Switch Theme:

Squats return! - Page 11  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Is this an April Fools?
Yes. It is an April Fools
No. It is not an April Fools

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





Removed

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/08/03 18:14:13


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





If you want to use the "They're meant to be like viking beserkers" thing to say it makes sense for them them not to be wearing armour...then they'd kind of need to be in-line with the general idea of that more so than just the name and the lack of armour in order for it to be believable? The only reasons we've got for the Beserks to go eschew ranged weapons and armour and shirts to instead go against the other aspects of the Votann lore (not wasting lives, wanting to do things properly, being practical, living their lives to the full) is basically "they're...brave?", whereas If there was some actual cultural reason ( honouring the ancestors, told to by the Votann, a Kin version of Slayer lore etc) it wouldn't be so bad.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/08/02 19:54:17


 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
I just don't get why a meritocracy so focused on efficiency, preventing needless losses, and seemingly being all around no-nonsense and reasonable, would send valuable members of their society, basically naked, at their enemy's frontline full of guns that reduce humans to atoms/mush/thin slices/chunky salsa in seconds.

Maybe they failed the eugenics test due to faulty implants / augments / gene-whatever? That could be the grimdark that people are asking for.

What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Andykp wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 (HN) wrote:
 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
I just don't get why a meritocracy so focused on efficiency, preventing needless losses, and seemingly being all around no-nonsense and reasonable, would send valuable members of their society, basically naked, at their enemy's frontline full of guns that reduce humans to atoms/mush/thin slices/chunky salsa in seconds.


Don't think too much about the detail.
Don't think too much about why a race of engineered tubmen clones would have male and female.
Don't think too much about the totally logic concept of a clone race that somehow has individuals that all look different from eachothers.
Don't think too much about why a race that can produce functional robots that apparently are just as good as any of their flesh individual wouldn't make use of said tech in a more meaningful way than just "a new teamate in my squad".
Don't think too much about why the most technologically advanced miner race somehow use tools like axes and hammer (not even pickaxes) to mine when low tier alien cultist in imperial mining colonies would have access to mining tool far more efficient.
Don't think too much about the detail man, just look at the minies that can't do a simple pose correctly or adapt an artwork properly and very rough unpolished sketch we call "GW artwork" these days and say you "LUV DEM"!


So if you don’t like 40k why are you clogging up this forum with your nonsense?

This was the most CONSOOM post I've seen here LOL
   
Made in gb
Utilizing Careful Highlighting




U.k

 (HN) wrote:
Andykp wrote:
So if you don’t like 40k why are you clogging up this forum with your nonsense?


Damn, of ALL the frankly stupid post in that frankly stupid thread you somehow managed to set a new low.
Here's the thing, there's two type of people that "like" stuff.
There's the people with a functional frontal lobe that can formulate why the actually "like" something, thus being able to make the clear distinction between what they "like" and what they "don't like", or even between is "the thing" they like or "not the thing" they like.
And then there's people that breath with their mouth as main hobby and just think "liking" something means you have as only option to "like" EVERYTHING related to said thing, no matter if they are actually fitting with the aspect you recognized as "the thing" you liked in the first place.

All that to say that, unlike you, I actually do "like" 40k and this is why I'm here gaking over what GW is doing with it because I see it as clearly "not 40k".

Also, since I'm here roasting your clueless ass, I'd like to remind you that this is a forum. A forum is a place meant for people to share their opinion about something, and opinions can be positive or negative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote:
I’d already explained why they aren’t wearing armour above, twice. But good use of “strawman”, way to defeat any argument online. My question to him wasn’t rhetorical, it was a real question.


Thanks for proving everyone you don't even read the post you are clumsily attempting to roast.
Not once in that post I talked about their armour.


My comments about armour weren’t directed at you, only the last part was. Which seems to triggered some folk. So you like 40k, good for you. You like something by criticising it all the time, odd. But if that’s how you do it great for you. Thankfully we can all like things for different reasons, I like 40k for what it is, not what I think it should be. But well done on the “roasting”, really taught me a lesson there, big man. I am in awe of your frontal lobe. Please keep up the good work.

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Andykp wrote:
 (HN) wrote:
Andykp wrote:
So if you don’t like 40k why are you clogging up this forum with your nonsense?


