So roughly on par then. Fair enough. What do you mean by built in AoC? That means they get resistance against pen, right? By ignoring rerolls, do you mean that the opponent doesn't get rerolls to hit / wound.
They all have void armour (haven't found a datasheet without it).
Reduce AP by 1, no wound or damage re-rolls
Yeah, that's pretty handy then. That means you need AP -5 to deny their save. Not sure how useful the wound or damage re-rolls is going to be though. Damage rerolls are pointless against 1w models and how many attacks reroll wounds? Usually it's reroll hits that's the problem.
I mean, maybe no wound-re-roll doesn't come up. But it's just straight up better Salamanders/Iron Warriors/Valorous Heart Chapter Tactic for freebeez before you even add you Dworf-Chapter Tactic. Sure for the basic 1-wound infantry, damage re-roll doesn't matter. But all the characters, tanks, etc.. all have that rule. It's just an army rule basically.
And you can turn off re-rolls to hit as well on some units, e.g. the Bikes.
Fairly on par. Slower, less defense, no invul, but better offensively. Seems fair. Plus you gotta take 10 of these. Stupid 5 man sister squads
Wait, what's wrong with 5 man squads? Having that option is better, isn't it, due to tactical flexibility / cost? Also, if you need to take squats in 10 man squads that makes them even more comparable to Necron warriors.
xttz wrote: Most of the rules from the votann codex have leaked online as a small PDF file. Not going to post it but if you're Very Online you probably know where to find it.
xttz wrote: Most of the rules from the votann codex have leaked online as a small PDF file. Not going to post it but if you're Very Online you probably know where to find it.
10-20 per Troops squad hey?
And 10-20 Daemon units would'a killed 'em?
So is this meant to be a horde army or an elite army? Because I could have sworn that the fluff for them described them as being a small and well-equipped force. Interesting to see that the ion blaster is not, in fact, part of their base equipment but an upgrade. I was kind of hoping that they wouldn't be yet another another army of bolters, but oh well.
Interface Echo (WC5) - Gain 1CP, can take you above the normal limit of gaining/regenerating CP.
Fortify (WC6) - Core or Character within 12". Gain +1T and a 6+ shrug.
Ancestral Wrath (WC6) - Enemy within 18". Roll 3D6 (or 6D6 on 11+). 4+ = MW. Add to result of there are Judgement Tokens on the unit.
Grudgepyre (WC4) - Non-vehicle/character/monster within 18". 2D6 and add Judgement Tokens. If result > enemy LD, one model in that unit is destroyed*. Owning player's choice.
Null Vortex (WC8) - One enemy within 12". No Invul saves.
Crushing Contempt (WC6) - Enemy unit within 18". Roll 3D6. Greater or equal to LD, unit cannot perform actions/auto-fails current action. If greater than enemy Ld, all models in that unit suffer -1 from attack rolls.
So those are the NotSquat psychics.
*I hate rules that "destroy" units and completely bypass the methodology of strength/toughness, AP/Saves, Damage/Wounds. It's why 8th/9th's morale system sucks ass.
All of the Leagues look good. The one that jumps out at me is Urani-Surtr: '+1 T to everything in the army' (amongst other benefits). This means T5 troops and T6 Einhyr (the mini-Termies), which can receive a further +1T from a psychic power, and T9 Land Fortresses. This is by no means an auto-pick, though, which gives an idea of the strength of the others.
The Berserks could be a bit obnoxious into the right target? They are base T5 with 2W, only a 6+ save, but a 5+++ that turns into a 4+++ vs damage-1. They also fight on death. Oh and that 6+ save is still void armour, so you can't reroll wounds or damage against them.
There's a custom trait (you choose 3) that gives you +2 to charge vs a unit that has 1+ judgement tokens. Good for deep-striking Einhyr.
An observation: I'm sure the lore snippets mentioned them cloning 'safe' psykers or something. Nope, they perils as normal, they just have 2 robots which they can essentially shrug 1 perils off onto each. Once the robots are dead, they're bog-standard psykers.
Depends on the vehicle - Perseverance, the latest Mars rover, has six fairly wide wheels, for example.
I think that's where NASApunk gets in trouble. It's a cool look by itself and can be beefed up to a point, but once you move into the realm of heavy military equipment, it becomes inadequate. NASA doesn't build stuff with the expectation of getting zapped by Martians. Squats very much should.
I'd have preferred to see all the NASApunk stuff to be the militia element of the army. Improvised, cheaper, perhaps faster, perhaps with scouting and ECM* rules. But leave the actual heavy lifting to combat units with purpose built equipment.
*Where the E may stand for both electronic and esoteric, given the nature of 40k.
H.B.M.C. wrote: *I hate rules that "destroy" units and completely bypass the methodology of strength/toughness, AP/Saves, Damage/Wounds. It's why 8th/9th's morale system sucks ass.
Whenever I see such a rule I imagine a stoned rules designer go "Woah! Cinematic!"
Whole coded was leaked online, from my skim read on the Tube here are some tidbits:
- whole army pretty much has Armour of Contempt, with the addition that you can't reroll wounds or damage against them.
- new Huntr and Beam weapons. Beam works similar to that in 30k and Titanicus, haven't found a reason why Huntr is a thing.
- quite a fair number of Invuln ignoring weapons.
- Judgement Tokens are gained from a unit performing an action, killing a Voltaan unit, or being in range of an objective marker.
Aight, that's a lot of new stuff, what I be said about it?
The Land Fortress is a big L for me. It's just a slightly bigger version than the moon buggy, it doesn't look impressive or unique and share the same problem than the Primaris tanks: a lack of distinctive outline and a bunch of random guns tapped everywhere.
It should have add at least a fourt set of wheels more if they wanted to have it look like a real "LAND FORTESS", or just go with good old tracks. And ofc no "land train" gimick here to be seen.
Doesn't deserve the name "Land Fortress".
Ûthar the destined sufffers from the same problem than Nobody the landshark rider the Snakebites got no that long ago, a character that couldn't get his own kit and just end up looking like the generic lord he is the alt build of, but here it's even worse sinc ethe unique and distinctive bit of the character, the backpack banner thing, clearly should have been part of the generic lord kit to helm him stand out without the need of that silly rock.
A shame that GW is too cheap to give him (and the snakebite dude) a proper unique kit, especially when they can pump out so many useless kits that nobody asked for exclusive event or for specialist game.
Hell, I got the "store exclusive" mini for the release of the new Warcry last week, and was pretty shocked to discover that it was literally just a mini from one of the team sprue... moved to its own unique sprue. I don't want anyone ever again try to tell me "huuur making mold is expensive".
The Einhyr Champion looks kinda cool, even he is is probably the one with the most pronounced "clear ripoff of SC2 marauder" look of the faction, but he gains points by having what I expected the whole faction to have, cool engravings and runes. He sadly lost ALL thos points with his stupid Primaris Ragnar pose that just look silly on a stunty shortstack that will move slowly down the board.
The Brôkhyr Iron-master looks nice, but honestly the more I see thos coats, the less I like them, especially when they went from the equivalent of the Eldar Ranger cloack, a thing used by a specific recon group, to just... be a fashion statement randomly thrown out on the faction. Ofc mandatory tactical rock. But what really kills it for me isn't the Brôkhyr himself, but his robot helpers and their cancerous basing.
It's yet another case of the rampant new miniature design we saw going strong with the new necrons, where your base have to be clutered with gak you may not want, but are forced to use because they are literally part of the miniautre. What's that? You didn't want your army base theme to be "Junkyard and ruins"? Welp too back for you bucko.
The Grimnyr I like a LOT actually. He looks exactly like what I expected a dwarf wizard to look like. I just hope he'll get at least SOME customisations bit, like different staff. While his base is next level stupid tactical rock, for once I don't mind it too much since its actually relevant to the character power. He is the one making thos rocks fly, they aren't just random gak he just stepped on. That said, just like what I said for the previous mini, this is also one of thos things that just decides for you what your base will be, and it's annoying.
And since apparently GW can't seem to have a single win in there, what ruins it for me are thos two robots that comes with him.
They look cool, but why are they carrying bolters if their roles is to help him tap into the warp? And more importantly, if they can have that kind of flying robots with gun, why aren't they actually fielding units of them?
That's a massive plot hole if I've ever seen one.
And last and very least, the Cthonian Beserk Mole Grenade Launcher what the hell is that?
It's supposed to be a heavy weapon option for the Berserker unit? A standalone thing? Who thot that the naked frothing berserker was the right time of base to make a heavy weapon option? Why does it comes with a silly robot caddie carrying its weapon on its back like if they were going for a fun afternoon of golf? And what the feth is a subterranean grenade launcher?
This is awful all around.
Hey, at least I can say that I like that starter box... until I see the price ofc. If that thing is more expensive than a standard combat patrol I'll be liking it way less.
HunTR weapons exist because there was weirdly no 'this weapon just shoots X amount of shots and there are no other rules' type, so they invented one. Kind of weird now that I think of it.
The whole army without exception has the funky Void Armour, even the Beserks (just a 6+ save for them though).
We've seen Beam effects on various other short-ranged weapons before but I think this is the first time it's been permitted at long ranges. There are 30" Beam weapons and I believe 18" ones too, which can all be boosted 4" by a League Custom (whenever I see that phrase I just think of Mek Speshul )
Edit: the Mole grenade launcher thing is an upgrade for the Beserk unit. It can fire at units out of line of sight. I have no idea why you'd take it on your raging beserkers and lose 3 AP-3 damage 3 attacks.
Edit 2: someone below says it can deny overwatch with a strat. So I guess that's why!
Seems like there's no pros but no cons either. So you'd expect Thunderkyn to have a lot of Heavy weapons but instead they have Huntr and skip expected penalties.
And last and very least, the Cthonian Beserk Mole Grenade Launcher what the hell is that?
It's supposed to be a heavy weapon option for the Berserker unit? A standalone thing? Who thot that the naked frothing berserker was the right time of base to make a heavy weapon option? Why does it comes with a silly robot caddie carrying its weapon on its back like if they were going for a fun afternoon of golf? And what the feth is a subterranean grenade launcher?.
It's to be used with a stratagem that denies Overwatch and worsens to-hit-rolls, and the thingy is meant to be used as a marker for the unit that was hit with the stratagem.
Edit: Got confused, it actually halves movement of the unit and gives it Fight Last. What I wrote first is for CONCUSSION units only, which they're not - my bad!
And really, you do not get the idea of a "subterranean grenade launcher" that's called "mole"? You might want to google what a mole is. You'll get the idea
Seems like there's no pros but no cons either. So you'd expect Thunderkyn to have a lot of Heavy weapons but instead they have Huntr and skip expected penalties.
yeah, that's the point. It's simply "Basic Gun X" , but the're calling it HunTR. If it survives into 10th I'd expect them to just add a basic gun type to the core rules and use that instead. Should've been a thing in the first place to save us from all the Heavy models that ignore the movement tohit penalty.
Edit: the Mole grenade launcher thing is an upgrade for the Beserk unit. It can fire at units out of line of sight. I have no idea why you'd take it on your raging beserkers and lose 3 AP-3 damage 3 attacks.
And you do not loose the attacks. One in 5 models can be quipped with the launcher, it doesn't have to replace anything with that, AND the model even gains 1 wound and 1 attack. Totally worth the 10 points in my opinion.
Edit: the Mole grenade launcher thing is an upgrade for the Beserk unit. It can fire at units out of line of sight. I have no idea why you'd take it on your raging beserkers and lose 3 AP-3 damage 3 attacks.
Edit 2: someone below says it can deny overwatch with a strat. So I guess that's why!
you dont lose the 3 ap3 dmg 3 attacks either, the launcher is in addition to the beserker axe. thats why it comes with the L-COG model carrying the axe for the beserker
When I think Berserkers what I picture is precise and carefully triangulated artillery support, done from a safe distance by a bunch of half naked men, obviously.
Jesus they really didn't think the concept through did they.
I liked my idea of a bunch of dwarf Senator Armstrongs better.
I have no idea what they are trying to do with Beserks, but I know that the models don't look great and the grenade launcher doesn't really fit the whole melee unit role.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: When I think Berserkers what I picture is precise and carefully triangulated artillery support, obviously.
Jesus they really didn't think the concept through did they.
I'm still stuck on how silly and unnecessary the robot caddie carrying the mele weapon is. It looks so... out of place.
Spoiler:
"Here my robot friend, hold my weapon while I do some artillery support would you. Remember to give it back to me and run behind me when the moment to charge will come."
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: When I think Berserkers what I picture is precise and carefully triangulated artillery support, obviously.
Jesus they really didn't think the concept through did they.
They really didn't.
Dwarf Slayers don't use armour or ranged weapons because their whole thing is basically crazed Dwarfs punishing themselves to try and atone for something.
The Cthonian Beserks were said not to use armour and eschew ranged weapons for reasons of being "brave" and "Courageous", which in itself is pretty bad lore for it. But they then give one of them a ranged weapon. So now they make even less sense than they did before.
Valkyrie wrote: haven't found a reason why Huntr is a thing.
Oh so its not just me? I was feeling really dumb, could not find any advantage or benefit to the rule whatsoever other than the fact that (as others stated) its distinctly non-special (in that it offers absolutely no advantages or disadvantages in terms of how it interacts with movement, range, etc.)
Valkyrie wrote: haven't found a reason why Huntr is a thing.
Oh so its not just me? I was feeling really dumb, could not find any advantage or benefit to the rule whatsoever other than the fact that (as others stated) its distinctly non-special (in that it offers absolutely no advantages or disadvantages in terms of how it interacts with movement, range, etc.)
See, but that's why it exists. It's a type of gun that explicitly doesn't interact with stuff, it's not Assault nor Heavy nor Rapid Fire nor Pistol, just a set number of shots and literally nothing else. Weird we didn't have it before, tbh
For those that have seen the unit entry, what do the unit weapons options look like for the troops units? As in, how many guys can be upgraded to carry a heavy weapon?
cuda1179 wrote: For those that have seen the unit entry, what do the unit weapons options look like for the troops units? As in, how many guys can be upgraded to carry a heavy weapon?
10 - 19 models: 2 models can take fancy guns
20 models: 4 models can take fancy guns
Leader can take fancy pistol and a choice of combat weapons
cuda1179 wrote: For those that have seen the unit entry, what do the unit weapons options look like for the troops units? As in, how many guys can be upgraded to carry a heavy weapon?
11 - 19 models: 2 models can take fancy guns
20 models: 4 models can take fancy guns
Leader can take fancy pistol and a choice of combat weapons
Unless you made a mistake, looks like units of 10 can't take any heavies?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I gotta say, looking at just the basic rules, I'm tempted to make this a very basic infantry-based army for my 2,000 point list. 80ish troops, a couple leaders, a handful of elites/heavies to deal with specific threats, and a buggy to go out and grab objectives.
Ugh, I don't like that. So you need to field exactly 20 models to field 4 special weapons? What sense does that make? It feels really unnatural to me, how it just suddenly jumps from 2 to 4 after a single model.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Ugh, I don't like that. So you need to field exactly 20 models to field 4 special weapons? What sense does that make?
It feels really unnatural to me, how it just suddenly jumps from 2 to 4 after a single model.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Ugh, I don't like that. So you need to field exactly 20 models to field 4 special weapons? What sense does that make?
It feels really unnatural to me, how it just suddenly jumps from 2 to 4 after a single model.
You buy 2 boxes and put them together.
I get that's what they are going for, it still feels awkward.
Like, what if I want to field 2 squads of 15? Shouldn't I have 3 special weapons per squad then?
See, but that's why it exists. It's a type of gun that explicitly doesn't interact with stuff, it's not Assault nor Heavy nor Rapid Fire nor Pistol, just a set number of shots and literally nothing else. Weird we didn't have it before, tbh
Am i the only one that remembers the new type of weapon that share a name with that very forum? Dakka weapon anyone?
Remember when GW removed core tactical positioning feature of the game like templates and vehicle facing because they wanted to "streamline the game"?
Thos random new weapon types sure do help to keep the game lean amirit?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mentlegen324 wrote: It's strange how the Banner bearers clearly shown in some of the art turned out to not be a thing.
Just you wait for 10th to drop 4 months after their release and for GW to push their new codex that includes all thos obvious units they didn't want to release at the same time.
Mentlegen324 wrote: It's strange how the Banner bearers clearly shown in some of the art turned out to not be a thing.
Just you wait for 10th to drop 4 months after their release and for GW to push their new codex that includes all thos obvious units they didn't want to release at the same time.
Hopefully this is the case. There's been some quite interesting stuff shown in the artwork that doesn't seem to be just vague background filler, like some Kin who have a vastly different style to the rest and look more like Retro Squats.
cuda1179 wrote: For those that have seen the unit entry, what do the unit weapons options look like for the troops units? As in, how many guys can be upgraded to carry a heavy weapon?
10 - 19 models: 2 models can take fancy guns
20 models: 4 models can take fancy guns
Leader can take fancy pistol and a choice of combat weapons
Lemme guess, you can't double up on one particular one until you hit 20 dudes like Skitarii.
Andykp wrote: Well that’s it for me, don’t care what anyone says, they definitely aren’t an April fools.
Are you kidding? All this is just more evidence the whole thing is a gag. I’m just not sure who’s being played more though; the nostalgia eaters or the bean counters.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You can't double up until you hit 20, correct.
It's another awful weapon list:
Spoiler:
GW have learnt nothing.
I mean... the arbitrary cut at 20 is stupid, but it's still way, WAY better than the dark age that is still to this day the Plague Marines sheet.
At least here its a clean case of "This quad can be equiped with 2 different type of main weapon, and can take up to 2/4 special weapons" (instead of silly stuff like "for every 5.4 model you can pick one weapon B, for every 5.4 models you can pick one of weapon C. No you can't take 2B or 2C because we said so).
The only stupid thing here is that thos units should have been way more modular and have a midpoint 1 special weapon per 5 guys, keep the minimum of 10 still, because we all know how cheesy ultra cheap bare minimum squad can be, but at least let the players use 2 squads of 15 if they want.
While I am disappointed that you can't have 4 of the same weapon, there is a decent amount of choices, and I'm hoping that two of them have a similar enough profile to synergize. Having three medics in a squad could keep it alive pretty long with all those bullet catchers in there.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You can't take 3 medics in the same way you can't take 2 HYLAS-Auto-Bautos or 2 EtaETC Plasmamamamajammas without first taking 20 models.
Actually, it looks like you CAN do it with even a 10-man squad.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You can't take 3 medics in the same way you can't take 2 HYLAS-Auto-Bautos or 2 EtaETC Plasmamamamajammas without first taking 20 models.
But why would you want to take more than one of each of thos 3 specialists tho? We don't know yet what they exactly do, but looking at that sheet it looks pretty clear that they are the usual banner style upgrade that give a buff/ability to the whole squad, the kind of stuff not meant to stack.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You can't take 3 medics in the same way you can't take 2 HYLAS-Auto-Bautos or 2 EtaETC Plasmamamamajammas without first taking 20 models.
Actually, it looks like you CAN do it with even a 10-man squad.
'3 different warriors can each take one different option' says otherwise
Hell, their specialist even have the luxury of being able to change his main weapon with the rest of the unit, something almost... none others can these days.
(HN) wrote: We don't know yet what they exactly do...
Medic - Change Damage to 0 for first failed save per turn.
Comms Array - Gain 'Comms' Keyword, and when within 24" of Kahl count as being within Aura range.
Scanner - Gain 'Scanner' Keyword, all attacks from unit ignore Light Cover.
(HN) wrote: We don't know yet what they exactly do...
Medic - Change Damage to 0 for first failed save per turn.
Comms Array - Gain 'Comms' Keyword, and when within 24" of Kahl count as being within Aura range.
Scanner - Gain 'Scanner' Keyword, all attacks from unit ignore Light Cover.
Aight, so exactly as I said, this is all the very standard unit buff we have seen many time before.
Why exactly are you complaining about the fact that you can't take multiple of them? They were never meant to be stacked.
If anything they are the only reason why you'd want to take a blob of 20 rather than 10, to make thos buff effectively half price for the same effectiveness.
Again, while I have a lot to gak on GW for thos failed space dwarf, the state of their wargear option is not one of them. They are on the higher side of what used to be the norm.
The full squad can be outfited with 2 different main weapon. It can take 2 heavy weapons from a pool of 4 and it can take up to 3 different specialist which will buff the whole squad, while still being able to change their main weapon with the rest of the squad (something one again that many other would love to be able to do too).
Hell, even the sergeant has more option than most units out there.
