Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Oh bother, this is Tau all over again, isn't it? Some excellent designs that really don't look like they belong in MY 40k.

I get the desire to avoid encroaching on Imperial designs, and the Eldar essentially own the sleek xenotech look, but there's actually very little in between the two that doesn't look like it came from a different franchise.

Then there's the fluff that so far reads... poorly, in MY IDEA OF the context of the setting.

Fixed that for you.

Quasistellar wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Oh bother, this is Tau all over again, isn't it? Some excellent designs that really don't look like they belong in MY 40k.

I get the desire to avoid encroaching on Imperial designs, and the Eldar essentially own the sleek xenotech look, but there's actually very little in between the two that doesn't look like it came from a different franchise.

Then there's the fluff that so far reads... poorly, in the MY IDEA OF THE context of the setting.

Fixed that for you.

If literally everything is as subjective as you present it, why bother discussing anything at all?

Subjectivity does not preclude discussion--quite the contrary.

The 40k setting includes the entire Milky Way galaxy. I think a lot of people with opinions like "that doesn't look like it belongs in 40k" are confusing the Imperium with the setting in general. The Imperium does generally span the galaxy, but it is not the *whole* galaxy.

A setting is an identifiable set of intellectual and/or visual themes. You can keep diluting the themes as much as you like, but don't be surprised when what you end up with is tasteless slop.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Oh bother, this is Tau all over again, isn't it? Some excellent designs that really don't look like they belong in 40k.

I get the desire to avoid encroaching on Imperial designs, and the Eldar essentially own the sleek xenotech look, but there's actually very little in between the two that doesn't look like it came from a different franchise.

Then there's the fluff that so far reads... poorly, in the context of the setting.

Frankly I'd go out and say that I don't mind the models (except for the fact they look like GW is just riffing on Starcraft shamelessly) all that much, compared to the fluff. It just sounds so Mary Sue-ish, doesn't it? With the extremly advanced tech (better than the factions that are supposed to be advanced), flawless cloning, mass-producing Psykers, supplying the Imperium's enemies, the perfectly egalitarian society...

It feels a bit early to be damning the lore tbh.

One of the more interesting things I haven't really seen talked about is this line:

"Such was the craft of the First Ancestors that even Kin souls are engineered – they shine more dimly against the tides of the warp than their distant human cousins, with no evidence of uncontrolled psychic mutation."

So the kin had their souls engineered so that they would not be noticed so easily by chaos.

Kinda reminds me of that in-universe theory that the Men of Iron started the Cybernetic Revolt because they believed that the only way to stop Chaos from bringing the End Times, warhammer fantasy style, was to kill all sapient life forms. (Which would also explain why other species were allied with humans in the war if it was the men of iron trying to kill everyone and not just humans.)

It makes me think that there was a splinter faction amongst the Men of Iron who wanted to find an alternative to killing all sapient life in the galaxy, and the kin are there attempt at that. Those men of Iron became the Votann. The Votann are the men of iron.

I think there's some potential for some pretty interesting stuff to come out of this. We dont really know how much control the votannn/men of iron have over the kin. We know the votann are hungry for information and send the kin out searching for it. They also control much of the kin's lives, genetically engineering them to do certain tasks.

They also have AI kin who walk amongst them. Which is a bit strange. Do the AI kin work for the votann? if a normal squat kin does something out of line does an AI kin secretly kill them?

Voss wrote:

Geifer wrote:They are supposed to use STC based Dark Age tech which railroads them into a certain look

How? I've been into this game since '89, and I couldn't tell you what Dark Age tech is 'supposed to' look like, let alone that it has a certain one.

For good or ill (and I lean toward the latter), the new squats are a design direction that GW picked on purpose. They aren't really constrained by anything but the art direction GW deliberately chose.

I doubt GW has created a comprehensive concept for what they want that stuff to look like, but we have Kastelans and the Man of Iron from Blackstone Fortress as examples of armor and robot design. Mechanicus has a bunch of designs that are supposed to be that. Overall it's 50s and 60s inspired sci-fi, preferably with some design cues that tie them to cruder Imperial equipment and established 40k designs.

By comparison we have the handy NASApunk term now for what is considered more 90s sci-fi for the Squats' new design direction.

