. They'll fit right in as their own entity, amongst a variety of other entities.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Or is this an argument for "no new things, nothing more can be added, only variations on the existing themes"?
Well yes, that's essentially the argument, as reductive as you made it sound.
I think the Necron and Tau are a good example of what I mean. The Necron are a dark, brooding race of death like automaton slaves. The Tau are a plucky race of little gray men in Robotech suits. Both were at their time new to the setting, and yet interacted with the established themes in very different ways.
And you know what, I'd probably squint with my old man eyes at the current Eldar*, had they been a new addition to a setting that hasn't seen a Shuriken Catapult since it came to be some thirty years ago.
*except of course the Eldar are inspired in design. The Squats are nice, but don't really kick in the same league.
NAVARRO wrote: So yes its quite obvious these updated designs are something people want.
Neither Squats today, not Tau yesterday went through some sort of extensive public consultation phase. GW puts them out and people buy them, but for all we know, something more in line with 40k established aesthetic would have moved more plastic. Or maybe it wouldn't. We'll never know.
Either way, I'd avoid appeals to sale charts.
Public consultation phase? Its a private IP not a public general service. We dont know for sure the process of generating new IP inside GW, but I'm willing to bet its extremely secretive even inside GW. We also dont know how they analyse the data that they have. Sales data probably quite indicative of what people like and buy the most.
We can be here all day speculating about the ifs but what we do know today is: More of these new designs are finding a way into 40k IP, their major product "space marines" got a huge design update to be more modernised and the company seems to be doing well financially.
So yes we can talk about the IFs just for fun but the little that we know seems to suggest this is the right path.
But enough with general design talk, many just seem only interested about their own personal aesthetical design preferences and envision some kind of calamity for GW.
Geifer wrote: This line of thinking reminds me of the people who wanted Sisters of Battle that don't look like Sisters of Battle when that army got its update. It honestly boggles my mind how anyone can reconcile specifically wanting an old thing back only for it to not resemble the old thing.
That line of thinking is sadly more and more common by the day, mostly because it stem from literal posers trying to pretend they actually know "the old stuff" and "want it back" when they actually started playing last edition and don't really care about any of that and mostly know stuff from the wiki they just read 2 minute before posting.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Frankly I'd go out and say that I don't mind the models (except for the fact they look like GW is just riffing on Starcraft shamelessly) all that much, compared to the fluff. It just sounds so Mary Sue-ish, doesn't it? With the extremly advanced tech (better than the factions that are supposed to be advanced), flawless cloning, mass-producing Psykers, supplying the Imperium's enemies, the perfectly egalitarian society...
His Master's Voice wrote: Oh bother, this is Tau all over again, isn't it? Some excellent designs that really don't look like they belong in MY40k.
I get the desire to avoid encroaching on Imperial designs, and the Eldar essentially own the sleek xenotech look, but there's actually very little in between the two that doesn't look like it came from a different franchise.
Then there's the fluff that so far reads... poorly, in the MY IDEA OF THE context of the setting.
Fixed that for you.
If literally everything is as subjective as you present it, why bother discussing anything at all?
Post modernist hyper relativism to the max, where the very concept of subjective truth doesn't exist and so no rules can ever be applied.
This is painfully stupid and need to be pointed out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quasistellar wrote: Subjectivity does not preclude discussion--quite the contrary.
The 40k setting includes the entire Milky Way galaxy. I think a lot of people with opinions like "that doesn't look like it belongs in 40k" are confusing the Imperium with the setting in general. The Imperium does generally span the galaxy, but it is not the *whole* galaxy.
What you are doing right there is just showing your total lack of grasp on the idea of artdirection and imply that literally ANYTHING could be 40k, because 40k is the whole milky way, totally ignoring the fact that it has to fit with the established canon and art direction.
You cannot just drop Starwars federation of trade robot army, the SC2 terrans, Startrek's Entreprise or Guren Lagan giant galaxy muncher robots without having them look painfully out of place visually.
Geifer wrote: This line of thinking reminds me of the people who wanted Sisters of Battle that don't look like Sisters of Battle when that army got its update. It honestly boggles my mind how anyone can reconcile specifically wanting an old thing back only for it to not resemble the old thing.
That line of thinking is sadly more and more common by the day, mostly because it stem from literal posers trying to pretend they actually know "the old stuff" and "want it back" when they actually started playing last edition and don't really care about any of that and mostly know stuff from the wiki they just read 2 minute before posting.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: Frankly I'd go out and say that I don't mind the models (except for the fact they look like GW is just riffing on Starcraft shamelessly) all that much, compared to the fluff. It just sounds so Mary Sue-ish, doesn't it? With the extremly advanced tech (better than the factions that are supposed to be advanced), flawless cloning, mass-producing Psykers, supplying the Imperium's enemies, the perfectly egalitarian society...
His Master's Voice wrote: Oh bother, this is Tau all over again, isn't it? Some excellent designs that really don't look like they belong in MY40k.
I get the desire to avoid encroaching on Imperial designs, and the Eldar essentially own the sleek xenotech look, but there's actually very little in between the two that doesn't look like it came from a different franchise.
Then there's the fluff that so far reads... poorly, in the MY IDEA OF THE context of the setting.
Fixed that for you.
If literally everything is as subjective as you present it, why bother discussing anything at all?
Post modernist hyper relativism to the max, where the very concept of subjective truth doesn't exist and so no rules can ever be applied.
This is painfully stupid and need to be pointed out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quasistellar wrote: Subjectivity does not preclude discussion--quite the contrary.
The 40k setting includes the entire Milky Way galaxy. I think a lot of people with opinions like "that doesn't look like it belongs in 40k" are confusing the Imperium with the setting in general. The Imperium does generally span the galaxy, but it is not the *whole* galaxy.
What you are doing right there is just showing your total lack of grasp on the idea of artdirection and imply that literally ANYTHING could be 40k, because 40k is the whole milky way, totally ignoring the fact that it has to fit with the established canon and art direction.
You cannot just drop Starwars federation of trade robot army, the SC2 terrans, Startrek's Entreprise or Guren Lagan giant galaxy muncher robots without having them look painfully out of place visually.
All I have to say to that is:
Duuuurrrrrrr straw men duuurrrrrrr.
That'll teach me to ever click on a post by someone I've ignored--keep reminding myself there's a reason I did that.
I guess my issue is just that Tau were clearly different to what came before. The 2001(?) Fire Warrior Squad was frankly an excellent kit - and something unique to what was available in 40k at the time. The whinging about the race because they didn't fit miserabalist 40k grognard views was different.
I look at these Squats and just think they are some weird abhuman hybrid of marines/admech/Tau/nu-guard, in the style of Necromunda Van Saar. And I think that's probably partly intentional - but equally its incredibly boring *for me*.
I'm not sure Exo-armour as essentially "Egg-Terminators" would work in 2022 (but come on, break out Dr Robotnik and make it happen somehow). But its got to beat some hybrid of Gravis marines & crisis suits, which just leave me cold.
Tyel wrote: I guess my issue is just that Tau were clearly different to what came before. The 2001(?) Fire Warrior Squad was frankly an excellent kit - and something unique to what was available in 40k at the time. The whinging about the race because they didn't fit miserabalist 40k grognard views was different.
I look at these Squats and just think they are some weird abhuman hybrid of marines/admech/Tau/nu-guard, in the style of Necromunda Van Saar. And I think that's probably partly intentional - but equally its incredibly boring *for me*.
I'm not sure Exo-armour as essentially "Egg-Terminators" would work in 2022 (but come on, break out Dr Robotnik and make it happen somehow). But its got to beat some hybrid of Gravis marines & crisis suits, which just leave me cold.
I remember thinking of the introduction of Tau not as a breath of fresh air but an interesting expansion of the setting. A species on the rise, destined to fail by repeating the same mistakes as everyone else but not quite there yet. Which was a different take to all the other factions, but also quite in theme.
Squats could be that. The biggest thing getting in the way might be that they aren't new but an at least in part reimagined old thing. Unlike with Tau, GW seems to want to strike a balance between making something new and fit for the times, as has been amply argued for even on this page, and trying to hit those nostalgia buttons for extra moneys. I really hope they can reconcile those things and add something of lasting value to the setting. Unlike Tau that were introduced at a different time under different circumstances as an entirely new thing, the reintroduction of Squats comes with a bit of baggage not just from the community but by GW's own desire to use the marketing potential of the return of an old faction.
I understand why GW reveals things the way they do, but I don't think they're doing themselves any favors revealing the faction slowly and bit by bit instead of presenting the complete vision for it. It just creates a different, potentially false first impression compared to a comprehensive view of the faction, and I'm not sure if that isn't going to stick around and taint the faction to some degree for quite some time.
That'll teach me to ever click on a post by someone I've ignored--keep reminding myself there's a reason I did that.
Nah, all you have to say is "Damn, I now realize how foolish and untenable my position was." or "[insert here more malformed postmodernist and uneducated opinion]".
But hey, I guess it's easier to just ignore people when you have no way to defend your position.
Geifer wrote: I understand why GW reveals things the way they do, but I don't think they're doing themselves any favors revealing the faction slowly and bit by bit instead of presenting the complete vision for it. It just creates a different, potentially false first impression compared to a comprehensive view of the faction, and I'm not sure if that isn't going to stick around and taint the faction to some degree for quite some time.
That's very true, just look at the reception of that vehicle compared to the infantry.
Had they just presented the whole faction at once and clearly established what their general look was they probably wouldn't have people struggling between what they expected, what GW pretended to deliver and what they are actually delivering.
Tyel wrote: I guess my issue is just that Tau were clearly different to what came before. The 2001(?) Fire Warrior Squad was frankly an excellent kit - and something unique to what was available in 40k at the time. The whinging about the race because they didn't fit miserabalist 40k grognard views was different.
I look at these Squats and just think they are some weird abhuman hybrid of marines/admech/Tau/nu-guard, in the style of Necromunda Van Saar. And I think that's probably partly intentional - but equally its incredibly boring *for me*.
I'm not sure Exo-armour as essentially "Egg-Terminators" would work in 2022 (but come on, break out Dr Robotnik and make it happen somehow). But its got to beat some hybrid of Gravis marines & crisis suits, which just leave me cold.
Squats could be that. The biggest thing getting in the way might be that they aren't new but an at least in part reimagined old thing. Unlike with Tau, GW seems to want to strike a balance between making something new and fit for the times, as has been amply argued for even on this page, and trying to hit those nostalgia buttons for extra moneys. I really hope they can reconcile those things and add something of lasting value to the setting. Unlike Tau that were introduced at a different time under different circumstances as an entirely new thing, the reintroduction of Squats comes with a bit of baggage not just from the community but by GW's own desire to use the marketing potential of the return of an old faction.
I understand why GW reveals things the way they do, but I don't think they're doing themselves any favors revealing the faction slowly and bit by bit instead of presenting the complete vision for it. It just creates a different, potentially false first impression compared to a comprehensive view of the faction, and I'm not sure if that isn't going to stick around and taint the faction to some degree for quite some time.
I think this is it, really. Unlike if they'd been a brand new faction entirely, being "The Squats" re-introduced comes with certain expectations, and so far I think they've done a very poor job of meeting those aesthetically while the lore has been great. Like the new sleek high-tech space colonist vibe or not, I don't think you really say that it's a direction that does justice to the Squats, because it's at complete odds to what they were. Not the silly biker side of them that got them removed, but the gritty harsh uncomplicated space Dwarf feel that even their 2019 Necromunda miniatures (The first new look at them in over 20 years) retained. Expectations were some form of faithful but more serious update (as in, no silly biker stuff), what we're getting is the Demiurg concept art aesthetic with the Squat lore.
It's a cool enough look and idea on its own, the issue just comes when they're meant to be the Squats. Hopefully more later on gives a better impression and feels closer to that original feel.
That'll teach me to ever click on a post by someone I've ignored--keep reminding myself there's a reason I did that.
Nah, all you have to say is "Damn, I now realize how foolish and untenable my position was." or "[insert here more malformed postmodernist and uneducated opinion]".
But hey, I guess it's easier to just ignore people when you have no way to defend your position.
Geifer wrote: I understand why GW reveals things the way they do, but I don't think they're doing themselves any favors revealing the faction slowly and bit by bit instead of presenting the complete vision for it. It just creates a different, potentially false first impression compared to a comprehensive view of the faction, and I'm not sure if that isn't going to stick around and taint the faction to some degree for quite some time.
That's very true, just look at the reception of that vehicle compared to the infantry.
Had they just presented the whole faction at once and clearly established what their general look was they probably wouldn't have people struggling between what they expected, what GW pretended to deliver and what they are actually delivering.
Why are you so aggressive all the time? This is supposed to be a fun hobby. Just had a look through your previous posts and you have been on the attack from the get go? What’s wrong?
Tyel wrote: I guess my issue is just that Tau were clearly different to what came before. The 2001(?) Fire Warrior Squad was frankly an excellent kit - and something unique to what was available in 40k at the time. The whinging about the race because they didn't fit miserabalist 40k grognard views was different.
I look at these Squats and just think they are some weird abhuman hybrid of marines/admech/Tau/nu-guard, in the style of Necromunda Van Saar. And I think that's probably partly intentional - but equally its incredibly boring *for me*.
I'm not sure Exo-armour as essentially "Egg-Terminators" would work in 2022 (but come on, break out Dr Robotnik and make it happen somehow). But its got to beat some hybrid of Gravis marines & crisis suits, which just leave me cold.
Squats could be that. The biggest thing getting in the way might be that they aren't new but an at least in part reimagined old thing. Unlike with Tau, GW seems to want to strike a balance between making something new and fit for the times, as has been amply argued for even on this page, and trying to hit those nostalgia buttons for extra moneys. I really hope they can reconcile those things and add something of lasting value to the setting. Unlike Tau that were introduced at a different time under different circumstances as an entirely new thing, the reintroduction of Squats comes with a bit of baggage not just from the community but by GW's own desire to use the marketing potential of the return of an old faction.
I understand why GW reveals things the way they do, but I don't think they're doing themselves any favors revealing the faction slowly and bit by bit instead of presenting the complete vision for it. It just creates a different, potentially false first impression compared to a comprehensive view of the faction, and I'm not sure if that isn't going to stick around and taint the faction to some degree for quite some time.
I think this is it, really. Unlike if they'd been a brand new faction entirely, being "The Squats" re-introduced comes with certain expectations, and so far I think they've done a very poor job of meeting those aesthetically while the lore has been great. Like the new sleek high-tech space colonist vibe or not, I don't think you really say that it's a direction that does justice to the Squats, because it's at complete odds to what they were. Not the silly biker side of them that got them removed, but the gritty harsh uncomplicated space Dwarf feel that even their 2019 Necromunda miniatures (The first new look at them in over 20 years) retained. Expectations were some form of faithful but more serious update (as in, no silly biker stuff), what we're getting is the Demiurg concept art aesthetic with the Squat lore.
It's a cool enough look and idea on its own, the issue just comes when they're meant to be the Squats. Hopefully more later on gives a better impression and feels closer to that original feel.
And you sir/Madame are going on ignore, not because you are offensive but I can’t bear to hear about how you are you happy with styling of the new models every time something new is shown to us. It’s 90 pages now, we get it, the models aren’t working for you, we get it.
Andykp wrote: And you sir/Madame are going on ignore, not because you are offensive but I can’t bear to hear about how you are you happy with styling of the new models every time something new is shown to us.
Damn, I only briefly skimmed through this thread and thought someone was being excessively based. Turns out it was just a misspelling.
That'll teach me to ever click on a post by someone I've ignored--keep reminding myself there's a reason I did that.
Nah, all you have to say is "Damn, I now realize how foolish and untenable my position was." or "[insert here more malformed postmodernist and uneducated opinion]".
But hey, I guess it's easier to just ignore people when you have no way to defend your position.
Geifer wrote: I understand why GW reveals things the way they do, but I don't think they're doing themselves any favors revealing the faction slowly and bit by bit instead of presenting the complete vision for it. It just creates a different, potentially false first impression compared to a comprehensive view of the faction, and I'm not sure if that isn't going to stick around and taint the faction to some degree for quite some time.
That's very true, just look at the reception of that vehicle compared to the infantry.
Had they just presented the whole faction at once and clearly established what their general look was they probably wouldn't have people struggling between what they expected, what GW pretended to deliver and what they are actually delivering.
Why are you so aggressive all the time? This is supposed to be a fun hobby. Just had a look through your previous posts and you have been on the attack from the get go? What’s wrong?
Tyel wrote: I guess my issue is just that Tau were clearly different to what came before. The 2001(?) Fire Warrior Squad was frankly an excellent kit - and something unique to what was available in 40k at the time. The whinging about the race because they didn't fit miserabalist 40k grognard views was different.
I look at these Squats and just think they are some weird abhuman hybrid of marines/admech/Tau/nu-guard, in the style of Necromunda Van Saar. And I think that's probably partly intentional - but equally its incredibly boring *for me*.
I'm not sure Exo-armour as essentially "Egg-Terminators" would work in 2022 (but come on, break out Dr Robotnik and make it happen somehow). But its got to beat some hybrid of Gravis marines & crisis suits, which just leave me cold.
Squats could be that. The biggest thing getting in the way might be that they aren't new but an at least in part reimagined old thing. Unlike with Tau, GW seems to want to strike a balance between making something new and fit for the times, as has been amply argued for even on this page, and trying to hit those nostalgia buttons for extra moneys. I really hope they can reconcile those things and add something of lasting value to the setting. Unlike Tau that were introduced at a different time under different circumstances as an entirely new thing, the reintroduction of Squats comes with a bit of baggage not just from the community but by GW's own desire to use the marketing potential of the return of an old faction.
I understand why GW reveals things the way they do, but I don't think they're doing themselves any favors revealing the faction slowly and bit by bit instead of presenting the complete vision for it. It just creates a different, potentially false first impression compared to a comprehensive view of the faction, and I'm not sure if that isn't going to stick around and taint the faction to some degree for quite some time.
I think this is it, really. Unlike if they'd been a brand new faction entirely, being "The Squats" re-introduced comes with certain expectations, and so far I think they've done a very poor job of meeting those aesthetically while the lore has been great. Like the new sleek high-tech space colonist vibe or not, I don't think you really say that it's a direction that does justice to the Squats, because it's at complete odds to what they were. Not the silly biker side of them that got them removed, but the gritty harsh uncomplicated space Dwarf feel that even their 2019 Necromunda miniatures (The first new look at them in over 20 years) retained. Expectations were some form of faithful but more serious update (as in, no silly biker stuff), what we're getting is the Demiurg concept art aesthetic with the Squat lore.
It's a cool enough look and idea on its own, the issue just comes when they're meant to be the Squats. Hopefully more later on gives a better impression and feels closer to that original feel.
And you sir/Madame are going on ignore, not because you are offensive but I can’t bear to hear about how you are you happy with styling of the new models every time something new is shown to us. It’s 90 pages now, we get it, the models aren’t working for you, we get it.
Incase you didn't realize I was responding to someone else and agreeing with them about the expectations set by the reveal method. Are you really going to be so disingenuous as to say that they do look like a faithful update to the Squats? You've made no attempt to even acknowledge any points raised and discuss them reasonably and for that reason you've already been on ignore for quite a while.
It’s 90 pages now, we get it, the models aren’t working for you, we get it.
ikr. I came across a person filling votann threads on three different forums, literally hundreds and hundreds of comments of complaining.