He can take the same main weapon than the rest of the squad (so the alt weapon too), or pick one of 3 pistol to go with 1 out of 3 mele weapon.
That's pretty good.
Really, there's not much to hate with thos wargear options.
(HN) wrote: Why exactly are you complaining about the fact that you can't take multiple of them?
I wasn't.
In fact, I only mentioned the specialists because cuda1179 thought you could take more than one of each. I was simply correcting him.
(HN) wrote: Really, there's not much to hate with thos wargear options.
No, it's another kit-based restrictive bull-gak list to go alongside all the other ones. It's as bad as the Skitarii ones, where you can't double up on a single weapon type, but have to take different weapons within a normal squad until you hit 20, and even then you can't take 4 of the same type, you have to take - at best - 2 and 2.
It's asinine rules writing and a continued example of how completely out of touch GW is. Plus how much of a death grip "no model/no rule" has taken upon their creative side.
H.B.M.C. wrote: No, it's another kit-based restrictive bull-gak list to go alongside all the other ones. It's as bad as the Skitarii ones, where you can't double up on a single weapon type, but have to take different weapons within a normal squad until you hit 20, and even then you can't take 4 of the same type, you have to take - at best - 2 and 2.
It's asinine rules writing and a continued example of how completely out of touch GW is. Plus how much of a death grip "no model/no rule" has taken upon their creative side.
Aight, after rereading that frankly cancerous wording I now realize that I was wrong, I thought they meant you could just pick 2 options for the heavy weapon list... but I missed the little "different" infront of options...
So yeah, it's as you said, in line with the trashy new GW way that forces you to mix and match profile on a squad, which not only restrict you for no reason, but also create a LOT of friction in the dice roll process, adding different rolls for each new profile rather than letting you mass roll your stuff.
That's a shame... and what's even worse is that it probably wont ever improve. I fear the day they'll redo the grey knight kit...
Edit: Still while I hate the weapon restriction, I still really don't mind the specialist one. Medics, Radio, Banners etc etc aren't things that should be present more than once per squad, just like sergeants.
I have no issue with the specialist restrictions. My ire is reserved specifically for nonsensical weapon restrictions/limitations/removals.
[EDIT]: And let me just say it before some bright spark jumps in here and starts going "But you're ok with a 4 Heavy Weapon limitation in Devastator Squads and this is no different!!!" or some other such false equivalency - it's not the limitations on the amount of weapons that I and many others have problems with, it's the specific weapon limitations on top of the number limitations. If you want to limit a squad to X special/heavy weapons, or even X per Y models, that's cool. But when you add the extra layer of "You can have 4, but you can't take more than one of each!" crap, that's when it loses me. Imagine if Devastator Squads were limited to one or even two of any given heavy weapon type? That would be bull gak. The Votann wargear list, as with all the others - from the crazy Death Guard list, to the Primaris Captain insanity, to Sword Brethren, Skitarii, Wyches, Kommandos (the list goes on) - are just horrible, and GW should stop doing in rather than doubling down.
And now I'm just thinking of what they're about to do to the Guard again. If ever there was a walk away/deal breaker moment, Guard losing Heavy Weapons is it for me. fething GW...
Preventing abuse of the judgment tokens ability might be one reason that GW prevented people from taking a 5-strong warrior unit on its own. Going off the points leak, there's no non-hq unit that you can buy that's below approximately 100 points. This means that the easiest way to abuse the judgment ability, a very MSU army, isn't available. I think the leaks say that the moonbuggies can grant the combat squad ability, but then you're still spending another 200-ish points on vehicles just to get combat squads which will then be protected and transported by the vehicles. There's no chaff 50-point unit that you can throw at the oppponent to force judgment token distribution.
That doesn't mean there aren't going to be much better ways to abuse that ability, and it probably would have been nicer to tone down that judgment ability and allow us to take smaller units, but that's probably a deliberate choice GW made.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I have no issue with the specialist restrictions. My ire is reserved specifically for nonsensical weapon restrictions/limitations/removals.
[EDIT]: And let me just say it before some bright spark jumps in here and starts going "But you're ok with a 4 Heavy Weapon limitation in Devastator Squads and this is no different!!!" or some other such false equivalency - it's not the limitations on the amount of weapons that I and many others have problems with, it's the specific weapon limitations on top of the number limitations. If you want to limit a squad to X special/heavy weapons, or even X per Y models, that's cool. But when you add the extra layer of "You can have 4, but you can't take more than one of each!" crap, that's when it loses me. Imagine if Devastator Squads were limited to one or even two of any given heavy weapon type? That would be bull gak.
To be fair this is your basic troop choice, so you should compared it to tacticals and not devastators. Tacticals can bring one special or heavy at 5, or one special and one heavy at 10.
The devastator equivalent can bring "pure" loadout though.
nekooni wrote: To be fair this is your basic troop choice...
I don't think that matters. They did this to Skitarii, and with Plague Marines, and a whole bunch of other things, and it's stupid. Dev Squad was just a simple example.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It may be down to them having so few units, as a brand new army? This makes some kind of sense to me, but I can’t explain why. Feel free to ignore.
Your probably right, its their way to compensate for the lack of units.
Does the Hekaton carry 20? If so we are back to sardine can transports
As this book is essentially half a Codex (get ready Votann players to have your Codex invalidated within a year/18 months but swelled with 6+ new models), I fear that these unit sizes are just there to make things appear more numerous than they really are.
Dysartes wrote: Pretty sure the preview article said the "Land Fortress" could carry 12.
Yep. 12 "League" Infantry models. Exo-Armour takes up 2. Exo-Frames take up 3. Exo-Defenders take up 5. And finally Tex-Mex takes up 6.
I made two of those up.
NAVARRO wrote: 10-20 is this a swarmy army? Thats not the way I see them at all.
We need to stop thinking of "10" as the starting point for a "swarm" or a "horde". GW has changed the definition of horde in 9th to anything with 6+ models. This is insane. The base-line squad unit for most races in the game is 10-man units and has been since I'm sure before I started playing.
20 is just a large squad. Anything above 20 and all the way up to 30+ is a proper horde, and should be treated as such.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It may be down to them having so few units, as a brand new army? This makes some kind of sense to me, but I can’t explain why. Feel free to ignore.
Your probably right, its their way to compensate for the lack of units.
Does the Hekaton carry 20? If so we are back to sardine can transports
Nah, it’s just a double decker. So tempted to paint one up in LT bus livery red now.
So, how about those Magna-Rails?
S9, AP-4, D(D3+3). R24, no Move-and-Fire penalty, Ignore Invuls (of course). On a Wound roll of 6, or through the Eye of the Ancestors, damage spills over to the rest of the squad. You can take 1 per 10 in your basic troops.
With Eye/Strat support, that gun is going to drop 2 MEQs per turn on its own, and it's just 1 model in a 10-man, 130pt squad that still has all the utility you'd expect from his squaddies.
Or the Hekaton variant which is S14, D(2D3+6) which is potentially dropping 10 wounds per shot. On top of the other 14 S6/7, AP-2 D2 shots.
Perhaps I'm panicking early but this seems like a fairly gross escalation in power that doesn't make much sense lorewise.
EDIT: Requires a 6 to wound for the spillover. Not as bad as initially thought but the book has a number of ways to cheat that, namely by targeting enemies with Judgement tokens.
I think youre indeed panicking a bit considering that gun is kinda equal to the hammerheads railgun, and comparing those two and considering that the hekaton is 230 pts for more durability, much less mobility and decent Transport capacity seems fine to me
I could be wrong or grossly underestimating this but one thing I did notice is that there doesn't seem to be a TON of high-AP shooting. The magna rails are obviously mental, but are some of the only AP -4 guns in the codex, and you can't spam them like, say, multi meltas. The only other ones I saw were the 1-shot 2 damage Einhyr ones. There's a smattering of AP -3 and a LOT of -2. This has the potential to struggle into other AoC armies. Doesn't matter if you're auto-wounding if you can't punch through the armour. There's a League that can get +1AP in half range vs JT units, but that isn't a panacea
Twilight Pathways wrote: I could be wrong or grossly underestimating this but one thing I did notice is that there doesn't seem to be a TON of high-AP shooting. The magna rails are obviously mental, but are some of the only AP -4 guns in the codex, and you can't spam them like, say, multi meltas. The only other ones I saw were the 1-shot 2 damage Einhyr ones. There's a smattering of AP -3 and a LOT of -2. This has the potential to struggle into other AoC armies. Doesn't matter if you're auto-wounding if you can't punch through the armour. There's a League that can get +1AP in half range vs JT units, but that isn't a panacea
The only ranged weapon that doesn't have any Ap at all is the Volkite pistol, which is pretty standard. If they scaled down the Ap by 1 across the board for Voltann weapons then I'd be more interested but as it stands they seem pretty unfun to play against if you have a non AoC army.
- Greater Thurian League
- 2 HQ choices: Uthar the Destined and a regular Kahl (210pts)
- 3 Hekaton Land Fortresses with Heavy Magna-Rail Cannons (825pts)
Uthar uses Grim Resolve twice to mark up 2 target units along with 1CP for Appraising Glare. You now have a target with 2 tokens, and a second with 1.
Kahl also uses Grim Resolve to bring both targets up to 2. The League benefit treats them as having 3 tokens each now.
(Alternatively if you want to save CP, use the Kahl to double-up on one of Uthar's targets)
Hekaton1 uses their free reroll for a 75% chance of dumping 10 wounds on the first marked target.
Hekaton2 repeats for 10 wounds on a second target.
Uthar uses Ancestral Fortune to auto-6 Hekaton3's Magna Rail, dumping 10 wounds wherever you want, regardless of marks.
However many Hearthkyn Warriors you want can then play mopup duty, dropping 5 per squad with the same reliability. To say nothing of all the Ion Beamers and other Warriors guns, which combine spectacularly well with tokens thanks to the Ion Storm strat.
It's a gimmick but it does seem to be reliable, and it uses models that were already good in their own right. Throwing out so many Tokens has other benefits as well.
A Thurian list based around stacking Rails, Ions and Tokens seems to dump out an unholy amount of auto/Mortal wounds and stands out as my first impression of the book. This also naturally has better Scoring and mobility than other Votann lists thanks to the League trait and number of transports.
I wonder if the Land Fortress was discovered by Arkhan Land and because he was feeling so generous, he only gave the information about how to build it to the squats
GaroRobe wrote: I wonder if the Land Fortress was discovered by Arkhan Land and because he was feeling so generous, he only gave the information about how to build it to the squats
That's a coincidence. The vehicle was actually designed by Erik Fortress, they just happen drive it on the land.
cuda1179 wrote: While I am disappointed that you can't have 4 of the same weapon
Oh wow I just noticed that. That is just silly, and you know it's because you don't get multiple special weapons in the box.
Having one of each just looks terrible and doesn't allow you to specialize squads. You know, like how a real force would function.
It's such a shame that the Hekaton Land Fortress turned out to be a bigger Sagitaur. It was something they could have done so many interesting things with but they what chose really doesn't feel either suitable with the wheels, or like a "Land Fortress" much at all.
Would have been good if it had been something like an armoured Shuttle Crawler as that would have fit with that Nasapunk/Classic sci-fi + exploration vibe
Mentlegen324 wrote: It's such a shame that the Hekaton Land Fortress turned out to be a bigger Sagitaur.
I think half of its problems would have been solved if GW had simply not named it that. Bigger moon buggy would have been just fine being called Mobile Exploration Center (or Mobile Acquisition Center so they can abbreviate it MAC - everybody loves calling things MAC) or Magnaprospector or something. Give it a name that fits the theme.
It's a widespread problem with the new Squats. The fluff is written to make them full on space dwarfs, and a Land Fortress fits the dwarf theme pretty well. But half of the time the fluff is not reflected on the models it was written for.
Mentlegen324 wrote: It's such a shame that the Hekaton Land Fortress turned out to be a bigger Sagitaur.
I think half of its problems would have been solved if GW had simply not named it that. Bigger moon buggy would have been just fine being called Mobile Exploration Center (or Mobile Acquisition Center so they can abbreviate it MAC - everybody loves calling things MAC) or Magnaprospector or something. Give it a name that fits the theme.
It's a widespread problem with the new Squats. The fluff is written to make them full on space dwarfs, and a Land Fortress fits the dwarf theme pretty well. But half of the time the fluff is not reflected on the models it was written for.
I think that's part of it too. The Land Fortress would have felt better if it was named as some sort of mining transport - The Sagitaur as a small exploration vehicle to prospect areas, the larger vehicle as something to transport the resources afterwards.
It definitely seems to be the case that the fluff and the models themselves are a bit at odds with each other about what exactly they want them to be. The Dwarf theme is absolutely quite a big thing in both their lore and artwork, but then half the models don't bother with it. Unsuprisingly the Grimnyr is a model that a lot of people seem to really, really like the most because it's the most Space Dwarf whereas the usual gold decorative metalwork on something like the Autoch Bolter being decals just emphasizes how little thought they gave it to having it as part of the range overall really.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It may be down to them having so few units, as a brand new army? This makes some kind of sense to me, but I can’t explain why. Feel free to ignore.
Your probably right, its their way to compensate for the lack of units.
Does the Hekaton carry 20? If so we are back to sardine can transports
Nah, it’s just a double decker. So tempted to paint one up in LT bus livery red now.
Now that would be wicked to see I hope the dex comes with some nice colour suggestions since I think these models will do well in so many different colours. Red seems a winner though.
BTW they could have included a fun unit based on the Necromunda miners just to bulk the unit numbers.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I have no issue with the specialist restrictions. My ire is reserved specifically for nonsensical weapon restrictions/limitations/removals.
[EDIT]: And let me just say it before some bright spark jumps in here and starts going "But you're ok with a 4 Heavy Weapon limitation in Devastator Squads and this is no different!!!" or some other such false equivalency - it's not the limitations on the amount of weapons that I and many others have problems with, it's the specific weapon limitations on top of the number limitations. If you want to limit a squad to X special/heavy weapons, or even X per Y models, that's cool. But when you add the extra layer of "You can have 4, but you can't take more than one of each!" crap, that's when it loses me. Imagine if Devastator Squads were limited to one or even two of any given heavy weapon type? That would be bull gak.
To be fair this is your basic troop choice, so you should compared it to tacticals and not devastators. Tacticals can bring one special or heavy at 5, or one special and one heavy at 10.
The devastator equivalent can bring "pure" loadout though.
Yeah, but that's his point, a very valid one. You can take 1 special/heavy weapon per 5 guys, which mean you can take the same weapon for a 10 man squad.
This Kin squad isn't a 5-10 unit, but a 10-20 ones, and they can take 2 special weapons per 10 dudes.... but thos weapons have to be different.
That's the problem here, you can't just take 2 of the same weapons, or 4 when maxed. You are forced to pick to different ones which means having to roll 2 different stuff.
It's a stupid restriction not born of any lore or strategical concern, but purely of "huuur we only put one of each weapon in the box"... As if players couldn't just, yaknow, trade bits or build one unit with one loadout and another with a different one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: As this book is essentially half a Codex (get ready Votann players to have your Codex invalidated within a year/18 months but swelled with 6+ new models), I fear that these unit sizes are just there to make things appear more numerous than they really are.
100% agree. I aint touching that first codex that drop at the tail end of the edition when you see obvious gap and missing stuff they literally showed us (like thos banner guys), it looks very, VERY clear to me that GW didn't wanted to release a full army at once, or to release datasheet without the minies (memeber when they did that?) so they are just going to push a 10th edition codex one at the start of the edition.
NAVARRO wrote: 10-20 is this a swarmy army? Thats not the way I see them at all.
We need to stop thinking of "10" as the starting point for a "swarm" or a "horde". GW has changed the definition of horde in 9th to anything with 6+ models. This is insane. The base-line squad unit for most races in the game is 10-man units and has been since I'm sure before I started playing.
20 is just a large squad. Anything above 20 and all the way up to 30+ is a proper horde, and should be treated as such.
Says long about the slow degradation of the game. Once upon a time it was a real army game where everyone had a 20 model unit with the exception of the elite space marines.... but in recent edition GW just forgot that the GEq was supposed to be the norm, not the MEq, and the only reason for that is simply so they could sell us less plastic for the same price. Why sell people 20 dudes at 60 bucks when you can sell 10 for the same price?
Just bumb their points so the chills will defend us with "akshually the armies are the same price" (which is a lie).
Mentlegen324 wrote: It's such a shame that the Hekaton Land Fortress turned out to be a bigger Sagitaur. It was something they could have done so many interesting things with but they what chose really doesn't feel either suitable with the wheels, or like a "Land Fortress" much at all.
Yup, the design is... "meh" and start to get awful when you think of it in the context of "land fortress".
I think half of its problems would have been solved if GW had simply not named it that.
Isn't it about the same size as a Land Raider? Those have been described as "mobile fortresses" in the fluff since forever.
I think the main issue was expectation. Squats were mainly known for their Epic army with many large war machines, and a lot of people anticipated some of that stuff being redesigned for 40k. I can understand why GW wouldn't want to launch a brand new army with mostly super-heavy scale units, but I reckon some of them will turn up eventually.
KillerAngel wrote: I hate to say "wait and see," but LoV doesn't have a LoW choice yet. That could very well be where the Land Train might end up.
The Codex has leaked. There's no LoW. There's not much of anything really. It's half a list, ready to be supplanted in 10th Ed by a new Votann Codex that gives them the other half of the miniature line. Maybe then they'll get a LoW.
The Grymnyr is a great looking model and although I won't be collecting a full army I will be grabbing that one as it will be great for Stargrave. Plus the CROW droids will be excellent multi purpose minis.
Speaking of the link, I dont think that one as been posted here yet (unless I've missed it)
But yeah... that's a very... "lean" codex.
1 Lord and its named reskin
1 Duelist
1 Caster
1 Repairer (with almost nothing to repair, but hey)
1 Base Troop
1 Elite Troop
1 Mele Troop
1 Ranged Troop
1 Bike Unit
1 Vehicle
1 Bigger Vehicle
I mean, that's "enough" but there's no fat there.
I surprised by the lack of Blackstone Fortress style Men of Iron here, but it seems pretty clear that GW has decided to be a smartass about it and make them be just headswap, glorified drones or caddies for now to stay in line with their weird hard on to "subvert expectation".
Also missing is the obvious "scout" unit. We got them on bike, but we don't have them on foot with the usual sniper shenanigan going on.
It's okay, every one know they'll be in the next wave anyway.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I have no issue with the specialist restrictions. My ire is reserved specifically for nonsensical weapon restrictions/limitations/removals.
[EDIT]: And let me just say it before some bright spark jumps in here and starts going "But you're ok with a 4 Heavy Weapon limitation in Devastator Squads and this is no different!!!" or some other such false equivalency - it's not the limitations on the amount of weapons that I and many others have problems with, it's the specific weapon limitations on top of the number limitations. If you want to limit a squad to X special/heavy weapons, or even X per Y models, that's cool. But when you add the extra layer of "You can have 4, but you can't take more than one of each!" crap, that's when it loses me. Imagine if Devastator Squads were limited to one or even two of any given heavy weapon type? That would be bull gak.
To be fair this is your basic troop choice, so you should compared it to tacticals and not devastators. Tacticals can bring one special or heavy at 5, or one special and one heavy at 10.
The devastator equivalent can bring "pure" loadout though.
Yeah, but that's his point, a very valid one. You can take 1 special/heavy weapon per 5 guys, which mean you can take the same weapon for a 10 man squad.
This Kin squad isn't a 5-10 unit, but a 10-20 ones, and they can take 2 special weapons per 10 dudes.... but thos weapons have to be different.
That's the problem here, you can't just take 2 of the same weapons, or 4 when maxed. You are forced to pick to different ones which means having to roll 2 different stuff.
It's a stupid restriction not born of any lore or strategical concern, but purely of "huuur we only put one of each weapon in the box"... As if players couldn't just, yaknow, trade bits or build one unit with one loadout and another with a different one.
No, his point is not valid, because he's just as wrong as you are about what a Tactical Squad can do. You cannot pick 2 Heavy or 2 Special Weapons in a Tactical Squad. At 5, you get one or the other. at 10, you get one of each. That's it. Re-read the tactical squad datasheet if you won't believe me. I don't like it much either, but at least i'm comparing apples to apples.
Spoiler:
And yes, I'm aware combi-weapons on the sarge are a thing, but that's clearly, obviously not what both of you are talking about, so don't even start with me on that one
KillerAngel wrote: I hate to say "wait and see," but LoV doesn't have a LoW choice yet. That could very well be where the Land Train might end up.