I'd argue that this makes all the difference when it comes to people calling Squats Starcraft ripoffs and generic sci-fi. It's a departure from the examples of Dark Age design we already have for something that isn't strongly associated with the various styles found in 40k. They look too modern for what is established as Dark Age technology. GW introduced the odd model or piece of wargear that's supposed to predate the Imperium during last half decade, and now they're taking a different direction with Squats. That may be something the background can handle without much effort, but it's not a good way to go with visual design.

 Geifer wrote:

Voss wrote:

Geifer wrote:They are supposed to use STC based Dark Age tech which railroads them into a certain look

How? I've been into this game since '89, and I couldn't tell you what Dark Age tech is 'supposed to' look like, let alone that it has a certain one.

For good or ill (and I lean toward the latter), the new squats are a design direction that GW picked on purpose. They aren't really constrained by anything but the art direction GW deliberately chose.

I doubt GW has created a comprehensive concept for what they want that stuff to look like, but we have Kastelans and the Man of Iron from Blackstone Fortress as examples of armor and robot design. Mechanicus has a bunch of designs that are supposed to be that. Overall it's 50s and 60s inspired sci-fi, preferably with some design cues that tie them to cruder Imperial equipment and established 40k designs.

By comparison we have the handy NASApunk term now for what is considered more 90s sci-fi for the Squats' new design direction.

I'd argue that this makes all the difference when it comes to people calling Squats Starcraft ripoffs and generic sci-fi. It's a departure from the examples of Dark Age design we already have for something that isn't strongly associated with the various styles found in 40k. They look too modern for what is established as Dark Age technology. GW introduced the odd model or piece of wargear that's supposed to predate the Imperium during last half decade, and now they're taking a different direction with Squats. That may be something the background can handle without much effort, but it's not a good way to go with visual design.

Not a good way? sure thing... Looks at primaris update, tau, Van saar and to an extent AoS stormcast and ballon dwarfs.... something tells me those are selling quite well.
Designs updates are crucial and design variety is essential if you want to keep your setting contemporary. Well you can always regurgitate same designs over and over again but even Spacemarines got into Primaris so that should tell you something of what is good and bad ways to keep 40k going.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Not a good way? sure thing... Looks at primaris update, tau, Van saar and to an extent AoS stormcast and ballon dwarfs.... something tells me those are selling quite well.
Designs updates are crucial and design variety is essential if you want to keep your setting contemporary. Well you can always regurgitate same designs over and over again but even Spacemarines got into Primaris so that should tell you something of what is good and bad ways to keep 40k going.

None of what I said has anything to do with financial viability, so... thanks for the comment on financial viability, I guess?

 Geifer wrote:

Voss wrote:

Geifer wrote:They are supposed to use STC based Dark Age tech which railroads them into a certain look

How? I've been into this game since '89, and I couldn't tell you what Dark Age tech is 'supposed to' look like, let alone that it has a certain one.

For good or ill (and I lean toward the latter), the new squats are a design direction that GW picked on purpose. They aren't really constrained by anything but the art direction GW deliberately chose.

I doubt GW has created a comprehensive concept for what they want that stuff to look like, but we have Kastelans and the Man of Iron from Blackstone Fortress as examples of armor and robot design. Mechanicus has a bunch of designs that are supposed to be that. Overall it's 50s and 60s inspired sci-fi, preferably with some design cues that tie them to cruder Imperial equipment and established 40k designs.

By comparison we have the handy NASApunk term now for what is considered more 90s sci-fi for the Squats' new design direction.

I'd argue that this makes all the difference when it comes to people calling Squats Starcraft ripoffs and generic sci-fi. It's a departure from the examples of Dark Age design we already have for something that isn't strongly associated with the various styles found in 40k. They look too modern for what is established as Dark Age technology. GW introduced the odd model or piece of wargear that's supposed to predate the Imperium during last half decade, and now they're taking a different direction with Squats. That may be something the background can handle without much effort, but it's not a good way to go with visual design.

I was under the impression that a lot of what the Imperium has that is "Dark Age Designed"...isn't quite? STCs are cobbled together from incomplete fragments using the understanding (or lack of) of the Mechanicus and imbued with their superstition, Dogma and overall idea of how things should be, to create something that, on the surface, is a "Dark age of technology" design but is really a poor imitation of what it should have been. And likewise technology that has survived that long has been rebuilt and adjusted countless times over the years to the point that it's changed into a clunky gothic fascimile of what the original was.