I do feel like there is a point past where it goes beyond being reasonable and just becomes an obsession. It's not like Games Workshop can redo these models. The expensive steel casts have already been made and the first manufacturing run has been no doubt already been done for the range. Being unreasonably vocal about it isn't going to change anything.
I have seen quite a bit of backlash to that kind of behaviour, so I don't think it's just us who thinks it has gotten a bit much and are just hearing the exact same stuff repeated ad nauseum.
Andykp wrote: It’s 90 pages now, we get it, the models aren’t working for you, we get it.
Except you clearly don't get it, 'cause you keep telling him that his views on the issue are invalid/wrong. If you got it, you wouldn't say that. You would at least be able to acknowledge that many of us find these new Squats to be:
1. Bland knock-offs of other sci-fi things, and more generic than even Mantic gak. 2. Not-Dwarf like in the slightest (outside of, y'know, being short) as they have next to no iconography or design touchstones that would indicate them as having some resonance with Dwarven archetypes and imagery.
2. Not-Dwarf like in the slightest (outside of, y'know, being short) as they have next to no iconography or design touchstones that would indicate them as having some resonance with Dwarven archetypes and imagery.
Whereas these so called Space Dwarves. You can barely see the models for all them Dwarven archetypes and imagery. They're riddled with it.
GW really are dreadful at that aren't they?
2. Not-Dwarf like in the slightest (outside of, y'know, being short)
And having facial hair, and being durable, and engineering exemplary weapons, and worshipping ancestors, and a tradition of mining, and isolationist fortressing, and...
But no, you're right, the property of being Dwarf-like depends on ... *checks notes* ... iconography. A-and... design touchstones that would indicate them as having some resonance with Dwarven archetypes and imagery. Are you sure you're not talking about Dark Eldar? Because that sentence was torture to read.
2. Not-Dwarf like in the slightest (outside of, y'know, being short)
And having facial hair, and being durable, and engineering exemplary weapons, and worshipping ancestors, and a tradition of mining, and isolationist fortressing, and...
But no, you're right, the property of being Dwarf-like depends on ... *checks notes* ... iconography. A-and... design touchstones that would indicate them as having some resonance with Dwarven archetypes and imagery. Are you sure you're not talking about Dark Eldar? Because that sentence was torture to read.
Have to say, 100% agree with you. I mean, their faces look Dwarfish, to me at least. And their weapons and armor look like better-crafted versions of Imperial tech (which seems very Dwarfish to me). I suppose that they don't have the same leather-based rough-and-tumble aesthetic of the old models, but frankly - and again, speaking only for myself - I find this design direction much, much more interesting! I'm not telling anyone that they're wrong for not liking the look of this release so far. There's plenty of models in 40k that I dislike. But to say that the LoV don't look like Dwarfs is just baffling to me, honestly.
I'm not going to re-re-re-re-re-re-explain it. Mentlegen324 (and others) have done far more comprehensive and well-worded treatises on the subject in this very thread.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm not going to re-re-re-re-re-re-explain it. Mentlegen324 (and others) have done far more comprehensive and well-worded treatises on the subject in this very thread.
It's just I'm fascinated to know where all the iconography or design touchstones that would indicate them as having some resonance with Dwarven archetypes in those original Squat infantry models. Now it can't just be because they're short because that's apparently not good enough right?
Is it the field caps? The cut off leather jackets? The short beards? Or no beards at all? The sunglasses maybe? The gamebesons?
Thinking back, I do remember seeing all those things in the old WFB Dwarves. Because when I think Dwarves I certainly picture all those things.
crumby_cataphract wrote: But to say that the LoV don't look like Dwarfs is just baffling to me, honestly.
I think it's pretty telling that of the factors Altruizine listed, only facial hair is part of their visual design rather than just lore. If the only things that visually communicate 'space dwarf' are short and (sometimes) beard, well, that's not a lot- especially on otherwise generic sci-fi designs.
The reveals so far are just weird to me because I love the various Necromunda Squats. Those, to me, do a much better job of evoking the dwarfs-in-space aesthetic as well as calling back to the old Squats, as if they were made by a totally separate team with no cross-communication. I'd love to collect an army based on that design language, and maybe we just haven't seen their modern counterparts yet, but the Votann we have seen make me wonder if GW had design concepts for a DAoT-remnant army and decided to minorly adjust them and call them Squats as nostalgia bait.
catbarf wrote: If the only things that visually communicate 'space dwarf' are short and (sometimes) beard, well, that's not a lot- especially on otherwise generic sci-fi designs.
Except that as discussed earlier, the comparisons based on base size seem to put the NuSquats somewhere around the same height as a Cadian. So not actually particularly short, which, to me, would be a more important 'Dwarf' visual than even the beard.
PenitentJake wrote: It is literally impossible for 40k to rip off Starcraft.
Well, you say that, but...
(NB: I didn't make that picture, BTW - had it used against me years ago when I made the same argument you're making Jake! )
It's been a couple of years since I had this debate But if I recall correctly there were Warhammer Tyranid models with scythe arms well before the Hydralisk, so that image is incorrect if it is implying Warhammer got Scythe arms from Hydralisks.
What, you mean the old Carnifex? It's a stretch to say that because of that model the revised Tyranid units that came about in 3rd Ed can't possibly look like the Starcraft Zerg.
Yeah, no, the argument still holds. It's hard to look at the Tyranid Warrior redesign (and, as catbarg pointed out, the Raveners that first showed up in 3rd) and then see what came before (including Starcraft) and not go "Wait a minute...".
None of this excuses Blizzard mind you, they rip off everyone, but don't pretend that there aren't a lot of similarities in the pic above.
I'm a gentle old soul and prefer 'inspired by' to 'ripped off' but why not take inspiration from the 'inspired by' to improve your product.
As for the Votann, I'm likely not in the market for them as an army but I am considering the transport for one of my Kharadron Overlords with Squat arms hybrid squads. Or even for my old school plastic Squat force.
PS would it be cheating to cast a 'Not An April Fool's' vote in the poll above?
H.B.M.C. wrote: What, you mean the old Carnifex? It's a stretch to say that because of that model the revised Tyranid units that came about in 3rd Ed can't possibly look like the Starcraft Zerg.
Yeah, no, the argument still holds. It's hard to look at the Tyranid Warrior redesign (and, as catbarg pointed out, the Raveners that first showed up in 3rd) and then see what came before (including Starcraft) and not go "Wait a minute...".
None of this excuses Blizzard mind you, they rip off everyone, but don't pretend that there aren't a lot of similarities in the pic above.
Not the Carnifex which inspired the Ultralisk.
There are elements that inspired each other, but that comparison image is really disingenuous with the first image it used implying zerg invented arm scythes when the 1995 Hormogaunt exists, which I believe came out nearly 4 years before starcraft came out in 1998.
There's also the lictor.
And the termagants with their mini scythes like the zerglings
H.B.M.C. wrote: What, you mean the old Carnifex? It's a stretch to say that because of that model the revised Tyranid units that came about in 3rd Ed can't possibly look like the Starcraft Zerg.
Yeah, no, the argument still holds. It's hard to look at the Tyranid Warrior redesign (and, as catbarg pointed out, the Raveners that first showed up in 3rd) and then see what came before (including Starcraft) and not go "Wait a minute...".
None of this excuses Blizzard mind you, they rip off everyone, but don't pretend that there aren't a lot of similarities in the pic above.
Here you go, loremaster:
Lictors also had arms with the same configuration of joints and claws.
GW stole the head crest, but Blizzard was already stealing that from the Alien Queen.
Calling those piddly little Termagant claws as being anything even remotely similar to the Scything Talons that came later is a mighty stretch. Ditto for the Rippers.
And the OG Hormagaunts were made to look like the Xenomorphs from Aliens, much like the 3rd Ed Hive Tyrant was 100% a Alien Queen "homage".
And the OG Lictor looks nothing like what came later.
Please don't pretend that GW didn't take a healthy amount of "inspiration" from the Zerg, much the same way that Blizzard took a healthy amount of "inspiration" from 40k.
While we're posting old art, might as well take a peek at how Tolkien rendered his Dwarves.
Iconography to boggle the mind. Dare I say resonance with archetypes was indicated via touchstones, or would that be going too far?
Here's some folk Dwarves.
I'm sure -- if they were wearing clothes -- there would be icons aplenty.
It seems what some people want, without being able/willing to state it clearly, are WHFB Dwarves and D&D Dwarves, and maybe some ripped off trickle down versions of those?
Honestly, the harder people lean into the VIKINGS OR BUST angle the more it reads like sublimated racist, 4chan-adjacent trash from the kind of idiots who watch HEMA youtube and dabble in Myfarog nights. Quit it with the rune-counting.
catbarf wrote: The reveals so far are just weird to me because I love the various Necromunda Squats.
It's funny how well the following official GW image shows the difference between extrapolating an existing visual theme, versus importing a completely new one.
Andykp wrote: It’s 90 pages now, we get it, the models aren’t working for you, we get it.
Except you clearly don't get it, 'cause you keep telling him that his views on the issue are invalid/wrong. If you got it, you wouldn't say that. You would at least be able to acknowledge that many of us find these new Squats to be:
1. Bland knock-offs of other sci-fi things, and more generic than even Mantic gak.
2. Not-Dwarf like in the slightest (outside of, y'know, being short) as they have next to no iconography or design touchstones that would indicate them as having some resonance with Dwarven archetypes and imagery.
I just disagree with him, it’s entirely subjective, I like the new guys, the direction GW have gone is great and for me they are plenty dwarfish enough. I get that for him they aren’t, I got that 90 pages ago. I also get that when they add iconography that he wanted it’s done wrongly and that he like the necromunda chap, that looks crap if you ask me. Don’t need telling again, and everyone who come here for some rumours doesn’t need telling either.
I am more than happy to contend to points a and b above, again I was 90 pages ago. Are you happy to the pints that I and many others think the new models look great and are really exciting?
NAVARRO wrote: So we got a big part of the army revealed already not sure what to expect more at this point in time. Maybe some characters and exosuit?
We have
Infantry
Heavy infantry
scout biker
Vehicle
I have a gut feeling we will probably get a 5 man scout snipers.
Article said another vehicle was coming, so probably a Heavy Support tank.
The data card leak mentioned a berserker unit.
Ancestor Lord psyker HQ in addition to the Thane or whatever the generic beatstick will be.
Hekaton Mobile Fortress I think (Cthonian Berserkers being the other unit).
Interestingly, a Hekatonkheires where the name comes from is a mythical set of greek giants, with 50 heads and a hundred arms.
So perhaps the Land Train returns looking something like a giant mechanical centipede?
Copying the AdMech idea of having various ways of locomotion on all their vehicles.
PenitentJake wrote: It is literally impossible for 40k to rip off Starcraft.
Well, you say that, but...
(NB: I didn't make that picture, BTW - had it used against me years ago when I made the same argument you're making Jake! )
It's been a couple of years since I had this debate But if I recall correctly there were Warhammer Tyranid models with scythe arms well before the Hydralisk, so that image is incorrect if it is implying Warhammer got Scythe arms from Hydralisks.
Not just scythe arms, heads too. They didn't have crests like that before. The ravener looks a lot like a hydralisk too.
So it's yet more people who don't like the Dwarf aesthetic making out as if there aren't features that are common to the way their look is usually depicted and have to misconstrue things in order to try and justify them, those are the people telling those that are disappointed that they're "Dwarf enough" with their look. The ones who don't want Space Dwarfs to look like Space Dwarfs because apparently all that it involves aesthetically is being a (maybe) short (maybe) bearded humanoid and there aren't any more features to establishing the look properly than that. Really telling.
NAVARRO wrote: So we got a big part of the army revealed already not sure what to expect more at this point in time. Maybe some characters and exosuit?
We have
Infantry
Heavy infantry
scout biker
Vehicle
I have a gut feeling we will probably get a 5 man scout snipers.
A heavier tank-like vehicle (that'll probably look like the StarCraft siege tank) and a few HQ choices I presume.
Andykp wrote: Why are you so aggressive all the time? This is supposed to be a fun hobby. Just had a look through your previous posts and you have been on the attack from the get go? What’s wrong?
Sir, this isn't reddit, nobody is impressed by you dumpsterdiving in other people posts history to make that kind of snooty remark.
Andykp wrote: And you sir/Madame are going on ignore, not because you are offensive but I can’t bear to hear about how you are you happy with styling of the new models every time something new is shown to us. It’s 90 pages now, we get it, the models aren’t working for you, we get it.
Also, did you REALLY just made a post to announce to the world you were blacklisting people and pass your silly little moral judgement that nobody asked for and how you just don't want to hear others opinions... ON A FORUM MEANT FOR PEOPLE TO SHARE OPINION?
Andykp wrote: It’s 90 pages now, we get it, the models aren’t working for you, we get it.
Except you clearly don't get it, 'cause you keep telling him that his views on the issue are invalid/wrong. If you got it, you wouldn't say that. You would at least be able to acknowledge that many of us find these new Squats to be:
1. Bland knock-offs of other sci-fi things, and more generic than even Mantic gak.
2. Not-Dwarf like in the slightest (outside of, y'know, being short) as they have next to no iconography or design touchstones that would indicate them as having some resonance with Dwarven archetypes and imagery
No no, YOU don't get it, you see the point of forums is to be echo-chambers, echo-chambers of what this guy thinks. People that disagree are just frankly annoying and will be blacklisted.
crumby_cataphract wrote: Have to say, 100% agree with you. I mean, their faces look Dwarfish, to me at least.
I'm going to put that here, for no particular reasons :
His Master's Voice wrote: It's funny how well the following official GW image shows the difference between extrapolating an existing visual theme, versus importing a completely new one.
I know right? I also find pretty funny how the people that suddenly decided to white knight for the LoV as if their lives depended on it, are very careful to avoid the elephant in the room: How the NecroSquats are clearly the real successor to the Squats, have a look that just fits better in the setting and are exactly what people that asked for the return of the squat hopped to get for 40k.
I know right? I also find pretty funny how the people that suddenly decided to white knight for the LoV as if their lives depended on it, are very careful to avoid the elephant in the room: How the NecroSquats are clearly the real successor to the Squats, have a look that just fits better in the setting and are exactly what people that asked for the return of the squat hopped to get for 40k.
It’s not one or the other. Some folk prefer one, some like both, some like neither.
Since a picture from the Warhammer Community article comparing the Necromunda walker to the 40k heavy infantry is being posted again I'll take the opportunity to say it would be strange of GW not to compare walker to walker if the first wave had such a model. Conventionally I'd say what we're missing so far is a heavy tank, characters and a walker. But because of that article I'm not expecting to see a walker at all, unless it's Knight sized and would therefore make for a poor comparison article. I don't know if that's something the new Squats will have, though.
I guess they could also get a flyer or an artillery unit.
Or a terrain piece. Genestealers lost their drill, and let's face it, if anyone were to steal a big piece of mining equipment...
Since a picture from the Warhammer Community article comparing the Necromunda walker to the 40k heavy infantry is being posted again I'll take the opportunity to say it would be strange of GW not to compare walker to walker if the first wave had such a model. Conventionally I'd say what we're missing so far is a heavy tank, characters and a walker. But because of that article I'm not expecting to see a walker at all, unless it's Knight sized and would therefore make for a poor comparison article. I don't know if that's something the new Squats will have, though.
I guess they could also get a flyer or an artillery unit.
Or a terrain piece. Genestealers lost their drill, and let's face it, if anyone were to steal a big piece of mining equipment...
Can't see them getting another Exo-suit unit, really. I could see some sort of large robot though as they've said there's the COG units.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s not one or the other. Some folk prefer one, some like both, some like neither.
Please stop making silly claims.
I'm not talking about people preference here, I'm talking about design coherence.
The Necrosquats are undeniably the proper evolution of the squat design, while the Votann as just completely different despite being thought as "the return of the squats".
One is what people asked and expected for decade, the other is totally out of nowhere and have nothing to do with what people asked or expected.
Now if you like it or not is another question entirely.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s not one or the other. Some folk prefer one, some like both, some like neither.
Please stop making silly claims.
I'm not talking about people preference here, I'm talking about design coherence.
The Necrosquats are undeniably the proper evolution of the squat design, while the Votann as just completely different despite being thought as "the return of the squats".
One is what people asked and expected for decade, the other is totally out of nowhere and have nothing to do with what people asked or expected.
Now if you like it or not is another question entirely.
So you basically are saying “this is my opinion on this subjective topic, ITS FACT SO THERE, disagree and you are wrong.”
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s not one or the other. Some folk prefer one, some like both, some like neither.
Please stop making silly claims.
I'm not talking about people preference here, I'm talking about design coherence.
The Necrosquats are undeniably the proper evolution of the squat design, while the Votann as just completely different despite being thought as "the return of the squats".
One is what people asked and expected for decade, the other is totally out of nowhere and have nothing to do with what people asked or expected.
Now if you like it or not is another question entirely.
So you basically are saying “this is my opinion on this subjective topic, ITS FACT SO THERE, disagree and you are wrong.”
Good contribution.
Except it isn't "subjective" that a sleek high-tech clean futuristic aesthetic is not something even slightly in line with being an evolution of the style of "The Squats" and their overall aesthetic tone, whether you like it or not. That's his whole point. You're allowed to like them, but that doesn't mean they're a faithful updated representation of the thing they're claimed to be.
Yep, the charm of the squats is gone with these new sculpts. However I might buy the Moon Buggy as an interesting terrain piece for my future Mars board.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s not one or the other. Some folk prefer one, some like both, some like neither.
Please stop making silly claims.
I'm not talking about people preference here, I'm talking about design coherence.
The Necrosquats are undeniably the proper evolution of the squat design, while the Votann as just completely different despite being thought as "the return of the squats".
One is what people asked and expected for decade, the other is totally out of nowhere and have nothing to do with what people asked or expected.
Now if you like it or not is another question entirely.
I do agree that the Necromunda squats look a lot more like the very old models. However, I don't know if very many people were hoping for those old models to come back. I mean, I'm sure that people who were in the hobby thirty years or more ago might have some fond recollection of them. But a lot of the people involved in the hobby today weren't even born when the old Squats were ... squatted. I've been in the hobby longer than any of the people around me, and even I came in well after the Squats were only a meme. And if I understand correctly, the original Squats were squatted in the first place because the design team themselves didn't find their archetype to be very interesting or compelling. If that's correct, then I'm not sure why anyone would expect that archetype to be resurrected for this release.
I think it's pretty clear that the Leagues are supposed to be seen as a re-imagining of the "Dwarves in space" archetype, not of the old Squats directly. Honestly, I think that's why they re-named them, to help clearly differentiate them from the Squats of old. So I can understand being disappointed that the old Squats are still in effect gone, outside of Neceromunda, but at the same time, I don't think that GW have been very dishonest about this. They've consistently indicated that they're going to be a spiritual successor, but also that they're going to be something different.
Sure as a piece of terrain the buggy would be fine and a little funny almost like an Easter egg form the 21st century. But the buggy looks nothing like what squats should have and calling it a transport when realistically it could transport 3 including the driver is like calling the ford pinto a military transport. It's frankly rediculas.
Except it isn't "subjective" that a sleek high-tech clean futuristic aesthetic is not something even slightly in line with being an evolution of the style of "The Squats" and their overall aesthetic tone, whether you like it or not. That's his whole point. You're allowed to like them, but that doesn't mean they're a faithful updated representation of the thing they're claimed to be.
And "short Vikings with sharp-edged runic armour" wouldn't be either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s not one or the other. Some folk prefer one, some like both, some like neither.
Please stop making silly claims.
I'm not talking about people preference here, I'm talking about design coherence.