The Codex has leaked. There's no LoW. There's not much of anything really. It's half a list, ready to be supplanted in 10th Ed by a new Votann Codex that gives them the other half of the miniature line. Maybe then they'll get a LoW.
They got more than Harlequins. It makes me sad I wish we had as much as Votan
No, his point is not valid, because he's just as wrong as you are about what a Tactical Squad can do. You cannot pick 2 Heavy or 2 Special Weapons in a Tactical Squad. At 5, you get one or the other. at 10, you get one of each. That's it. Re-read the tactical squad datasheet if you won't believe me. I don't like it much either, but at least i'm comparing apples to apples.
Aight, so first let's be clear, what a tactical squad can or cannot do has nothing to do with what this Kin squad can do, and what it can do is forcing you to take two DIFFERENT weapons instead of just letting you take the same weapon twice in the 10 sized squad, or 4 time in the max sized squad.
And yes, I'm aware combi-weapons on the sarge are a thing, but that's clearly, obviously not what both of you are talking about, so don't even start with me on that one
I legit have no idea why anyone would make such argument but hey, you sure did address that strawman alright.
No, his point is not valid, because he's just as wrong as you are about what a Tactical Squad can do. You cannot pick 2 Heavy or 2 Special Weapons in a Tactical Squad. At 5, you get one or the other. at 10, you get one of each. That's it. Re-read the tactical squad datasheet if you won't believe me. I don't like it much either, but at least i'm comparing apples to apples.
Aight, so first let's be clear, what a tactical squad can or cannot do has nothing to do with what this Kin squad can do, and what it can do is forcing you to take two DIFFERENT weapons instead of just letting you take the same weapon twice in the 10 sized squad, or 4 time in the max sized squad.
Good job on removing context. The point of this was that the comparison of Kin Squad vs Devastator squad was made, and I just pointed out that that's not a fair comparison, as you should instead compare them to Tacticals which have similar restrictions. Still sucks for both TacSquads and Kin Squads, but it's not something new or uniquely Kin Squad.
Spoiler:
nekooni wrote: And yes, I'm aware combi-weapons on the sarge are a thing, but that's clearly, obviously not what both of you are talking about, so don't even start with me on that one
(HN) wrote: I legit have no idea why anyone would make such argument but hey, you sure did address that strawman alright.
1) Combi-weapons are basically the same profile as special weapons. That's why they get lumped in as "equivalent" quite often - I'm shooting 2 meltagun shots quite frequently instead of "one combi-melta in melta mode only and one melta"
2) Yes, pre-emptively addressing a possible counterargument - and putting it in spoilers and pointing out that it IS pre-emptively and not in response to an argument already made is clearly the textbook definition of a strawman. Sorry!
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Ugh, I don't like that. So you need to field exactly 20 models to field 4 special weapons? What sense does that make?
It feels really unnatural to me, how it just suddenly jumps from 2 to 4 after a single model.
nekooni wrote: Good job on removing context. The point of this was that the comparison of Kin Squad vs Devastator squad was made, and I just pointed out that that's not a fair comparison, as you should instead compare them to Tacticals which have similar restrictions. Still sucks for both TacSquads and Kin Squads, but it's not something new or uniquely Kin Squad.
Pretty funny that you try to pull a "good job removing context" while doing it yourself.
The criticism started simply as "GW didn't learned anything, thos loadout restriction are cancerous" to which someone brough up the devastator squad as an argument.
Who care about other squads? The problem here is that this datasheet is yet another example of needless contrived restrictions on a squad loadout that not only restricts your builds to force you into mixed loadout that just slow the game with more weapon profiles than necessary for the sole reason that GW is STILL hung up on their moronic "must be in the box" idea despite them being to cheap to put a decent amount of stuff in said boxes.
It's particularly annoying seeing that this is literally the only troop choice of the codex and it's gimped by not just thos stupid forced mixed loadout, but also a weird cut out at 20 for more special weapons when the unit is going to be forced into weird random numbers under that to fit into the transports. Having at least a +1 if you reach 15 would have given a lot more flexibility to that unit and the whole army they are supposed to be the backbone of.
It's just weird how GW is so inconsistent with applying this weapon restriction. A 20 strong Kabalite warrior squad can run around with 2 dark lances and 4 blasters if they want, despite that loadout requiring buying 40 models' worth of boxes to get all the guns.
Or a better example, the Neophyte genestealer cultists that can have 2 heavy and 2 special weapons per 10, with no restriction on doubling up despite having 1 of each per box.
tneva82 wrote: But yeah not surprised people want votan to be special snowflakes who have everything better than others.
Nice strawman here.
We don't want them to be snowflake, we want GW to stop making trash datasheet for the sake of fitting in boxes they can't be arsed to put more than the bare minimum, and that goes for EVERYONE, not just them.
It's just very noticeable here since it's a brand new unit for a brand new army that will act as their only troop choice.
nekooni wrote: Good job on removing context. The point of this was that the comparison of Kin Squad vs Devastator squad was made, and I just pointed out that that's not a fair comparison, as you should instead compare them to Tacticals which have similar restrictions. Still sucks for both TacSquads and Kin Squads, but it's not something new or uniquely Kin Squad.
Pretty funny that you try to pull a "good job removing context" while doing it yourself.
I've not removed anything when I quoted you there.
The criticism started simply as "GW didn't learned anything, thos loadout restriction are cancerous" to which someone brough up the devastator squad as an argument.
Yes, that was the argument. And after you went on quite in-detail on how unfair the Kin Squad is treated when compared to the Tac Squad, which I just pointed out (again) isn't based on actual rules. Instead of taking the L you're now moving goal posts, and accuse me of arguing in bad faith.
The criticism started simply as "GW didn't learned anything, thos loadout restriction are cancerous" to which someone brough up the devastator squad as an argument.
Yes, that was the argument. And after you went on quite in-detail on how unfair the Kin Squad is treated when compared to the Tac Squad, which I just pointed out (again) isn't based on actual rules. Instead of taking the L you're now moving goal posts, and accuse me of arguing in bad faith.
Again, that's not what happen and you know it. We didn't "went on quite in-detail on how unfair the Kin Squad is treated when compared to the Tac", and I don't know why you keep trying to paint us as some kind of weird LoV white knights when honestly, I'm personally not a fan, AT ALL, of what GW did to the squats.
What H.B.M.C. originally pointed out is how yet again we got a gimped datasheet, something I even missed because I overlooked the word *different* in the weapon selection, and how it was so just to fit "da box".
The comparison to tac or other came later and is honestly very out of topic.
YOU are the one that is moving the goal post because you can't follow a conversation.
Shakalooloo wrote: It's just weird how GW is so inconsistent with applying this weapon restriction. A 20 strong Kabalite warrior squad can run around with 2 dark lances and 4 blasters if they want, despite that loadout requiring buying 40 models' worth of boxes to get all the guns.
Or a better example, the Neophyte genestealer cultists that can have 2 heavy and 2 special weapons per 10, with no restriction on doubling up despite having 1 of each per box.
They legit just throw darts at a board to see what to write
tneva82 wrote: Why votann should have it better than others?
That's a backwards way of looking at it. No one should have to put up with these whacko weapon restrictions.
tneva82 wrote: But yeah not surprised people want votan to be special snowflakes who have everything better than others.
That's not what people are saying at all. Please pay attention.
nekooni wrote: Yes, that was the argument. And after you went on quite in-detail on how unfair the Kin Squad is treated when compared to the Tac Squad, which I just pointed out (again) isn't based on actual rules. Instead of taking the L you're now moving goal posts, and accuse me of arguing in bad faith.
There's no L to take. Why anyone would even bring up the Tac Squad is beyond me.
My example was the Devastator Squad, but you could just as easily replace that example with Wyches, or Death Guard, or Skitarii Rangers. They're all units that can take multiple specialist weapons, but are restricted on individual types of special weapons based on nothing but the bits in the kit, rather than any balance, in-game or fluff reasons. So my Dev Squad example was there to show what it would be like if you could take 4 Heavy Weapons, but were limited to how many of any one kind of HW you could take, rather than the current situation where you can take 4 of any type in any combination.
How could you not understand what I was getting at right from the start? Why did you bring up the Tactical Squad, a squad doesn't even mirror the structure of any of the units we're talking about. It only gets 1 special and 1 heavy slot. It doesn't get 2 special or 2 heavy, or 2 at 10 and 4 at 20 like the Votann squad. It's an irrelevant comparison. A relevant comparison would have been the Chaos Marine Squad, which can take 2 heavies or 2 specials at 10 men... but can't take two of the same for the same asinine reasons as so many other squads are suffering from in this edition.
So we've seen a Hearthkyn model holding what is very clearly a Bolt Revolver (The Medic with the Knife). All the other Hearthkyn have a holstered weapon that matches the bolt revolver, which you can tell by it's handle - the Autoch Bolt Pistol has a noticeably different grip shape as seen on the Hearthkyn Theyn.
Except it seems that Hearthkyn can't actually have bolt revolvers, they can only use Autoch Bolt Pistols.
KillerAngel wrote: I hate to say "wait and see," but LoV doesn't have a LoW choice yet. That could very well be where the Land Train might end up.
The Codex has leaked. There's no LoW. There's not much of anything really. It's half a list, ready to be supplanted in 10th Ed by a new Votann Codex that gives them the other half of the miniature line. Maybe then they'll get a LoW.
That's what I said. There is plenty of room for growth here.
Mentlegen324 wrote: So we've seen a Hearthkyn model holding what is very clearly a Bolt Revolver (The Medic with the Knife). All the other Hearthkyn have a holstered weapon that matches the bolt revolver, which you can tell by it's handle - the Autoch Bolt Pistol has a noticeably different grip shape as seen on the Hearthkyn Theyn.
Except it seems that Hearthkyn can't actually have bolt revolvers, they can only use Autoch Bolt Pistols.
Look, with a couple obvious exceptions (like the missile pod) the weapons the squat models are holding are going to be irrelevant for a decade or more as people adjust to them being in the game.
(or if they become the most popular army, chances of which I think are close to nil). People are just going to call them squat bolters or better bolters or whatever name catches on.
The fact that they chose bad names for them (Hy_las_ _auto_ rifle when las and auto are different weapon classes in 40k) isn't going to help matters. If there's a real game difference between a revolver and a pistol, I honestly think they crapped the bed again and don't understand the scale of the game they're writing for.
The long and short of it is, when people rattle off what weapons their squats have, their opponents are just going to nod and/or shrug. Maybe ask to check the book if the number of (obvious) special weapons seems odd to them.
Mentlegen324 wrote: So we've seen a Hearthkyn model holding what is very clearly a Bolt Revolver (The Medic with the Knife). All the other Hearthkyn have a holstered weapon that matches the bolt revolver, which you can tell by it's handle - the Autoch Bolt Pistol has a noticeably different grip shape as seen on the Hearthkyn Theyn.
Except it seems that Hearthkyn can't actually have bolt revolvers, they can only use Autoch Bolt Pistols.
Look, with a couple obvious exceptions (like the missile pod) the weapons the squat models are holding are going to be irrelevant for a decade or more as people adjust to them being in the game.
(or if they become the most popular army, chances of which I think are close to nil). People are just going to call them squat bolters or better bolters or whatever name catches on.
The fact that they chose bad names for them (Hy_las_ _auto_ rifle when las and auto are different weapon classes in 40k) isn't going to help matters. If there's a real game difference between a revolver and a pistol, I honestly think they crapped the bed again and don't understand the scale of the game they're writing for.
The long and short of it is, when people rattle off what weapons their squats have, their opponents are just going to nod and/or shrug. Maybe ask to check the book if the number of (obvious) special weapons seems odd to them.
I'm not on about the names at all. The Autoch bolt revolver has its own model and rules and the Bolt revolver has its own model and rules - they're two seperate things. Hearthkyn have the bolt revolver model, but seemingly can't use bolt revolvers.
Obviously people will just count them as bolt pistols as that's what they have (or maybe the rules will end up different after all), but it's still not a good thing if they are modeled with something they don't even have and are missing the model for what they should have instead.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Ugh, I don't like that. So you need to field exactly 20 models to field 4 special weapons? What sense does that make? It feels really unnatural to me, how it just suddenly jumps from 2 to 4 after a single model.
Why votann should have it better than others?
That just means that they're following a dumb convention. I'm pretty sure it's a new one too. I don't remember that nonsense being around in earlier editions. Usually it followed a gradual progression rather than "oh, you don't have a whole squad? You only get exactly half of your options then, sorry"
The special weapon limit in this context is at least somewhat mitigated by there being options that are complementary vs being forced to have a weird mixed of anti tank and anti personnel or mix of short/long range options. Doesn’t make the limitation less dumb, but functionally it’s not as bad as say for Skitarii.
I am surprised they didn’t make alternate squads with the standard dudes-support unit with more HW, ?recon unit of smaller squad size perhaps with a sagitar. Maybe even a mole mortar/grenade launcher support unit in addition to single weapons mixed in the assault squads. That would increase options by about 50% without requiring more models.
Mentlegen324 wrote: So we've seen a Hearthkyn model holding what is very clearly a Bolt Revolver (The Medic with the Knife). All the other Hearthkyn have a holstered weapon that matches the bolt revolver, which you can tell by it's handle - the Autoch Bolt Pistol has a noticeably different grip shape as seen on the Hearthkyn Theyn.
Except it seems that Hearthkyn can't actually have bolt revolvers, they can only use Autoch Bolt Pistols.
Look, with a couple obvious exceptions (like the missile pod) the weapons the squat models are holding are going to be irrelevant for a decade or more as people adjust to them being in the game.
(or if they become the most popular army, chances of which I think are close to nil). People are just going to call them squat bolters or better bolters or whatever name catches on.
The fact that they chose bad names for them (Hy_las_ _auto_ rifle when las and auto are different weapon classes in 40k) isn't going to help matters. If there's a real game difference between a revolver and a pistol, I honestly think they crapped the bed again and don't understand the scale of the game they're writing for.
The long and short of it is, when people rattle off what weapons their squats have, their opponents are just going to nod and/or shrug. Maybe ask to check the book if the number of (obvious) special weapons seems odd to them.
I'm not on about the names at all. The Autoch bolt revolver has its own model and rules and the Bolt revolver has its own model and rules - they're two seperate things. Hearthkyn have the bolt revolver model, but seemingly can't use bolt revolvers.
Obviously people will just count them as bolt pistols as that's what they have (or maybe the rules will end up different after all), but it's still not a good thing if they are modeled with something they don't even have and are missing the model for what they should have instead.
I'm apparently missing a piece. Given GW's incompetence with weapons, if the models have pistols and can't have revolvers, then... it doesn't matter? They have pistols and that's what squat bolt pistols look like. Even if they have revolver bits.
Whatever 'autoch' is, they don't have that. So, like I said, GW chose bad names for things, and people will just call name them colloquially based on the normal 40k equivalents.
So in a way, this simplifies the process.
Mentlegen324 wrote: So we've seen a Hearthkyn model holding what is very clearly a Bolt Revolver (The Medic with the Knife). All the other Hearthkyn have a holstered weapon that matches the bolt revolver, which you can tell by it's handle - the Autoch Bolt Pistol has a noticeably different grip shape as seen on the Hearthkyn Theyn.
Except it seems that Hearthkyn can't actually have bolt revolvers, they can only use Autoch Bolt Pistols.
Look, with a couple obvious exceptions (like the missile pod) the weapons the squat models are holding are going to be irrelevant for a decade or more as people adjust to them being in the game.
(or if they become the most popular army, chances of which I think are close to nil). People are just going to call them squat bolters or better bolters or whatever name catches on.
The fact that they chose bad names for them (Hy_las_ _auto_ rifle when las and auto are different weapon classes in 40k) isn't going to help matters. If there's a real game difference between a revolver and a pistol, I honestly think they crapped the bed again and don't understand the scale of the game they're writing for.
The long and short of it is, when people rattle off what weapons their squats have, their opponents are just going to nod and/or shrug. Maybe ask to check the book if the number of (obvious) special weapons seems odd to them.
I'm not on about the names at all. The Autoch bolt revolver has its own model and rules and the Bolt revolver has its own model and rules - they're two seperate things. Hearthkyn have the bolt revolver model, but seemingly can't use bolt revolvers.
Obviously people will just count them as bolt pistols as that's what they have (or maybe the rules will end up different after all), but it's still not a good thing if they are modeled with something they don't even have and are missing the model for what they should have instead.
I'm apparently missing a piece. Given GW's incompetence with weapons, if the models have pistols and can't have revolvers, then... it doesn't matter? They have pistols and that's what squat bolt pistols look like. Even if they have revolver bits.
Whatever 'autoch' is, they don't have that. So, like I said, GW chose bad names for things, and people will just call name them colloquially based on the normal 40k equivalents.
So in a way, this simplifies the process.
That's a bit like saying that it wouldn't matter if Seraphim all had Plasma Pistols modelled, because they can only have Bolt Pistols in the rules.
Mentlegen324 wrote: So we've seen a Hearthkyn model holding what is very clearly a Bolt Revolver (The Medic with the Knife). All the other Hearthkyn have a holstered weapon that matches the bolt revolver, which you can tell by it's handle - the Autoch Bolt Pistol has a noticeably different grip shape as seen on the Hearthkyn Theyn.
Except it seems that Hearthkyn can't actually have bolt revolvers, they can only use Autoch Bolt Pistols.
Look, with a couple obvious exceptions (like the missile pod) the weapons the squat models are holding are going to be irrelevant for a decade or more as people adjust to them being in the game.
(or if they become the most popular army, chances of which I think are close to nil). People are just going to call them squat bolters or better bolters or whatever name catches on.
The fact that they chose bad names for them (Hy_las_ _auto_ rifle when las and auto are different weapon classes in 40k) isn't going to help matters. If there's a real game difference between a revolver and a pistol, I honestly think they crapped the bed again and don't understand the scale of the game they're writing for.
The long and short of it is, when people rattle off what weapons their squats have, their opponents are just going to nod and/or shrug. Maybe ask to check the book if the number of (obvious) special weapons seems odd to them.
I'm not on about the names at all. The Autoch bolt revolver has its own model and rules and the Bolt revolver has its own model and rules - they're two seperate things. Hearthkyn have the bolt revolver model, but seemingly can't use bolt revolvers.
Obviously people will just count them as bolt pistols as that's what they have (or maybe the rules will end up different after all), but it's still not a good thing if they are modeled with something they don't even have and are missing the model for what they should have instead.
I'm apparently missing a piece. Given GW's incompetence with weapons, if the models have pistols and can't have revolvers, then... it doesn't matter? They have pistols and that's what squat bolt pistols look like. Even if they have revolver bits.
Whatever 'autoch' is, they don't have that. So, like I said, GW chose bad names for things, and people will just call name them colloquially based on the normal 40k equivalents.
So in a way, this simplifies the process.
I don't get how this is so hard to understand.
This is the weapon that's called an "Autoch Bolt Pistol", as seen on the Hearthkyn's Thayn. It has its own rules and its own model.
This is the weapon that's a "Bolt Revolver", shown here on a standard Hearthkyn. It has its own model and rules (which feature else in the range on the Hernkyn Pioneers too).
The Hearthkyn are modeled with the model for Bolt Revolvers, but are listed as having Autoch Bolt pistols and can't have Bolt Revolvers. The Autoch bolt pistols do not look like the Bolt Revolvers, because they are two separate things rule and model wise.
The naming is utterly irrelevant. They are a kit that by default you have to proxy as having a different weapon than they actually have.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Differentiating between handguns to that level of granularity is idiotic in a game as big as 40k.
Oh right so now WYSIWYG is not meant to be a thing to such a level that it's perfectly fine for GW themselves to misrepresent what their models have on them meaning you have to proxy that unit as having something else by default.
This is the weapon that's called an "Autoch Bolt Pistol", as seen on the Hearthkyn's Thayn. It has its own rules and its own model.
This is the weapon that's a "Bolt Revolver", shown here on a standard Hearthkyn. It has its own model and rules (which feature else in the range on the Hernkyn Pioneers too).
The Hearthkyn are modeled with the model for Bolt Revolvers, but are listed as having Autoch Bolt pistols and can't have Bolt Revolvers. The Autoch bolt pistols do not look like the Bolt Revolvers, because they are two separate things rule and model wise.
The naming is utterly irrelevant. They are a kit that by default you have to proxy as having a different weapon than they actually have.
I don't normally side with the gun enthusiasts, but I think you're exactly right here. The two weapons are clearly different. Once again, the RAW don't allow you to build the models that GW themselves are selling you.