Like the Imperial Robots are DAoT designs but they look like retro/pulp sci-fi imbued with elements of archaic schizo tech and is the sort of thing you'd fin in 50s sci-fi, whereas UR-025 is a "proper" version who's a more sleek, sophisticated style of robot closer to classic sci-fi from the later half of the 20th century.

I wouldn't say the Kin are a departure from the style of UR-025, their technology seems in-line with that sort of more classic sci-fi aesthetic rather than the Mechanicus' retro interpretations.

 NAVARRO wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

Voss wrote:

Geifer wrote:They are supposed to use STC based Dark Age tech which railroads them into a certain look

How? I've been into this game since '89, and I couldn't tell you what Dark Age tech is 'supposed to' look like, let alone that it has a certain one.

For good or ill (and I lean toward the latter), the new squats are a design direction that GW picked on purpose. They aren't really constrained by anything but the art direction GW deliberately chose.

I doubt GW has created a comprehensive concept for what they want that stuff to look like, but we have Kastelans and the Man of Iron from Blackstone Fortress as examples of armor and robot design. Mechanicus has a bunch of designs that are supposed to be that. Overall it's 50s and 60s inspired sci-fi, preferably with some design cues that tie them to cruder Imperial equipment and established 40k designs.

By comparison we have the handy NASApunk term now for what is considered more 90s sci-fi for the Squats' new design direction.

I'd argue that this makes all the difference when it comes to people calling Squats Starcraft ripoffs and generic sci-fi. It's a departure from the examples of Dark Age design we already have for something that isn't strongly associated with the various styles found in 40k. They look too modern for what is established as Dark Age technology. GW introduced the odd model or piece of wargear that's supposed to predate the Imperium during last half decade, and now they're taking a different direction with Squats. That may be something the background can handle without much effort, but it's not a good way to go with visual design.

Not a good way? sure thing... Looks at primaris update, tau, Van saar and to an extent AoS stormcast and ballon dwarfs.... something tells me those are selling quite well.
Designs updates are crucial and design variety is essential if you want to keep your setting contemporary. Well you can always regurgitate same designs over and over again but even Spacemarines got into Primaris so that should tell you something of what is good and bad ways to keep 40k going.

But at some point 40k just loses it's actual unique look. Like with Van Saar, which looks like someone's attempts at replicating Infinity's style more than it looks like 40k.
And at that point, one has to ask themselves, why buy 40k models if they just look at someone's attempt at copying the style of another model line?

I started the hobby with a dwarf army, and i did like the look of the standaard infantrie with there flak armour and caps and helmets.
They where armed with lasguns and some could have bolters. the rest of the line i didnt like.
But you needed them to play. the heavy armour did look silly (egg shape) and the bikes didnt cut it even in those days. the stopt the line because they didnt know what to do and didnt want to go with the biker themed look.

 Geifer wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Not a good way? sure thing... Looks at primaris update, tau, Van saar and to an extent AoS stormcast and ballon dwarfs.... something tells me those are selling quite well.
Designs updates are crucial and design variety is essential if you want to keep your setting contemporary. Well you can always regurgitate same designs over and over again but even Spacemarines got into Primaris so that should tell you something of what is good and bad ways to keep 40k going.

None of what I said has anything to do with financial viability, so... thanks for the comment on financial viability, I guess?

As some one who started with Rogue Trader (cuz we all need to qualify that); I love the Tau, Primaris and Van Saar. In fact most of my remaining minis are those minis (and a bunch of Eldar). Financial viability = people liking something enough to put down cold hard cash for it. Does it belong in 40K? Well my answer to Eldar Aspect warriors is no, but apparently I'm in the minority. People get weighed down by the history and decide what they think is or isn't the setting--but not me, I still don't acknowledge those Egyptian themed models displacing my beloved Space Melniboneans...even if they redid those Rogue Trader Space Elves--twice.

 Geifer wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Not a good way? sure thing... Looks at primaris update, tau, Van saar and to an extent AoS stormcast and ballon dwarfs.... something tells me those are selling quite well.
Designs updates are crucial and design variety is essential if you want to keep your setting contemporary. Well you can always regurgitate same designs over and over again but even Spacemarines got into Primaris so that should tell you something of what is good and bad ways to keep 40k going.

None of what I said has anything to do with financial viability, so... thanks for the comment on financial viability, I guess?

Chairman Aeon replied to this with:

"Financial viability = people liking something enough to put down cold hard cash for it."