The Necrosquats are undeniably the proper evolution of the squat design, while the Votann as just completely different despite being thought as "the return of the squats".
One is what people asked and expected for decade, the other is totally out of nowhere and have nothing to do with what people asked or expected.
Now if you like it or not is another question entirely.
I do agree that the Necromunda squats look a lot more like the very old models. However, I don't know if very many people were hoping for those old models to come back. I mean, I'm sure that people who were in the hobby thirty years or more ago might have some fond recollection of them. But a lot of the people involved in the hobby today weren't even born when the old Squats were ... squatted. I've been in the hobby longer than any of the people around me, and even I came in well after the Squats were only a meme. And if I understand correctly, the original Squats were squatted in the first place because the design team themselves didn't find their archetype to be very interesting or compelling. If that's correct, then I'm not sure why anyone would expect that archetype to be resurrected for this release.
The original squats were removed because they'd turned the proud fantasy dwarf archetype into more of a joke with them being short silly bikers named Squats, they didn't do the archetype justice with that side of things. They felt a lot better about the Epic direction of big master crafted warmachines and said they should have done the 40k side more like that stuff.
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.
"They should have been more dwarfy like the original squats." ... But the original squats aren't that dwarfy.
The new Votann grunt unit is way more "dwarfy" than these old grunts.
Look, the new votann have runes on their weapons and armour, use an axe, and wear belts with tools used for crafting which is telling of their dwarven craftsmanship.
One of the votann grunts even has a back pack full of tools along with a literal Pick Axe on their back.
The original squat grunts don't have any of this. The new squat grunts are just flat out more "dwarfy" that the original squat grunts.
Lastly, it is a perfectly valid opinion to hold that these are an evolution of the original squats. You can say that they aren't straight up copies of the old squats, but to say that they are objectively not evolutions and that no ones opinion is valid on this is just you denying other people their valid opinions.
derpherp wrote: "They should have been more dwarfy like the original squats." ... But the original squats aren't that dwarfy.
I don't think this is right. The view is that the old squats were not that dwarfy - and that's why they got squatted.
To include the missing bit of the Jervis Johnson Quote:
Anyway, the Squats made it into 2nd edition, and since we were doing army books for each of the races, we started to try and figure out what to do with them. Unfortunately we just couldn't figure out a way to update them and get them to work that we felt was good enough. 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. This 'muse' didn't strike any of us, and so, rather than bring out a second-rate product simply re-hashing the old background, we kept doing other army books instead, with stuff we did feel inspired by.
I think this is important, because I don't think they were really bound by those 1988/1989 bikes and trikes. They would after all re-release just about every other model in 40k over the following decade or so. The issue is they couldn't find the muse.
Which is the lament here. The 40k Squats seem to lack a strong theme. I don't know whether they'd best get that theme by being "more dwarf" or something else entirely - but I think they need something. The Hearthguard are especially bad for this. I just can't see it as anything other than a Gravis Marine with some slightly lumpy shoulderpads & a dwarf head. If you could take say the Exo-driller model, make it half the size (+/-) I feel you'd have a far more characterful unit.
derpherp wrote: "They should have been more dwarfy like the original squats." ... But the original squats aren't that dwarfy.
The new Votann grunt unit is way more "dwarfy" than these old grunts.
Look, the new votann have runes on their weapons and armour, use an axe, and wear belts with tools used for crafting which is telling of their dwarven craftsmanship.
One of the votann grunts even has a back pack full of tools along with a literal Pick Axe on their back.
The original squat grunts don't have any of this. The new squat grunts are just flat out more "dwarfy" that the original squat grunts.
Lastly, it is a perfectly valid opinion to hold that these are an evolution of the original squats. You can say that they aren't straight up copies of the old squats, but to say that they are objectively not evolutions and that no ones opinion is valid on this is just you denying other people their valid opinions.
I’ll reply for mentlegen324.
“No your wrong!! Belt buckles, archetypes, dwarves in space! Rarrrrgh!”
But in actual fact you make valid points. I love old squats, played most my early games of 40k against them. They were ace, these new ones aren’t them. But that’s great because it would have been rubbish to re hash all that. They also aren’t fantasy dwarves in space. They are new and different and exciting (my opinion not fact).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Lore wise hey are a clear evolution of squats, but look wise they are a fresh take on it entirely and that’s great.
If that necromunda character is what we would have got if they had “evolved” old squats into new 40k then thank god they didn’t. He doesn’t even really look like an old squat, he just has a quilted jacket on. Helmet-wrong, beard- wrong, weapons-wrong, visor-missing altogether. Maybe his gloves but even they seem off.
Now, you don’t have to like the new look squats, but they are the new dwarfs in space. Moonbuggy and all.
derpherp wrote: "They should have been more dwarfy like the original squats." ... But the original squats aren't that dwarfy.
I don't think this is right. The view is that the old squats were not that dwarfy - and that's why they got squatted.
To include the missing bit of the Jervis Johnson Quote:
Anyway, the Squats made it into 2nd edition, and since we were doing army books for each of the races, we started to try and figure out what to do with them. Unfortunately we just couldn't figure out a way to update them and get them to work that we felt was good enough. 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. This 'muse' didn't strike any of us, and so, rather than bring out a second-rate product simply re-hashing the old background, we kept doing other army books instead, with stuff we did feel inspired by.
I think this is important, because I don't think they were really bound by those 1988/1989 bikes and trikes. They would after all re-release just about every other model in 40k over the following decade or so. The issue is they couldn't find the muse.
Which is the lament here. The 40k Squats seem to lack a strong theme. I don't know whether they'd best get that theme by being "more dwarf" or something else entirely - but I think they need something. The Hearthguard are especially bad for this. I just can't see it as anything other than a Gravis Marine with some slightly lumpy shoulderpads & a dwarf head. If you could take say the Exo-driller model, make it half the size (+/-) I feel you'd have a far more characterful unit.
But its only my view. If you like them, go nuts.
Yeah, I don't think i've seen anyone say the original squats were outright Dwarfy looking with the original models. It was there in a few places, but mostly present in their Epic depiction. People are saying they should have expanded upon the original theme or done something more substantial and than just a typical clean futuristic sci-fi that doesn't even have much of those Dwarf aesthetics ontop.
Even then, it's a bit unfair to use the original designs as an indicator for a lack of "Dwarfyness" when nearly everything back then was lacking in that sort of detail. No Aquilas on basic Guardsmen or Space Marines, for example.
“No your wrong!! Belt buckles, archetypes, dwarves in space! Rarrrrgh!”
But in actual fact you make valid points. I love old squats, played most my early games of 40k against them. They were ace, these new ones aren’t them. But that’s great because it would have been rubbish to re hash all that. They also aren’t fantasy dwarves in space. They are new and different and exciting (my opinion not fact).
I see you're still misconstruing what's been said despite it being explained multiple times, have missed the point entirely, and are just repeating "I like it!" (which is irrelevant to the points given) rather than actually address anything raised in a reasonable way, as usual
derpherp wrote: "They should have been more dwarfy like the original squats." ... But the original squats aren't that dwarfy.
I don't think this is right. The view is that the old squats were not that dwarfy - and that's why they got squatted.
To include the missing bit of the Jervis Johnson Quote:
Anyway, the Squats made it into 2nd edition, and since we were doing army books for each of the races, we started to try and figure out what to do with them. Unfortunately we just couldn't figure out a way to update them and get them to work that we felt was good enough. 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. This 'muse' didn't strike any of us, and so, rather than bring out a second-rate product simply re-hashing the old background, we kept doing other army books instead, with stuff we did feel inspired by.
I think this is important, because I don't think they were really bound by those 1988/1989 bikes and trikes. They would after all re-release just about every other model in 40k over the following decade or so. The issue is they couldn't find the muse.
Which is the lament here. The 40k Squats seem to lack a strong theme. I don't know whether they'd best get that theme by being "more dwarf" or something else entirely - but I think they need something. The Hearthguard are especially bad for this. I just can't see it as anything other than a Gravis Marine with some slightly lumpy shoulderpads & a dwarf head. If you could take say the Exo-driller model, make it half the size (+/-) I feel you'd have a far more characterful unit.
But its only my view. If you like them, go nuts.
I think when the models and the fluff are all release their will be a good theme for them, the models don’t stand alone, and the fluff bits so far are as good as the models for me. It always strikes me, the subjectivity of these things, when someone like yourself says something like that about the exo-driller. I think that model is horrifically poor, but you’d prefer to have more of that style in the look of the models. You’re not wrong, your opinion is valid, we are just poles apart on it. Definitely horses for courses. Luckily 30k is big enough to appeal to most tastes somewhere.
“No your wrong!! Belt buckles, archetypes, dwarves in space! Rarrrrgh!”
But in actual fact you make valid points. I love old squats, played most my early games of 40k against them. They were ace, these new ones aren’t them. But that’s great because it would have been rubbish to re hash all that. They also aren’t fantasy dwarves in space. They are new and different and exciting (my opinion not fact).
I see you're still misconstruing what's been said despite it being explained multiple times, have missed the point entirely, and are just repeating "I like it!" (which is irrelevant to the points given) rather than actually address anything raised in a reasonable way, as usual
Shouldn’t have looked! Note to self, don’t look.
Anyway, I was agreeing with derpherp, who spelled out exactly why your claim of objective factual correctness was not that all. All you are doing is saying you don’t like it, but trying to justify that as no one should like it. FOR 90 PAGES!
derpherp wrote: "They should have been more dwarfy like the original squats." ... But the original squats aren't that dwarfy.
I don't think this is right. The view is that the old squats were not that dwarfy - and that's why they got squatted.
To include the missing bit of the Jervis Johnson Quote:
Anyway, the Squats made it into 2nd edition, and since we were doing army books for each of the races, we started to try and figure out what to do with them. Unfortunately we just couldn't figure out a way to update them and get them to work that we felt was good enough. 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. This 'muse' didn't strike any of us, and so, rather than bring out a second-rate product simply re-hashing the old background, we kept doing other army books instead, with stuff we did feel inspired by.
I think this is important, because I don't think they were really bound by those 1988/1989 bikes and trikes. They would after all re-release just about every other model in 40k over the following decade or so. The issue is they couldn't find the muse.
Which is the lament here. The 40k Squats seem to lack a strong theme. I don't know whether they'd best get that theme by being "more dwarf" or something else entirely - but I think they need something. The Hearthguard are especially bad for this. I just can't see it as anything other than a Gravis Marine with some slightly lumpy shoulderpads & a dwarf head. If you could take say the Exo-driller model, make it half the size (+/-) I feel you'd have a far more characterful unit.
But its only my view. If you like them, go nuts.
I think when the models and the fluff are all release their will be a good theme for them, the models don’t stand alone, and the fluff bits so far are as good as the models for me. It always strikes me, the subjectivity of these things, when someone like yourself says something like that about the exo-driller. I think that model is horrifically poor, but you’d prefer to have more of that style in the look of the models. You’re not wrong, your opinion is valid, we are just poles apart on it. Definitely horses for courses. Luckily 30k is big enough to appeal to most tastes somewhere.
“No your wrong!! Belt buckles, archetypes, dwarves in space! Rarrrrgh!”
But in actual fact you make valid points. I love old squats, played most my early games of 40k against them. They were ace, these new ones aren’t them. But that’s great because it would have been rubbish to re hash all that. They also aren’t fantasy dwarves in space. They are new and different and exciting (my opinion not fact).
I see you're still misconstruing what's been said despite it being explained multiple times, have missed the point entirely, and are just repeating "I like it!" (which is irrelevant to the points given) rather than actually address anything raised in a reasonable way, as usual
Shouldn’t have looked! Note to self, don’t look.
Anyway, I was agreeing with derpherp, who spelled out exactly why your claim of objective factual correctness was not that all. All you are doing is saying you don’t like it, but trying to justify that as no one should like it. FOR 90 PAGES!
Myself and several others have explained our issues with them multiple times. All you then do is ignore any points raised and just go "I Like them!" with no further thought given, missing the point entirely. As evident by you now claiming that people (me) are saying "no one should like them" when at no point has anyone even suggested you're not allowed to like them and whether you "like them" or not is utterly besides the points raised.
derpherp wrote: "They should have been more dwarfy like the original squats." ... But the original squats aren't that dwarfy.
I don't think this is right. The view is that the old squats were not that dwarfy - and that's why they got squatted.
To include the missing bit of the Jervis Johnson Quote:
Anyway, the Squats made it into 2nd edition, and since we were doing army books for each of the races, we started to try and figure out what to do with them. Unfortunately we just couldn't figure out a way to update them and get them to work that we felt was good enough. 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. This 'muse' didn't strike any of us, and so, rather than bring out a second-rate product simply re-hashing the old background, we kept doing other army books instead, with stuff we did feel inspired by.
I think this is important, because I don't think they were really bound by those 1988/1989 bikes and trikes. They would after all re-release just about every other model in 40k over the following decade or so. The issue is they couldn't find the muse.
Which is the lament here. The 40k Squats seem to lack a strong theme. I don't know whether they'd best get that theme by being "more dwarf" or something else entirely - but I think they need something. The Hearthguard are especially bad for this. I just can't see it as anything other than a Gravis Marine with some slightly lumpy shoulderpads & a dwarf head. If you could take say the Exo-driller model, make it half the size (+/-) I feel you'd have a far more characterful unit.
But its only my view. If you like them, go nuts.
I think when the models and the fluff are all release their will be a good theme for them, the models don’t stand alone, and the fluff bits so far are as good as the models for me. It always strikes me, the subjectivity of these things, when someone like yourself says something like that about the exo-driller. I think that model is horrifically poor, but you’d prefer to have more of that style in the look of the models. You’re not wrong, your opinion is valid, we are just poles apart on it. Definitely horses for courses. Luckily 30k is big enough to appeal to most tastes somewhere.
“No your wrong!! Belt buckles, archetypes, dwarves in space! Rarrrrgh!”
But in actual fact you make valid points. I love old squats, played most my early games of 40k against them. They were ace, these new ones aren’t them. But that’s great because it would have been rubbish to re hash all that. They also aren’t fantasy dwarves in space. They are new and different and exciting (my opinion not fact).
I see you're still misconstruing what's been said despite it being explained multiple times, have missed the point entirely, and are just repeating "I like it!" (which is irrelevant to the points given) rather than actually address anything raised in a reasonable way, as usual
Shouldn’t have looked! Note to self, don’t look.
Anyway, I was agreeing with derpherp, who spelled out exactly why your claim of objective factual correctness was not that all. All you are doing is saying you don’t like it, but trying to justify that as no one should like it. FOR 90 PAGES!
Myself and several others have explained our issues with them multiple times. All you then do is ignore any points raised and just go "I Like them!" with no further thought given.
derpherp wrote: "They should have been more dwarfy like the original squats." ... But the original squats aren't that dwarfy.
I don't think this is right. The view is that the old squats were not that dwarfy - and that's why they got squatted.
To include the missing bit of the Jervis Johnson Quote:
Anyway, the Squats made it into 2nd edition, and since we were doing army books for each of the races, we started to try and figure out what to do with them. Unfortunately we just couldn't figure out a way to update them and get them to work that we felt was good enough. 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. This 'muse' didn't strike any of us, and so, rather than bring out a second-rate product simply re-hashing the old background, we kept doing other army books instead, with stuff we did feel inspired by.
I think this is important, because I don't think they were really bound by those 1988/1989 bikes and trikes. They would after all re-release just about every other model in 40k over the following decade or so. The issue is they couldn't find the muse.
Which is the lament here. The 40k Squats seem to lack a strong theme. I don't know whether they'd best get that theme by being "more dwarf" or something else entirely - but I think they need something. The Hearthguard are especially bad for this. I just can't see it as anything other than a Gravis Marine with some slightly lumpy shoulderpads & a dwarf head. If you could take say the Exo-driller model, make it half the size (+/-) I feel you'd have a far more characterful unit.
But its only my view. If you like them, go nuts.
I think when the models and the fluff are all release their will be a good theme for them, the models don’t stand alone, and the fluff bits so far are as good as the models for me. It always strikes me, the subjectivity of these things, when someone like yourself says something like that about the exo-driller. I think that model is horrifically poor, but you’d prefer to have more of that style in the look of the models. You’re not wrong, your opinion is valid, we are just poles apart on it. Definitely horses for courses. Luckily 30k is big enough to appeal to most tastes somewhere.
“No your wrong!! Belt buckles, archetypes, dwarves in space! Rarrrrgh!”
But in actual fact you make valid points. I love old squats, played most my early games of 40k against them. They were ace, these new ones aren’t them. But that’s great because it would have been rubbish to re hash all that. They also aren’t fantasy dwarves in space. They are new and different and exciting (my opinion not fact).
I see you're still misconstruing what's been said despite it being explained multiple times, have missed the point entirely, and are just repeating "I like it!" (which is irrelevant to the points given) rather than actually address anything raised in a reasonable way, as usual
Shouldn’t have looked! Note to self, don’t look.
Anyway, I was agreeing with derpherp, who spelled out exactly why your claim of objective factual correctness was not that all. All you are doing is saying you don’t like it, but trying to justify that as no one should like it. FOR 90 PAGES!
Myself and several others have explained our issues with them multiple times. All you then do is ignore any points raised and just go "I Like them!" with no further thought given.
I like them.
Great, so do i.
Maybe if you put more effort in beyond just jumping straight to that though you'd be able to at least slightly comprehend the problem and see why people are disapointed.
I like the NASApunk aesthetic, but I’m sad it’s being “wasted” on the squats. A new, human yet non-Imperial faction with this design would have been awesome. A revisit of the Squats, with more of the old flavor to mash that nostalgia button would have been awesome. These new squats are just not hitting either theme alone hard enough to sell me on them, and both themes together seem to be in some state of conflict.
Perhaps GW just waited too long, and companies like Mantic, Wargames Atlantic, Hasslefree, Bob solely and others have had too much time to solidify the space-dwarf design space in gaming culture. When I think Space Dwarfs, I think Forgefathers and Einherjar.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I like the NASApunk aesthetic, but I’m sad it’s being “wasted” on the squats. A new, human yet non-Imperial faction with this design would have been awesome. A revisit of the Squats, with more of the old flavor to mash that nostalgia button would have been awesome. These new squats are just not hitting either theme alone hard enough to sell me on them, and both themes together seem to be in some state of conflict.
Perhaps GW just waited too long, and companies like Mantic, Wargames Atlantic, Hasslefree, Bob solely and others have had too much time to solidify the space-dwarf design space in gaming culture. When I think Space Dwarfs, I think Forgefathers and Einherjar.
The issue GW would have had with going the Einherjar route is they are just Viking is space, short ones, but Viking is space. And GW have already used that niche and used it hard. Squats would have ended up as short space wolves. Personally the forgefathers are ugly as sin, cannot stand those models.
On the idea of a new non-imperial/chaos human faction, I don’t thinks there a space for that in the setting, people are already struggling with the idea that LoV aren’t in the imperium or being wiped out by them, despite the squat leagues always being separate. If they’d released a human faction that sat outside but not against the imperium there would have been nerd rage everywhere. I am. Not against it, it’s a big galaxy, if I can forgive tau, I can forgive that. Personally working on a non imperium human army as project for our narrative games, but very small and very localised (more rogue trader era inspired)
derpherp wrote: "They should have been more dwarfy like the original squats." ... But the original squats aren't that dwarfy.
I don't think this is right. The view is that the old squats were not that dwarfy - and that's why they got squatted.