It doesn't really matter if it might be easy to proxy a bolt revolver as a bolt pistol. The point is that GW keep harping on about how they sell such a "premium" product, and they charge such increasingly outrageous prices, yet their rules are a clusterf**k of badly-balanced armies, endless special rules bloat, prolixity, and now they seem to be increasingly fine with selling you models that come with instructions for *illegal loadouts* ... which they then patch on their website. Good. Because that's why I paid premium cash for a hardback armybook - for day 1 edits that I can cut-and-paste into this "super premium" product. Give me a break, GW...
A Town Called Malus wrote: Differentiating between handguns to that level of granularity is idiotic in a game as big as 40k.
Sure. But GW gave them different profiles and then messed up which unit has access to which. If there was just one "squat bolt pistol" profile that then could be represented by either model there wouldn't be an issue.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Differentiating between handguns to that level of granularity is idiotic in a game as big as 40k.
Sure. But GW gave them different profiles and then messed up which unit has access to which. If there was just one "squat bolt pistol" profile that then could be represented by either model there wouldn't be an issue.
Next Dex in 1 year or so dont worry they will fix it.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Differentiating between handguns to that level of granularity is idiotic in a game as big as 40k.
Oh right so now WYSIWYG is not meant to be a thing to such a level that it's perfectly fine for GW themselves to misrepresent what their models have on them meaning you have to proxy that unit as having something else by default.
GW has just been painfully sloppy as of late when it comes to matching the minies. The fact that they "kinda forgot" the gun of the Daemon Prince or that kerfuffle with the Autarch are pretty telling on how extremely disconnected the scultor/sprue maker side of GW is from the rule writting side of it.
Kind of glad that the Ironhead Prospectors, along with the Exodriller, were not allied into the codex. Their weapon options would have been a doozy.
I never get "the no model, no rule" and specific sprue options nonsense regarding special/heavy/etc weapons. There are people out there who will want to run 40 troops that require them to buy 80 to actually do it and they would. GW actually do themselves out of profit by limiting the options.
Ngl, after learning about the 3 new weapon type of the LoV, I feel like I just got cucked as a Necron Player.
Let's hope they'll wake up in 10th and remember than the whole thing about necron gauss weapons and blades was that it's supposed to go trough everything...
(HN) wrote: Ngl, after learning about the 3 new weapon type of the LoV, I feel like I just got cucked as a Necron Player.
Let's hope they'll wake up in 10th and remember than the whole thing about necron gauss weapons and blades was that it's supposed to go trough everything...
Remember when people with Marine hateboners were raging at the Intercessor Bolt Rifle because it was compared to the Gauss Flayer? Good times!
Kinda weird, there are significantly fewer hammers in this army than I thought that there would be. No hammers for the Hearthkyn or the Kahl. Heck, the Kahl can't even have a sword?
Yeah...
Honestly with how ridiculous the power level has jumped with 9th, I think it's finally time for a real rework of the reanimation protocol, make all the Gauss weapons AP ∞, and give Ignore Invul to all Necron Blades.
And it wouldn't even be that crazy at this point.
And give beam to a bunch of things (The Gauss canon of the Annihilation barge, Doomdsday Ark Canon and the Monolith Death ray at minimum should get it), while Quantum Shielding should not only be brought back to every vehicles (including LoW) but also be changed from autofail wound rolls of 1-3 to autofail on 6.
As for the LoV, they look decent, I guess. The Judgement token mechanic is just very poorly thought out and will hard counter some army that honestly don't need more hardcounter than they already have, but the rest is okay I guess. I wish the marked legions got the same treatment.
I'm looking thing over, and LoV are going to be a HARD counter to Custodes, and to a lesser extent Deathguard.
With the right combo you can throw out 3 Judgement Tokens the beginning of turn 1, and get +1 to hit. With that combo a basic 220 point Hearthkyn squad can wipe 3 Custodes off the board with one round of shooting alone.
cuda1179 wrote: I'm looking thing over, and LoV are going to be a HARD counter to Custodes, and to a lesser extent Deathguard.
With the right combo you can throw out 3 Judgement Tokens the beginning of turn 1, and get +1 to hit. With that combo a basic 220 point Hearthkyn squad can wipe 3 Custodes off the board with one round of shooting alone.
Yuuuuuuuuuuuup. And imagine how hard the Knights will get countered.
As I said, that mechanic is very poorly thought out and should have been consumed on use.
You can put tokens on units, and then consume one for a auto hit, something like that, ANYTHING other than just "infinit duration stacking debuff".
1. Exists. 2. Is somehow more powerful than a bolt gun when the force of the shot comes from the ammunition's own propulsion system. 3. Has the same rate of fire as a bolt gun.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I still can't figure out why the "Bolt Shotgun":
1. Exists.
2. Is somehow more powerful than a bolt gun when the force of the shot comes from the ammunition's own propulsion system.
3. Has the same rate of fire as a bolt gun.
I can answer that.
1. Because the hacks at GW that replaced the old guard of historical nerds are a bunch of millennials that have no knowledge nor interest in weaponry or military in general. They also have very, VERY poor game designe skills as the total shitshow that has been 9th can attest, and have clearly lost view of what stats are supposed to mean, as the shift from GEq to MEq as the "standard" proves.
2. See point 1
3. See point 2.
Case and point, the stuff they design looks like it fit more in a low tier cartoon made to sell action figure than a grim dark military war game.
BTW, I love how the super sturdy LAND FORTRESS use wheels and have a giant glass dome as cockpit.
Don't think too much about the logistic, just clap at the very "original design" and how this big one is a call back to the small one.
(HN) wrote: Case and point, the stuff they design looks like it fit more in a low tier cartoon made to sell action figure than a grim dark military war game.
(HN) wrote: Case and point, the stuff they design looks like it fit more in a low tier cartoon made to sell action figure than a grim dark military war game.
TMNT? "low-tier"? Get outta here...
Sorry to break it to ya, but as much as I loved the cartoon back then, it's still a low tier advertisement show in the same style than He-Man and GI Joe.
crumby_cataphract wrote: Quite literally all of the Citadel range looks cartoonish with the right paint job.
There's a leaked picture from the codex that shows the Hearthkin and the Land Fortresses in a red colour scheme. I think they look excellent.
Fair enough, but on the same token anything will look excellent with the right colorsheme.
I think I saw a black armor with brown cloth colorsheme on one of the artwork, it does look pretty nice too.
Still, doesn't change the fact that the Land Fortress looks bad and it get worse the more you look at it.
It has the exact same size and number of wheels than the Sagitaur and the same glass cockpit too.
While thos things looked okay on a small fast moving recon vehicle, on what is literally called "Land Fortress" it looks ridiculous.
(HN) wrote: Case and point, the stuff they design looks like it fit more in a low tier cartoon made to sell action figure than a grim dark military war game.
TMNT? "low-tier"? Get outta here...
Sorry to break it to ya, but as much as I loved the cartoon back then, it's still a low tier advertisement show in the same style than He-Man and GI Joe.
crumby_cataphract wrote: Quite literally all of the Citadel range looks cartoonish with the right paint job.
There's a leaked picture from the codex that shows the Hearthkin and the Land Fortresses in a red colour scheme. I think they look excellent.
Fair enough, but on the same token anything will look excellent with the right colorsheme.
I think I saw a black armor with brown cloth colorsheme on one of the artwork, it does look pretty nice too.
Still, doesn't change the fact that the Land Fortress looks bad and it get worse the more you look at it.
It has the exact same size and number of wheels than the Sagitaur and the same glass cockpit too.
While thos things looked okay on a small fast moving recon vehicle, on what is literally called "Land Fortress" it looks ridiculous.
And here we go again with the opinion stated as fact. Useful.
I think, like someone above said, the issue with the Land fortress is the name, not the model, the model makes sense for the faction, the word “fortress” doesn’t fit the model.
Ps. I like the little wheels, it looks great not to have huge Tonka truck wheels, especial for a race of dwarves, everything would have had to be very high up with big wheels, keeping stuff low down for the squats is perfect logistical sense.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I still can't figure out why the "Bolt Shotgun":
1. Exists.
2. Is somehow more powerful than a bolt gun when the force of the shot comes from the ammunition's own propulsion system.
3. Has the same rate of fire as a bolt gun.
[EDIT]: Holy crap!
Spoiler:
"Votann Power!"
Please tell me somewhere that someone has done the BT emperors champion as He-Man with a Necron Skeletor
Apparently Septembers model of the month (the LoV warrior) isn't going to available in store until 24th September
so apart from being annoyed as i was able to drop in to my local GW and was looking forward to grabbing one and seeing how they look compared to other minis size wise
I wonder if it's a hint about when the LoV stuff will be out ?
[i'm not up on how late in the month recent models have being showing up]
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: Apparently Septembers model of the month (the LoV warrior) isn't going to available in store until 24th September
so apart from being annoyed as i was able to drop in to my local GW and was looking forward to grabbing one and seeing how they look compared to other minis size wise
I wonder if it's a hint about when the LoV stuff will be out ?
[i'm not up on how late in the month recent models have being showing up]
The Rotmire MoM was available from the 13th of August same day as Heart of Ghur released.
Andykp wrote: And here we go again with the opinion stated as fact. Useful.
And here we go again, terrible take needlessly agressive. Useful.
Andykp wrote: I think, like someone above said, the issue with the Land fortress is the name, not the model, the model makes sense for the faction, the word “fortress” doesn’t fit the model.
The name doesn't help, but even without that, they are trying to pretend this thing with its tiny wheels and giant glass cockpit is supposed to be among the sturdiest vehicles of the 41th millenium, which makes no sens if you try to turn on your brain for more than 1 second.
Andykp wrote: Ps. I like the little wheels, it looks great not to have huge Tonka truck wheels, especial for a race of dwarves, everything would have had to be very high up with big wheels, keeping stuff low down for the squats is perfect logistical sense.
Nop, it doesn't make sens for a giant heavy tank to have the same set of wheels than a light recon vehicle. If they really wanted to keep the same wheel because they are too cheap to 3D cad new ones, they should have at least increased the number of wheels to 4 pairs.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: Apparently Septembers model of the month (the LoV warrior) isn't going to available in store until 24th September
so apart from being annoyed as i was able to drop in to my local GW and was looking forward to grabbing one and seeing how they look compared to other minis size wise
Yup, same here, I dropped specifically to get one and was told "Ho you didn't know? They are for the 24th!"
I double checked the site and I'm convinced they have edited it to add that date, because when I read it the first time it wasn' there.
[i'm not up on how late in the month recent models have being showing up]
From what the store guy told me today, is "totally unconfirmed guess" is that the LoV may be released (the launch box at least) the same day than this free mini.
Take that with a
Nop the coin was there.
From what I understand GW has been struggling to supply free minies on time at the start of the month like they used to, and it's apparently not intentional (from what the store guy told me).
Some of these new models look great, I like the champion in exo armour (or whatever it’s called) though I do hope it comes with a helmet, I love the new fortress personally I think it’s a great looking vehicle.
Turns out that the Leagues had significant problem with Tyranids to the point that there were rumours within the Imperium that they had been wiped out. And it seems the Imperium, because it's the Imperium, just took it at face value and said they were extinct.
Andykp wrote: And here we go again with the opinion stated as fact. Useful.
And here we go again, terrible take needlessly agressive. Useful.
Andykp wrote: I think, like someone above said, the issue with the Land fortress is the name, not the model, the model makes sense for the faction, the word “fortress” doesn’t fit the model.
The name doesn't help, but even without that, they are trying to pretend this thing with its tiny wheels and giant glass cockpit is supposed to be among the sturdiest vehicles of the 41th millenium, which makes no sens if you try to turn on your brain for more than 1 second.
Andykp wrote: Ps. I like the little wheels, it looks great not to have huge Tonka truck wheels, especial for a race of dwarves, everything would have had to be very high up with big wheels, keeping stuff low down for the squats is perfect logistical sense.
Nop, it doesn't make sens for a giant heavy tank to have the same set of wheels than a light recon vehicle. If they really wanted to keep the same wheel because they are too cheap to 3D cad new ones, they should have at least increased the number of wheels to 4 pairs.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: Apparently Septembers model of the month (the LoV warrior) isn't going to available in store until 24th September
so apart from being annoyed as i was able to drop in to my local GW and was looking forward to grabbing one and seeing how they look compared to other minis size wise
Yup, same here, I dropped specifically to get one and was told "Ho you didn't know? They are for the 24th!"
I double checked the site and I'm convinced they have edited it to add that date, because when I read it the first time it wasn' there.
[i'm not up on how late in the month recent models have being showing up]
From what the store guy told me today, is "totally unconfirmed guess" is that the LoV may be released (the launch box at least) the same day than this free mini.
Take that with a
Nop the coin was there.
From what I understand GW has been struggling to supply free minies on time at the start of the month like they used to, and it's apparently not intentional (from what the store guy told me).
When you look at it next to the little buggy it isn’t that much bigger, so again it’s only the name that suggests it’s a huge super tough thing. It’s supposed to be a rugged explorer vehicle, and it fits that bill ok, can I turn my brain off again now?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mentlegen324 wrote: Turns out that the Leagues had significant problem with Tyranids to the point that there were rumours within the Imperium that they had been wiped out. And it seems the Imperium, because it's the Imperium, just took it at face value and said they were extinct.
Mentlegen324 wrote: Turns out that the Leagues had significant problem with Tyranids to the point that there were rumours within the Imperium that they had been wiped out. And it seems the Imperium, because it's the Imperium, just took it at face value and said they were extinct.
I sure hope that's something they went with to explain their return. A bit strange that they haven't mentioned anything about that in their blog yet ngl.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: When you look at it next to the little buggy it isn’t that much bigger, so again it’s only the name that suggests it’s a huge super tough thing.
Damn, you are trying REALLY hard to reach on that one. Sadly, just like your inabiltiy to properly quote people without flooding, you don't seem to be able to pull that one correctly.
No, it's not "huuur juss the nam", it's literally how they are stated and described by GW itself. It's supposed to be as thought as a landraider. Does it look as sturdy as a land raider to you?
You know what, don't even answer I know you are going to pull some laborious mental gymnastic once again, that was a rhetorical question. It's DOESN'T look like what the stats and what GW is trying to sell it as.
Andykp wrote: It’s supposed to be a rugged explorer vehicle, and it fits that bill ok, can I turn my brain off again now?
Nice headcanon my dude. Again, that thing isn't stated like a "rugger explorer vehicle" nor it's describe as such by GW, try again.
Also to turn your brain off again you'd have to have turned it on at some point, something your post seem to indicate you have yet to do.
Mentlegen324 wrote: Turns out that the Leagues had significant problem with Tyranids to the point that there were rumours within the Imperium that they had been wiped out. And it seems the Imperium, because it's the Imperium, just took it at face value and said they were extinct.
I sure hope that's something they went with to explain their return. A bit strange that they haven't mentioned anything about that in their blog yet ngl.
It's in the loremaster. The Leagues overall have had significant trouble with Tyranids which led to rumours about them being wiped out by them. The Imperium officially declared them extinct based on just a rumour and clearly didn't do any further investigation.
It even says the Tau believe it, thinking that the Demiurg ships they encounter and have good relations with are the last of their species after a Tyranid attack.
It's in the loremaster. The Leagues overall have had significant trouble with Tyranids which led to rumours about them being wiped out by them. The Imperium officially declared them extinct based on just a rumour and clearly didn't do any further investigation.
It even says the Tau believe it, thinking that the Demiurg ships they encounter and have good relations with are the last of their species after a Tyranid attack.
Oh yeah, I forgot that GW last desperate attempt at saving their already failed streaming platform was to paywall the new lore that should OBVIOUSLY be part of their promo material for the new release.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Differentiating between handguns to that level of granularity is idiotic in a game as big as 40k.
Nonsense. It gives the game options, which are fun.
Exactly, the same way than having slight variation between axe and sword is a nice thing to have.
Sadly GW lazy bum can't be arsed to give us enough of each variants nowadays and since they are still hung up on their silly "not in the box not in the game" thing they are slowly getting rid of thos nice things to have.
Mentlegen324 wrote: Turns out that the Leagues had significant problem with Tyranids to the point that there were rumours within the Imperium that they had been wiped out. And it seems the Imperium, because it's the Imperium, just took it at face value and said they were extinct.
I sure hope that's something they went with to explain their return. A bit strange that they haven't mentioned anything about that in their blog yet ngl.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: When you look at it next to the little buggy it isn’t that much bigger, so again it’s only the name that suggests it’s a huge super tough thing.
Damn, you are trying REALLY hard to reach on that one. Sadly, just like your inabiltiy to properly quote people without flooding, you don't seem to be able to pull that one correctly.
No, it's not "huuur juss the nam", it's literally how they are stated and described by GW itself. It's supposed to be as thought as a landraider. Does it look as sturdy as a land raider to you?
You know what, don't even answer I know you are going to pull some laborious mental gymnastic once again, that was a rhetorical question. It's DOESN'T look like what the stats and what GW is trying to sell it as.
Andykp wrote: It’s supposed to be a rugged explorer vehicle, and it fits that bill ok, can I turn my brain off again now?
Nice headcanon my dude. Again, that thing isn't stated like a "rugger explorer vehicle" nor it's describe as such by GW, try again.
Also to turn your brain off again you'd have to have turned it on at some point, something your post seem to indicate you have yet to do.
It is lovely having these friendly chats with you, you are a delight as per usual. So you don’t like the little wheels and the canopy. Fine. As I said before I like the little wheels. I also like the on the Sagittaur, the chunky visible chassis and roll bars. The thick layered armour. Things can be sturdy with being big metal boxes, and another big metal box would be boring. GW marketing also say one marine is a good as an army and imperial guard tanks can move, sometimes you have to read between the lines of the hyperbole. Maybe one day I will manage to switch my brain on long enough to be a smart and edgy as you, until the pin I’m planning an army based around the big buggies being supported by a bunch of little ones full angry space dwarfs.
Andykp wrote: It is lovely having these friendly chats with you, you are a delight as per usual.
Please, don't try to be a smartass when you can't even follow the most basique etiquet when it comes to quoting on a forum.
Andykp wrote: So you don’t like the little wheels and the canopy. Fine.
Aight, I'll stop you right there, I know you love to do that, gaslighting and strawmaning gak, because that's apprently the only thing you can do, but that has nothing to do with what I "like".
It's about how much sens that design make. It objectively doesn't make any sens as a heavy frontline sturdy tank.
Andykp wrote: As I said before I like the little wheels. I also like the on the Sagittaur, the chunky visible chassis and roll bars.
Again, nobody care about what you like or not. This isn't about how much sens it makes for what it's supposed to do.
Except, yaknow, the part where the driver is exposed on the front of the vehicle.
Andykp wrote: Things can be sturdy with being big metal boxes, and another big metal box would be boring.
And here you have it. The unimaginative excuse from people with poor analytic skills "buh hut wuld be buring if ut muh sens".
What the feth are you even trying to say?
NOT having a canopy would be "boring"?
Having tracks would be "boring"?
Hell, even having more appropriate wheels (ie more of them, or bigger version of them) would be "boring"?
You don't make any sens, you can't do better than that and that's because you know your point is indefensible, it's yet another malformed contrarian reflex to someone actual valid criticism that clash with your total lack of processing of what's infront of your eyes outside of "hu me like it".
Andykp wrote: GW marketing also say one marine is a good as an army and imperial guard tanks can move, sometimes you have to read between the lines of the hyperbole. Maybe one day I will manage to switch my brain on long enough to be a smart and edgy as you, until the pin I’m planning an army based around the big buggies being supported by a bunch of little ones full angry space dwarfs.
And let's throw some whataboutism because why not, right?
My god you are so predictable and "boring".
Get back when you can actually make a coherent point for a change would ya?
JNAProductions wrote: Practical and 40k don’t mix well.
Look at all the people running around without helmets.
There's a galaxy of difference between a bit of rule of cool on what used to be only the characters and sergeant to help them stand out (a rule of cool that was often explained by the presence of a Iron Halo actually providing a better defense than a helmet btw), and the ridiculous state of the LoV where apparently wearing an helmet is now the exception (do the exo armour even have a helmet? I don't remember having seen one yet), and what is supposed to be their sturdiest battlefront tank, something on par with a land raider, comes with a god damn glass canopy on the front of the vehicle.
What they did with the land fortress isn't cool nor practical, it's literally them copy pasting the 3D asset of the first vehicle they made and building on top of eachother, it's lazy and silly.