Damn, of ALL the frankly stupid post in that frankly stupid thread you somehow managed to set a new low.
Here's the thing, there's two type of people that "like" stuff.
There's the people with a functional frontal lobe that can formulate why the actually "like" something, thus being able to make the clear distinction between what they "like" and what they "don't like", or even between is "the thing" they like or "not the thing" they like.
And then there's people that breath with their mouth as main hobby and just think "liking" something means you have as only option to "like" EVERYTHING related to said thing, no matter if they are actually fitting with the aspect you recognized as "the thing" you liked in the first place.

All that to say that, unlike you, I actually do "like" 40k and this is why I'm here gaking over what GW is doing with it because I see it as clearly "not 40k".

Also, since I'm here roasting your clueless ass, I'd like to remind you that this is a forum. A forum is a place meant for people to share their opinion about something, and opinions can be positive or negative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote:
I’d already explained why they aren’t wearing armour above, twice. But good use of “strawman”, way to defeat any argument online. My question to him wasn’t rhetorical, it was a real question.


Thanks for proving everyone you don't even read the post you are clumsily attempting to roast.
Not once in that post I talked about their armour.


You like something by criticising it all the time, odd. But if that’s how you do it great for you. Thankfully we can all like things for different reasons, I like 40k for what it is, not what I think it should be.


Sounds like more of the absurd notion some seem to have where if you like something you shouldn't criticize anything about it or want it to be better, you should just accept it regardless

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/02 22:18:25


 
   
Made in gb
Utilizing Careful Highlighting




U.k

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Andykp wrote:
 (HN) wrote:
Andykp wrote:
So if you don’t like 40k why are you clogging up this forum with your nonsense?


Damn, of ALL the frankly stupid post in that frankly stupid thread you somehow managed to set a new low.
Here's the thing, there's two type of people that "like" stuff.
There's the people with a functional frontal lobe that can formulate why the actually "like" something, thus being able to make the clear distinction between what they "like" and what they "don't like", or even between is "the thing" they like or "not the thing" they like.
And then there's people that breath with their mouth as main hobby and just think "liking" something means you have as only option to "like" EVERYTHING related to said thing, no matter if they are actually fitting with the aspect you recognized as "the thing" you liked in the first place.

All that to say that, unlike you, I actually do "like" 40k and this is why I'm here gaking over what GW is doing with it because I see it as clearly "not 40k".

Also, since I'm here roasting your clueless ass, I'd like to remind you that this is a forum. A forum is a place meant for people to share their opinion about something, and opinions can be positive or negative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote:
I’d already explained why they aren’t wearing armour above, twice. But good use of “strawman”, way to defeat any argument online. My question to him wasn’t rhetorical, it was a real question.


Thanks for proving everyone you don't even read the post you are clumsily attempting to roast.
Not once in that post I talked about their armour.


You like something by criticising it all the time, odd. But if that’s how you do it great for you. Thankfully we can all like things for different reasons, I like 40k for what it is, not what I think it should be.


Sounds like more of the absurd notion some seem to have where if you like something you shouldn't criticize anything about it or want it to be better, you should just accept it regardless


Maybe I am misinterpreting HNs aggression towards anyone who doesn’t agree with him and his general negativity in all, his posts. Maybe that’s how he behaves when he likes something? Who there’s lots I don’t like that gw do and I criticise it quite a bit. But the new squats are exciting and I generally like them. As I said above, I do like these models so much, might grow on me, but so far it’s a, meh. Think the poses are the issue, they remind me of those clunky Khorne models from the end of fantasy. Rest of the leagues have looked cracking so far. Necromunda squats look crap to me. Won’t be buying any of those. So please don’t say I don’t think you can criticise anything 40k. You can, I haven’t ever heard anyone on here say that. That’s just an empty accusation thrown around when anyone questions somebodies constant negativity.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Andykp wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Andykp wrote:
 (HN) wrote:
Andykp wrote:
So if you don’t like 40k why are you clogging up this forum with your nonsense?