Which was what I was, in part, getting at... If people buy it is because they like it. What does that mean for 40k? More of everything and keeps on growing. So yes its quite obvious these updated designs are something people want.
The other part I was trying to get at is quite simple to understand - stagnant settings, no variety of designs or mini ranges tend to errr die and vanish. Its not me or the other older folks, that used to buy things by catalogue with no pictures and can get past through the colourful publicity... its basically the vast majority of the modern person, that buys shiny NEW things that pop up in front of them.
For all it takes only a small minority of the target audience knows and remembers squats and even a smaller one does not like these new designs... Do you really think GW new squats should be held hostage of a dead, old and not that good past concept of a Squat to please such small target?

In short I could care less about other entities economic viability... this is more - New updates, new designs new minis are a GOOD way to go about design.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Spoiler:

 NAVARRO wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

Voss wrote:

Geifer wrote:They are supposed to use STC based Dark Age tech which railroads them into a certain look

How? I've been into this game since '89, and I couldn't tell you what Dark Age tech is 'supposed to' look like, let alone that it has a certain one.

For good or ill (and I lean toward the latter), the new squats are a design direction that GW picked on purpose. They aren't really constrained by anything but the art direction GW deliberately chose.

I doubt GW has created a comprehensive concept for what they want that stuff to look like, but we have Kastelans and the Man of Iron from Blackstone Fortress as examples of armor and robot design. Mechanicus has a bunch of designs that are supposed to be that. Overall it's 50s and 60s inspired sci-fi, preferably with some design cues that tie them to cruder Imperial equipment and established 40k designs.

By comparison we have the handy NASApunk term now for what is considered more 90s sci-fi for the Squats' new design direction.

I'd argue that this makes all the difference when it comes to people calling Squats Starcraft ripoffs and generic sci-fi. It's a departure from the examples of Dark Age design we already have for something that isn't strongly associated with the various styles found in 40k. They look too modern for what is established as Dark Age technology. GW introduced the odd model or piece of wargear that's supposed to predate the Imperium during last half decade, and now they're taking a different direction with Squats. That may be something the background can handle without much effort, but it's not a good way to go with visual design.

Not a good way? sure thing... Looks at primaris update, tau, Van saar and to an extent AoS stormcast and ballon dwarfs.... something tells me those are selling quite well.
Designs updates are crucial and design variety is essential if you want to keep your setting contemporary. Well you can always regurgitate same designs over and over again but even Spacemarines got into Primaris so that should tell you something of what is good and bad ways to keep 40k going.

But at some point 40k just loses it's actual unique look. Like with Van Saar, which looks like someone's attempts at replicating Infinity's style more than it looks like 40k.
And at that point, one has to ask themselves, why buy 40k models if they just look at someone's attempt at copying the style of another model line?

40k "unique" look always and will always be predatory of popular trends, theres nothing new there.

Sure but they litterally look like things I can 3d print for penny's. I think it will be a hard sell sure plenty of people like the design but you can pick up space dwarfs for litteraly penny's with a 3d printer. If GW prices weren't so insane this might be OK. But they are trying to sell a new line of minys you can find for penny's on there name alone. Will some small brained Whales buy in of corse. However for most of us why wouldn't we just print the litterally thousands of common space dwarfs for penny's?

 Geifer wrote:

I'd argue that this makes all the difference when it comes to people calling Squats Starcraft ripoffs and generic sci-fi. It's a departure from the examples of Dark Age design we already have for something that isn't strongly associated with the various styles found in 40k. They look too modern for what is established as Dark Age technology. GW introduced the odd model or piece of wargear that's supposed to predate the Imperium during last half decade, and now they're taking a different direction with Squats. That may be something the background can handle without much effort, but it's not a good way to go with visual design.

The thing about the Squats is that they haven't been technologically stagnant since the DAoT. They've had thousands of years to build on what the Mechanicus is keeping pristine and unchanged. Of course their 'current' tech will look different, since it's been refined, redesigned (for one thing, I imagine all the chairs would have to be replaced once the squat physique became dominant over traditional humanity).

Ten thousand plus years of technological advancement on top of a complete mutation / evolution of the user-base SHOULD result in different-looking stuff, it is the alternative that would look weird. If the squats were just followed around by lots of Mechanicus-style robots, it would look like they were the ones stuck in the past.

I suspect when we see more artwork, particularly of them defending their asteroid mines, the dwarf look will be more obvious in context.