It's like if a Land Raider was just a double decker Rhino, with a big wind shield on the front.
(HN) wrote: What they did with the land fortress isn't cool nor practical, it's literally them copy pasting the 3D asset of the first vehicle they made and building on top of eachother, it's lazy and silly. It's like if a Land Raider was just a double decker Rhino, with a big wind shield on the front.
Hell, that image was so on point I had to make it, so here it is.
This is the marine equivalent of GW take on a heavy vehicle for the LoV.
Andykp wrote: It is lovely having these friendly chats with you, you are a delight as per usual.
Please, don't try to be a smartass when you can't even follow the most basique etiquet when it comes to quoting on a forum.
Andykp wrote: So you don’t like the little wheels and the canopy. Fine.
Aight, I'll stop you right there, I know you love to do that, gaslighting and strawmaning gak, because that's apprently the only thing you can do, but that has nothing to do with what I "like".
It's about how much sens that design make. It objectively doesn't make any sens as a heavy frontline sturdy tank.
Andykp wrote: As I said before I like the little wheels. I also like the on the Sagittaur, the chunky visible chassis and roll bars.
Again, nobody care about what you like or not. This isn't about how much sens it makes for what it's supposed to do.
Except, yaknow, the part where the driver is exposed on the front of the vehicle.
Andykp wrote: Things can be sturdy with being big metal boxes, and another big metal box would be boring.
And here you have it. The unimaginative excuse from people with poor analytic skills "buh hut wuld be buring if ut muh sens".
What the feth are you even trying to say?
NOT having a canopy would be "boring"?
Having tracks would be "boring"?
Hell, even having more appropriate wheels (ie more of them, or bigger version of them) would be "boring"?
You don't make any sens, you can't do better than that and that's because you know your point is indefensible, it's yet another malformed contrarian reflex to someone actual valid criticism that clash with your total lack of processing of what's infront of your eyes outside of "hu me like it".
Andykp wrote: GW marketing also say one marine is a good as an army and imperial guard tanks can move, sometimes you have to read between the lines of the hyperbole. Maybe one day I will manage to switch my brain on long enough to be a smart and edgy as you, until the pin I’m planning an army based around the big buggies being supported by a bunch of little ones full angry space dwarfs.
And let's throw some whataboutism because why not, right?
My god you are so predictable and "boring".
Get back when you can actually make a coherent point for a change would ya?
While I honestly agree with what you say. The Votann look like garbage. I would also like to say there really is no sense being rude to the poeple who like them. Trash on the votann all you want but why be rude to someone else online?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Unless they are a GW rep and if they are the bring it on.
JSG wrote: Please enlighten us on more things you know nothing about.
Please come back when you'll have something actually meaningful to say. I know what you typed sounded very clever in your head, but god damn it looks frankly stupid in reality.
(HN) wrote: What they did with the land fortress isn't cool nor practical, it's literally them copy pasting the 3D asset of the first vehicle they made and building on top of eachother, it's lazy and silly.
It's like if a Land Raider was just a double decker Rhino, with a big wind shield on the front.
Hell, that image was so on point I had to make it, so here it is.
This is the marine equivalent of GW take on a heavy vehicle for the LoV.
While I honestly agree with what you say. The Votann look like garbage. I would also like to say there really is no sense being rude to the poeple who like them. Trash on the votann all you want but why be rude to someone else online?
I'm not being rude to people who like them. People can like what they want. I'm being rude to people that will try to shut you down for not liking them like they do or deny objective reality with weird headcanon and mental gymnastic, like mr.smartass over there.
I think the land fortress looks great, I like the chunky little wheels and the canopy. It looks a little like an imaginex toy but I like that about it, it looks tough and rugged.
Whether it looks as though as a land raider or repulsor of some other vehicle, is subjective.
JNAProductions wrote: Practical and 40k don’t mix well. Look at all the people running around without helmets.
Yeah, but there's still a matter of suspension of disbelief and aesthetics. This whole idea of "it's 40k, it should be lolrandom nonsense. Why should we expect GW to actually put some work in?" is not good for the setting. The Hekaton looks a bit awkward and what is supposed to be a heavy vehicle looks fragile. It has a huge weak-point in the front and the wheels seem like they would be unable to support its weight. As some have pointed out, it looks rather toy like and over done. It's comparable to that space marine floating land raider thing, I suppose, where they just haphazardly slapped guns to it without any real thought.
It should really be larger and have tank treads. To go with the "nasa-punk" theme it should have probably looked like a Crawler, except with more armour and weapons .
Honestly... the more that I look at the Fortress, the more I like it. I guess to me I see it more as a base of operations for excursions, like resource mapping or acquisition, which seems like a sort of mission profile that might be very common in the Leagues. It looks like it could be pressed into main line combat duty, but it also looks much more multi-purpose than almost any other vehicle in the 40k range. And I honestly love that, now that I think about it!
I think something other than the bubble canopy would have given a greater sense of solidity for something titled "land fortress". Something like the more slit view port as seen on things like the Desert of Kharak base runner:
https://www.shapeways.com/forum/t/deserts-of-kharak-baserunner.46968/
crumby_cataphract wrote: Honestly... the more that I look at the Fortress, the more I like it. I guess to me I see it more as a base of operations for excursions, like resource mapping or acquisition, which seems like a sort of mission profile that might be very common in the Leagues. It looks like it could be pressed into main line combat duty, but it also looks much more multi-purpose than almost any other vehicle in the 40k range. And I honestly love that, now that I think about it!
Yeah they said at the start these forces are exploratory forces so it fits that feel well, its not a battle tank it just handles a battlefield role. its going to be interesting to see what future waves bring- this wave is a very solid base with all the original elements of squats revisited. Think the next wave will have funkier stuff whenever it arrives. Apparently Pete Foley confirmed the is just the first wave at NOVA.
This brings me back to the main issue being the word fortress in the name. Fortresses don’t have glass bubbles. Rugged exploratory vehicles do. The brief fluff we have on this says it can go toe toe with the toughest vehicles and it fills the tank role in the army. Armour and weapons wise it seems pretty solid, it looks rugged and I’m happy to hand wave the canopy because it looks cool. Just as I’m happy to hand wave helmetless marines, guard tanks that can’t drive anywhere and all the other cooks stuff in the 40k models.
Seeing that printed thing you linked to makes me more glad this thing has tiny wheels, just looks more practical for a race of dwarves. And it leaves room for access hatches lower down, and it looks cute. More I see the land fortress, the more I like it.
JNAProductions wrote: Practical and 40k don’t mix well.
Look at all the people running around without helmets.
Yeah, but there's still a matter of suspension of disbelief and aesthetics. This whole idea of "it's 40k, it should be lolrandom nonsense. Why should we expect GW to actually put some work in?" is not good for the setting.
The Hekaton looks a bit awkward and what is supposed to be a heavy vehicle looks fragile. It has a huge weak-point in the front and the wheels seem like they would be unable to support its weight.
As some have pointed out, it looks rather toy like and over done. It's comparable to that space marine floating land raider thing, I suppose, where they just haphazardly slapped guns to it without any real thought.
It should really be larger and have tank treads. To go with the "nasa-punk" theme it should have probably looked like a Crawler, except with more armour and weapons .
Trouble is, those crawlers already exist as Ordinatus.
I saw the two loremaster videos on Warhammer tv, it's interesting, even if it's not perfect, but I still can't get past the design of the models. It's a shame that it seems they couldn't agree on what to make of them, they have no identity, no common theme to unite them as a collection, as an army, and are too blend, lost between space marines rip off and uninspired generic sci-fi.
There are some good models like the ones with the exoskeleton and conversion beamers for example, the lore is interesting, I don't know for the rules and gameplay as I haven't been playing this edition but...it's a shame to have such a promising new faction and to fail it that much. Could have been nice, even with such a small codex.
godardc wrote: I saw the two loremaster videos on Warhammer tv, it's interesting, even if it's not perfect, but I still can't get past the design of the models. It's a shame that it seems they couldn't agree on what to make of them, they have no identity, no common theme to unite them as a collection, as an army, and are too blend, lost between space marines rip off and uninspired generic sci-fi.
There are some good models like the ones with the exoskeleton and conversion beamers for example, the lore is interesting, I don't know for the rules and gameplay as I haven't been playing this edition but...it's a shame to have such a promising new faction and to fail it that much. Could have been nice, even with such a small codex.
I've seen people saying the "no common theme" with their models is a good thing and that it's intended, because they're a mix of different groups within Kin society. Which, sure, I understand...but I don't think that really does anything positive for their range and just makes them inconsistent.
My thoughts on the Leagues haven't changed at all since their first reveal. I like the idea, their lore is great, the artwork is very nice and full of atmosphere, but I can't help but look at several their models and think "is that really it? That's the best they could do with that idea?". They just come across as missing something.
They're still one of my new favourite armies because they're still Space Dwarfs, but it still feels like they haven't really done them justice with the model designs.
godardc wrote: I saw the two loremaster videos on Warhammer tv, it's interesting, even if it's not perfect, but I still can't get past the design of the models. It's a shame that it seems they couldn't agree on what to make of them, they have no identity, no common theme to unite them as a collection, as an army, and are too blend, lost between space marines rip off and uninspired generic sci-fi.
There are some good models like the ones with the exoskeleton and conversion beamers for example, the lore is interesting, I don't know for the rules and gameplay as I haven't been playing this edition but...it's a shame to have such a promising new faction and to fail it that much. Could have been nice, even with such a small codex.
I disagree.
The overall aesthetic is gear developed from mining equipment. Not mining equipment repurposed. A deliberate, military evolution of what was originally mining equipment. So a void suit perhaps reduced in bulk to improve freedom of movement, with ballistic weave and special materials used to strengthen the most protecty bits.
It’s all geared toward aiding survival in exceptionally hostile environments, because the Deep Core is exceptionally hostile.
This brings me back to the main issue being the word fortress in the name. Fortresses don’t have glass bubbles. Rugged exploratory vehicles do. The brief fluff we have on this says it can go toe toe with the toughest vehicles and it fills the tank role in the army. Armour and weapons wise it seems pretty solid, it looks rugged and I’m happy to hand wave the canopy because it looks cool. Just as I’m happy to hand wave helmetless marines, guard tanks that can’t drive anywhere and all the other cooks stuff in the 40k models.
Seeing that printed thing you linked to makes me more glad this thing has tiny wheels, just looks more practical for a race of dwarves. And it leaves room for access hatches lower down, and it looks cute. More I see the land fortress, the more I like it.
It's from the Homeworld prequel game. I used it as an example of the sort of no-nonsense industrial utilitarian visual look.
For me, I would have preferred a tracked land fortress. But if it had to have wheels, then something in between what we get and the giant wheels of the Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak base runner (which is meant for desert running) would be what I prefer. I still would prefer a slit viewing port rather than bubble canopy. I don't mind the bubble for the Sagitaur since it is meant to be an exploratory vehicle turned APC, but not for a "fortress".
This brings me back to the main issue being the word fortress in the name. Fortresses don’t have glass bubbles. Rugged exploratory vehicles do. The brief fluff we have on this says it can go toe toe with the toughest vehicles and it fills the tank role in the army. Armour and weapons wise it seems pretty solid, it looks rugged and I’m happy to hand wave the canopy because it looks cool. Just as I’m happy to hand wave helmetless marines, guard tanks that can’t drive anywhere and all the other cooks stuff in the 40k models.
Seeing that printed thing you linked to makes me more glad this thing has tiny wheels, just looks more practical for a race of dwarves. And it leaves room for access hatches lower down, and it looks cute. More I see the land fortress, the more I like it.
It's from the Homeworld prequel game. I used it as an example of the sort of no-nonsense industrial utilitarian visual look.
For me, I would have preferred a tracked land fortress. But if it had to have wheels, then something in between what we get and the giant wheels of the Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak base runner (which is meant for desert running) would be what I prefer. I still would prefer a slit viewing port rather than bubble canopy. I don't mind the bubble for the Sagitaur since it is meant to be an exploratory vehicle turned APC, but not for a "fortress".
I can see it being a matter of time before someone makes an armoured canopy 3rd Party bit. And they might look better, I’ll wait and see. That other model looks cool, just the wheels don’t work for squats. Too tall. The bubble canopy clearly just a design based on the look, and it gives them a reason to make internal detail. I agree though, it’s fitting for a fortress. Not a lot about that model makes me think “fortress”. Still keen though.
crumby_cataphract wrote: Honestly... the more that I look at the Fortress, the more I like it. I guess to me I see it more as a base of operations for excursions, like resource mapping or acquisition, which seems like a sort of mission profile that might be very common in the Leagues. It looks like it could be pressed into main line combat duty, but it also looks much more multi-purpose than almost any other vehicle in the 40k range. And I honestly love that, now that I think about it!
Again, it would have been fine if that was what they wanted that thing to be (I'd still ague that even in that case it should have at at least a 4th set of wheel for balance sake and to make the thing look bigger than the sagitor), a support transport troop no too sturdy but bringing fire power and the much needed mass transport for the faction of footsloggers.
But that's not what they did. They instead made it a Land Raider.
crumby_cataphract wrote: Honestly... the more that I look at the Fortress, the more I like it. I guess to me I see it more as a base of operations for excursions, like resource mapping or acquisition, which seems like a sort of mission profile that might be very common in the Leagues. It looks like it could be pressed into main line combat duty, but it also looks much more multi-purpose than almost any other vehicle in the 40k range. And I honestly love that, now that I think about it!
Again, it would have been fine if that was what they wanted that thing to be (I'd still ague that even in that case it should have at at least a 4th set of wheel for balance sake and to make the thing look bigger than the sagitor), a support transport troop no too sturdy but bringing fire power and the much needed mass transport for the faction of footsloggers.
But that's not what they did. They instead made it a Land Raider.
I just don't see how they made it a Land Raider. I understand that that's what the community was anticipating when they heard that leak about it being called a "Land Fortress." But once you see the model, I think it very clearly telegraphs its function as a command and support center. The model looks like a mobile strong point, to me at least. So I can understand why they went with the "Fortress" nomenclature.
I just don't see how they made it a Land Raider. I understand that that's what the community was anticipating when they heard that leak about it being called a "Land Fortress." But once you see the model, I think it very clearly telegraphs its function as a command and support center. The model looks like a mobile strong point, to me at least. So I can understand why they went with the "Fortress" nomenclature.
I find fascinating how every single one of the people "loving" thing thing seem to justify it with their headcanon interpretation of what the vehicle is supposed to be based on its look, rather than looking at what GW said about it, and how they stated the thing.
I just don't see how they made it a Land Raider. I understand that that's what the community was anticipating when they heard that leak about it being called a "Land Fortress." But once you see the model, I think it very clearly telegraphs its function as a command and support center. The model looks like a mobile strong point, to me at least. So I can understand why they went with the "Fortress" nomenclature.
I find fascinating how every single one of the people "loving" thing thing seem to justify it with their headcanon interpretation of what the vehicle is supposed to be based on its look, rather than looking at what GW said about it, and how they stated the thing.
Look at its datasheet. It's a land raider.
I just did now. About a third of it was cut off in the image I saw. They talk about it being an "iconic battle tank," so you're right there. That is a bizarre description for something with its form factor. But after that, they mainly just talk about its guns and transport capacity...which seems pretty far from being the same thing as a land raider. You could say something similar about command Rhinos, for instance.
Anyway, you might be right that the rule studio's vision of the vehicle is out of line with its form. But it's also all of one small paragraph of fluff. So I'm happy to go with the story that the sculptors are telling over that of the rule writers. At least the former have some obvious talent. Honestly, I don't know why GW keeps some of the hacks in the design studio on pay roll. It's definitely not for their exquisite game design or evocative prose...
I just don't see how they made it a Land Raider. I understand that that's what the community was anticipating when they heard that leak about it being called a "Land Fortress." But once you see the model, I think it very clearly telegraphs its function as a command and support center. The model looks like a mobile strong point, to me at least. So I can understand why they went with the "Fortress" nomenclature.
I find fascinating how every single one of the people "loving" thing thing seem to justify it with their headcanon interpretation of what the vehicle is supposed to be based on its look, rather than looking at what GW said about it, and how they stated the thing.
Look at its datasheet. It's a land raider.
I just did now. About a third of it was cut off in the image I saw. They talk about it being an "iconic battle tank," so you're right there. That is a bizarre description for something with its form factor. But after that, they mainly just talk about its guns and transport capacity...which seems pretty far from being the same thing as a land raider. You could say something similar about command Rhinos, for instance.
Anyway, you might be right that the rule studio's vision of the vehicle is out of line with its form. But it's also all of one small paragraph of fluff. So I'm happy to go with the story that the sculptors are telling over that of the rule writers. At least the former have some obvious talent. Honestly, I don't know why GW keeps some of the hacks in the design studio on pay roll. It's definitely not for their exquisite game design or evocative prose...
Ummm....Land Raiders have guns. And transport capacity. In fact, the latter is their primary function. This thing is a LoV Land Raider.
I think the land fortress, if anything, should look more like the Clone Turbo Tank from Star Wars:
It's design to roll in full speed, hit like a freight train, drop off soldiers, and roll out. The Wheels need to be larger and more importantly wider. There's a reason you'll even see pickup-trucks with double-wide wheels. The Land Fortress looks like it would topple over as soon as it got a solid shot in the side.
If they wanted a big showpiece vehicle model, they should have take some sort of dump-truck like vehicle:
and then mounted either a casemate or a big gak-off artillery piece in the back. Like, clearly meant to carry something, with an alternate loadout package for military duty. Time to go to war? Crane in the cannon/casemate into the bed, clamp it down, and roll. As I've said before, mining vehicles that serve a dual purpose. (As opposed to Genestealer cult vehicles, which are mining-vehicles pressed into service as military vehicles.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Ummm....Land Raiders have guns. And transport capacity. In fact, the latter is their primary function. This thing is a LoV Land Raider.
But the point is that there is more to being a Land Raider than just having guns and transport capacity. They're intended to drive through walls and dump assault troops into fortified positions. The Land Fortress - by my reading of the model, more than the fluff I admit - looks like it's designed to rove around and provide a base of operations, while also having the ability to fight.
It just seems very obvious to me that the comparison with a Land Raider is misleading.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Ummm....Land Raiders have guns. And transport capacity. In fact, the latter is their primary function. This thing is a LoV Land Raider.
But the point is that there is more to being a Land Raider than just having guns and transport capacity. They're intended to drive through walls and dump assault troops into fortified positions. The Land Fortress - by my reading of the model, more than the fluff I admit - looks like it's designed to rove around and provide a base of operations, while also having the ability to fight.
It just seems very obvious to me that the comparison with a Land Raider is misleading.
What you're describing is a specific type of Land Raider: the Achilles. And those are even more rare than a standard Land Raider. A standard Land Raider is a heavily armoured transport with "good" firepower. And that's also what the LoV Land Fortress is, based on it's stats and abilities.
Again, I'm not complaining about the model. Like it, don't like it, that's entirely subjective. But based on its rules, it's a LoV Land Raider. It performs the same function.
I just did now. About a third of it was cut off in the image I saw. They talk about it being an "iconic battle tank," so you're right there. That is a bizarre description for something with its form factor. But after that, they mainly just talk about its guns and transport capacity...which seems pretty far from being the same thing as a land raider. You could say something similar about command Rhinos, for instance.
Anyway, you might be right that the rule studio's vision of the vehicle is out of line with its form. But it's also all of one small paragraph of fluff. So I'm happy to go with the story that the sculptors are telling over that of the rule writers. At least the former have some obvious talent. Honestly, I don't know why GW keeps some of the hacks in the design studio on pay roll. It's definitely not for their exquisite game design or evocative prose...
I mean, have you seen thos Kin models and how bad they look next to the actual arworks?
It's even more pronounced on the Necrosquats where the illustration of the base guy looks amazing, and the mini looks like a kid with special need forced to wear an oversized helmet.
The 3D sculptors that GW have these days are frankly awful when you realize how often they totally botch a concept that actually looks great on paper and apparently loss the ability (or will) to do anything with proper posability.
But that's just for infantry, the blame can be put on the artist that design the blue print of the vehicles rather than the 3D sculptors when it comes to vehicles, and thos guys have literally no idea how to make realistic and practille vehicles, as the awful, AWFUL primaris vehicles have shown us.
What's that? Tracks? For sturdy tanks?
Naaaaaaah mate. I prefer flimsy and exposed antigrav generators and tiny wheels.
What? A off road attack bike should sit higher than 1 inch off the ground? Nah it will be fine.