To include the missing bit of the Jervis Johnson Quote:
Anyway, the Squats made it into 2nd edition, and since we were doing army books for each of the races, we started to try and figure out what to do with them. Unfortunately we just couldn't figure out a way to update them and get them to work that we felt was good enough. 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. This 'muse' didn't strike any of us, and so, rather than bring out a second-rate product simply re-hashing the old background, we kept doing other army books instead, with stuff we did feel inspired by.
I think this is important, because I don't think they were really bound by those 1988/1989 bikes and trikes. They would after all re-release just about every other model in 40k over the following decade or so. The issue is they couldn't find the muse.
Which is the lament here. The 40k Squats seem to lack a strong theme. I don't know whether they'd best get that theme by being "more dwarf" or something else entirely - but I think they need something. The Hearthguard are especially bad for this. I just can't see it as anything other than a Gravis Marine with some slightly lumpy shoulderpads & a dwarf head. If you could take say the Exo-driller model, make it half the size (+/-) I feel you'd have a far more characterful unit.
But its only my view. If you like them, go nuts.
I think when the models and the fluff are all release their will be a good theme for them, the models don’t stand alone, and the fluff bits so far are as good as the models for me. It always strikes me, the subjectivity of these things, when someone like yourself says something like that about the exo-driller. I think that model is horrifically poor, but you’d prefer to have more of that style in the look of the models. You’re not wrong, your opinion is valid, we are just poles apart on it. Definitely horses for courses. Luckily 30k is big enough to appeal to most tastes somewhere.
“No your wrong!! Belt buckles, archetypes, dwarves in space! Rarrrrgh!”
But in actual fact you make valid points. I love old squats, played most my early games of 40k against them. They were ace, these new ones aren’t them. But that’s great because it would have been rubbish to re hash all that. They also aren’t fantasy dwarves in space. They are new and different and exciting (my opinion not fact).
I see you're still misconstruing what's been said despite it being explained multiple times, have missed the point entirely, and are just repeating "I like it!" (which is irrelevant to the points given) rather than actually address anything raised in a reasonable way, as usual
Shouldn’t have looked! Note to self, don’t look.
Anyway, I was agreeing with derpherp, who spelled out exactly why your claim of objective factual correctness was not that all. All you are doing is saying you don’t like it, but trying to justify that as no one should like it. FOR 90 PAGES!
Myself and several others have explained our issues with them multiple times. All you then do is ignore any points raised and just go "I Like them!" with no further thought given.
I like them.
Great, so do i.
Maybe if you put more effort in beyond just jumping straight to that though you'd be able to at least slightly comprehend the problem and see why people are disapointed.
“The problem” is just a matter of opinion though, not fact. You can’t please all the people all the time, I’m disappointed by a number of releases, I just don’t clog up 90+ pages going on about it. Because it’s just my opinion.
I think the trouble people are having is the huge jump in time and looks. We are talking about a 25 year gap from the time the Squats last had a rules set. Look at any other army from 1997 and compare it to its modern self. Someone that has never seen 3rd-8th editions looking between their collection and the new Primaris marines, and particularly their vehicles, would be having the same rage-storm.
The only reason we don't see the changes in other armies is because those changes came gradually over the last quarter century. A bit of the "frog in a pot of slowly boiling water" trope.
Should GW have brought back the Squats at all? Maybe, maybe not. They did though, and they needed to do certain things to them to make them fit in to today's niches.
Personally I'd have preferred if they had kept a bit of the Quilted Vest armor look, but the look they did choose isn't a dealbreaker for me, especially when that look is still there for the Necromunda Squats. I too would have preferred a bit more Fantasy beard, but head swaps are the simplest thing in the world to do. I can also dig the name change. "Squats" being more of a knick-name for the race is okay with me. I seriously don't know of anyone that uses the terms "Astra Militarum" or "Adeptus Astares" in general conversation. It's always Imperial Guard and Space Marines.
As for the vehicles, everyone complains about new vehicles that bring a new look to the game. I remember when the Defiler was new, people whined then. Heck, we still use the term "Dinobots" to refer to some of the Chaos units. There was also hate for Primaris vehicles, and even the Marine AA tanks. LoV vehicles just look more out of place because they don't meet our early 90's design expectations.
Let's all just remember two things: 1. We haven't seen the entire range yet, and it may look better when we do. 2. Just because New Squats aren't the same old thing you used to love yesterday doesn't mean it can't be something new you will love tomorrow.
NAVARRO wrote: So we got a big part of the army revealed already not sure what to expect more at this point in time. Maybe some characters and exosuit?
We have
Infantry
Heavy infantry
scout biker
Vehicle
I have a gut feeling we will probably get a 5 man scout snipers.
Well there’s the Hekaton Land Fortress to come. The Beserks as well, which will be interesting. Also maybe some heavy weapon infantry? Maybe an update on the thunderers with some of the weapons they showcased in the art?
I’d love a walker as well, hard to tell how big the initial release will be. I’m thinking they might show a character next if they don’t show the whole army set that’s expected.
NAVARRO wrote: So we got a big part of the army revealed already not sure what to expect more at this point in time. Maybe some characters and exosuit?
We have
Infantry
Heavy infantry
scout biker
Vehicle
I have a gut feeling we will probably get a 5 man scout snipers.
Well there’s the Hekaton Land Fortress to come. The Beserks as well, which will be interesting. Also maybe some heavy weapon infantry? Maybe an update on the thunderers with some of the weapons they showcased in the art?
I’d love a walker as well, hard to tell how big the initial release will be. I’m thinking they might show a character next if they don’t show the whole army set that’s expected.
Does everyone think the Land fortress will be mobile, I hope so.
Mentlegen324 wrote: You're allowed to like them, but that doesn't mean they're a faithful updated representation of the thing they're claimed to be.
That's kind of how I'm seeing these LoV releases.
Like the big armoured guys look cool, but they look cool because they're big armoured guys. Beyond that they're painfully generic, don't look like something that's part of 40k and certainly don't scream "Squat!" at me.
The moonbuggy, for which NASA-Punk is by far the single best descriptor of the aesthetic I have ever heard, is something I hate as a Squat vehicle, but something that seems wonderful as a generic future buggy that I'd use as terrain on a "Space Port/Cargo Port" board, or in an Ash Wastes scenario or something. If it was't for the fact that it is undoubtedly going to cost as much as one of these, I'd be up for getting one.
I'm beginning to wonder what people who wanted "True Squats" actually wanted.
Did you guys basically want Fantasy Dwarves carrying axes, hammers, and guns? That's definitely a way to go, but also seems incredibly lazy.
Did you want a return of the weird biker gang motif?
Did you want a 3-foot long Land Train based on the Epic model?
Like I pointed out before, most armies have been turned into something different in the last 25+ years. I don't see anyone griping about how "This isn't Imperial Guard, they don't have Land Speeders, anti-grave bikers, or Land Raiders."
cuda1179 wrote: I'm beginning to wonder what people who wanted "True Squats" actually wanted.
But do you tho?
Actually wonder what you said you were wondering?
Because if you really did you would have found that answer about... 75 times already by just READING what "people who wanted "True Squat's"" said, since they have been rather clear on that point.
What I think you are really trying to do here is just make the usual rhetorical post where you can then strawman an answer that's clearly made up with the goal to make "the people who wanted "True Squats"" look stupid.
But in the end you just managed to make an ass of yourself.
The moonbuggy, for which NASA-Punk is by far the single best descriptor of the aesthetic I have ever heard, is something I hate as a Squat vehicle, but something that seems wonderful as a generic future buggy that I'd use as terrain on a "Space Port/Cargo Port" board, or in an Ash Wastes scenario or something.
You just made me realize where that buggy would fit perfectly.
In generic scifi videogame like Mass Effect, NomanSky or Starfield.
cuda1179 wrote: I'm beginning to wonder what people who wanted "True Squats" actually wanted.
Did you guys basically want Fantasy Dwarves carrying axes, hammers, and guns? That's definitely a way to go, but also seems incredibly lazy.
Did you want a return of the weird biker gang motif?
Did you want a 3-foot long Land Train based on the Epic model?
Like I pointed out before, most armies have been turned into something different in the last 25+ years. I don't see anyone griping about how "This isn't Imperial Guard, they don't have Land Speeders, anti-grave bikers, or Land Raiders."
That's.. honestly just weird. Most people grasp that early GW had limited production for vehicle kits, so what existed were shared during the Rogue Trader days. They weren't signatures of the army, they were just the vehicle kits that existed.
But anyone can recognize very well that the infantry designs really haven't changed that much. Cadians still draw from the original IG plastics, eldar are still in armored bodysuits with elongated helmets, Mk6 and 7 space marines are still around (now more than ever), and so on. Tyranids have probably diverged the most, but termagants are still heavily based on the tyranid warrior art in the RT rulebook.
cuda1179 wrote: I'm beginning to wonder what people who wanted "True Squats" actually wanted.
Did you guys basically want Fantasy Dwarves carrying axes, hammers, and guns? That's definitely a way to go, but also seems incredibly lazy.
Did you want a return of the weird biker gang motif?
Did you want a 3-foot long Land Train based on the Epic model?
Like I pointed out before, most armies have been turned into something different in the last 25+ years. I don't see anyone griping about how "This isn't Imperial Guard, they don't have Land Speeders, anti-grave bikers, or Land Raiders."
I reckon that’s exactly what they wanted, and short space vikings in space, who mine. Mostly they just wanted to have a good moan. Most have probably never seen a squat model let alone played with or against them. Most have probably not read anything about them outside of memes and wiki pages. Most probably don’t care that squats are back at all. They just want to gripe about how GW did them bad again. They might not like the models, but that doesn’t mean they are wrong.
And fyi, my guard army still has a jet bike and a land speeder.
NAVARRO wrote: So we got a big part of the army revealed already not sure what to expect more at this point in time. Maybe some characters and exosuit?
We have
Infantry
Heavy infantry
scout biker
Vehicle
I have a gut feeling we will probably get a 5 man scout snipers.
Well there’s the Hekaton Land Fortress to come. The Beserks as well, which will be interesting. Also maybe some heavy weapon infantry? Maybe an update on the thunderers with some of the weapons they showcased in the art?
I’d love a walker as well, hard to tell how big the initial release will be. I’m thinking they might show a character next if they don’t show the whole army set that’s expected.
Does everyone think the Land fortress will be mobile, I hope so.
I will probably not get the big kit at all, but if you are potentially thinking like a huge base terrain piece, lunar base of some sorts... thats interesting.
Im getting the vibes that the Legion is like an exploration force with scouts first and then bring the troops for heavy duty. So a temporary base HQ would not be that far off from this theme.
Looks like that at the pace of 1 reveal a week we are still in for several weeks of reveals. I dont clearly remember the Tau release but seems like they are fleshing out a lot of minis!
Interesting just saying "NASApunk" makes me like the range more. Not sure it totally works for all the models - but I can sort of see clearer what they were going for if that's the intended direction.
Tyel wrote: Interesting just saying "NASApunk" makes me like the range more. Not sure it totally works for all the models - but I can sort of see clearer what they were going for if that's the intended direction.
It's been so refreshing to build up along this Puzzle that GW created for the Legion concepts. Loving it, we literally have no way to guess how the next kit will look like and makes our brains imagine new possibilities and concept art etc.
When you say NASApunk I also get all warm and fuzzy and go on checking art for Starfield and such. BTW if they release a drop ship like starfield concepts I would rethink actually getting a big Kit. XD XD
Back in the '80s I started collecting the Squats but even back then, I didn't like the bikes. Everything else, I was cool with.
I viewed them as a mercenary force that later became part of the Imperium and when they did, I liked them better because they became more uniform.
Then... they disappeared. This was a time where I wasn't gaming/collecting for quite a while so I wasn't too bothered. Then I started getting back into things and wanted a Squat army again... but there were no codexes or miniatures for them... just the old stuff. I decided that I'd pick the Astra Militarum and use the old, '80s plastic Squats as a proxy... which is what I have done. I've also done similar with a full range of "home sculpted" Space Dwarfs that fit in perfectly with the Astra Militarum codex.
The beauty of the big gap (to me) is the amount of imagination, effort and enjoyment that so many people put into creating Squat armies as proxies or to fit in with fan codexes... the amount of freedom that it provided.
Then... GW "stopped the clock" and the new range(s) started to appear.
At NO POINT did I expect GW to re-hash an idea that they weren't too enthusiastic about 30+ years ago. I expected them to go in a different direction with the miniatures... and they didn't disappoint.
I like certain aspects of the new stuff and I dislike other aspects... as I do with all of the ranges (you can't like everything, can you?) ... but I completely get the polarised opinions that are flying about in this post. A lot of people who have been piling in YEARS of work into massive Squat armies, of their own design, were likely to have wanted to just slot their work in with a new codex and compatible miniatures... and on the flip side, I completely understand that a lot of people were hoping for something different because of the lack of direction of the original range.
The thing is... there is no right or wrong here... just different opinions. HOWEVER, there is always the option of jumping on board and enjoying the ride OR taking a different path.
I will be doing both. I will continue with my two "old" Squat armies that are tailored to the Astra Militarum codex and (at some point... when I've seen more of the range(s)), I will be buying the Codex and possibly starting a new army... or using the new miniatures to fit in with a Demiurg army that I have been building as well.
I feel sad at all the disappointment that some people are feeling but it was inevitable that there would be winners and losers.
Back in the '80s I started collecting the Squats but even back then, I didn't like the bikes. Everything else, I was cool with.
I viewed them as a mercenary force that later became part of the Imperium and when they did, I liked them better because they became more uniform.
Then... they disappeared. This was a time where I wasn't gaming/collecting for quite a while so I wasn't too bothered. Then I started getting back into things and wanted a Squat army again... but there were no codexes or miniatures for them... just the old stuff. I decided that I'd pick the Astra Militarum and use the old, '80s plastic Squats as a proxy... which is what I have done. I've also done similar with a full range of "home sculpted" Space Dwarfs that fit in perfectly with the Astra Militarum codex.
The beauty of the big gap (to me) is the amount of imagination, effort and enjoyment that so many people put into creating Squat armies as proxies or to fit in with fan codexes... the amount of freedom that it provided.
Then... GW "stopped the clock" and the new range(s) started to appear.
At NO POINT did I expect GW to re-hash an idea that they weren't too enthusiastic about 30+ years ago. I expected them to go in a different direction with the miniatures... and they didn't disappoint.
I like certain aspects of the new stuff and I dislike other aspects... as I do with all of the ranges (you can't like everything, can you?) ... but I completely get the polarised opinions that are flying about in this post. A lot of people who have been piling in YEARS of work into massive Squat armies, of their own design, were likely to have wanted to just slot their work in with a new codex and compatible miniatures... and on the flip side, I completely understand that a lot of people were hoping for something different because of the lack of direction of the original range.
The thing is... there is no right or wrong here... just different opinions. HOWEVER, there is always the option of jumping on board and enjoying the ride OR taking a different path.
I will be doing both. I will continue with my two "old" Squat armies that are tailored to the Astra Militarum codex and (at some point... when I've seen more of the range(s)), I will be buying the Codex and possibly starting a new army... or using the new miniatures to fit in with a Demiurg army that I have been building as well.
I feel sad at all the disappointment that some people are feeling but it was inevitable that there would be winners and losers.
Love your retro style models, very nostalgia inducing. The biker bits were always my least favourite bit of squats too, the more military side was always my bag. Will you ever get the shop up and running again?
Tyel wrote: Interesting just saying "NASApunk" makes me like the range more. Not sure it totally works for all the models - but I can sort of see clearer what they were going for if that's the intended direction.
It's been so refreshing to build up along this Puzzle that GW created for the Legion concepts. Loving it, we literally have no way to guess how the next kit will look like and makes our brains imagine new possibilities and concept art etc.
When you say NASApunk I also get all warm and fuzzy and go on checking art for Starfield and such. BTW if they release a drop ship like starfield concepts I would rethink actually getting a big Kit. XD XD
For me it’s just right in the drip feed, enough to keep me guess and hoping for more, any less and it’d be annoying as hell. Only bit I’m less keen on is the robot-squats fluff and models but they look very much optional and you never know the fluff might grow on me, I do like the idea that they are treated exactly like realm dwarves.
Andykp wrote: Love your retro style models, very nostalgia inducing. The biker bits were always my least favourite bit of squats too, the more military side was always my bag. Will you ever get the shop up and running again?
Most of my Squats can be bought through Macrocosm miniatures... and it is very unlikely that I will ever take on the burden of running an on-line shop again. It's a pain.
Andykp wrote: Love your retro style models, very nostalgia inducing. The biker bits were always my least favourite bit of squats too, the more military side was always my bag. Will you ever get the shop up and running again?
Most of my Squats can be bought through Macrocosm miniatures... and it is very unlikely that I will ever take on the burden of running an on-line shop again. It's a pain.
Can imagine. Great skills on the green stuff. I will have a look at place though. Fancy some of those for a 2nd edition army in building.
cuda1179 wrote: I'm beginning to wonder what people who wanted "True Squats" actually wanted.
But do you tho?
Actually wonder what you said you were wondering?
Because if you really did you would have found that answer about... 75 times already by just READING what "people who wanted "True Squat's"" said, since they have been rather clear on that point.
What I think you are really trying to do here is just make the usual rhetorical post where you can then strawman an answer that's clearly made up with the goal to make "the people who wanted "True Squats"" look stupid.
But in the end you just managed to make an ass of yourself.
Considering more than one person has stated they want them to "look more like the old models", but then listed several things the old models DIDN'T have, yes, it makes me wonder if anything GW does will satisfy. I've been known to criticize GW a bit too, but with this release the gripes are all over the place. Everything is either too hot or too cold, and few people have found the baby bear happy place.
cuda1179 wrote: I'm beginning to wonder what people who wanted "True Squats" actually wanted.
Did you guys basically want Fantasy Dwarves carrying axes, hammers, and guns? That's definitely a way to go, but also seems incredibly lazy.
Did you want a return of the weird biker gang motif?
Did you want a 3-foot long Land Train based on the Epic model?
Like I pointed out before, most armies have been turned into something different in the last 25+ years. I don't see anyone griping about how "This isn't Imperial Guard, they don't have Land Speeders, anti-grave bikers, or Land Raiders."
I don't know what a 'True Squat' is but personally I'd love to see new models that look like any of:
-The Necromunda bounty hunter. Quilted armor, leather LBE, and flowing beard immediately read to me as 'space dwarf'.
-The Necromunda Squat miners. Subtle glyphs integrated into the design, mining suits combined with power armor, leather belts and slings, enclosed helmets, chunky designs.
-Deep Rock Galactic. Seriously, there's a perfect example of space dwarfs that look like space dwarfs even when they have no exposed beards, hammers, or glyphs thanks to good design language.
-Something fun and different that isn't a Starcraft Marine sans shins. Leather biker space dwarfs was a bit silly, but at least it was a unique twist on the Viking stereotype.
What I'm seeing of the Votann feels generic, like they didn't want to do the Viking stereotype but also couldn't come up with a unique twist either; or like they were designing a conventionally sci-fi faction but decided to tie it in to Squats for nostalgia bait and stronger copyright. I mean, for me it's not that the infantry aren't dwarfy enough, it's that they aren't anything.
The NASApunk vehicle is more interesting though and I'm curious if all the vehicles are leaning in that direction. I like that theme- and could see myself homebrewing some more appropriate infantry and moon buggy bikers to double down on it and axe the vestigial space dwarf identity, if that's what it comes down to.
Dear lord, who came with this NASApunk nonsense? Was that Bethesda's marketing dept, desperate to put a positive spin on Starfield's uninspired visual design?