Short, ancestor revering, rugged individualist asteroid miners and prospectors feels the brief of how to translate Dwarf archetype into 40K. With a side note of having a link to the age before the Imperium to add a hook to get other players interested in them even if they don't pick up the army themselves.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Like the Imperial Robots are DAoT designs but they look like retro/pulp sci-fi imbued with elements of archaic schizo tech and is the sort of thing you'd fin in 50s sci-fi, whereas UR-025 is a "proper" version who's a more sleek, sophisticated style of robot closer to classic sci-fi from the later half of the 20th century.

I wouldn't say the Kin are a departure from the style of UR-025, their technology seems in-line with that sort of more classic sci-fi aesthetic rather than the Mechanicus' retro interpretations.

Squats use some design elements common to those other Dark Age models, but they also got a design of their own to give the faction a distinct look. This is not a bad thing per se, in fact it's desirable, but the resulting look invites a different association. As an example, I could believe that UR-025 was assembled in a 50s Ford plant. I don't see the Squat buggy anywhere close to that. It has some rounded design, but rounded in a modern way rather than reminiscent of retro car design.

If you want an association with an established concept, you need to be able to imply that concept to a large enough degree for people to see it. The most common comments on the models when they were introduced was Tau (advanced but not human tech) and Starcraft (generic sci-fi humans), not Dark Age of Technology. That's not even terrible as such. I could see the model designers being perfectly content with making something in isolation as long as its coherent as a model range, and the whole complete STC deal only came along when the fluff writers made their contribution. We can only speculate what the design team's exact goals were. So, I'm not saying they failed. But they did go a different route to established Dark Age designs and created a deviating look.

 NAVARRO wrote:
For all it takes only a small minority of the target audience knows and remembers squats and even a smaller one does not like these new designs... Do you really think GW new squats should be held hostage of a dead, old and not that good past concept of a Squat to please such small target?

You're mistaking me for someone else. I was talking about the new Squat design in relation to other, modern model design in 40k. I never made a comparison to the old models.

 NAVARRO wrote:
So yes its quite obvious these updated designs are something people want.

Neither Squats today, not Tau yesterday went through some sort of extensive public consultation phase. GW puts them out and people buy them, but for all we know, something more in line with 40k established aesthetic would have moved more plastic. Or maybe it wouldn't. We'll never know.

Either way, I'd avoid appeals to sale charts.

His Master's Voice wrote:A setting is an identifiable set of intellectual and/or visual themes. You can keep diluting the themes as much as you like, but don't be surprised when what you end up with is tasteless slop.

Okay, but with a setting as wide and diverse as 40k, what are those themes? When you invent/reinvent a new faction, you'd need to create new intellectual and visual themes. Or is this an argument for "no new things, nothing more can be added, only variations on the existing themes"?

I mean, if Eldar never existed, the Eldar aesthetic and visual theme would be completely "out of setting" if all you compared it to was the Imperium and Chaos. Tau would look entirely "out of setting", but now they have their established aesthetic.

Give Squats time. They'll fit right in as their own entity, amongst a variety of other entities.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Okay, but with a setting as wide and diverse as 40k, what are those themes? When you invent/reinvent a new faction, you'd need to create new intellectual and visual themes. Or is this an argument for "no new things, nothing more can be added, only variations on the existing themes"?

I mean, if Eldar never existed, the Eldar aesthetic and visual theme would be completely "out of setting" if all you compared it to was the Imperium and Chaos. Tau would look entirely "out of setting", but now they have their established aesthetic.

Give Squats time. They'll fit right in as their own entity, amongst a variety of other entities.

Well put.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Or is this an argument for "no new things, nothing more can be added, only variations on the existing themes"?

Well yes, that's essentially the argument, as reductive as you made it sound.

I think the Necron and Tau are a good example of what I mean. The Necron are a dark, brooding race of death like automaton slaves. The Tau are a plucky race of little gray men in Robotech suits. Both were at their time new to the setting, and yet interacted with the established themes in very different ways.

And you know what, I'd probably squint with my old man eyes at the current Eldar*, had they been a new addition to a setting that hasn't seen a Shuriken Catapult since it came to be some thirty years ago.



*except of course the Eldar are inspired in design. The Squats are nice, but don't really kick in the same league.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
So yes its quite obvious these updated designs are something people want.