I do love guns tho. Let's cover the gak with guns it will look cool. Let's also add my favorite thing in the entire world, roll bars!
That's so cool and practical amirit?!
What makes it worse is the well known fact that sculptors and artist are known to be able to do whatever they feel like first, and have the designers be forced to work with wtf roll off their studio, because that's a logical and healthy way to design a game, amirit?
And all thos designs shortcomings have lead to this frankly awful Land Fortress design.
They couldn't even have the side hatches double down as stairs when open while would have freed the space for the much needed forth set of wheels (I'll never let that point go, having a heavy frontline tank have the exact same wheel configuration than a scouting ATV is stupid).
But the point is that there is more to being a Land Raider than just having guns and transport capacity. They're intended to drive through walls and dump assault troops into fortified positions. The Land Fortress - by my reading of the model, more than the fluff I admit - looks like it's designed to rove around and provide a base of operations, while also having the ability to fight.
It just seems very obvious to me that the comparison with a Land Raider is misleading.
Until, once again, you start looking at the stats of the thing (remember it also has the Armor of Contempt ++), the fact that it has the same entry point (including the assault ramp on the front).
Hekaton Land Fortress M10 WS6+ BS3+ T8 W16 A6 Ld9 Sv2+ 230pt
Void Armor
Transport 12
Chaos Land Raider M10 WS6+ BS3+ T8 W16 A6 Ld9 Sv2+ 245pt
Armor of Contempt
Transport 10
Now, tell me again how the comparison to the Land Raider is misleading?
And I'm being generous here by not even talking about the weapons and how much more decked out the LF is compared to the LH. (btw, putting these two datasheet next to eachothers really hilight how bad the LR is right now, even without talking about how GW is still arbitrarily denying Primaris to use it).
Even if we pretend the SM will get the SMC update soon (don't ask why it's not there yet) and the thing will be bumped to T9 for +20pt, that thing is still largely as resistant as the Land Raider.
The funniest thing about the Hekaton is it was technically revealed over a week before the proper showing of it, and no one realized because no one expected it to just be a big Sagitaur.
Near identical, while accurate, might lead people to think that the armor, or toughness, or wounds, or move are different, or all of them are slightly different. It seems the only difference is two extra transport capacity.
skeleton wrote: So every thing with guns and can transport units is a landraider, nice to know.
Did you... did you read ANYTHING that was said, or did you just copy past that strawman just for fun?
TheBestBucketHead wrote: Near identical, while accurate, might lead people to think that the armor, or toughness, or wounds, or move are different, or all of them are slightly different. It seems the only difference is two extra transport capacity.
It's the EXACT same stats until GW finally pull the same move they did for the CSM and graciously allow them to get the stat buff everyone know is coming but have to be paywalled behind the next codex, until then, this thing is a flat out better and cheaper Land Raider, cheaper, with more transport capacity and better weapons.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Ummm....Land Raiders have guns. And transport capacity. In fact, the latter is their primary function. This thing is a LoV Land Raider.
But the point is that there is more to being a Land Raider than just having guns and transport capacity. They're intended to drive through walls and dump assault troops into fortified positions. The Land Fortress - by my reading of the model, more than the fluff I admit - looks like it's designed to rove around and provide a base of operations, while also having the ability to fight.
It just seems very obvious to me that the comparison with a Land Raider is misleading.
Statwise its almost identical. Your fluff concept of a land raider isn't represented on the table in any way (beyond terrain rules allowing anything to move through walls), so the 'driving through walls and dumping assault troops inside fortifications' is the only thing misleading here.
They're both heavily armored (but not enough) overpriced gun platforms with transport capacity. Though the squat version has magical 'more better' guns, so it might be more worthwhile. Especially given the lack of other things to take in the 'army.'
Another example of thoughtless design driven by superficial look: Why would they wear a fur coat over a void armor?
"becuz scout wear cloacks right?"
Yeah, and usually its because it's camo. These ones look more like fur lined winter coats.
k
They're fur-lined coats because they're pioneers operating alone as scouts without support from the rest of a oathband, and their coats contain protective shields and such.
And because they're clearly in a snowy environment there.
I think HN's point is that if they are wearing space capable armour, why bother with a wooly jumper. And if you can incorporate super-tech level thermal equipment, why not build that into the armour as well, rather than wearing a cagoule
The only real answer is "because they want to", of course, and thats rather hard to argue with fictional characters about.
They're fur-lined coats because they're pioneers operating alone as scouts without support from the rest of a oathband, and their coats contain protective shields and such.
I love how the "protective shield and such" is quickly becoming the 40k equivalent of "nanomachine son" or "it's magic".
Mentlegen324 wrote: And because they're clearly in a snowy environment there.
Yup, that's sadly the extend of that design decision. The artist made an arctic themed art, so he slapped arctic coat on the guys and nobody questioned if it made sens with the actual tech level of the faction, or how it would look in any other context than arctic.
Flinty wrote: I think HN's point is that if they are wearing space capable armour, why bother with a wooly jumper. And if you can incorporate super-tech level thermal equipment, why not build that into the armour as well, rather than wearing a cagoule
The only real answer is "because they want to", of course, and thats rather hard to argue with fictional characters about.
If squats is the best GW can do with space dwarf concept then they really need to lower there prices like cut in half. Thinking of paying 65$ for a ten of these guys or 125$ or more for the "land fortress" is frankly embarrassing.
Flinty wrote: I think HN's point is that if they are wearing space capable armour, why bother with a wooly jumper. And if you can incorporate super-tech level thermal equipment, why not build that into the armour as well, rather than wearing a cagoule
The only real answer is "because they want to", of course, and thats rather hard to argue with fictional characters about.
A Space suit isn't something really meant to be used in environments other than space, though?
Flinty wrote: I think HN's point is that if they are wearing space capable armour, why bother with a wooly jumper. And if you can incorporate super-tech level thermal equipment, why not build that into the armour as well, rather than wearing a cagoule
The only real answer is "because they want to", of course, and thats rather hard to argue with fictional characters about.
A Space suit isn't something really meant to be used in environments other than space, though?
Why not? They need to be capable of maintaining a comfortable/survivable environment for the wearer when exposed to extreme heat and cold. By definition they are pressure sealed so that deals with contamination and exposure to toxins etc.
If you have worked out an armoured version, then That deals with durability. For squats, who appear to be pretty much human norm with respect to atmosphere and pressure, then a space suit will at least deal with zero atmosphere up to about 1 atmosphere of pressure. For high pressure worlds, or underwater, might need something a bit different to deal with the pressure, and whatever is used to dissipate heat.
Flinty wrote: Why not? They need to be capable of maintaining a comfortable/survivable environment for the wearer when exposed to extreme heat and cold. By definition they are pressure sealed so that deals with contamination and exposure to toxins etc.
Presumably using such a suit would consume energy. Why waste that when external conditions can be dealt with through a simple fur coat instead? No need to keep the suit running 24/7 when there are workarounds.
Mentlegen324 wrote: A Space suit isn't something really meant to be used in environments other than space, though?
You... you realize that space suite have a way, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better insulation and heating system than any fur coat ever, right?
And even if they weren't, putting a coat OVER the suite wouldn't change anything. Cmon man.
It's as silly has putting a little fur had over a helmet. It makes ZERO sens.
In defense of coats, we do have entire armies dedicated to wearing clothes that only make sense in certain types of climates. Just look at the guard; Vostranns, Catachans, Steel Legion, etc. tend to look weird if you put them outside of their natural environments.
That being said, the issue is that the aforementioned guard regiments all come from places that justify those type of outfits and its a unifying theme throughout the army.
Big fur coats on some models, and then a bunch of half naked beserkers don't jive well Is it so cold that the squats need jackets? Then why are the cthonian people able to get around without them?
GaroRobe wrote: In defense of coats, we do have entire armies dedicated to wearing clothes that only make sense in certain types of climates. Just look at the guard; Vostranns, Catachans, Steel Legion, etc. tend to look weird if you put them outside of their natural environments.
That being said, the issue is that the aforementioned guard regiments all come from places that justify those type of outfits and its a unifying theme throughout the army.
Big fur coats on some models, and then a bunch of half naked beserkers don't jive well Is it so cold that the squats need jackets? Then why are the cthonian people able to get around without them?
I really hope there's some sort of explanation on the Cthonian Beserks because their lore sounds really poorly done with them being "brave" and "courageous" being the whole extent of their thing given so far, as if they mine in space and ocean depths shirtless.
GaroRobe wrote: In defense of coats, we do have entire armies dedicated to wearing clothes that only make sense in certain types of climates. Just look at the guard; Vostranns, Catachans, Steel Legion, etc. tend to look weird if you put them outside of their natural environments.
That being said, the issue is that the aforementioned guard regiments all come from places that justify those type of outfits and its a unifying theme throughout the army.
Exactly. It makes sens that a regiment based on a specific climat is geared appropriatly (and the imperium is supposed to dispatch the most appropriate regiment to the most approriate climate).
GaroRobe wrote: Big fur coats on some models, and then a bunch of half naked beserkers don't jive well Is it so cold that the squats need jackets? Then why are the cthonian people able to get around without them?
Exactly. The thing is all over the place.
And let me be clear here, I dont mind them having a coat over their armor, if its just part of the uniform, but as this illustration shows, it has been designed as more of a weather gear, which when used OVER a void armor makes no sens.
You can almost see the foodsteps that lead there.
"Guys, we are going to make the space dwarf. Let's pick all the WHFB trops for dwarfs, so armored dude, berserker dudes and ranger."
"Ok I'll pick the rangers, what's the pitch for thos ones?"
"Well, they need the hood, that's kinda the visual trademark of the dwarf rangers, and they often have a coat or a cloack too. They will be the explorers of the faction and have to face extrem climat."
"Okay Google, Explorer Extreme Climat. Oh, so like the guys that explored the pole? They even have hoods!"
If you hate the look of a dwarf in armor wearing a coat, there's a bunch of Space Marines wearing cloaks, tabards and more than enough cloth to qualify as a coat that you'll also want to be concerned about.
solkan wrote: If you hate the look of a dwarf in armor wearing a coat, there's a bunch of Space Marines wearing cloaks, tabards and more than enough cloth to qualify as a coat that you'll also want to be concerned about.
I think the difference is those are wearing them for purely cosmetic reasons. That's not the same as the Pioneers wearing winter coats.
solkan wrote: If you hate the look of a dwarf in armor wearing a coat, there's a bunch of Space Marines wearing cloaks, tabards and more than enough cloth to qualify as a coat that you'll also want to be concerned about.
Nice wathaboutism, always make your point stronger, amirit?
But what is your point exactly?
Some space marines wear cloaks and tabards (you forgot the loincloth smh) ie ornamental cloth so apprently that means having dwarf wear winger gear (clearly made to protect them from the weather) over their SOOPA SPACE VOID TECH (tm) armor makes sens?
H.B.M.C. wrote: His frustration is borne of people not addressing his points. It's annoying me as well, and they ain't even my points.
I know right?
Nothing against you JNAProductions, but you post, right there, is the perfect example of the problem.
I do not care if you like it or not. You do you more power etc etc etc.
What's annoying is how people like you don't seem to be able to process any criticism of some design points because "they like it".
How exactly is the fact that you may like or not the thing relevant to the point being made?
We got a Land Raider+ here with a canopy and the same wheels than a light weight recon ATV.
This is objectively bad design. You may like it, but it doesn't magically nullify the point being made.
As for being a jerk, I'm only reflecting what's being thrown at me, and for some reason the people that "just like it" tend to be pretty upset and childish when people point out that the stuff they like may have flaws.
We got a Land Raider+ here with a canopy and the same wheels than a light weight recon ATV.
This is objectively bad design. You may like it, but it doesn't magically nullify the point being made.
Your canopy-equipped, wheeled land raider equivalent exists in a setting where a guy in a flak vest and helmet has the same defense as a dude in a singlet and jaunty headscarf. And where living on high gravity worlds has the simultaneous effects of making humans short and tough, and tall and stupid.
It's remotely possible that you're looking for a higher level of internal consistency than the people dismissing your criticism. For people who have no problem with those sorts of inconsistencies and accept that things in the setting are designed the way they are simply because it looks good, it actually does 'magically nullify' your point.
If you don't like it, all well and good. Move on and let people like things they like.
Your canopy-equipped, wheeled land raider equivalent exists in a setting where a guy in a flak vest and helmet has the same defense as a dude in a singlet and jaunty headscarf. And where living on high gravity worlds has the simultaneous effects of making humans short and tough, and tall and stupid.
It's remotely possible that you're looking for a higher level of internal consistency than the people dismissing your criticism. For people who have no problem with those sorts of inconsistencies and accept that things in the setting are designed the way they are simply because it looks good, it actually does 'magically nullify' your point.
If you don't like it, all well and good. Move on and let people like things they like.
*sigh*
It's getting very tyring ngl.
If it's not the "it's okay because I like it", it's the very missplaced and poorly executed whataboutism and the usual "if you don't like it just go away".
Yes, I'm OBVIOUSLY looking for a higher level of internal consistency than the people dismissing my criticism, no gak sherlok! And since when exactly caring about internal consistancy is a bad thing? Wtf is going on, did we already slipped so far down the garbage pop culture drain that this is the state we are at now?
We aren't just talking about minor inconsistencies here, we aren't talking about "huur your catachan should have less armor" (and yes with the new over the top stating paradigm of 9th, they should be Sv6 and T4, S4, but that's another topic and the TLDR is that they are from an era were GW was rightfully way more conservative with their stating), we are talking about GW intentionally designing both in lore and state a Land Raider level sturdy frontline tank... with the traction of a light ATV and a giant canopy for the driver.
If thos peoples have so low expectation and respect for the coherence of the setting they are pretending to like, then good for them, but don't come and tell me "huuur if you dun lik juss move".
How about YOU, move hm? Its pretty clear that you don't really care about the setting and the topic so just take your advise and move on. I'm sure you'll find a lot of shiny stuff from Disney that you could be super fan of like Marvel of Starwars where you just looking cool is good enough to entertain you for a bit before moving to the next new thing to consume while I'll be there asking for GW to do a bit better than the hot garbage they are slowly turning their setting into?
I did. 40K got to a point where I realised that I wasn't enjoying the game any more, so rather than continue to gak on something that other people enjoy, I moved on to other games. I still follow the releases because a lot of the models are shiny and I still hold some residual nostalgic love for the setting... but beyond that I have better uses for my energy than endlessly complaining about something that is no longer what I want from my hobby.
I'm sure you'll find a lot of shiny stuff from Disney that you could be super fan of like Marvel of Starwars where you just looking cool is good enough to entertain you for a bit before moving to the next new thing to consume while I'll be there asking for GW to do a bit better than the hot garbage they are slowly turning their setting into?
Honestly, this comment confuses me... because 'just looking cool' is what 40K has always been about. Hence those catachan singlets. The nitty gritty of 'Is the make-believe material this vehicle's canopy is made from as tough as the imaginary armour material used for a Land Raider's hull?' has always been far more important to those arguing online than to the people actually making the game. And if the endless complaining over the last 30 years hasn't changed that, I'm not sure what impact you're expecting your complaints about it to have now. All you're doing is pissing in the pond. It doesn't actually add anything productive to the hobby, it just lessens everyone's enjoyment.
I can't say that I like the idea of the Land Fortress having a statline virtually identical to the Land Raider. If it's supposed to be that well armored, then at the very least it should have tracks instead of wheels. Wheels are faster in some situations. But a vehicle with that much armor is probably designed for very hostile environments. And in those sorts of environments, tracks are generally better. But even if it had tracks, it still wouldn't look quite right. The Land Raider looks well-armored and tough. The Land Fortress... not so much.
Eumerin wrote: The Land Raider looks well-armored and tough. The Land Fortress... not so much.
The argument can be made, though, that if what you're aiming for is something considerably more high-tech than a Land Raider, it shouldn't look equally tough. It should look more high tech. Which the Land Fortress does. The overall design is solid and well armoured. The canopy and wheels are only weak points if you discount the 'high tech' angle... ultimately, all it needs is some handwavey 'the tyres are a special practically indestructible compound and the canopies are made from transparent armorplas' or somesuch and they stop being a concern.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's the 21st century' if a paper lunch bag looks tougher than a metal lunchbox from where we are sitting get rid of it and the 21st century is the only one that matters as that's the century in which we reside.
Nothing against you JNAProductions, but you post, right there, is the perfect example of the problem.
I do not care if you like it or not. You do you more power etc etc etc.
What's annoying is how people like you don't seem to be able to process any criticism of some design points because "they like it".
How exactly is the fact that you may like or not the thing relevant to the point being made?
We got a Land Raider+ here with a canopy and the same wheels than a light weight recon ATV.
This is objectively bad design. You may like it, but it doesn't magically nullify the point being made.
As for being a jerk, I'm only reflecting what's being thrown at me, and for some reason the people that "just like it" tend to be pretty upset and childish when people point out that the stuff they like may have flaws.
I should apologize in case any of my remarks have come across as aggressive or rude - honestly wasn't my intention. Also, I think I misunderstood your earlier comparison of the land fortress to the land raider. I assumed you were comparing their fluff, not their statistics, which are indeed more or less the same. Honestly, I kind of think that this might be evidence more of the limited design space of the 40k rule set? Most big ground vehicles will start to look like land raiders (or monoliths) once you give them a chunky stat line and some large guns. But you're definitely right that they're much the same in that regard.
...I still like it, lol :p Not so much in the cream and teal scheme, but definitely in one of the darker schemes I've seen. Honestly, I wonder how much improved the design would be if it just had a fully-armoured driver compartment and treads in place of the wheels? Might look much more rugged that way?
Nothing against you JNAProductions, but you post, right there, is the perfect example of the problem.
I do not care if you like it or not. You do you more power etc etc etc.
What's annoying is how people like you don't seem to be able to process any criticism of some design points because "they like it".
How exactly is the fact that you may like or not the thing relevant to the point being made?
We got a Land Raider+ here with a canopy and the same wheels than a light weight recon ATV.
This is objectively bad design. You may like it, but it doesn't magically nullify the point being made.
As for being a jerk, I'm only reflecting what's being thrown at me, and for some reason the people that "just like it" tend to be pretty upset and childish when people point out that the stuff they like may have flaws.
I should apologize in case any of my remarks have come across as aggressive or rude - honestly wasn't my intention. Also, I think I misunderstood your earlier comparison of the land fortress to the land raider. I assumed you were comparing their fluff, not their statistics, which are indeed more or less the same. Honestly, I kind of think that this might be evidence more of the limited design space of the 40k rule set? Most big ground vehicles will start to look like land raiders (or monoliths) once you give them a chunky stat line and some large guns. But you're definitely right that they're much the same in that regard.
...I still like it, lol :p Not so much in the cream and teal scheme, but definitely in one of the darker schemes I've seen. Honestly, I wonder how much improved the design would be if it just had a fully-armoured driver compartment and treads in place of the wheels? Might look much more rugged that way?
As a very long time lurker, I made an account to praise this post. It's almost as rare as seeing somebody win the lottery for someone to admit they are wrong and to try and understand another viewpoint almost completely in opposition to their own. As for the madness that is the toy dwarf release... their looks are interesting but do not fit 40k at all. I despise when soo called artists don't even understand how their "art" works or would work. I rarely have "problems" with designs of stuff since it isn't something "real" but some designs are insulting... like the Space Marine Mario Kart, that thing took the cake, ran with it, cloned it and gobbled all of it down.
His points are easily addressed, but he doesn’t like the answers.
The whole thing that’s annoying him is the design choices made about certain things.
The bikers wearing coats and the fortress having small wheels and a bubble canopy.
They don’t make “sens” to him (FFS the word is sense!!!!). And he’s right, from a logic point of view they don’t make much sense, you can come up with all sorts of reasons why they might be there but the only reason these choices were made was out of pure aesthetics. It’s a style choice the designers made. Because these models don’t represent real soldiers or equipment. They are a fantasy and have been designed purely on looks.
Some models are designed more practically but these choices have clearly been made for the look and the look alone. He doesn’t like that. Nothing anyone says will make him accept that. Others, me included don’t mind it. It doesn’t make models objectively bad models.
The points others are trying to make are that there are similar senseless design choices all over the game. Imperial guard tanks that cannot drive, guard regiments who wear the same gear whatever environment they fight in, guns that could never work, all sorts of crap that make no SENS.
He’s made his point about these models, he doesn’t like it, it’s not unique to these models.
He says “This is objectively bad design. You may like it, but it doesn't magically nullify the point being made.”