His Master's Voice wrote: Dear lord, who came with this NASApunk nonsense? Was that Bethesda's marketing dept, desperate to put a positive spin on Starfield's uninspired visual design?
I've seen a lot of people using it since Starfield even though It's just a quite typical "modern" sci-fi style, as if that somewhat realistic clean hard sci-fi look wasn't a thing before Starfield decided that it's called NASApunk
cuda1179 wrote:I'm beginning to wonder what people who wanted "True Squats" actually wanted.
Like I pointed out before, most armies have been turned into something different in the last 25+ years. I don't see anyone griping about how "This isn't Imperial Guard, they don't have Land Speeders, anti-grave bikers, or Land Raiders."
I assume that myself and other fans of original squats want something like where squats were left at the beginning of 2nd edition.
I'd add that while much is made of the fact that Squats had bikers, the overall aesthetic is much more of militarized miners.
So yes, we want quilted flak armor and proper helmets. Not entirely unlike this...
derpherp wrote:
I think there are those of us that think that those elements could have been retained and updated in an effective way for a new generation of squats. That the only similarity between original squats and new squats appears to be shortness should be understandably disappointing.
Put another way, many of us with a fondness for RT/2ndEd were probably hoping for new Squats to be as much like the old Squats as new Genestealer Cult is like old Genestealer Cult.
cuda1179 wrote: I'm beginning to wonder what people who wanted "True Squats" actually wanted.
Did you guys basically want Fantasy Dwarves carrying axes, hammers, and guns? That's definitely a way to go, but also seems incredibly lazy.
Did you want a return of the weird biker gang motif?
Did you want a 3-foot long Land Train based on the Epic model?
Like I pointed out before, most armies have been turned into something different in the last 25+ years. I don't see anyone griping about how "This isn't Imperial Guard, they don't have Land Speeders, anti-grave bikers, or Land Raiders."
I don't know what a 'True Squat' is but personally I'd love to see new models that look like any of:
-The Necromunda bounty hunter. Quilted armor, leather LBE, and flowing beard immediately read to me as 'space dwarf'.
-The Necromunda Squat miners. Subtle glyphs integrated into the design, mining suits combined with power armor, leather belts and slings, enclosed helmets, chunky designs.
-Deep Rock Galactic. Seriously, there's a perfect example of space dwarfs that look like space dwarfs even when they have no exposed beards, hammers, or glyphs thanks to good design language.
-Something fun and different that isn't a Starcraft Marine sans shins. Leather biker space dwarfs was a bit silly, but at least it was a unique on the Viking stereotype.
What I'm seeing of the Votann feels generic, like they didn't want to do the Viking stereotype but also couldn't come up with a unique twist either; or like they were designing a conventionally sci-fi faction but decided to tie it in to Squats for nostalgia bait and stronger copyright. I mean, for me it's not that the infantry aren't dwarfy enough, it's that they aren't anything.
The NASApunk vehicle is more interesting though and I'm curious if all the vehicles are leaning in that direction. I like that theme- and could see myself homebrewing some more appropriate infantry and moon buggy bikers to double down on it and axe the vestigial space dwarf identity, if that's what it comes down to.
This is exactly it, really. They're not an updated direction of the Squats despite being claimed to be Squats....but they don't neccessarily need to be as long as their direction is interesting enough to make up for that and they do the Dwarf archetype justice, which was the reason the Squats were originally removed (because the biker thing absolutely didn't do that). But they're not a very Dwarf-feeling direction on its own with almost none of the expected aesthetic - and yes the originals didn't have much either outside of Epic, but it was still there in some parts and back then, almost nothing had that sort of stuff anyway. Space Marines and Guardsmen didn't have the Aquila outside of leaders and such, so it's not a fair benchmark. That lack of Dwarf would also be alright if again the core identity of them covered for that with something memorable and unique....but the theme they have chosen seems to be a quite standard sci-fi style - which still looks good on its own and something like the Sagitaur looks great, it's just when that's attached to the Dwarf archetype and doesn't really make up for those other parts that are missing, it feels like such a shame to have 40ks Space Dwarfs be what would be in any other setting the style of the generic high-tech futuristic human faction.
Like, Look at the Dvar From Age of Wonders Planetfall:
They're not a typical Dwarf with nordic runes and all that, but they have an awesome unique direction of Soviet Dieselpunk Dwarfs with their units in such a way that inherently gives that bulky harsh industrial vibe that feels very suitable. You can do something different and new with them, it's not such a locked-in thing that there's no room to do anything other than the usual Runes and metalwork decoration and all that. The lack of that is only really a problem because of the relatively bland style they've gone for.
cuda1179 wrote:I'm beginning to wonder what people who wanted "True Squats" actually wanted.
Like I pointed out before, most armies have been turned into something different in the last 25+ years. I don't see anyone griping about how "This isn't Imperial Guard, they don't have Land Speeders, anti-grave bikers, or Land Raiders."
I assume that myself and other fans of original squats want something like where squats were left at the beginning of 2nd edition.
I'd add that while much is made of the fact that Squats had bikers, the overall aesthetic is much more of militarized miners.
So yes, we want quilted flak armor and proper helmets. Not entirely unlike this...
derpherp wrote:
I think there are those of us that think that those elements could have been retained and updated in an effective way for a new generation of squats That the only similarity between original squats and new squats appears to be shortness should be understandably disappointing.
Put another way, many of us with a fondness for RT/2ndEd were probably hoping for new Squats to be as much like the old Squats as new Genestealer Cult is like old Genestealer Cult.
I'm sure this'll just get brushed off as "Boring, you just wanted Fantasy Dwarfs in Space!" and/or These new and different, that's better just because!" like every other attempt at explaining why people are disappointed at such a big discrepancy has been.
Considering more than one person has stated they want them to "look more like the old models", but then listed several things the old models DIDN'T have, yes, it makes me wonder if anything GW does will satisfy. I've been known to criticize GW a bit too, but with this release the gripes are all over the place. Everything is either too hot or too cold, and few people have found the baby bear happy place.
I know right.
The community asked for squats back, and while they aren't the same look but an evolution the kin are still more Dwarfy on average than the original squats with more tropey dwarf stuff on them than the original squats, so any one who said: "I want the squats back" Who is also saying: "They aren't dwarfy enough" is just straight up full of gak.
In the end we aren't going to make the designs change. It's too late. So it does seem like an exercise in tedious repetition.
Can't please everyone of course, but outside this forum they seem to be being broadly well received. personally I think I'll end up kit bashing and painting some extra runes onto them and probably going with more sunglasses and beards from the sprue.
Apparently we are getting a second new Votann vehicle shown this week. Not today it seems, so probably tomorrow since sunday tends to be for pre-order articles?
Hopefully it impresses. I'm Hoping for something really industrial and heavy with massive tracks, something a bit less clean and more mining and drilling, like some parts of the ATV. Something on a level with the Baneblade for size would be amazing.
cuda1179 wrote: I'm beginning to wonder what people who wanted "True Squats" actually wanted.
But do you tho?
Actually wonder what you said you were wondering?
Because if you really did you would have found that answer about... 75 times already by just READING what "people who wanted "True Squat's"" said, since they have been rather clear on that point.
What I think you are really trying to do here is just make the usual rhetorical post where you can then strawman an answer that's clearly made up with the goal to make "the people who wanted "True Squats"" look stupid.
But in the end you just managed to make an ass of yourself.
Considering more than one person has stated they want them to "look more like the old models", but then listed several things the old models DIDN'T have
Quotes needed, because that sounds like things are being misconstrued yet again.
cuda1179 wrote:I'm beginning to wonder what people who wanted "True Squats" actually wanted.
Like I pointed out before, most armies have been turned into something different in the last 25+ years. I don't see anyone griping about how "This isn't Imperial Guard, they don't have Land Speeders, anti-grave bikers, or Land Raiders."
I assume that myself and other fans of original squats want something like where squats were left at the beginning of 2nd edition.
I'd add that while much is made of the fact that Squats had bikers, the overall aesthetic is much more of militarized miners.
So yes, we want quilted flak armor and proper helmets. Not entirely unlike this...
derpherp wrote:
I think there are those of us that think that those elements could have been retained and updated in an effective way for a new generation of squats. That the only similarity between original squats and new squats appears to be shortness should be understandably disappointing.
Put another way, many of us with a fondness for RT/2ndEd were probably hoping for new Squats to be as much like the old Squats as new Genestealer Cult is like old Genestealer Cult.
I love old squats, and the idea of them being brought back like the genestealer cult was is an intriguing and clever way to put it, I would prefer a rehash of the old style squats than the short space Viking miner dwarf covered in runes (see eihnjar or whatever they are called). But equally had they done that there would have been swathes of people on here saying how dull and unimaginative it was and how disappointing it was they didn’t try anything new with them. (And some of them would have been the same people complaining about them not doing that).
Regardless, that’s not what we have got. They have gone a different direction, now the squats (LoV or whatever you want to call them) as they are now are not constrained by the admech and their restrictive ways, so it makes sense their gear is more high tech and less industrial. The imperium do industrial very well, gc cults do miners and industrial very well. The guard do basic military very well. I can see why they went in this direction rather than just make “short guardsmen” which is what old squats would be if redone as was.
None of this explains the demands for more dwarfish runes and stuff but also the demand that they are more like the old models. Those two are not the samething, they can’t have more dwarfy bits on and be like the old models. The worst result would have been a mash up of these two, which is that awful excuse for a squat in necromunda. IMO.
That's.. honestly just weird. Most people grasp that early GW had limited production for vehicle kits, so what existed were shared during the Rogue Trader days. They weren't signatures of the army, they were just the vehicle kits that existed.
.
You say this like it is refuting what I wrote, when it's just proving it. Every army grew out of the "limited vehicle kits", except the squats because they never got anything else. Now they are, and people are surprised with it being different. This is no different from the visual style changing when Dark Eldar, Primaris, Eldar, or Chaos got expanded. It's not what used to be, but that doesn't make it wrong.
That's.. honestly just weird. Most people grasp that early GW had limited production for vehicle kits, so what existed were shared during the Rogue Trader days. They weren't signatures of the army, they were just the vehicle kits that existed.
.
You say this like it is refuting what I wrote, when it's just proving it. Every army grew out of the "limited vehicle kits", except the squats because they never got anything else. Now they are, and people are surprised with it being different. This is no different from the visual style changing when Dark Eldar, Primaris, Eldar, or Chaos got expanded. It's not what used to be, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Those didn't go from one style of thing to something was the complete opposite and not even slightly similar to what they were, however.
cuda1179 wrote:I'm beginning to wonder what people who wanted "True Squats" actually wanted.
Like I pointed out before, most armies have been turned into something different in the last 25+ years. I don't see anyone griping about how "This isn't Imperial Guard, they don't have Land Speeders, anti-grave bikers, or Land Raiders."
I assume that myself and other fans of original squats want something like where squats were left at the beginning of 2nd edition.
I'd add that while much is made of the fact that Squats had bikers, the overall aesthetic is much more of militarized miners.
So yes, we want quilted flak armor and proper helmets. Not entirely unlike this...
derpherp wrote:
I think there are those of us that think that those elements could have been retained and updated in an effective way for a new generation of squats. That the only similarity between original squats and new squats appears to be shortness should be understandably disappointing.
Put another way, many of us with a fondness for RT/2ndEd were probably hoping for new Squats to be as much like the old Squats as new Genestealer Cult is like old Genestealer Cult.
Well, put. I personally like the new aesthetic, but I would have preferred a gritter, more lived in look than the NasaPunk retro futurism. Still, I think the new stuff looks great.
I really think GW wasn't lying when they said thaty couldn't figure out how to make the old aesthetic work.
That's.. honestly just weird. Most people grasp that early GW had limited production for vehicle kits, so what existed were shared during the Rogue Trader days. They weren't signatures of the army, they were just the vehicle kits that existed.
.
You say this like it is refuting what I wrote, when it's just proving it. Every army grew out of the "limited vehicle kits", except the squats because they never got anything else. Now they are, and people are surprised with it being different. This is no different from the visual style changing when Dark Eldar, Primaris, Eldar, or Chaos got expanded. It's not what used to be, but that doesn't make it wrong.
No. 'The army didn't change, they just stopped sharing vehicle kits' doesn't prove anything like what you wrote. Vehicles were a side product, not anything any army 'grew out of'
Eldar literally still use decades old aspect warrior models for more than half the aspects. Even Primaris take most of their 'unique' visual cues from Mk 4 armor, and kept much of the basics (shoulder pads, knees) of mark 7.
Chaos and dark eldar still draw from the basics of their design back and the beginnings of their ranges. Like or dislike the new squats, they largely do not. They're a brand new range, with very little connecting them to what came before. The name change is honestly weird, because most of what's pushing the momentum here is the nostalgia button push of 'new squats.'
That's.. honestly just weird. Most people grasp that early GW had limited production for vehicle kits, so what existed were shared during the Rogue Trader days. They weren't signatures of the army, they were just the vehicle kits that existed.
.
You say this like it is refuting what I wrote, when it's just proving it. Every army grew out of the "limited vehicle kits", except the squats because they never got anything else. Now they are, and people are surprised with it being different. This is no different from the visual style changing when Dark Eldar, Primaris, Eldar, or Chaos got expanded. It's not what used to be, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Those didn't go from one style of thing to something was the complete opposite and not even slightly similar to what they were, however.
So, Harlequins didn't go from LandRaiders to small hover cars?
That's.. honestly just weird. Most people grasp that early GW had limited production for vehicle kits, so what existed were shared during the Rogue Trader days. They weren't signatures of the army, they were just the vehicle kits that existed.
.
You say this like it is refuting what I wrote, when it's just proving it. Every army grew out of the "limited vehicle kits", except the squats because they never got anything else. Now they are, and people are surprised with it being different. This is no different from the visual style changing when Dark Eldar, Primaris, Eldar, or Chaos got expanded. It's not what used to be, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Those didn't go from one style of thing to something was the complete opposite and not even slightly similar to what they were, however.
So, Harlequins didn't go from LandRaiders to small hover cars?
Strange how you'll go from replying to one person acknowledging that various armies had shared vehicle kits because of production related concerns and that those weren't necessarily meant to be an actual part of that army's direction but then in the next reply shift to acting like those vehicles were meant to be an establishing part of their aesthetic.
The Eldar/Harlequin side of the Eldar/Harlequins didn't completely change direction.
That's.. honestly just weird. Most people grasp that early GW had limited production for vehicle kits, so what existed were shared during the Rogue Trader days. They weren't signatures of the army, they were just the vehicle kits that existed.
.
You say this like it is refuting what I wrote, when it's just proving it. Every army grew out of the "limited vehicle kits", except the squats because they never got anything else. Now they are, and people are surprised with it being different. This is no different from the visual style changing when Dark Eldar, Primaris, Eldar, or Chaos got expanded. It's not what used to be, but that doesn't make it wrong.
Those didn't go from one style of thing to something was the complete opposite and not even slightly similar to what they were, however.
So, Harlequins didn't go from LandRaiders to small hover cars?
Strange how you'll go from replying to one person acknowledging that various armies had shared vehicle kits because of production related concerns and that those weren't necessarily meant to be an actual part of that army's direction but then in the next reply shift to acting like those vehicles were meant to be an establishing part of their aesthetic.
The Eldar/Harlequin side of the Eldar/Harlequins didn't completely change direction.
I guess I misinterpreted the meaning of the post. To reiterate, Squats, like most of the armies at the end of 2nd edition, were not really all that fleshed-out model wise. Sure, they had infantry, but no real dedicated vehicles unto themselves outside of their Epic scale range. Forgetting the infantry for now, there really wasn't anything for Squats until now, so saying this doesn't fit their vehicular theme from 2nd edition is a bit odd. As for the infantry, I actually agree with many of those arguing against me. I'd have preferred the padded-quilted armor look. I stated as much just a couple posts back. The new armor isn't "bad" though, and we haven't seen the whole range yet, so perhaps the quilted armor look might still be there somewhere.
Forgetting the infantry for now, there really wasn't anything for Squats until now, so saying this doesn't fit their vehicular theme from 2nd edition is a bit odd.
I mean... there absolutely was. And someone could certainly argue that the hoverbike does continue some of the themes from the engineering guild bikes. I personally don't think it does it very well, but you can trace themes and concepts (including the piles of gear and small gun, which says the priority is something other than shooting platform)
But Squats had a developed vehicle aesthetic in Epic, and the fact that we know there is a 'Hekaton Land Train' or whatever is obviously a call back to the Epic concepts. Whether it does it justice is up in the air, but they're very obviously pressing the nostalgia button there.
The buggy, on the other hand, doesn't share much of anything with the bikes, trikes or the Epic models. Its just a pretty NASA/Mass Effect/Halo looking lunar buggy, with a big cockpit for the pilot.
Forgetting the infantry for now, there really wasn't anything for Squats until now, so saying this doesn't fit their vehicular theme from 2nd edition is a bit odd.
I mean... there absolutely was. And someone could certainly argue that the hoverbike does continue some of the themes from the engineering guild bikes. I personally don't think it does it very well, but you can trace themes and concepts (including the piles of gear and small gun, which says the priority is something other than shooting platform)
But Squats had a developed vehicle aesthetic in Epic, and the fact that we know there is a 'Hekaton Land Train' or whatever is obviously a call back to the Epic concepts. Whether it does it justice is up in the air, but they're very obviously pressing the nostalgia button there.
The buggy, on the other hand, doesn't share much of anything with the bikes, trikes or the Epic models. Its just a pretty NASA/Mass Effect/Halo looking lunar buggy, with a big cockpit for the pilot.
It’s a “land fortress” not a train.
The problem with using the epic stuff as inspiration for the new 40k stuff is two fold, firstly, the scale, it was epic so all the vehicles were big. The gyro-copter not so much but that might appear we don’t know. The land train and the colossus and leviathan don’t translate into 40k scale at all. And the Goliath cannon thing, makes no sense in 40k.yiu couldn’t make a vehicle inspired by them on the scale of a small transport.
Secondly is the era that those squat vehicles come from. Epic models then we’re not great, just take a look at abomination that was the thunder hawk. And the squat stuff wasn’t much better, it was basically different sized boxes with guns on. Not much to really work off. The next edition of epic added detail to a level that inspired 40k design for decades. That edition not so much.
So the only design cues that could have been carried over from those epic vehicles are that they were boxy, but that wasn’t unique to squats that was just the style and technical limitations at the time and they had Celtic knot work on them. They have no other design features at all. It just wouldn’t have translated.
Now before anyone jumps down my throat here, it doesn’t mean they had to go down the nasa-punk route they did. But it just means that they could just translate old epic squats vehicles (the only squat vehicles we had) in to 40k. Here wasn’t enough about them to take incorporation from. If squats had undergone the transformation into the next edition of epic they might have a solid base of models to work from, but they didn’t. They died off and weren’t seen again until now.
I have added a shot of the next editions thunderhawk to show what I mean about what happened between editions and how it still influence 40k design now.
Added the correct picture for next editon thunderhawk as pointed out below.
I have added a shot of the next editions thunderhawk to show what I mean about what happened between editions and how it still influence 40k design now.
That wasn’t the next version of the thunderhawk, this was, but that’s still obviously different and I think closer to today’s model than the first one.
The Squats in Epic had only a few unique vehicles, and there was a distinct lack in the normal vehicle size, with their most distinctive units being superheavies, which would probably not translate well to the average 40K battlefield size. I also agree that they were mostly boxes with just a little bit of Celtic knotwork as their Squat detailing:
The Colossus was basically the same as an Imperial Guard Leviathan with transport capacity removed, to fit missiles, more cannons, and a spotting Gyrocopter. Like the Leviathan, it had void shields.