Neither Squats today, not Tau yesterday went through some sort of extensive public consultation phase. GW puts them out and people buy them, but for all we know, something more in line with 40k established aesthetic would have moved more plastic. Or maybe it wouldn't. We'll never know.

Either way, I'd avoid appeals to sale charts.

Public consultation phase? Its a private IP not a public general service. We dont know for sure the process of generating new IP inside GW, but I'm willing to bet its extremely secretive even inside GW. We also dont know how they analyse the data that they have. Sales data probably quite indicative of what people like and buy the most.
We can be here all day speculating about the ifs but what we do know today is: More of these new designs are finding a way into 40k IP, their major product "space marines" got a huge design update to be more modernised and the company seems to be doing well financially.
So yes we can talk about the IFs just for fun but the little that we know seems to suggest this is the right path.

But enough with general design talk, many just seem only interested about their own personal aesthetical design preferences and envision some kind of calamity for GW.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Or is this an argument for "no new things, nothing more can be added, only variations on the existing themes"?

Well yes, that's essentially the argument, as reductive as you made it sound.

At the speed GW is every week pumping out new stuff your in for a lot of disappointment then

 Geifer wrote:
This line of thinking reminds me of the people who wanted Sisters of Battle that don't look like Sisters of Battle when that army got its update. It honestly boggles my mind how anyone can reconcile specifically wanting an old thing back only for it to not resemble the old thing.

That line of thinking is sadly more and more common by the day, mostly because it stem from literal posers trying to pretend they actually know "the old stuff" and "want it back" when they actually started playing last edition and don't really care about any of that and mostly know stuff from the wiki they just read 2 minute before posting.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Frankly I'd go out and say that I don't mind the models (except for the fact they look like GW is just riffing on Starcraft shamelessly) all that much, compared to the fluff. It just sounds so Mary Sue-ish, doesn't it? With the extremly advanced tech (better than the factions that are supposed to be advanced), flawless cloning, mass-producing Psykers, supplying the Imperium's enemies, the perfectly egalitarian society...

QFT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Oh bother, this is Tau all over again, isn't it? Some excellent designs that really don't look like they belong in MY 40k.

I get the desire to avoid encroaching on Imperial designs, and the Eldar essentially own the sleek xenotech look, but there's actually very little in between the two that doesn't look like it came from a different franchise.

Then there's the fluff that so far reads... poorly, in the MY IDEA OF THE context of the setting.

Fixed that for you.

If literally everything is as subjective as you present it, why bother discussing anything at all?

Post modernist hyper relativism to the max, where the very concept of subjective truth doesn't exist and so no rules can ever be applied.

This is painfully stupid and need to be pointed out.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Quasistellar wrote:
Subjectivity does not preclude discussion--quite the contrary.

The 40k setting includes the entire Milky Way galaxy. I think a lot of people with opinions like "that doesn't look like it belongs in 40k" are confusing the Imperium with the setting in general. The Imperium does generally span the galaxy, but it is not the *whole* galaxy.

What you are doing right there is just showing your total lack of grasp on the idea of artdirection and imply that literally ANYTHING could be 40k, because 40k is the whole milky way, totally ignoring the fact that it has to fit with the established canon and art direction.

You cannot just drop Starwars federation of trade robot army, the SC2 terrans, Startrek's Entreprise or Guren Lagan giant galaxy muncher robots without having them look painfully out of place visually.

 (HN) wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
This line of thinking reminds me of the people who wanted Sisters of Battle that don't look like Sisters of Battle when that army got its update. It honestly boggles my mind how anyone can reconcile specifically wanting an old thing back only for it to not resemble the old thing.

That line of thinking is sadly more and more common by the day, mostly because it stem from literal posers trying to pretend they actually know "the old stuff" and "want it back" when they actually started playing last edition and don't really care about any of that and mostly know stuff from the wiki they just read 2 minute before posting.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
Frankly I'd go out and say that I don't mind the models (except for the fact they look like GW is just riffing on Starcraft shamelessly) all that much, compared to the fluff. It just sounds so Mary Sue-ish, doesn't it? With the extremly advanced tech (better than the factions that are supposed to be advanced), flawless cloning, mass-producing Psykers, supplying the Imperium's enemies, the perfectly egalitarian society...

QFT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Oh bother, this is Tau all over again, isn't it? Some excellent designs that really don't look like they belong in MY 40k.

I get the desire to avoid encroaching on Imperial designs, and the Eldar essentially own the sleek xenotech look, but there's actually very little in between the two that doesn't look like it came from a different franchise.