It’s only objectively bad design from a practical point of view, but these aren't real things that need to work, from a stylistic point of view it’s entirely subjective.
And as for being a jerk, you are just a jerk, have been in every post where anyone has a slightly different opinion from you.
And before you throw out your standard strawman and whataboutisms Internet platitudes that you rely on as an argument let’s be clear….
FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OFF VIEW YOU ARE RIGHT, THE DESIGNS ARE BAD OR MAKE NO “SENS”. BUT THERE IS MORE TO DESIGN THAN PRACTICALITY AND THIS IS A FANTASY GAME WHERE THINGS DON’T NEED TO MAKE SENSE ALL THE TIME, IF AT ALL.
Just like some peoples line in the sand for their space soldiers is not wearing a helmet, yours is clearly fashion choices over armour. That’s fine but you can still be respectful of other peoples tastes and opinions.
If it's supposed to be a rugged exploratory vehicle, why is it proportioned so it'd fall over sideways the second it drives over a small bump on one side.
I'm in two minds about new squats - I like the new lore, I like the nostalgia, I like about half of the models. I think the vehicles are trivially easy to fix though, if I do go in for them I'd scrape off most of the window framing (likely just leave the outer edging), and add some tube section ports to make the glass domes look more like a metal diving bell style canopy. Adding stowage and a better paint scheme than the studio previewed ones and they'll look pretty neat I think.
Andykp wrote: FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OFF VIEW YOU ARE RIGHT, THE DESIGNS ARE BAD OR MAKE NO “SENS”. BUT THERE IS MORE TO DESIGN THAN PRACTICALITY AND THIS IS A FANTASY GAME WHERE THINGS DON’T NEED TO MAKE SENSE ALL THE TIME, IF AT ALL.
TBH I'd go further and say he's still wrong. They're not designing a vehicle so practical concerns regarding vehicle design become rather impractical. They are designing a symbol that communicates a whole bunch of info about the unit and Votann as a faction. In amongst that is "heavily armoured vehicle" but the bar for communicating this is much lower than many people on this site want to believe. We have some version of this convo with every new release.
Andykp wrote: FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OFF VIEW YOU ARE RIGHT, THE DESIGNS ARE BAD OR MAKE NO “SENS”. BUT THERE IS MORE TO DESIGN THAN PRACTICALITY AND THIS IS A FANTASY GAME WHERE THINGS DON’T NEED TO MAKE SENSE ALL THE TIME, IF AT ALL.
TBH I'd go further and say he's still wrong. They're not designing a vehicle so practical concerns regarding vehicle design become rather impractical. They are designing a symbol that communicates a whole bunch of info about the unit and Votann as a faction. In amongst that is "heavily armoured vehicle" but the bar for communicating this is much lower than many people on this site want to believe. We have some version of this convo with every new release.
Exactly. Which is also why the Pioneers are wearing dusters. You can come up with practical reasons why they might wear them but that simply isn't necessary. 40k is not about practicality and never has been. It is difficult to have a discussion about this point with someone who ardently believes there has to be some logic with the designs of the Squats, or why GW are idiots and useless because they apparently don't understand logic of the individual whinging about it online.
Unfortunately with their viewpoint, it's about product design and using an aesthetic choice to make a faction recognisable. Warhammer is art, more than anything else. BUT ALL THE SQUAT UNITS LOOK DIFFERENT TO EACH OTHER - Mentlegen probably immediately. True, to show different aspects of the Leagues, because Leagues suggests a union of widely different internal factions. However, there are several key unifying aspects of their clothing/ weapons design which creates a clear image throughout. Plus, the obvious one, of them being squat.
The whole "units look different" always strikes me as a little odd because when you look at a real world army or people - people don't look the same. They have different uniforms and equipment, they have different setups depending on their role and rank. It might be slightly less now in modern times since theories on things like camouflage are fairly universal, but you go back less than 100 years and we had very widely different uniforms.
Warhammer 40K has always been a fantasy in space so the uniforms and equipment are always a touch more fantasy inspired than real world hard-science inspired.
It's fine to dislike a style choice, but practicality/reality/sense are hard things to argue in the setting when you've factions like the Imperial Guard who are wearing basically no armour and no re-breathers as standard when fighting massive aliens nad demons across varied worlds; when their mainbattle tank is basically a WW1 style tank; when the Imperium itself has access to insane resources and technology and yet won't give their front line troops any protection.
Heck this is a setting where your standard issue weapon cannot be modified otherwise you might well get shot even if modifications improve its performance.
It could be the void suits are designed to radiate heat. If they were stopped 100% of heat loss, the wearers body’s waste/active heat would build up and roast them. Vacuums are pretty crappy for transferring heat away. So if your void suits are designed for mining dark asteroids or clearing space hulks, you might be more concerned with shedding heat then generating it.
Hence the coat when in cold atmospheric environments Where the biting wind will suck more heat from your body than the icy void.
That’s my headcannon.
The other option is that they are a uniform/badge of office for explorers. One that they’ve earned, so wear with dwarven stubbornness and pride.
(And yes, I know if you have the tech to make a void suit, adding a heater in would be trivial.)
Andykp wrote: FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OFF VIEW YOU ARE RIGHT, THE DESIGNS ARE BAD OR MAKE NO “SENS”. BUT THERE IS MORE TO DESIGN THAN PRACTICALITY AND THIS IS A FANTASY GAME WHERE THINGS DON’T NEED TO MAKE SENSE ALL THE TIME, IF AT ALL.
TBH I'd go further and say he's still wrong. They're not designing a vehicle so practical concerns regarding vehicle design become rather impractical. They are designing a symbol that communicates a whole bunch of info about the unit and Votann as a faction. In amongst that is "heavily armoured vehicle" but the bar for communicating this is much lower than many people on this site want to believe. We have some version of this convo with every new release.
Exactly. Which is also why the Pioneers are wearing dusters. You can come up with practical reasons why they might wear them but that simply isn't necessary. 40k is not about practicality and never has been. It is difficult to have a discussion about this point with someone who ardently believes there has to be some logic with the designs of the Squats, or why GW are idiots and useless because they apparently don't understand logic of the individual whinging about it online.
Unfortunately with their viewpoint, it's about product design and using an aesthetic choice to make a faction recognisable. Warhammer is art, more than anything else. BUT ALL THE SQUAT UNITS LOOK DIFFERENT TO EACH OTHER - Mentlegen probably immediately. True, to show different aspects of the Leagues, because Leagues suggests a union of widely different internal factions. However, there are several key unifying aspects of their clothing/ weapons design which creates a clear image throughout. Plus, the obvious one, of them being squat.
What is it with people so eager to defend absolutely every single about these that they can't help but add in insults aimed at someone haven't even said anything? Are you not capable of discussing things reasonably without adding any condescending remarks?
Some of the behaviour in this thread has just been absolutely pathetic.
So the army did not drop this weekend... maybe next one? but then again how much longer before the individual box sets and potentially a combat patrol?
Im thinking the army will be this month and the rest only next months after... sigh.
It would look better with walker-legs than wheels. Or maybe bigger wheels. Or treads like the Halo Elephant since they already ripped the Brute Chopper off for Necromunda.
It could be the void suits are designed to radiate heat. If they were stopped 100% of heat loss, the wearers body’s waste/active heat would build up and roast them. Vacuums are pretty crappy for transferring heat away. So if your void suits are designed for mining dark asteroids or clearing space hulks, you might be more concerned with shedding heat then generating it.
Hence the coat when in cold atmospheric environments Where the biting wind will suck more heat from your body than the icy void.
That’s my headcannon.
The other option is that they are a uniform/badge of office for explorers. One that they’ve earned, so wear with dwarven stubbornness and pride.
(And yes, I know if you have the tech to make a void suit, adding a heater in would be trivial.)
Any suit operating in vacuum needs both heating and cooling capabilities, as the environment in space can change drastically in a matter of minutes (the ISS orbits the earth once every 90 minutes, that means it changes from being in direct sunlight to completely obscured every 45 minutes).
The coats do absolutely nothing and in fact would only impede the intended function of the suit, by blocking the radiative surfaces that are needed to expel the excess heat from the suits systems, not to mention add heavy fabric on top of what will already be a quite bulky and rigid suit, and fabric that is loose and can get caught, blown around etc.
It could be the void suits are designed to radiate heat. If they were stopped 100% of heat loss, the wearers body’s waste/active heat would build up and roast them. Vacuums are pretty crappy for transferring heat away. So if your void suits are designed for mining dark asteroids or clearing space hulks, you might be more concerned with shedding heat then generating it.
Hence the coat when in cold atmospheric environments Where the biting wind will suck more heat from your body than the icy void.
That’s my headcannon.
The other option is that they are a uniform/badge of office for explorers. One that they’ve earned, so wear with dwarven stubbornness and pride.
(And yes, I know if you have the tech to make a void suit, adding a heater in would be trivial.)
Any suit operating in vacuum needs both heating and cooling capabilities, as the environment in space can change drastically in a matter of minutes (the ISS orbits the earth once every 90 minutes, that means it changes from being in direct sunlight to completely obscured every 45 minutes).
The coats do absolutely nothing and in fact would only impede the intended function of the suit, by blocking the radiative surfaces that are needed to expel the excess heat from the suits systems.
Camo then or heat signature diffuser, we could be here all day. Point is 40k is 40k.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: I still don't get why they decided to give the Land Fortress comically undersized wheels.
Same, regardless of the stats, lore purpose, any of it, it's going to simply topple over. One solid bump or rock and it'll flip. Especially as a combat vehicle, one solid shell or rocket, even a decent-sized grenade to the side pf the thing will topple it. if they *have* to be that size, just add another set of wheels on the outside of the first set, double them up.
So the army did not drop this weekend... maybe next one? but then again how much longer before the individual box sets and potentially a combat patrol?
Im thinking the army will be this month and the rest only next months after... sigh.
I lean towards it being unlikely the Squat Box shows up in the Sunday article this weekend, given the MESBG box is getting a two-week pre-order.
Jidmah wrote: *looks at ork range*
*looks at chaos range*
*looks at eldar range*
Are you guys seriously having a fight over coats and tire sizes?
Ork Vehicles don't look like they'll completely flip over on the first bump, or the first time they get hit by anything that isn't small arms fire.
Chaos vehicles are just most SM vehicles with tracks, or have legs. I can't think of anything that looks that top heavy, ignoring old Epic models. Maybe the Lord of Skulls?
All eldar vehicles fly excluding the war walker, which kinda ignores any sort of terrain concerns.
Jidmah wrote: *looks at ork range*
*looks at chaos range*
*looks at eldar range*
Are you guys seriously having a fight over coats and tire sizes?
Ork Vehicles don't look like they'll completely flip over on the first bump, or the first time they get hit by anything that isn't small arms fire.
Chaos vehicles are just most SM vehicles with tracks, or have legs. I can't think of anything that looks that top heavy, ignoring old Epic models. Maybe the Lord of Skulls?
All eldar vehicles fly excluding the war walker, which kinda ignores any sort of terrain concerns.
Most Ork Vehicles look like something out of Scrapheap Challenge - and thus they might not flip at the first bump. They are more likely to completely tear apart
Meanwhile we have Orks wearing pirate hats; Eldar wearing clothes of all fancy kinds (seriously all those fancy tassles and stuff - disaster for a battlefield).
Heck even Necrons wear pointless cloths (skin/bits of flesh)
Truly the only faction that is sensible and logical; which is perfection and doesn't go for capes or coats or fur-lined neck ruffs - is the Tyranids!
Jidmah wrote: *looks at ork range*
*looks at chaos range*
*looks at eldar range*
Are you guys seriously having a fight over coats and tire sizes?
Orks are deliberately the way they are, Eldar have flying sleek super-advanced vehicles and Chaos mostly has Space Marine-tier tracked vehicles, and daemon engines. So they're either justified (Orks), people are used to them and they're lower to the ground and tracked (Chaos), or they're so far from human vehicles that nobody can really say how they're supposed to look like (Eldar and Daemon Engines). The Land Fortress is based on real vehicles, and it doesn't look like what it's actually supposed to be in-lore. There's outlandish and ludicrious on purpose, and there's something that's clearly supposed to be a semi-realistic, utilitarian rugged and heavy transport that just doesn't look the part.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote:If it's supposed to be a rugged exploratory vehicle, why is it proportioned so it'd fall over sideways the second it drives over a small bump on one side.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote:I still don't get why they decided to give the Land Fortress comically undersized wheels.
Out of interest, were you just going to keep posting that until someone responded or..?
Squats are being put out there as a paragon of efficiency, effectiveness and clever design.
This just leads to problems when the model designers don't really know what that means (whether from personal experience, or fulfilling some kind of design brief that is not clear).
Necrons outerwear isn't pointless, its intended to scare the bejeezuz out of the enemy (also the flayed ones probably think they look awesome).
So the issue isn't really with the aesthetic value of the clothing, more on the practicality and effectiveness. Hence we've basically been through the same argument for:
- Weapons (hard to see how they work, or why they would be designed that way)
- Vehicles
- outerwear (and to a certain extent underwear with those Berzerks)
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: I still don't get why they decided to give the Land Fortress comically undersized wheels.
To make the body look bigger and differentiate it from the Sagitaur.
...but they just made it look like a fat, disproportional Sagitaur by giving it the same kind of wheels but backwards? What? If you wanted to make two things look different, why would you deliberately use the exact same components?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: I guess moving goal posts while holding your eyes and ears shut tightly does help with getting angry at tires.
I was unaware properly argumenting and explaining your case counted as "moving goal posts and holding your eyes and ears tightly shut". I guess that's just what you shout at everyone who disagrees with you when you lack the capability to actually come up with any proper count-argument other than personal insults and whataboutism.
So the army did not drop this weekend... maybe next one? but then again how much longer before the individual box sets and potentially a combat patrol?
Im thinking the army will be this month and the rest only next months after... sigh.
I lean towards it being unlikely the Squat Box shows up in the Sunday article this weekend, given the MESBG box is getting a two-week pre-order.
Damn...Looks like theres some considerable waiting time before we can actually get these individual kits then.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: I still don't get why they decided to give the Land Fortress comically undersized wheels.
To make the body look bigger and differentiate it from the Sagitaur.
...but they just made it look like a fat, disproportional Sagitaur by giving it the same kind of wheels but backwards? What? If you wanted to make two things look different, why would you deliberately use the exact same components?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: I guess moving goal posts while holding your eyes and ears shut tightly does help with getting angry at tires.
I was unaware properly argumenting and explaining your case counted as "moving goal posts and holding your eyes and ears tightly shut". I guess that's just what you shout at everyone who disagrees with you when you lack the capability to actually come up with any proper count-argument other than personal insults and whataboutism.
I wonder where the inspiration came from for the small wheeled big body thing, oh yeah, moon buggies!
Having things share components and inspirations gives a cohesive look to range, while exaggerating the scale of the bigger model gives the impression of, well scale!
Jidmah wrote:*looks at ork range*
*looks at chaos range*
*looks at eldar range*
Are you guys seriously having a fight over coats and tire sizes?
Really Jid? After *checks Jidmah's join date* 11 years on Dakka, does this really surprise you?
Overread wrote:Heck even Necrons wear pointless cloths (skin/bits of flesh)
There's nothing "pointless" about factions wearing flayed skin. It serves both a tactical purpose (scaring the out of the enemy), and is quite fashionable.
So the army did not drop this weekend... maybe next one? but then again how much longer before the individual box sets and potentially a combat patrol?
Im thinking the army will be this month and the rest only next months after... sigh.
I lean towards it being unlikely the Squat Box shows up in the Sunday article this weekend, given the MESBG box is getting a two-week pre-order.
I knew people would get confused by this when they announced it.
The MESBG box isn't coming out until December. This is the advanced pre-order, where you can pay now to increase the likelihood that you'll get it before Christmas. It has no real effect on things that are actually releasing in September (which is why HH is getting actual preorders that are really coming out the following week).
There will be normal preorders announced next Sunday as well, and given that the preview event formally said that the initial squad box is September, pretty good odds. Mandatory if they want to actually have it release in September rather than just preorder in September for the first weekend in October.
The most interesting thing is the first 30 or so seconds seemingly implying that how they were original with the Squat Empire was actually still a thing after all. It says they fought alongside Imperial Allies as Space Dwarfs.
It really isn't clear if that's meant to be just a meta out-of-universe thing or not though.
I'm wondering have any other videos used that music before? It's not really the sort of thing I expected from Warhammer
"40k is cool, so nothing has to make any sense, nothing has to be practical, and all the outlandish elements aren't contrasted by relatively realistic ones."
This legitimately feels like "It's magic, it doesn't have to make sense." Sure, you can make a world where magic doesn't make sense, but it then becomes very easy to criticize. If you can teleport wherever you want, but you decide to slow walk to the things you need, there's a problem. The issue with the whole aesthetic thing is that they're using a very practical aesthetic, but not practical in the ways they're using it. It's an issue when the Adeptus Mechanicus models look more practical.
Some people like them some people don’t, surely it’s a simple as that.
Navarro is trying to move the conversation forward. Do people think the release date will be round the 24th?
Also do you think they will do one of there guarantees if we order directly, I hope so as I like a lot of the figures.
An announcement this Sunday 11th would put them in stores for Saturday 24th alongside the free figures, so yeah my money is on that.
With so much else in the pipeline I suspect they might skip the Made To Order thing this time and just bring the main codex release out sooner. There was six weeks between the Ork army box and main release, but only three weeks for Black Templars. Codex & Combat Patrol up mid-October with more stuff out in November.
It's interesting to see all the complaints but no-one is taking in the actual detail of the kits. The rear wheels of the land fortress are larger than the front two pairs and it also has a fully modelled suspension system, which immediately makes it more likely to actually be able to work than a lot of the earlier 40k vehicles. I've had a closer look and it's seems that the front wheels are a touch taller and quite a bit wider than the one's on the Sagitaur. That might just be the perspective of the photos playing tricks on me so I'll concede that I might be wrong on that one.
When it comes to all the talk about modern designers not knowing what the old ones did, almost all 40k concept work is overseen if not directly designed by Jes Goodwin. The rhino, the grav tank and the modern marine tanks like the repulsor all come from his designs. It would not remotely surprise me to see that these vehicles were also concepted by him.
For me the biggest problem with the larger vehicle is the name. I would agree that it's clearly not a fortress. A name like Explorator would better fit how I imagine something like this operating.
Months ago I was betting on the 17th for preorders, the 24th for general release. Looks like I was dead on. I need to buy a lotto ticket with that luck.
The real question: How long before the complaints of "LoV are OP" turn into players of the army complaining that they suck?
Chikout wrote: It's interesting to see all the complaints but no-one is taking in the actual detail of the kits. The rear wheels of the land fortress are larger than the front two pairs and it also has a fully modelled suspension system, which immediately makes it more likely to actually be able to work than a lot of the earlier 40k vehicles. I've had a closer look and it's seems that the front wheels are a touch taller and quite a bit wider than the one's on the Sagitaur. That might just be the perspective of the photos playing tricks on me so I'll concede that I might be wrong on that one.
When it comes to all the talk about modern designers not knowing what the old ones did, almost all 40k concept work is overseen if not directly designed by Jes Goodwin. The rhino, the grav tank and the modern marine tanks like the repulsor all come from his designs. It would not remotely surprise me to see that these vehicles were also concepted by him.
For me the biggest problem with the larger vehicle is the name. I would agree that it's clearly not a fortress. A name like Explorator would better fit how I imagine something like this operating.
It's the Main Gun.
With a dragon slayer like there is nothing else to say.
It's like a rehash of the old Riptide drama that came along when the Tau came on board.
Chikout wrote: It's interesting to see all the complaints but no-one is taking in the actual detail of the kits. The rear wheels of the land fortress are larger than the front two pairs and it also has a fully modelled suspension system, which immediately makes it more likely to actually be able to work than a lot of the earlier 40k vehicles. I've had a closer look and it's seems that the front wheels are a touch taller and quite a bit wider than the one's on the Sagitaur. That might just be the perspective of the photos playing tricks on me so I'll concede that I might be wrong on that one.
When it comes to all the talk about modern designers not knowing what the old ones did, almost all 40k concept work is overseen if not directly designed by Jes Goodwin. The rhino, the grav tank and the modern marine tanks like the repulsor all come from his designs. It would not remotely surprise me to see that these vehicles were also concepted by him.
For me the biggest problem with the larger vehicle is the name. I would agree that it's clearly not a fortress. A name like Explorator would better fit how I imagine something like this operating.