The Cyclops is a more extreme variant of the Cyclops with different missiles, fixed forward melta cannons, and its main Hellfury cannon which was meant to take out enemy superheavies and Titans. It was basically a spinal mount energy weapon, sort of like a starship lance, that could bore through multiple shields. The old Epic rules was hit on 2+ and -6 armor save mod I think. If it hit a shield, it would knock it down and score another hit on 3+, and so on until it knocked all shields down and hit the target itself or until it finally failed to hit again. It would be complete overkill against anything smaller.
The Goliath Mega Cannon is basically a giant nearly immobile artillery piece with a minimum range.
The Overlord Airship was an armored flying airship with a few battle cannon for guns but otherwise it was not very special.
Termites have already been done by FW.
That really only leaves the Land Train. The actual front engine and the cars were treated as vehicles, though arguably some have argued that the engine should have been a superheavy. The engine had a few cannons. The cars in order of that picture are a Berserker car (APC and a battle cannon), a big vehicular flamer car, a one shot rad bomb (big AoE but low AP, meant for anti swarm infantry), and finally a mortar car. I think later there was a flak AA car as well. The engine came with 2 shields + 1 shield for each car in the train. If the engine was destroyed, the remaining cars were immobilized. If a middle car was destroyed, all following cars were immobilized.
The problem with the Land Train in Epic was this made for a clunky and vulnerable setup. Its size made it hard to hide, and 6 void shields (for engine + 4 cars) sounds like a lot (the same as a Warlord Titan), but under sustained fire the shields vanished pretty quickly. Then the engine was easily destroyed since it wasn't a superheavy.
Obviously GW may rework the concept with the Hekaton Land Fortress. I will wait and see.
I have added a shot of the next editions thunderhawk to show what I mean about what happened between editions and how it still influence 40k design now.
That wasn’t the next version of the thunderhawk, this was, but that’s still obviously different and I think closer to today’s model than the first one.
Knew I’d got that wrong, cheers for the right pic, as you said, point still stands though. Whole thing got me thinking about the whole epic 40k line had a big influence on what we have now, especially flyers and super heavies and the look of them all.
hoping for new Squats to be as much like the old Squats as new Genestealer Cult is like old Genestealer Cult.
Over the past several years GW has been introducing and reintroducing armies from 40k's past and background. AdMech, Custodes, GSCult, etc. All of these came out with very strong resemblances to the early miniatures and/or art that fans of the game have loved for decades. They were like physical incarnations of what we'd admired in books for years. Major nostalgia hits, well executed.
New Squats are not that.
I'm not surprised that lots of folks like the Votaan but given what has preceded them, it should be clear why many fans of Squats are disappointed with the treatment Squats in comparison to other recent (re)additions.
hoping for new Squats to be as much like the old Squats as new Genestealer Cult is like old Genestealer Cult.
Over the past several years GW has been introducing and reintroducing armies from 40k's past and background. AdMech, Custodes, GSCult, etc. All of these came out with very strong resemblances to the early miniatures and/or art that fans of the game have loved for decades. They were like physical incarnations of what we'd admired in books for years. Major nostalgia hits, well executed.
New Squats are not that.
I'm not surprised that lots of folks like the Votaan but given what has preceded them, it should be clear why many fans of Squats are disappointed with the treatment Squats in comparison to other recent (re)additions.
That's fine, the community did ask for the squats back and they don't look like the old squats with guns and gambeson so it makes sense that person would be dissapointed. What's not fine is wanting the old squats back and then complaining that the new squats aren't dwarfy enough when the old squats had next to feth all that was dwarfy about them for 90% of their units.
I totally understood where GW was coming from when they said they didn't feel like Squats (space dwarves) were being done well in their game all those years ago.
So for me it makes sense that when they brought them back they couldn't repeat the same things that caused them to be removed in the first place. They also brought them back as something more than just being abhumans and I really like that. It helps form that divide between IoM and the LoV faction, a we are not our backwards cousins comparison.
Yeah, they definitely have a generic sci-fi look to them but I imagine that's how the IoM would look if they didn't fall back into the dark age of ignorance for a time.
I can also kind of see a chance for a dark secret with them between the cloning, men of iron, and super AIs. There appears to be nothing natural about them anymore.
I also think the color schemes are more for showroom presentation than actual artistic expression. To me they look like they will be fun to paint and look forward to them.
ProtoClone wrote: I totally understood where GW was coming from when they said they didn't feel like Squats (space dwarves) were being done well in their game all those years ago.
So for me it makes sense that when they brought them back they couldn't repeat the same things that caused them to be removed in the first place.
Except they were removed for not being very faithful to the Fantasy Dwarf archetype. They weren't removed for being "space dwarfs" but rather because of the whole "Silly bikers named Squats" thing that they'd chosen as the core of their presence in 40k and very, very few people want that side of them back. They'd turned the fantasy dwarf archetype into a joke rather than doing it justice, with their direction in Epic of using big, handcrafted war machines said to be closer to what they felt like they should have been doing with them, but by then it was too late.
ProtoClone wrote: I totally understood where GW was coming from when they said they didn't feel like Squats (space dwarves) were being done well in their game all those years ago.
So for me it makes sense that when they brought them back they couldn't repeat the same things that caused them to be removed in the first place.
Except they were removed for not being very faithful to the Fantasy Dwarf archetype. They weren't removed for being "space dwarfs" but rather because of the whole "Silly bikers named Squats"...
ProtoClone wrote: I totally understood where GW was coming from when they said they didn't feel like Squats (space dwarves) were being done well in their game all those years ago.
So for me it makes sense that when they brought them back they couldn't repeat the same things that caused them to be removed in the first place.
Except they were removed for not being very faithful to the Fantasy Dwarf archetype. They weren't removed for being "space dwarfs" but rather because of the whole "Silly bikers named Squats" thing that they'd chosen as the core of their presence in 40k and very, very few people want that side of them back. They'd turned the fantasy dwarf archetype into a joke rather than doing it justice, with their direction in Epic of using big, handcrafted war machines said to be closer to what they felt like they should have been doing with them, but by then it was too late.
This is debatable tho.
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 realized 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 regretted 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.
Anyway, the Squats made it into 2nd edition, and since we were doing army books for each of the races, we started to try and figure out what to do with them. Unfortunately we just couldn't figure out a way to update them and get them to work that we felt was good enough. 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. This 'muse' didn't strike any of us, and so, rather than bring out a second-rate product simply re-hashing the old background, we kept doing other army books instead, with stuff we did feel inspired by.
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 tendency 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.
Jervis Johnson Head Fanatic
we had failed to do the Dwarf 'archetype' justice in its 40K incarnation.
40K incarnation. A 40K incarnation isn't the same thing as saying "very faithful to the Fantasy Dwarf archetype". A 40K incarnation could be two steps removed from their archetype like the Eldar or the Necrons. It doesnt mean strict fantasy dwarves in space.
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.
This applies to the new squats. They found something they found cool and exciting about the squat army and worked it up into a strong theme.
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 tendency 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.
The war machines in Epic that they thought were more suited for the Squat army that they dreamed of really weren't that dwarfy.
The collosus, goliath, and gyrocopter don't really have anything I'd call dwarfy, and these are the vehicles that they thought more suitable for the squats they dreamed of.
The things that are a bit dwarfy are the land train and the airship, but that only goes as far as a few tossed on runes. Little else about these designs, that they thought should have been what their dream squats were supposed to be like, were particularly dwarfy, and in some cases were pretty much the same stuff the imp guard had.
ProtoClone wrote: I totally understood where GW was coming from when they said they didn't feel like Squats (space dwarves) were being done well in their game all those years ago.
So for me it makes sense that when they brought them back they couldn't repeat the same things that caused them to be removed in the first place.
Except they were removed for not being very faithful to the Fantasy Dwarf archetype. They weren't removed for being "space dwarfs" but rather because of the whole "Silly bikers named Squats" thing that they'd chosen as the core of their presence in 40k and very, very few people want that side of them back. They'd turned the fantasy dwarf archetype into a joke rather than doing it justice, with their direction in Epic of using big, handcrafted war machines said to be closer to what they felt like they should have been doing with them, but by then it was too late.
This is debatable tho.
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 realized 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 regretted 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.
Anyway, the Squats made it into 2nd edition, and since we were doing army books for each of the races, we started to try and figure out what to do with them. Unfortunately we just couldn't figure out a way to update them and get them to work that we felt was good enough. 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. This 'muse' didn't strike any of us, and so, rather than bring out a second-rate product simply re-hashing the old background, we kept doing other army books instead, with stuff we did feel inspired by.
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 tendency 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.
Jervis Johnson Head Fanatic
we had failed to do the Dwarf 'archetype' justice in its 40K incarnation.
40K incarnation. A 40K incarnation isn't the same thing as saying " very faithful to the Fantasy Dwarf archetype". A 40K archetype could be two steps removed from their archetype like the Eldar or the Necrons. It doesnt mean strict sci-fi dwarves.
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.
This applies to the new squats. They found something they found cool and exciting about the squat army and worked it up into a strong theme.
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 tendency 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.
The war machines in Epic that they thought were more suited for the Squat army that they dreamed of really weren't that dwarfy.
The collosus, goliath, termite, and gyrocopter don't really have anything I'd call dwarfy, and these are the vehicles that they thought more suitable for the squats they dreamed of.
The things that are a bit dwarfy are the land train and the airship, but that only goes as far as a few tossed on runes. Nothing else about these designs that they thought should have been what their dream squats were supposed to be like were particularly dwarfy.
Yeah well, we've already established the you appear to have have a bit of a strange definition of what a "Dwarfy" aesthetic involves when you consider having a belt with pouches "Dwarfy".
Yeah well, we've already established the you appear to have have a bit of a strange definition of what a "Dwarfy" aesthetic involves when you consider having a belt with pouches "Dwarfy".
"Dwarves NEVER have toolbelts full of tools that they use for crafting! They totally aren't a trope race of crafters!"
All bickering aside, can we at least all agree that even if there isn't enough "True Squat" in the LoV, that the most important things are: 1. The army has good internal and external balance. 2. They fill a new niche in the game. 3. The fluff is at least okay in quality. 4. There had better be more than 7 units in this army.
cuda1179 wrote: All bickering aside, can we at least all agree that even if there isn't enough "True Squat" in the LoV, that the most important things are: 1. The army has good internal and external balance. 2. They fill a new niche in the game. 3. The fluff is at least okay in quality. 4. There had better be more than 7 units in this army.
For me,
Don’t care about 1. Not an issue.
2 and 3 are looking good so far.
4, for units we know are coming it’s sitting around 7 or 8 already. So fingers crossed for a few more.
cuda1179 wrote: All bickering aside, can we at least all agree that even if there isn't enough "True Squat" in the LoV, that the most important things are: 1. The army has good internal and external balance. 2. They fill a new niche in the game. 3. The fluff is at least okay in quality. 4. There had better be more than 7 units in this army.
For me,
Don’t care about 1. Not an issue.
2 and 3 are looking good so far.
4, for units we know are coming it’s sitting around 7 or 8 already. So fingers crossed for a few more.
....What? You don't care about them being balanced?
cuda1179 wrote: All bickering aside, can we at least all agree that even if there isn't enough "True Squat" in the LoV, that the most important things are: 1. The army has good internal and external balance. 2. They fill a new niche in the game. 3. The fluff is at least okay in quality. 4. There had better be more than 7 units in this army.
For me,
Don’t care about 1. Not an issue.
2 and 3 are looking good so far.
4, for units we know are coming it’s sitting around 7 or 8 already. So fingers crossed for a few more.
....What? You don't care about them being balanced?
I know this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp, but the vast majority of people buying GW products don't give two shakes about balance.
Given the NASApunk look, I can easily reimagine the goliath mega cannon by taking the quake cannon mount off the warbringer titan carapace and mounting it on an appropriately sized crawler transport. Kind of like the old GIJoe General tank now that I think about it.
Yeah well, we've already established the you appear to have have a bit of a strange definition of what a "Dwarfy" aesthetic involves when you consider having a belt with pouches "Dwarfy".
"Dwarves NEVER have toolbelts full of tools that they use for crafting! They totally aren't a trope race of crafters!"
lol. lmao.
Oh look, a strawman that misconstrues what was said. So unexpected. if you actually, yknow, read what was said, you'll quite clearly see that Dwarf craftsmen using tools wasn't mentioned anywhere. Infact tools weren't mentioned at all.
YOU have decided out of nowhere that a belt containing a weapon holster, grenades and pouches but does not contain any visible tools is a "toolbelt" that's "full of tools".
cuda1179 wrote: All bickering aside, can we at least all agree that even if there isn't enough "True Squat" in the LoV, that the most important things are: 1. The army has good internal and external balance. 2. They fill a new niche in the game. 3. The fluff is at least okay in quality. 4. There had better be more than 7 units in this army.
For me,
Don’t care about 1. Not an issue.
2 and 3 are looking good so far.
4, for units we know are coming it’s sitting around 7 or 8 already. So fingers crossed for a few more.
....What? You don't care about them being balanced?
I know this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp, but the vast majority of people buying GW products don't give two shakes about balance.
Let’s not derail this thread with that, it’s been discussed in many others. I know a lot of people care about it, that’s why I started that post with “for me” because it was explicitly just my take on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MajorWesJanson wrote: Given the NASApunk look, I can easily reimagine the goliath mega cannon by taking the quake cannon mount off the warbringer titan carapace and mounting it on an appropriately sized crawler transport. Kind of like the old GIJoe General tank now that I think about it.
The problem with the mega cannon is it has no place operating on the 40k size battle field. It was even a bit daft in the epic size battle field and the ranges involved. A bit like the death strike missile launcher, I like the model and the rules seem fun but why would an army ever fire that at a target a hundred feet or so away.?!
ProtoClone wrote: I totally understood where GW was coming from when they said they didn't feel like Squats (space dwarves) were being done well in their game all those years ago.
So for me it makes sense that when they brought them back they couldn't repeat the same things that caused them to be removed in the first place.
Except they were removed for not being very faithful to the Fantasy Dwarf archetype. They weren't removed for being "space dwarfs" but rather because of the whole "Silly bikers named Squats"...
So, what I said, not doing them well.
So they repeated it and went for non-space dwarves.
Promises well for longevity when they do same reason that got them removed in the first point.
cuda1179 wrote: All bickering aside, can we at least all agree that even if there isn't enough "True Squat" in the LoV, that the most important things are: 1. The army has good internal and external balance. 2. They fill a new niche in the game. 3. The fluff is at least okay in quality. 4. There had better be more than 7 units in this army.
withought at least loose balance there can be no game. As Age of Sigmare found out during its inseption games workshop demands such high fees and is spoken about so often I'd derived primarily from the game withought that 40k will go the way age of sigmar was going before they added the game bavk to it. Your simply wrong in this regard.
For me,
Don’t care about 1. Not an issue.
2 and 3 are looking good so far.
4, for units we know are coming it’s sitting around 7 or 8 already. So fingers crossed for a few more.
....What? You don't care about them being balanced?
I know this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp, but the vast majority of people buying GW products don't give two shakes about balance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Withought at least loose balance there can be no game withought a game 40k would go the route of Age of Sigmar on its release. Your simply wrong in this regard. The entirity that is 40k would valaps almost overnight withought the game side of things.
The quake cannon on the Warbringer is also kind of a peashooter compared to the Mega Canon, which was near enough to ship grade weaponry. That being why it needed to use the planet it was standing on as a backstop.
Anyway, yes, the use of orbital artillery to hit anything on the same continent as itself is kind of underutilisation. Assuming it can even achieve ranges so low.
Also what unique space do they fill within that game. T4 probably 4 plus save? That's not new. Honestly 40k is monolithic in size and should move to a d10 or d12 system. (die 12 so that people could still use 2 die 6) so that everything within it can be represented more easily and with greater distinction.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Given the NASApunk look, I can easily reimagine the goliath mega cannon by taking the quake cannon mount off the warbringer titan carapace and mounting it on an appropriately sized crawler transport. Kind of like the old GIJoe General tank now that I think about it.
The problem with the mega cannon is it has no place operating on the 40k size battle field. It was even a bit daft in the epic size battle field and the ranges involved. A bit like the death strike missile launcher, I like the model and the rules seem fun but why would an army ever fire that at a target a hundred feet or so away.?!
The truth is that if you don't already understand the appeal of firing a doomsday weapon point blank, no amount of explaining will make you see the light. Just trust me, these things need to exist in the game.
cuda1179 wrote: All bickering aside, can we at least all agree that even if there isn't enough "True Squat" in the LoV, that the most important things are: 1. The army has good internal and external balance. 2. They fill a new niche in the game. 3. The fluff is at least okay in quality. 4. There had better be more than 7 units in this army.
withought at least loose balance there can be no game. As Age of Sigmare found out during its inseption games workshop demands such high fees and is spoken about so often I'd derived primarily from the game withought that 40k will go the way age of sigmar was going before they added the game bavk to it. Your simply wrong in this regard.
For me,
Don’t care about 1. Not an issue.
2 and 3 are looking good so far.
4, for units we know are coming it’s sitting around 7 or 8 already. So fingers crossed for a few more.
....What? You don't care about them being balanced?
I know this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp, but the vast majority of people buying GW products don't give two shakes about balance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Withought at least loose balance there can be no game withought a game 40k would go the route of Age of Sigmar on its release. Your simply wrong in this regard. The entirity that is 40k would valaps almost overnight withought the game side of things.
Again, I said specifically for me, not the game as a whole or anyone, it is just my personal opinion. To me the rules are the least important part. TO ME. So I’m not “wrong”, I just care about different things. I am not saying shouldn’t matter to anyone else or anything at all. And again, this isn’t the place for this discussion, where again I am told I am hobbying wrong simply to have to explain that peoples tastes are subjective. Anyway……
MajorWesJanson wrote: Given the NASApunk look, I can easily reimagine the goliath mega cannon by taking the quake cannon mount off the warbringer titan carapace and mounting it on an appropriately sized crawler transport. Kind of like the old GIJoe General tank now that I think about it.
The problem with the mega cannon is it has no place operating on the 40k size battle field. It was even a bit daft in the epic size battle field and the ranges involved. A bit like the death strike missile launcher, I like the model and the rules seem fun but why would an army ever fire that at a target a hundred feet or so away.?!
The truth is that if you don't already understand the appeal of firing a doomsday weapon point blank, no amount of explaining will make you see the light. Just trust me, these things need to exist in the game.
I can see it, up to the point I put it I’m the battlefield.Then I’m out, sorry. I know it’s stupid letting common sense get in the way of 40k cool, and the death strike is cool.
Durandal wrote: The aesthetic looks close to the Karmen from AT 43, even down to the paint color choice.
My disappointment stems mostly from the generic SCI-FY aspect and that isn't ameliorated by some extra pouches or a shovel here and there.
God damn, that's a really good observation, they do really have the same style than thos monkeys from AT 43, while their vehicles look like they are out Starfield.
Boosykes wrote:Withought at least loose balance there can be no game withought a game 40k would go the route of Age of Sigmar on its release. Your simply wrong in this regard. The entirity that is 40k would valaps almost overnight withought the game side of things.
Boosykes wrote:Also what unique space do they fill within that game. T4 probably 4 plus save? That's not new. Honestly 40k is monolithic in size and should move to a d10 or d12 system. (die 12 so that people could still use 2 die 6) so that everything within it can be represented more easily and with greater distinction.