Then there's the fluff that so far reads... poorly, in the MY IDEA OF THE context of the setting.

Fixed that for you.

If literally everything is as subjective as you present it, why bother discussing anything at all?

Post modernist hyper relativism to the max, where the very concept of subjective truth doesn't exist and so no rules can ever be applied.

This is painfully stupid and need to be pointed out.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Quasistellar wrote:
Subjectivity does not preclude discussion--quite the contrary.

The 40k setting includes the entire Milky Way galaxy. I think a lot of people with opinions like "that doesn't look like it belongs in 40k" are confusing the Imperium with the setting in general. The Imperium does generally span the galaxy, but it is not the *whole* galaxy.

What you are doing right there is just showing your total lack of grasp on the idea of artdirection and imply that literally ANYTHING could be 40k, because 40k is the whole milky way, totally ignoring the fact that it has to fit with the established canon and art direction.

You cannot just drop Starwars federation of trade robot army, the SC2 terrans, Startrek's Entreprise or Guren Lagan giant galaxy muncher robots without having them look painfully out of place visually.

All I have to say to that is:

Duuuurrrrrrr straw men duuurrrrrrr.

That'll teach me to ever click on a post by someone I've ignored--keep reminding myself there's a reason I did that.

I guess my issue is just that Tau were clearly different to what came before. The 2001(?) Fire Warrior Squad was frankly an excellent kit - and something unique to what was available in 40k at the time. The whinging about the race because they didn't fit miserabalist 40k grognard views was different.

I look at these Squats and just think they are some weird abhuman hybrid of marines/admech/Tau/nu-guard, in the style of Necromunda Van Saar. And I think that's probably partly intentional - but equally its incredibly boring *for me*.

I'm not sure Exo-armour as essentially "Egg-Terminators" would work in 2022 (but come on, break out Dr Robotnik and make it happen somehow). But its got to beat some hybrid of Gravis marines & crisis suits, which just leave me cold.

Tyel wrote:
I guess my issue is just that Tau were clearly different to what came before. The 2001(?) Fire Warrior Squad was frankly an excellent kit - and something unique to what was available in 40k at the time. The whinging about the race because they didn't fit miserabalist 40k grognard views was different.

I look at these Squats and just think they are some weird abhuman hybrid of marines/admech/Tau/nu-guard, in the style of Necromunda Van Saar. And I think that's probably partly intentional - but equally its incredibly boring *for me*.

I'm not sure Exo-armour as essentially "Egg-Terminators" would work in 2022 (but come on, break out Dr Robotnik and make it happen somehow). But its got to beat some hybrid of Gravis marines & crisis suits, which just leave me cold.

I remember thinking of the introduction of Tau not as a breath of fresh air but an interesting expansion of the setting. A species on the rise, destined to fail by repeating the same mistakes as everyone else but not quite there yet. Which was a different take to all the other factions, but also quite in theme.

Squats could be that. The biggest thing getting in the way might be that they aren't new but an at least in part reimagined old thing. Unlike with Tau, GW seems to want to strike a balance between making something new and fit for the times, as has been amply argued for even on this page, and trying to hit those nostalgia buttons for extra moneys. I really hope they can reconcile those things and add something of lasting value to the setting. Unlike Tau that were introduced at a different time under different circumstances as an entirely new thing, the reintroduction of Squats comes with a bit of baggage not just from the community but by GW's own desire to use the marketing potential of the return of an old faction.

I understand why GW reveals things the way they do, but I don't think they're doing themselves any favors revealing the faction slowly and bit by bit instead of presenting the complete vision for it. It just creates a different, potentially false first impression compared to a comprehensive view of the faction, and I'm not sure if that isn't going to stick around and taint the faction to some degree for quite some time.

Quasistellar wrote:
All I have to say to that is:

Duuuurrrrrrr straw men duuurrrrrrr.

That'll teach me to ever click on a post by someone I've ignored--keep reminding myself there's a reason I did that.

Nah, all you have to say is "Damn, I now realize how foolish and untenable my position was." or "[insert here more malformed postmodernist and uneducated opinion]".
But hey, I guess it's easier to just ignore people when you have no way to defend your position.