They interviewed (briefly) the designers about the leagues and jes has overseen this release so you are quite right. The modern designs have much more of a nod to actually working, or at least a coherent approach to actually working. Even in the grav tanks of the primaris, the share the same design elements. But this. Is what I like about Jes Goodwin designs, he doesn’t let practicality get in the way of a cool look or concept, like bubble canopies. What the rules guys do with it after that is their business and much less important to me.
Andykp wrote: They interviewed (briefly) the designers about the leagues and jes has overseen this release so you are quite right. The modern designs have much more of a nod to actually working, or at least a coherent approach to actually working. Even in the grav tanks of the primaris, the share the same design elements. But this. Is what I like about Jes Goodwin designs, he doesn’t let practicality get in the way of a cool look or concept, like bubble canopies. What the rules guys do with it after that is their business and much less important to me.
Was the interview posted to WarCom or their YouTube channel? I can't seem to find it.
Andykp wrote: They interviewed (briefly) the designers about the leagues and jes has overseen this release so you are quite right. The modern designs have much more of a nod to actually working, or at least a coherent approach to actually working. Even in the grav tanks of the primaris, the share the same design elements. But this. Is what I like about Jes Goodwin designs, he doesn’t let practicality get in the way of a cool look or concept, like bubble canopies. What the rules guys do with it after that is their business and much less important to me.
Was the interview posted to WarCom or their YouTube channel? I can't seem to find it.
Andykp wrote: They interviewed (briefly) the designers about the leagues and jes has overseen this release so you are quite right. The modern designs have much more of a nod to actually working, or at least a coherent approach to actually working. Even in the grav tanks of the primaris, the share the same design elements. But this. Is what I like about Jes Goodwin designs, he doesn’t let practicality get in the way of a cool look or concept, like bubble canopies. What the rules guys do with it after that is their business and much less important to me.
Was the interview posted to WarCom or their YouTube channel? I can't seem to find it.
Sadly very brief. I’d like to see a longer one like they did on the admech on that podcast they did. Liked that. Be good to here more about the process and thinking.
Sadly very brief. I’d like to see a longer one like they did on the admech on that podcast they did. Liked that. Be good to here more about the process and thinking.
Yes I'm hoping we get a fuller article about their design approach to the leagues. I was pretty surprised Jes did them - always thought of him as more of an elf..
Andykp wrote: They interviewed (briefly) the designers about the leagues and jes has overseen this release so you are quite right. The modern designs have much more of a nod to actually working, or at least a coherent approach to actually working. Even in the grav tanks of the primaris, the share the same design elements. But this. Is what I like about Jes Goodwin designs, he doesn’t let practicality get in the way of a cool look or concept, like bubble canopies. What the rules guys do with it after that is their business and much less important to me.
Was the interview posted to WarCom or their YouTube channel? I can't seem to find it.
The designs, even if new, have so many touchpoints and bridges with other 40k factions and the more you look at them the more you see that.
Its a clever and subtle way of making these part of 40k.
On the artwork the Hekaton convoy looks so nice in the distance, almost like a full exploratory force arriving.
Honestly when it comes to any setting you have to get into the headspace of the setting. At that point you either get it and love it or you don't get it and might not love it or might even hate it.
People also have different backgrounds, experiences and understandings that create different limit points.
Eg in fantasy many people have no problem with scenes of horses charging all over the place when heading out on a long journey. Meanwhile any real horse rider with long distance experience knows that if they charged out like that the horse would be done in long before they'd ever reach their destination. Or that they'd have to be changing horses very regularly to maintain such a speed
Sometimes the real life understanding and experience can result in the inability to actually get into a setting be it on the TV, in a book, on a tabletop. You just see the inaccuracies and can't get into the flow and feel for the setting.
Of course sometimes learning more is a false element. Eg in Warhammer I'd wager learning a lot about modern warfare would leave you shaking your head at the madness and inaccuracies; however I'd wager a more historical take might actually let you see all the little nods of design inspired by real life historical uniforms, weapons and ideas. Yes its still insane by "today's" standards, but its not if you start looking at the snapshot bits of history. The Imperial Guard are, for example, much more a WW1 army taken to the extremes and then thrust into the future.
NAVARRO wrote: The designs, even if new, have so many touchpoints and bridges with other 40k factions and the more you look at them the more you see that.
Its a clever and subtle way of making these part of 40k.
On the artwork the Hekaton convoy looks so nice in the distance, almost like a full exploratory force arriving.
The force I want to make will be centred around a mobile element representing an exploratory force starting off. For me those models ooze character.
Oddly the only berserker model that I really like Is the one with the mole mortar or whatever it’s called now, the least likely weapon for crazed close combat troops. I hope you can take it as a stand alone unit not just as an upgrade. Does anyone know from codex reviews?
NAVARRO wrote: The designs, even if new, have so many touchpoints and bridges with other 40k factions and the more you look at them the more you see that.
Its a clever and subtle way of making these part of 40k.
On the artwork the Hekaton convoy looks so nice in the distance, almost like a full exploratory force arriving.
The force I want to make will be centred around a mobile element representing an exploratory force starting off. For me those models ooze character.
Oddly the only berserker model that I really like Is the one with the mole mortar or whatever it’s called now, the least likely weapon for crazed close combat troops. I hope you can take it as a stand alone unit not just as an upgrade. Does anyone know from codex reviews?
Spoiler:
Based on points page it's unit upgrade. Which isn't surprise based on preview article showing berserkers.
NAVARRO wrote: The designs, even if new, have so many touchpoints and bridges with other 40k factions and the more you look at them the more you see that.
Its a clever and subtle way of making these part of 40k.
On the artwork the Hekaton convoy looks so nice in the distance, almost like a full exploratory force arriving.
The force I want to make will be centred around a mobile element representing an exploratory force starting off. For me those models ooze character.
Oddly the only berserker model that I really like Is the one with the mole mortar or whatever it’s called now, the least likely weapon for crazed close combat troops. I hope you can take it as a stand alone unit not just as an upgrade. Does anyone know from codex reviews?
Spoiler:
Based on points page it's unit upgrade. Which isn't surprise based on preview article showing berserkers.
Thanks. Will have to see what I make of the beserks in person, least fave of the units but there have been times I didn’t like a unit until I saw it in the plastic!
I'm a bit surprised at the lack of Ironkin. When they were announced I thought there would be several within the range, but there's technically only 1 - the assistant for the Brokyr. There's a head option for an ironkin in the Hearthkyn, and one as a co-pilot in the Hekkaton, but I expected them to be more of a distinct thing, really. Hopefully Wave 2 solves that.
Also a bit of a shame the Brokkyr Ironmaster unit doesn't have any customization, would have been cool to be able to adjust what's with him so you could have different amounts of Ironkin and COGs.
Mentlegen324 wrote: I'm a bit surprised at the lack of Ironkin. When they were announced I thought there would be several within the range, but there's technically only 1 - the assistant for the Brokyr. There's a head option for an ironkin in the Hearthkyn, and one as a co-pilot in the Hekkaton, but I expected them to be more of a distinct thing, really. Hopefully Wave 2 solves that.
Not that your complaints isn't valid because of a nitpick, but there also an Ironkin in the mortar team that you missed
Mentlegen324 wrote: I'm a bit surprised at the lack of Ironkin. When they were announced I thought there would be several within the range, but there's technically only 1 - the assistant for the Brokyr. There's a head option for an ironkin in the Hearthkyn, and one as a co-pilot in the Hekkaton, but I expected them to be more of a distinct thing, really. Hopefully Wave 2 solves that.
Not that your complaints isn't valid because of a nitpick, but there also an Ironkin in the mortar team that you missed
He’s my favourite. They are designed to be helpful, I can imagine this one being like, “hey, I’ll carry your big heavy axe, and no probs just hang your canteen right on there!”
Mentlegen324 wrote: I'm a bit surprised at the lack of Ironkin. When they were announced I thought there would be several within the range, but there's technically only 1 - the assistant for the Brokyr. There's a head option for an ironkin in the Hearthkyn, and one as a co-pilot in the Hekkaton, but I expected them to be more of a distinct thing, really. Hopefully Wave 2 solves that.
Also a bit of a shame the Brokkyr Ironmaster unit doesn't have any customization, would have been cool to be able to adjust what's with him so you could have different amounts of Ironkin and COGs.
I’m glad they haven’t over done it. There’s scope for more in the future for sure. I can see a special character ironkin at some point. But for now it works better as a quirk, not something very common. For me, when I am building my army I can’t imagine I’ll have many outside of support stuff like those two.
Mentlegen324 wrote: I'm a bit surprised at the lack of Ironkin. When they were announced I thought there would be several within the range, but there's technically only 1 - the assistant for the Brokyr. There's a head option for an ironkin in the Hearthkyn, and one as a co-pilot in the Hekkaton, but I expected them to be more of a distinct thing, really. Hopefully Wave 2 solves that.
Not that your complaints isn't valid because of a nitpick, but there also an Ironkin in the mortar team that you missed
I didn't miss it, it's a COG not an ironkin - Cogs have a bolt on their head, Ironkin have a speaker. It's listed as a COG in the rules.
Overread wrote:Honestly when it comes to any setting you have to get into the headspace of the setting. At that point you either get it and love it or you don't get it and might not love it or might even hate it.
People also have different backgrounds, experiences and understandings that create different limit points.
Eg in fantasy many people have no problem with scenes of horses charging all over the place when heading out on a long journey. Meanwhile any real horse rider with long distance experience knows that if they charged out like that the horse would be done in long before they'd ever reach their destination. Or that they'd have to be changing horses very regularly to maintain such a speed
Sometimes the real life understanding and experience can result in the inability to actually get into a setting be it on the TV, in a book, on a tabletop. You just see the inaccuracies and can't get into the flow and feel for the setting.
Of course sometimes learning more is a false element. Eg in Warhammer I'd wager learning a lot about modern warfare would leave you shaking your head at the madness and inaccuracies; however I'd wager a more historical take might actually let you see all the little nods of design inspired by real life historical uniforms, weapons and ideas. Yes its still insane by "today's" standards, but its not if you start looking at the snapshot bits of history. The Imperial Guard are, for example, much more a WW1 army taken to the extremes and then thrust into the future.
Totally agree and also I think every individual has is own interpretation of what is actually the 40k setting. That alone makes people accept/reject some concepts.
I have a passion for miniature design, concept art and sculpt so for me an original take on old designs peaks my interest.
This range is design clever since it picks an extinct race and totally reboots the concepts, keeping the bridges to the past but pushing designs into new paths.
Andykp wrote:
NAVARRO wrote: The designs, even if new, have so many touchpoints and bridges with other 40k factions and the more you look at them the more you see that.
Its a clever and subtle way of making these part of 40k.
On the artwork the Hekaton convoy looks so nice in the distance, almost like a full exploratory force arriving.
The force I want to make will be centred around a mobile element representing an exploratory force starting off. For me those models ooze character.
Oddly the only berserker model that I really like Is the one with the mole mortar or whatever it’s called now, the least likely weapon for crazed close combat troops. I hope you can take it as a stand alone unit not just as an upgrade. Does anyone know from codex reviews?
Same I would ideally want a small exploratory force with one box for each kit. The idea to grab all these new and never seen kits and play with them all is just irresistible.
The conversions potential here is immense.
Andykp wrote:They look so good in these colours.
Another great colour choice. I think this is going to be a painters sandbox.
Wow! The Hekaton Land Fortress still doesn't look like a proper "land fortress", but it's significantly more massive than I expected based on the first pics of it. Not bad.
Also, I really like the Ymir Conglomerate paint scheme. And there seem to be closed-helmet options for Einhyr Hearthguard. I think I need a squad, of 10, with a Champion to lead them...
SarisKhan wrote: Wow! The Hekaton Land Fortress still doesn't look like a proper "land fortress", but it's significantly more massive than I expected based on the first pics of it. Not bad.
Also, I really like the Ymir Conglomerate paint scheme. And there seem to be closed-helmet options for Einhyr Hearthguard. I think I need a squad, of 10, with a Champion to lead them...
Seeing the einhyr guys in that pic with the helmets on makes me want to add a “bushido” banner to them from puppets of war. They just NEED it.
Overread wrote:Honestly when it comes to any setting you have to get into the headspace of the setting. At that point you either get it and love it or you don't get it and might not love it or might even hate it.
People also have different backgrounds, experiences and understandings that create different limit points.
Eg in fantasy many people have no problem with scenes of horses charging all over the place when heading out on a long journey. Meanwhile any real horse rider with long distance experience knows that if they charged out like that the horse would be done in long before they'd ever reach their destination. Or that they'd have to be changing horses very regularly to maintain such a speed
Sometimes the real life understanding and experience can result in the inability to actually get into a setting be it on the TV, in a book, on a tabletop. You just see the inaccuracies and can't get into the flow and feel for the setting.
Of course sometimes learning more is a false element. Eg in Warhammer I'd wager learning a lot about modern warfare would leave you shaking your head at the madness and inaccuracies; however I'd wager a more historical take might actually let you see all the little nods of design inspired by real life historical uniforms, weapons and ideas. Yes its still insane by "today's" standards, but its not if you start looking at the snapshot bits of history. The Imperial Guard are, for example, much more a WW1 army taken to the extremes and then thrust into the future.
Totally agree and also I think every individual has is own interpretation of what is actually the 40k setting. That alone makes people accept/reject some concepts.
I have a passion for miniature design, concept art and sculpt so for me an original take on old designs peaks my interest.
This range is design clever since it picks an extinct race and totally reboots the concepts, keeping the bridges to the past but pushing designs into new paths.
Andykp wrote:
NAVARRO wrote: The designs, even if new, have so many touchpoints and bridges with other 40k factions and the more you look at them the more you see that.
Its a clever and subtle way of making these part of 40k.
On the artwork the Hekaton convoy looks so nice in the distance, almost like a full exploratory force arriving.
The force I want to make will be centred around a mobile element representing an exploratory force starting off. For me those models ooze character.
Oddly the only berserker model that I really like Is the one with the mole mortar or whatever it’s called now, the least likely weapon for crazed close combat troops. I hope you can take it as a stand alone unit not just as an upgrade. Does anyone know from codex reviews?
Same I would ideally want a small exploratory force with one box for each kit. The idea to grab all these new and never seen kits and play with them all is just irresistible.
The conversions potential here is immense.
Andykp wrote:They look so good in these colours.
Another great colour choice. I think this is going to be a painters sandbox.
They've really pushed the overarmoued super tough aspect of the squats, and what's more ridiculous than having the hearthguard riding trikes into battle?
Keen also to see if they decide to redevelop the overlord and other airships into a more scifi style of vehicle. The tau orca dropship style of thing, but with the hover coils.
Mentlegen324 wrote: I'm a bit surprised at the lack of Ironkin. When they were announced I thought there would be several within the range, but there's technically only 1 - the assistant for the Brokyr. There's a head option for an ironkin in the Hearthkyn, and one as a co-pilot in the Hekkaton, but I expected them to be more of a distinct thing, really. Hopefully Wave 2 solves that.
Also a bit of a shame the Brokkyr Ironmaster unit doesn't have any customization, would have been cool to be able to adjust what's with him so you could have different amounts of Ironkin and COGs.
I was a bit surprised about that as well. As you mentioned, I bet if and when they the leagues get their second wave of models (halfway through 10th edition, maybe?) there will be more of them in the codex. Add ons to units, stand alone, etc.
They've really pushed the overarmoued super tough aspect of the squats, and what's more ridiculous than having the hearthguard riding trikes into battle?
Keen also to see if they decide to redevelop the overlord and other airships into a more scifi style of vehicle. The tau orca dropship style of thing, but with the hover coils.
Oh man...let the design team play around with a ton of bits of some kharadon overlords airships and I bet they will come up with something cool!
Never mind the color scheme, it's the first time I'm seeing helmets on the exo armor guys. Is it really that much to ask of GW to have some of their models wear helmets to show off the options in the kit? You know, in high resolution promo pictures? I really don't get this weird obsession with having so many Squats bareheaded. I've remarked time and again that I expect that there would be helmets for the whole squad, since that's something that can be reasonably expected of as GW kit, but their marketing really makes it hard to believe at times.
On the artwork the Hekaton convoy looks so nice in the distance, almost like a full exploratory force arriving.
The conversions potential here is immense.
Andykp wrote:They look so good in these colours.
Another great colour choice. I think this is going to be a painters sandbox.
Yeah people have been having fun already with the Necromunda squats sorting out potential paint schemes already. I can't wait to see what the community does when the Votann arrive and start kit bashing. The Hekaton I think people will have a lot of fun with, similar to how people have treated the KO ships.
They've really pushed the overarmoued super tough aspect of the squats, and what's more ridiculous than having the hearthguard riding trikes into battle?
Keen also to see if they decide to redevelop the overlord and other airships into a more scifi style of vehicle. The tau orca dropship style of thing, but with the hover coils.
Yes there seems to be flyers in the art- in the army art and the miners art.I could see them having drop ships of some kind with oversized hover coils/jets [looks like that in the miners art]. I'd love to see them do more with the hearthguard ,probably not bikes but I didn't expect them to do such a cool job re-imagining trikes so I'm open to anything! Could have the power lances again. I'm a bit surprised the hearthguard didn't have more options- no heavy weapons and not much in terms of assault weapons- more axes/hammers would have been good. I wonder if there will be a Kahl in Exo suit. Perhaps the champion covers that but it would be a good option to have leading Hearhguard bodyguard unit.
Never mind the color scheme, it's the first time I'm seeing helmets on the exo armor guys. Is it really that much to ask of GW to have some of their models wear helmets to show off the options in the kit? You know, in high resolution promo pictures? I really don't get this weird obsession with having so many Squats bareheaded. I've remarked time and again that I expect that there would be helmets for the whole squad, since that's something that can be reasonably expected of as GW kit, but their marketing really makes it hard to believe at times.
I think it might have been to show the dwarfness and there was criticism around the Kharadron when they previewed that there where no faces.
I love the helmets with the faceplate/visor painted black - not keen on the metal version on the Thurman scheme. But yes I'd love to see proper photos of the kin with that scheme and all helmets. I didn't like the Necromunda helmets initially but there is something about them which gives that feel of a dwarf shape. I wonder of the Brokhyr have helmets- I think kit bashing Kharadron helmets with them could work and would be appropriate. Although the regular helmets might work too- the round collars on the armour look to make the head options cross compatible I think.
Well these "squats" don't have much of dwarf to begin with. And plenty of beardless heads. Do better job of being space hobbits
Also look awfully tall. They should be 3 heads shorter than basic primaris marines to be the usual dwarf height of 5 feet but from the size comparisons don't really look like that.
Well apart from the beserks there who are likely a bit larger than their "bretheryn" the Kyn are smaller than the Orks in that battle photo.
GW have never been bang on with scale because it's about how they appear on the battlefield. It's heroic scale after all. Imperial Guard were about the same size as Space Marines. The "tactical rock" thing gets a lot of jokes but the basic idea behind it is you want your characters to be immediately recognisable on the tabletop. They certainly don't get it right on a lot of occasions and from what I've seen the AoS models seem to be far worse for it. But I understand the reason for it.
The Necromunda Squats that are likely a touch larger that the Votann still have a good Dwarf stature. They're a couple of mm taller than the 7th edition WFB Dwarf warriors. I don't know what size the AoS ones are but they're a likely better comparison for scale.
Boosykes wrote: Average Hight for males is 5.9 how is a dwarf 5 feet tall? At the tallest they should be 4.6
Well if you put dwarf at 4.6 feet for dwarves it's even more ridiculous with squats needing to be less than half the height of primaris...Where they look to be closer to 6 feet from model comparisons. Hopefully pictures are just off and they are 3-4 head shorter than primaris.
Boosykes wrote: Average Hight for males is 5.9 how is a dwarf 5 feet tall? At the tallest they should be 4.6
Well if you put dwarf at 4.6 feet for dwarves it's even more ridiculous with squats needing to be less than half the height of primaris...Where they look to be closer to 6 feet from model comparisons. Hopefully pictures are just off and they are 3-4 head shorter than primaris.
You now think that primaris marines are ten feet tall?
I agree that Votann are weirdly tall, but it is probably better compare them to GW's normal humans than to marines, whose scaling remains weird. (Like it or not, compared to GW's normal humans Primaris and Custodes are scaled to be roughly seven feet tall and new non-primaris marines about six and half.) Votann seem to be around fiveish feet, which is rather tall for a dwarf. Though of course it is hard to gauge this just by pics of unreleased models.
)
.
out of the enemy), and is quite fashionable. 