Will you please either proofread your posts before you make them, or use a spell-checker? Your posts are too close to gibberish to be worth reading.
And there is a distinct difference in probability between a d12 and 2d6 - if nothing else, you'll find it rather tricky to roll a 1 on 2d6.
Andykp wrote:I can see it, up to the point I put it I’m the battlefield.Then I’m out, sorry. I know it’s stupid letting common sense get in the way of 40k cool, and the death strike is cool.
Should be cool, but firing an ICBM inside an area roughly the size of an American Football stadium is beyond daft - and that's before you establish it seems to be using rubber rounds...
Iracundus wrote: Then the engine was easily destroyed since it wasn't a superheavy.
It was (Codex Titanicus, page 107).
It was a superheavy in the way that Baneblades and Shadowswords were in Epic 2nd edition, mainly that they could not be locked in close combat by anything smaller than them. However one failed armor save against a hit that slipped through the shields would destroy it. It was a flaw in the rule system that made normal superheavies too fragile.
The Land Train was basically then in Epic, 5 vehicles strung together in a line. That makes it difficult to hide or conceal, and even 6 void shields does not last long if you are exposed. Then 1 failed armor save on the engine destroys the mobility and the void shields for good. The remaining cars could then be picked off at leisure.
cuda1179 wrote: All bickering aside, can we at least all agree that even if there isn't enough "True Squat" in the LoV, that the most important things are: 1. The army has good internal and external balance. 2. They fill a new niche in the game. 3. The fluff is at least okay in quality. 4. There had better be more than 7 units in this army.
withought at least loose balance there can be no game. As Age of Sigmare found out during its inseption games workshop demands such high fees and is spoken about so often I'd derived primarily from the game withought that 40k will go the way age of sigmar was going before they added the game bavk to it. Your simply wrong in this regard.
For me,
Don’t care about 1. Not an issue. 2 and 3 are looking good so far. 4, for units we know are coming it’s sitting around 7 or 8 already. So fingers crossed for a few more.
....What? You don't care about them being balanced?
I know this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp, but the vast majority of people buying GW products don't give two shakes about balance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Withought at least loose balance there can be no game withought a game 40k would go the route of Age of Sigmar on its release. Your simply wrong in this regard. The entirity that is 40k would valaps almost overnight withought the game side of things.
There are more people who purchase GW products(for painting, collecting, reading the novels, etc.) than there are that play 40K. Those people don't care a jot about whether the game is balanced or not.
Dosent matter those people simply orbit the game. Withought the game 40k dies. It's why you will never see 40k withought a game aspect. Basically the lifeblood.
As AOS proved simply gw loses money on all the rules writing but they understand partially thanks to AOS its value.
Boosykes wrote:Withought at least loose balance there can be no game withought a game 40k would go the route of Age of Sigmar on its release. Your simply wrong in this regard. The entirity that is 40k would valaps almost overnight withought the game side of things.
Boosykes wrote:Also what unique space do they fill within that game. T4 probably 4 plus save? That's not new. Honestly 40k is monolithic in size and should move to a d10 or d12 system. (die 12 so that people could still use 2 die 6) so that everything within it can be represented more easily and with greater distinction.
Will you please either proofread your posts before you make them, or use a spell-checker? Your posts are too close to gibberish to be worth reading.
And there is a distinct difference in probability between a d12 and 2d6 - if nothing else, you'll find it rather tricky to roll a 1 on 2d6.
Andykp wrote:I can see it, up to the point I put it I’m the battlefield.Then I’m out, sorry. I know it’s stupid letting common sense get in the way of 40k cool, and the death strike is cool.
Should be cool, but firing an ICBM inside an area roughly the size of an American Football stadium is beyond daft - and that's before you establish it seems to be using rubber rounds...
Boosykes wrote: Dosent matter those people simply orbit the game. Withought the game 40k dies. It's why you will never see 40k withought a game aspect. Basically the lifeblood.
I find this claim questionable, given the sales of Black Library and merch and stuff, and looking at all the lore-nerds who even buy codices for background information but don’t play 40k miniatures games. The 40k universe has become much bigger than just the army game.
Also, there are many painters who don’t play, or play other sci-fi games with 40k minis. Heck, even I probably have more than 2,000 points of imperial guard and I’ve never played 40k proper.
I could care less.
This sentence probably doesn‘t say what you think it does.
If you cannot be bothered to write clearly, do not expect anyone to respond in a manner you would want.
If there is a reason you cannot write clearly, put it in your sig. Disclaimers help if you have valid reasons for things people will take objection to.
Why are you so aggressive all the time? This is supposed to be a fun hobby. Just had a look through your previous posts and you have been on the attack from the get go? What’s wrong?
If a hobby isn't worth being passionate about, for good or ill, what's the point?
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. (Rev 3:16)
....What? You don't care about them being balanced?
Personally I fail to see the appeal of playing the game in the first place. Take a look at this thread, at your fellow community members. Why the hell would I want to spend several hours of my life playing a game with ... them? Nothing about the prospect is not repulsive to me. You people disgust me.
So, with the Plastic Squats kit coming out for Necromunda, and every other gang getting one eventually, how long until the Squats mining gang gets a FW weapon set? The kit itself does not have a lot of options to go around.
Jesus Christ this thread is insufferable. Five pages since Friday and it's all the same rehashed bickering.
I do not like Golf. But I don't go around telling everyone how much I don't like Golf. I don't hang out on the Golf.com forums and complain about the look of Golf, the design of Golf.
I simply move on. Which is what some of you really need to do. Move. On.
Togusa wrote: Jesus Christ this thread is insufferable. Five pages since Friday and it's all the same rehashed bickering.
I do not like Golf. But I don't go around telling everyone how much I don't like Golf. I don't hang out on the Golf.com forums and complain about the look of Golf, the design of Golf.
I simply move on. Which is what some of you really need to do. Move. On.
"Don't criticize something you're interested in, you have to think it's perfect, only positive comments allowed" is the vibe this gives off.
Acting like everyone who is disappointed with some parts of them isn't allowed to still be interested in them and to discuss those negative aspects is just absurd. It isn't just a binary choice where the only options are either outright love them or hate them.
Togusa wrote: Jesus Christ this thread is insufferable. Five pages since Friday and it's all the same rehashed bickering.
Every attempt to break this weird repetitive, useless, boring and toxic bickering is short lived and it only takes a few posts for the same people to flood the topic yet again with same bickering.
Its borderline unreadable.
Togusa wrote: Jesus Christ this thread is insufferable. Five pages since Friday and it's all the same rehashed bickering.
Every attempt to break this weird repetitive, useless, boring and toxic bickering is short lived and it only takes a few posts for the same people to flood the topic yet again with same bickering.
Its borderline unreadable.
It takes two sides, you know. Certain people keep acting as if no one is allowed to find something less than perfect and keep giving completely asinine, condescending responses as if just disagreeing is some slight against them so they need to find whatever nonsensical reason they can to argue against anyone being critical of the new direction of the Leagues. If those people misconstruing what's said and being disingenuous didn't keep happening then it wouldn't have gone on for so long.
Togusa wrote: Jesus Christ this thread is insufferable. Five pages since Friday and it's all the same rehashed bickering.
Every attempt to break this weird repetitive, useless, boring and toxic bickering is short lived and it only takes a few posts for the same people to flood the topic yet again with same bickering.
Its borderline unreadable.
It takes two sides, you know. Certain people keep acting as if no one is allowed to find something less than perfect and keep giving completely asinine, condescending responses as if just disagreeing is some slight against them so they need to find whatever nonsensical reason they can to attempt some sort of "Gotcha! at any less than entirely positive comments.
You're allowed not to like things. What I don't understand is 15 plus pages of the same comments over and over and over about how you don't like things. It's the same tired crap, like Trump screaming over and over again how he won like a toddler. We all get it, the Leagues of Votann aren't for you. Just like how nothing Chaos Deamons is for me. The difference is I don't spend endless hours complaining about Chaos deamons whenever they get a release. The modes are made, the style is set. Your complaining will change nothing and very few people will change their opinion on it. The community who will be wanting this army will be one side or the other and very few in-between. So, what exactly is the purpose of jerking each other off over how much you dislike something? What are you attempting to accomplish? Who are you trying to convert and why?
It's just an endless waste of everyone's time, this fething argument is literally no different from the idiots who argue over how steak should be cooked. It's all personal preference.
Jesus a lot of folks on this forum really need to get laid or something...
Togusa wrote: Jesus Christ this thread is insufferable. Five pages since Friday and it's all the same rehashed bickering.
Every attempt to break this weird repetitive, useless, boring and toxic bickering is short lived and it only takes a few posts for the same people to flood the topic yet again with same bickering.
Its borderline unreadable.
I've noticed this being a trend more and more, and anytime someone tries to change the subject they just get pummeled with smooth brained "Toxic Positivity" strawmen arguments. It's getting really, really old.
I am curious, though, why the exosuit is called a "Vartijan". I don't think it's a cromulent word in any other language besides Finnish (where it means "(the) guard's" (genitive case)). Having Squats speak a mangled mishmash of future-Finnish would of course be very amusing, but that's sadly not the route they've gone with, it seems.
Still, at least we'll always have "Masters of Teräs Käsi"...
You're allowed not to like things. What I don't understand is 15 plus pages of the same comments over and over and over about how you don't like things. It's the same tired crap,
I'm getting delirious from the irony. Are you really setting out to insult yourself this way?
Agamemnon2 wrote: I am curious, though, why the exosuit is called a "Vartijan". I don't think it's a cromulent word in any other language besides Finnish (where it means "(the) guard's" (genitive case)). Having Squats speak a mangled mishmash of future-Finnish would of course be very amusing, but that's sadly not the route they've gone with, it seems.
Still, at least we'll always have "Masters of Teräs Käsi"...
Huh! I learned a thing today. Teräs Käsi is Finnish for "Steel Hand" in case anyone else was going to google.
Agamemnon2 wrote: I am curious, though, why the exosuit is called a "Vartijan". I don't think it's a cromulent word in any other language besides Finnish (where it means "(the) guard's" (genitive case)). Having Squats speak a mangled mishmash of future-Finnish would of course be very amusing, but that's sadly not the route they've gone with, it seems.
Still, at least we'll always have "Masters of Teräs Käsi"...
I haven't kept up with the lore for the army as much. 40K is in a tough spot for me right now as I personally think this edition is very bad and player unfriendly. I've been working a lot more on my HH stuff, but LoV look interesting enough to me that I might take a crack at them in 10th edition. I am a bit concerned that they'll do with LoV what they did with Lumineth, Daughters of Khaine, Sisters of Battle where they tossed out two codexs and a wave 2 release all within a year of the original release. So I feel like it might be better to wait and get in with wave 2, if that's how it ends up happening.
Togusa wrote: Jesus Christ this thread is insufferable. Five pages since Friday and it's all the same rehashed bickering.
Every attempt to break this weird repetitive, useless, boring and toxic bickering is short lived and it only takes a few posts for the same people to flood the topic yet again with same bickering.
Its borderline unreadable.
It takes two sides, you know. Certain people keep acting as if no one is allowed to find something less than perfect and keep giving completely asinine, condescending responses as if just disagreeing is some slight against them so they need to find whatever nonsensical reason they can to attempt some sort of "Gotcha! at any less than entirely positive comments.
You're allowed not to like things. What I don't understand is 15 plus pages of the same comments over and over and over about how you don't like things. It's the same tired crap, like Trump screaming over and over again how he won like a toddler. We all get it, the Leagues of Votann aren't for you. Just like how nothing Chaos Deamons is for me. The difference is I don't spend endless hours complaining about Chaos deamons whenever they get a release. The modes are made, the style is set. Your complaining will change nothing and very few people will change their opinion on it. The community who will be wanting this army will be one side or the other and very few in-between. So, what exactly is the purpose of jerking each other off over how much you dislike something? What are you attempting to accomplish? Who are you trying to convert and why?
It's just an endless waste of everyone's time, this fething argument is literally no different from the idiots who argue over how steak should be cooked. It's all personal preference.
Jesus a lot of folks on this forum really need to get laid or something...
I totally get that the whole thing is just becoming repetitive bickering but the reason it's been going on for so long because of the same few posters keep giving just terrible nonsensical arguments against anyone being critical. Both sides of opinions should be equally valid but the way some responses have been act as if that's not the case at all. It's gone from being a reasonable discussion to this because of those disingenuous comments (and strangely, has got worse over the past month for some reason...hmm...)
Again though, it's not some love them or hate them situation where anyone who expresses disappointment must be on the "hate" side of things and therefore isn't allowed as saying "The Leagues aren't for you" makes it seem. People can be interested in them and enjoy them despite being critical, that's certainly the case for me at least. The Leagues are great and potentially my new favourite faction, but that doesn't mean there aren't things that are negative about them. The reason I'm here is because I'm passionate about them, because they're Space Dwarfs and that's just cool regardless.
As for trying to "convert" someones opinion...who's said anything about that? The Leagues are being discussed in a thread for discussing them, that's all. There should be multiple angles of opinion, unless you want it to be some sort of positive echo chamber. Acting like it's critical comments that are "worthless" while positive stuff somehow isn't pointless is an odd perspective to have, neither side will change how the models turn out. That shouldn't mean people don't discuss both the good and the bad.
Togusa wrote: Jesus Christ this thread is insufferable. Five pages since Friday and it's all the same rehashed bickering.
Every attempt to break this weird repetitive, useless, boring and toxic bickering is short lived and it only takes a few posts for the same people to flood the topic yet again with same bickering.
Its borderline unreadable.
It takes two sides, you know. Certain people keep acting as if no one is allowed to find something less than perfect and keep giving completely asinine, condescending responses as if just disagreeing is some slight against them so they need to find whatever nonsensical reason they can to attempt some sort of "Gotcha! at any less than entirely positive comments.
You're allowed not to like things. What I don't understand is 15 plus pages of the same comments over and over and over about how you don't like things. It's the same tired crap, like Trump screaming over and over again how he won like a toddler. We all get it, the Leagues of Votann aren't for you. Just like how nothing Chaos Deamons is for me. The difference is I don't spend endless hours complaining about Chaos deamons whenever they get a release. The modes are made, the style is set. Your complaining will change nothing and very few people will change their opinion on it. The community who will be wanting this army will be one side or the other and very few in-between. So, what exactly is the purpose of jerking each other off over how much you dislike something? What are you attempting to accomplish? Who are you trying to convert and why?
It's just an endless waste of everyone's time, this fething argument is literally no different from the idiots who argue over how steak should be cooked. It's all personal preference.
Jesus a lot of folks on this forum really need to get laid or something...
I totally get that the whole thing is just becoming repetitive bickering but the reason it's been going on for so long because of the same few posters keep giving just terrible nonsensical arguments against anyone being critical. Both sides of opinions should be equally valid but the way some responses have been act as if that's not the case at all. It's gone from being a reasonable discussion to this because of those disingenuous comments (and strangely, has got worse over the past month for some reason...hmm...)
Again though, it's not some love them or hate them situation where anyone who expresses disappointment must be on the "hate" side of things and therefore isn't allowed as saying "The Leagues aren't for you" makes it seem. People can be interested in them and enjoy them despite being critical, that's certainly the case for me at least. The Leagues are great and potentially my new favourite faction, but that doesn't mean there aren't things that are negative about them.
As for trying to "convert" someones opinion...who's said anything about that? The Leagues are being discussed in a thread for discussing them, that's all. There should be multiple angles of opinion, unless you want it to be some sort of positive echo chamber. Acting like it's critical comments that are "worthless" while positive stuff somehow isn't pointless is an odd perspective to have, neither side will change how the models turn out. That shouldn't mean people don't discuss both the good and the bad.
It comes across from some posters that the idea is to get others to jump on the train, at least to me. Critical comments about design, art direction, etc aren't worthless. It's rehashing them over and over and over and over again as if they're a nail that needs to be hammered that gets old. Having a discussion about a thing is fine, having the same discussion over and over again isn't really all that helpful and just comes across as people arguing because they think their opinion (positive or negative) is superior to the other.
As for the "gotten worse over the last month" quote, I assume there is an insinuation as to a specific someone you feel is egging it on?
Agamemnon2 wrote: I am curious, though, why the exosuit is called a "Vartijan". I don't think it's a cromulent word in any other language besides Finnish (where it means "(the) guard's" (genitive case)). Having Squats speak a mangled mishmash of future-Finnish would of course be very amusing, but that's sadly not the route they've gone with, it seems.
Still, at least we'll always have "Masters of Teräs Käsi"...
I haven't kept up with the lore for the army as much. 40K is in a tough spot for me right now as I personally think this edition is very bad and player unfriendly. I've been working a lot more on my HH stuff, but LoV look interesting enough to me that I might take a crack at them in 10th edition. I am a bit concerned that they'll do with LoV what they did with Lumineth, Daughters of Khaine, Sisters of Battle where they tossed out two codexs and a wave 2 release all within a year of the original release. So I feel like it might be better to wait and get in with wave 2, if that's how it ends up happening.
Not to be overly negative but 10th ed is very likely going to suck because it's made by the same clowns that have been consistently unable to write good rules so far. And GW isn't going to drop their obsessive book release model that makes them so much money.
So if you actually enjoy Heresy and like the new Squats enough to buy an army of them, perhaps you'd be better off using them as Imperial Army/Solar Auxilia in Horus Heresy?
Seems like a safer bet than hoping that GW is going to improve things overnight that work out for them fine the way they are. You buy one book, probably get to use it for a longer time than any 40k codex and in the unlikely event that 40k gets good again you may be able to use your Squats without much alteration in that game, too.
Agamemnon2 wrote: I am curious, though, why the exosuit is called a "Vartijan". I don't think it's a cromulent word in any other language besides Finnish (where it means "(the) guard's" (genitive case)). Having Squats speak a mangled mishmash of future-Finnish would of course be very amusing, but that's sadly not the route they've gone with, it seems.
And here I was hoping that they'd reveal the Pyrkyl battle tank.
Agamemnon2 wrote: I am curious, though, why the exosuit is called a "Vartijan". I don't think it's a cromulent word in any other language besides Finnish (where it means "(the) guard's" (genitive case)). Having Squats speak a mangled mishmash of future-Finnish would of course be very amusing, but that's sadly not the route they've gone with, it seems.
Still, at least we'll always have "Masters of Teräs Käsi"...
I haven't kept up with the lore for the army as much. 40K is in a tough spot for me right now as I personally think this edition is very bad and player unfriendly. I've been working a lot more on my HH stuff, but LoV look interesting enough to me that I might take a crack at them in 10th edition. I am a bit concerned that they'll do with LoV what they did with Lumineth, Daughters of Khaine, Sisters of Battle where they tossed out two codexs and a wave 2 release all within a year of the original release. So I feel like it might be better to wait and get in with wave 2, if that's how it ends up happening.
Not to be overly negative but 10th ed is very likely going to suck because it's made by the same clowns that have been consistently unable to write good rules so far. And GW isn't going to drop their obsessive book release model that makes them so much money.
So if you actually enjoy Heresy and like the new Squats enough to buy an army of them, perhaps you'd be better off using them as Imperial Army/Solar Auxilia in Horus Heresy?
Seems like a safer bet than hoping that GW is going to improve things overnight that work out for them fine the way they are. You buy one book, probably get to use it for a longer time than any 40k codex and in the unlikely event that 40k gets good again you may be able to use your Squats without much alteration in that game, too.