 Geifer wrote:
I understand why GW reveals things the way they do, but I don't think they're doing themselves any favors revealing the faction slowly and bit by bit instead of presenting the complete vision for it. It just creates a different, potentially false first impression compared to a comprehensive view of the faction, and I'm not sure if that isn't going to stick around and taint the faction to some degree for quite some time.

That's very true, just look at the reception of that vehicle compared to the infantry.
Had they just presented the whole faction at once and clearly established what their general look was they probably wouldn't have people struggling between what they expected, what GW pretended to deliver and what they are actually delivering.

 Geifer wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I guess my issue is just that Tau were clearly different to what came before. The 2001(?) Fire Warrior Squad was frankly an excellent kit - and something unique to what was available in 40k at the time. The whinging about the race because they didn't fit miserabalist 40k grognard views was different.

I look at these Squats and just think they are some weird abhuman hybrid of marines/admech/Tau/nu-guard, in the style of Necromunda Van Saar. And I think that's probably partly intentional - but equally its incredibly boring *for me*.

I'm not sure Exo-armour as essentially "Egg-Terminators" would work in 2022 (but come on, break out Dr Robotnik and make it happen somehow). But its got to beat some hybrid of Gravis marines & crisis suits, which just leave me cold.

Squats could be that. The biggest thing getting in the way might be that they aren't new but an at least in part reimagined old thing. Unlike with Tau, GW seems to want to strike a balance between making something new and fit for the times, as has been amply argued for even on this page, and trying to hit those nostalgia buttons for extra moneys. I really hope they can reconcile those things and add something of lasting value to the setting. Unlike Tau that were introduced at a different time under different circumstances as an entirely new thing, the reintroduction of Squats comes with a bit of baggage not just from the community but by GW's own desire to use the marketing potential of the return of an old faction.

I understand why GW reveals things the way they do, but I don't think they're doing themselves any favors revealing the faction slowly and bit by bit instead of presenting the complete vision for it. It just creates a different, potentially false first impression compared to a comprehensive view of the faction, and I'm not sure if that isn't going to stick around and taint the faction to some degree for quite some time.

I think this is it, really. Unlike if they'd been a brand new faction entirely, being "The Squats" re-introduced comes with certain expectations, and so far I think they've done a very poor job of meeting those aesthetically while the lore has been great. Like the new sleek high-tech space colonist vibe or not, I don't think you really say that it's a direction that does justice to the Squats, because it's at complete odds to what they were. Not the silly biker side of them that got them removed, but the gritty harsh uncomplicated space Dwarf feel that even their 2019 Necromunda miniatures (The first new look at them in over 20 years) retained. Expectations were some form of faithful but more serious update (as in, no silly biker stuff), what we're getting is the Demiurg concept art aesthetic with the Squat lore.

It's a cool enough look and idea on its own, the issue just comes when they're meant to be the Squats. Hopefully more later on gives a better impression and feels closer to that original feel.

 (HN) wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
All I have to say to that is:

Duuuurrrrrrr straw men duuurrrrrrr.

That'll teach me to ever click on a post by someone I've ignored--keep reminding myself there's a reason I did that.

Nah, all you have to say is "Damn, I now realize how foolish and untenable my position was." or "[insert here more malformed postmodernist and uneducated opinion]".
But hey, I guess it's easier to just ignore people when you have no way to defend your position.

 Geifer wrote:
I understand why GW reveals things the way they do, but I don't think they're doing themselves any favors revealing the faction slowly and bit by bit instead of presenting the complete vision for it. It just creates a different, potentially false first impression compared to a comprehensive view of the faction, and I'm not sure if that isn't going to stick around and taint the faction to some degree for quite some time.

That's very true, just look at the reception of that vehicle compared to the infantry.
Had they just presented the whole faction at once and clearly established what their general look was they probably wouldn't have people struggling between what they expected, what GW pretended to deliver and what they are actually delivering.

Why are you so aggressive all the time? This is supposed to be a fun hobby. Just had a look through your previous posts and you have been on the attack from the get go? What’s wrong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:



And you sir/Madame are going on ignore, not because you are offensive but I can’t bear to hear about how you are you happy with styling of the new models every time something new is shown to us. It’s 90 pages now, we get it, the models aren’t working for you, we get it.

Andykp wrote:
And you sir/Madame are going on ignore, not because you are offensive but I can’t bear to hear about how you are you happy with styling of the new models every time something new is shown to us.

Damn, I only briefly skimmed through this thread and thought someone was being excessively based. Turns out it was just a misspelling.