I'm not planning to buy them at this time. I'll evaluate them in the next edition once I see how that all works out, assuming the rumors about 10th coming next year are correct. I really liked 8th edition a lot and mostly still play it when I do play 40K. While it's true that 10th could very well be as bad as 9th edition, it could also be better. For the book model, I don't know about that. I'd say a lot more people use alternative rules sources these days, rather than getting books. That doesn't work for tournaments, but in the casual setting (were the majority of players are) it works just fine.
Not to be overly negative but 10th ed is very likely going to suck because it's made by the same clowns that have been consistently unable to write good rules so far. And GW isn't going to drop their obsessive book release model that makes them so much money.
So if you actually enjoy Heresy and like the new Squats enough to buy an army of them, perhaps you'd be better off using them as Imperial Army/Solar Auxilia in Horus Heresy?
Seems like a safer bet than hoping that GW is going to improve things overnight that work out for them fine the way they are. You buy one book, probably get to use it for a longer time than any 40k codex and in the unlikely event that 40k gets good again you may be able to use your Squats without much alteration in that game, too.
I don't think it's likely to be bad looking at the facts.
GW has been doing good rules recently, Killteam and Warcry are both great, Horus Heresy has been well received, Age of Sigmar is doing quite well.
The largest complaint for 9th seems to be the bloat and hassle and mess. The rumours going around say 10th is slimmed down in that regard.
Togusa wrote: I'd say a lot more people use alternative rules sources these days, rather than getting books. That doesn't work for tournaments, but in the casual setting (were the majority of players are) it works just fine.
I don't know anyone who uses the older or alternate rules at all. To say 'most' is projecting your local experience out. GW is doing well enough with the sale of new books, because a 'lot' of people still use the current rules.
Togusa wrote: I'd say a lot more people use alternative rules sources these days, rather than getting books. That doesn't work for tournaments, but in the casual setting (were the majority of players are) it works just fine.
I don't know anyone who uses the older or alternate rules at all. To say 'most' is projecting your local experience out. GW is doing well enough with the sale of new books, because a 'lot' of people still use the current rules.
I think he was more referring to using pirated rules, pdfs and online sources of current rules rather than older rules sets.
Probably, but that's against the Dakkadakka rules, so I didn't go there.
Whether people buy their new books, gain them though some other means, or don't use them at all, only the first option is done around here. To say "a lot more people" do otherwise is not my experience.
Togusa wrote: I'd say a lot more people use alternative rules sources these days, rather than getting books. That doesn't work for tournaments, but in the casual setting (were the majority of players are) it works just fine.
I don't know anyone who uses the older or alternate rules at all. To say 'most' is projecting your local experience out. GW is doing well enough with the sale of new books, because a 'lot' of people still use the current rules.
.....
Let me try it this way: "Yo Ho Ho Ho a Pirate's life for me" if you catch my driftwood. I don't advocate for it, but it is a reality that is becoming more accessible in the current era.
New article:https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/07/28/lore-of-the-votann-who-are-the-guilds/
Some interesting stuff.
Kin are organized into groups called Kindreds, and their holds can be anything from small factory complexs to asteroid bases or stations orbiting black holes.
Guilds are basically seperate to Kindreds/The Leagues and manage different ventures and areas of society. Sort of like competing companies covering different things.
Guilds care about profiting to the point they don't really care if someone / something is already on a planet that has something they want.
And I just love how all the artwork is! Capitalistic industrial Dwarf megacorp vibe from the city one.
The first crack in the "we're perfect at everything and better than everything the Imperium does always" facade has appeared:
WarCom wrote:Competition between Guilds can become heated, even drawing other species into the crossfire as jockeying Guildmasters sponsor Oathband expeditions to survey systems rich in resources. Anyone who happens to already inhabit these hotly-contested worlds are out of luck – existing civilisations and ecosystems are a much lower priority than beating rivals to the punch.
Loving that artwork! Looks like the berserks are next to be revealed and they are from the mining guild. The new lore very much sounds like the old lore of holds, leagues and guilds, The guilds sound pretty ruthless when after profits and the freelancers sound interesting too.
We've got some specific names now for some subfactions:
Ymyr Conglomerate (clearly a play on Ymir from Norse creationism myth)
Seran-Tok Mercantile Leagues (which trade with the Tau, so some type of Tau connection confirmed)
Cthonian Mining Guilds (I'm assuming not related to Horus' Cthonia, but ??)
Still trying to figure out what that THU is all about. ᛏᚻᚢ in elder futhark, close but not close enough so could mean literally anything. Acronym for a specific subfaction is likely, but which one?
The Cthonian Mining Guilds are particularly powerful, embodying the belligerent acquisitiveness of the Kin. Fearless in the cause of locating, securing, and harvesting resources for their race, the Cthonians think nothing of braving environments so extreme that even other Kin would baulk at their hazards. You can expect to hear more about this particular Guild – and its much-modified members – soon enough.
I'm guessing that it is related to the HH. IIRC, Cthonia was a tapped out mining world stripped of its resources so maybe the squats are partly to blame for that via a retcon. I think it used to be the Mechanicum before that did it.
Seran-Tok Mercantile Leagues (which trade with the Tau, so some type of Tau connection confirmed)
I think this is another suggestion that the Leagues are the Demiurg, as one of the two Demiurg groups that works with the Tau are known by the name Srry'Tok.
This image in particular really highlight that one of the problem with the LoV look may not really be their design per say, but the minies themselves.
That guy here look pretty good and appropriately "dwarvish" (the morphology is what you'd expect, they look bulky and sturdy and even their armor look better here), but the minies they made out of it look just straight up.
It's the same thing with the Necrosquats, where the helmet on the artwork looks way better than the result in plastic.
KillerAngel wrote: We've got some specific names now for some subfactions:
Ymyr Conglomerate (clearly a play on Ymir from Norse creationism myth)
Seran-Tok Mercantile Leagues (which trade with the Tau, so some type of Tau connection confirmed)
Cthonian Mining Guilds (I'm assuming not related to Horus' Cthonia, but ??)
Also the Grymnir. No, wait, Grimnyr :
Guildmasters typically sit on the Hearthspake – a Kindred’s governing council – as civilian representatives, alongside the military commanders of the Kinhosts and the Grimnyr.
silverstu wrote: Loving that artwork! Looks like the berserks are next to be revealed and they are from the mining guild. The new lore very much sounds like the old lore of holds, leagues and guilds, The guilds sound pretty ruthless when after profits and the freelancers sound interesting too.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The first crack in the "we're perfect at everything and better than everything the Imperium does always" facade has appeared:
Of course? Some of the earlier "discussion" on this thread was that they appeared perfect. A "mary-sue" faction. Obviously that wasn't going to pan out that way. It's 40k, even the brightest stars are waning. All of the lore snippets we have had were pointing to plenty of bad times a-coming. They were just showing off the best parts first.
The artwork for the Votanni has been excellent, love the look of these larger landscapes.
The Cthonian Mining Guilds are particularly powerful, embodying the belligerent acquisitiveness of the Kin. Fearless in the cause of locating, securing, and harvesting resources for their race, the Cthonians think nothing of braving environments so extreme that even other Kin would baulk at their hazards. You can expect to hear more about this particular Guild – and its much-modified members – soon enough.
I'm guessing that it is related to the HH. IIRC, Cthonia was a tapped out mining world stripped of its resources so maybe the squats are partly to blame for that via a retcon. I think it used to be the Mechanicum before that did it.
Cthonia also just means "underworld", and given squats are miners, maybe that's just the connection. They're just very big miners
The Cthonian Mining Guilds are particularly powerful, embodying the belligerent acquisitiveness of the Kin. Fearless in the cause of locating, securing, and harvesting resources for their race, the Cthonians think nothing of braving environments so extreme that even other Kin would baulk at their hazards. You can expect to hear more about this particular Guild – and its much-modified members – soon enough.
I'm guessing that it is related to the HH. IIRC, Cthonia was a tapped out mining world stripped of its resources so maybe the squats are partly to blame for that via a retcon. I think it used to be the Mechanicum before that did it.
Cthonia also just means "underworld", and given squats are miners, maybe that's just the connection. They're just very big miners
I doubt that GW would pass up the opportunity to link (even via just retcon) something else new to the HH with its recent release but I suppose we'll find out in the next few months. Either way, it's just a background tidbit and nothing I'm worried about but rather just curious.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The first crack in the "we're perfect at everything and better than everything the Imperium does always" facade has appeared:
Of course? Some of the earlier "discussion" on this thread was that they appeared perfect. A "mary-sue" faction. Obviously that wasn't going to pan out that way. It's 40k, even the brightest stars are waning. All of the lore snippets we have had were pointing to plenty of bad times a-coming. They were just showing off the best parts first.
The artwork for the Votanni has been excellent, love the look of these larger landscapes.
I don’t know about “first” either; they’ve been relying on faulty god-puters that have had so many patches and updates they’ve outgrown their hardware, but don’t know how to address this because there’s too much data and no backups because their creativity and foresight was excised to make them less vulnerable to the warp. Oh and the god-puters are slowly replacing everyone with AI robots for some reason. Also, their whole society is cloned so they probably don’t know how to reproduce without the machines, and almost certainly have no medical or cultural data relevant to raising a child even if they did.
I don’t know about “first” either; they’ve been relying on faulty god-puters that have had so many patches and updates they’ve outgrown their hardware, but don’t know how to address this because there’s too much data and no backups because their creativity and foresight was excised to make them less vulnerable to the warp. Oh and the god-puters are slowly replacing everyone with AI robots for some reason. Also, their whole society is cloned so they probably don’t know how to reproduce without the machines, and almost certainly have no medical or cultural data relevant to raising a child even if they did.
See, if this is actually conveyed throughout the background writing, I'll be very happy about the tone they're giving to the Votann.
I was pleasantly surprised with how Cathay is written in the recent Total War game, and I assume GW had a hand in crafting those narratives, so there has to be someone there who still knows how to bake a couple nails into the pie.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The first crack in the "we're perfect at everything and better than everything the Imperium does always" facade has appeared:
Of course? Some of the earlier "discussion" on this thread was that they appeared perfect. A "mary-sue" faction. Obviously that wasn't going to pan out that way. It's 40k, even the brightest stars are waning. All of the lore snippets we have had were pointing to plenty of bad times a-coming. They were just showing off the best parts first.
The artwork for the Votanni has been excellent, love the look of these larger landscapes.
I don’t know about “first” either; they’ve been relying on faulty god-puters that have had so many patches and updates they’ve outgrown their hardware, but don’t know how to address this because there’s too much data and no backups because their creativity and foresight was excised to make them less vulnerable to the warp. Oh and the god-puters are slowly replacing everyone with AI robots for some reason. Also, their whole society is cloned so they probably don’t know how to reproduce without the machines, and almost certainly have no medical or cultural data relevant to raising a child even if they did.
Nothing in the lore we've been given has said their engineered souls make them less resistant to the Warp at the cost of creativity, the Votann are replacing Kin With Ironkin, or they have no idea how to reproduce (and can't) without the Votann. Infact the lore says the opposite of that last point, because the Ironhead Squats didn't take an Ancestor Core with them and have been fine.
KillerAngel wrote: We've got some specific names now for some subfactions:
Ymyr Conglomerate (clearly a play on Ymir from Norse creationism myth)
Seran-Tok Mercantile Leagues (which trade with the Tau, so some type of Tau connection confirmed)
Cthonian Mining Guilds (I'm assuming not related to Horus' Cthonia, but ??)
Still trying to figure out what that THU is all about. ᛏᚻᚢ in elder futhark, close but not close enough so could mean literally anything. Acronym for a specific subfaction is likely, but which one?
THU is Greater Thurian Leagues. One of the strategem leaks made reference to them and they seem to be the main faction that we have seen GW show with their paint scheme.
The Seran-Tok then may be the Demiurg, and mistakenly thought to be a new alien race due to being more genetically modified from the baseline template. In fact, existing Tau background says they got their ion cannons from a Brotherhood calling themselves SrryTok, which perhaps may be a mistranslation of Seran-Tok. Looking at the art, there is a vague similarity between the shown ships and the Demiurg as both have a certain "verticality" to them.
The new information suggests perhaps the Leages of Votann have elements of a corporatocracy? In theory the Guilds are not political but in practice they are.
Their lack of care towards existing inhabitants and ecosystems may mean they have that aspect of uncaring corporatism.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The first crack in the "we're perfect at everything and better than everything the Imperium does always" facade has appeared:
Of course? Some of the earlier "discussion" on this thread was that they appeared perfect. A "mary-sue" faction. Obviously that wasn't going to pan out that way. It's 40k, even the brightest stars are waning. All of the lore snippets we have had were pointing to plenty of bad times a-coming. They were just showing off the best parts first.
The artwork for the Votanni has been excellent, love the look of these larger landscapes.
That and those so clumsily wielding the non-existent hammer of Mary-Sue seemed to have quite remarkable skills in selective reading.
The Votann are of course STC. Fully functioning. Well. Kind of fully functioning. Ish. They’re slowing down. Some are proper proper broken, and for all the Leagues have maintained a tech level well above The Imperium? They’re still reliant on the STC. Take that away, and it’s their own dark age of technology and decline, just postponed a few milennia. Same benefits, same pitfalls.
Nothing in the lore we've been given has said their engineered souls make them less resistant to the Warp at the cost of creativity, the Votann are replacing Kin With Ironkin, or they have no idea how to reproduce (and can't) without the Votann. Infact the lore says the opposite of that last point, because the Ironhead Squats didn't take an Ancestor Core with them and have been fine.
No. But the assumption is that Ironkin are pretty much Men of Iron. They are "computationally advanced enough to mimic Kin behaviour" some even have ambition. Where does that leave the fleshy Kin when they decide they are superior? Who knows? Not us presently.
Also worth pointing out that they state in this new article the largest holds are in the millions. So we've got a small population, likely similar problems to the poor old Fantasy Dwarves. So in order to push up the numbers, more Ironkin can be made by certain Votann, if their mad superbrains were so inclined.
Nothing in the lore we've been given has said their engineered souls make them less resistant to the Warp at the cost of creativity, the Votann are replacing Kin With Ironkin, or they have no idea how to reproduce (and can't) without the Votann. Infact the lore says the opposite of that last point, because the Ironhead Squats didn't take an Ancestor Core with them and have been fine.
No. But the assumption is that Ironkin are pretty much Men of Iron. They are "computationally advanced enough to mimic Kin behaviour" some even have ambition. Where does that leave the fleshy Kin when they decide they are superior? Who knows? Not us presently.
Also worth pointing out that they state in this new article the largest holds are in the millions. So we've got a small population, likely similar problems to the poor old Fantasy Dwarves. So in order to push up the numbers, more Ironkin can be made by certain Votann, if their mad superbrains were so inclined.
It says Kindreds may number several million, not Holds. Does that mean that Holds may have multiple Kindreds or is it mono-Kindred? We don't know.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The first crack in the "we're perfect at everything and better than everything the Imperium does always" facade has appeared:
Of course? Some of the earlier "discussion" on this thread was that they appeared perfect. A "mary-sue" faction. Obviously that wasn't going to pan out that way. It's 40k, even the brightest stars are waning. All of the lore snippets we have had were pointing to plenty of bad times a-coming. They were just showing off the best parts first.
The artwork for the Votanni has been excellent, love the look of these larger landscapes.
That and those so clumsily wielding the non-existent hammer of Mary-Sue seemed to have quite remarkable skills in selective reading.
The Votann are of course STC. Fully functioning. Well. Kind of fully functioning. Ish. They’re slowing down. Some are proper proper broken, and for all the Leagues have maintained a tech level well above The Imperium? They’re still reliant on the STC. Take that away, and it’s their own dark age of technology and decline, just postponed a few milennia. Same benefits, same pitfalls.
The Votann aren't actual STC as in the full thing, though? The impression I got from the article was that they're a database that contains full/complete STC templates amongst their data, not a full database of STCs.
Nothing in the lore we've been given has said their engineered souls make them less resistant to the Warp at the cost of creativity, the Votann are replacing Kin With Ironkin, or they have no idea how to reproduce (and can't) without the Votann. Infact the lore says the opposite of that last point, because the Ironhead Squats didn't take an Ancestor Core with them and have been fine.
No. But the assumption is that Ironkin are pretty much Men of Iron. They are "computationally advanced enough to mimic Kin behaviour" some even have ambition. Where does that leave the fleshy Kin when they decide they are superior? Who knows? Not us presently.
Also worth pointing out that they state in this new article the largest holds are in the millions. So we've got a small population, likely similar problems to the poor old Fantasy Dwarves. So in order to push up the numbers, more Ironkin can be made by certain Votann, if their mad superbrains were so inclined.
The Ironkin have been with them for 10, 000 years at least.
Nothing in the lore we've been given has said their engineered souls make them less resistant to the Warp at the cost of creativity, the Votann are replacing Kin With Ironkin, or they have no idea how to reproduce (and can't) without the Votann. Infact the lore says the opposite of that last point, because the Ironhead Squats didn't take an Ancestor Core with them and have been fine.
No. But the assumption is that Ironkin are pretty much Men of Iron. They are "computationally advanced enough to mimic Kin behaviour" some even have ambition. Where does that leave the fleshy Kin when they decide they are superior? Who knows? Not us presently.
Also worth pointing out that they state in this new article the largest holds are in the millions. So we've got a small population, likely similar problems to the poor old Fantasy Dwarves. So in order to push up the numbers, more Ironkin can be made by certain Votann, if their mad superbrains were so inclined.
It says Kindreds may number several million, not Holds. Does that mean that Holds may have multiple Kindreds or is it mono-Kindred? We don't know.
A Kindred might be a few dozen strong, or a few million, but they all live, train, and toil in the same shared Hold. Kin prefer not to waste words, so “Hold” is a malleable term – it could mean a fortified outpost, a live-in factory, or a warren of tunnels. Some Holds float in the void of space, cling to asteroids, or hover on the fringe of a black hole, while others may stretch out across the surface of an entire planet.
Most Kindreds have some means of defending themselves, and some are mighty battleforces in their own rights – but they tend to unite for protection under the banner of a League.
Right but even if a Hold has multiple Kindreds, if the largest is a "few million strong" that doesn't suggest a large population in a Hold to me. It's this follow up line where they talk about uniting in a League that I took to mean mainly small Holds that band together in times of trouble for protection. A League presumably governs a small area of space that has multiple Holds. I presume similar to the Dwarf clans of Fantasy. A Hold might contain several clans depending on the size of the mine. In times of war they form the Throng and go kick shins.
All modelled off the First Parliament of Earth, a Governance covering a settlement to the planetary North of Migard, as legends say, with some conspiracy theorists putting that lost world in the Alpha Centauri or New Eden systems. Might be where the STCs came from.
Can someone point out if I'm making an error in reasoning here, or if my facts are wrong?
- We know that the LoV have Cthonian Berserks.
- We know that they have a Cthonian mining guild.
- We know that Horus was raised on Cthonia, a mining world that might have been destroyed because it was so heavily exploited for resources.
- We know that the LoV once had a closer relationship with the rest of humanity, but that something caused them to retreat into solitude and isolation
- ... the colour of the armour of the Hearthkyn Gaurd, as well as parts of the regular kin, are almost exactly the same as the colour of the armor adopted by the Lunar Wolves after being reunited with Horus.
Is GW teasing a deep connection between the LoV and the Heresy? Or even Horus himself? There are just too many odd coincidences for me to consider it all a fluke of the writing.
(And honestly, the fact that they chose to paint the models to match the SoH seems really on the nose to me.)