Damn, of ALL the frankly stupid post in that frankly stupid thread you somehow managed to set a new low.
Here's the thing, there's two type of people that "like" stuff.
There's the people with a functional frontal lobe that can formulate why the actually "like" something, thus being able to make the clear distinction between what they "like" and what they "don't like", or even between is "the thing" they like or "not the thing" they like.
And then there's people that breath with their mouth as main hobby and just think "liking" something means you have as only option to "like" EVERYTHING related to said thing, no matter if they are actually fitting with the aspect you recognized as "the thing" you liked in the first place.

All that to say that, unlike you, I actually do "like" 40k and this is why I'm here gaking over what GW is doing with it because I see it as clearly "not 40k".

Also, since I'm here roasting your clueless ass, I'd like to remind you that this is a forum. A forum is a place meant for people to share their opinion about something, and opinions can be positive or negative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote:
I’d already explained why they aren’t wearing armour above, twice. But good use of “strawman”, way to defeat any argument online. My question to him wasn’t rhetorical, it was a real question.


Thanks for proving everyone you don't even read the post you are clumsily attempting to roast.
Not once in that post I talked about their armour.


You like something by criticising it all the time, odd. But if that’s how you do it great for you. Thankfully we can all like things for different reasons, I like 40k for what it is, not what I think it should be.


Sounds like more of the absurd notion some seem to have where if you like something you shouldn't criticize anything about it or want it to be better, you should just accept it regardless


Maybe I am misinterpreting HNs aggression towards anyone who doesn’t agree with him and his general negativity in all, his posts. Maybe that’s how he behaves when he likes something? Who there’s lots I don’t like that gw do and I criticise it quite a bit. But the new squats are exciting and I generally like them. As I said above, I do like these models so much, might grow on me, but so far it’s a, meh. Think the poses are the issue, they remind me of those clunky Khorne models from the end of fantasy. Rest of the leagues have looked cracking so far. Necromunda squats look crap to me. Won’t be buying any of those. So please don’t say I don’t think you can criticise anything 40k. You can, I haven’t ever heard anyone on here say that. That’s just an empty accusation thrown around when anyone questions somebodies constant negativity.


Some people do actually seem to think that unfortunately, and It's a sentiment I've seen used quite a lot in other places when it comes to 40k stuff. Fans who'll act as if you either have to like it entirely or you're a "hater" for daring to think it isn't perfect, where no nuance is allowed.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/08/02 22:47:00


 
   
Made in gb
Utilizing Careful Highlighting




U.k

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Andykp wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Andykp wrote:
 (HN) wrote:
Andykp wrote:
So if you don’t like 40k why are you clogging up this forum with your nonsense?


Damn, of ALL the frankly stupid post in that frankly stupid thread you somehow managed to set a new low.
Here's the thing, there's two type of people that "like" stuff.
There's the people with a functional frontal lobe that can formulate why the actually "like" something, thus being able to make the clear distinction between what they "like" and what they "don't like", or even between is "the thing" they like or "not the thing" they like.
And then there's people that breath with their mouth as main hobby and just think "liking" something means you have as only option to "like" EVERYTHING related to said thing, no matter if they are actually fitting with the aspect you recognized as "the thing" you liked in the first place.

All that to say that, unlike you, I actually do "like" 40k and this is why I'm here gaking over what GW is doing with it because I see it as clearly "not 40k".

Also, since I'm here roasting your clueless ass, I'd like to remind you that this is a forum. A forum is a place meant for people to share their opinion about something, and opinions can be positive or negative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote:
I’d already explained why they aren’t wearing armour above, twice. But good use of “strawman”, way to defeat any argument online. My question to him wasn’t rhetorical, it was a real question.


Thanks for proving everyone you don't even read the post you are clumsily attempting to roast.
Not once in that post I talked about their armour.


You like something by criticising it all the time, odd. But if that’s how you do it great for you. Thankfully we can all like things for different reasons, I like 40k for what it is, not what I think it should be.


Sounds like more of the absurd notion some seem to have where if you like something you shouldn't criticize anything about it or want it to be better, you should just accept it regardless


Maybe I am misinterpreting HNs aggression towards anyone who doesn’t agree with him and his general negativity in all, his posts. Maybe that’s how he behaves when he likes something? Who there’s lots I don’t like that gw do and I criticise it quite a bit. But the new squats are exciting and I generally like them. As I said above, I do like these models so much, might grow on me, but so far it’s a, meh. Think the poses are the issue, they remind me of those clunky Khorne models from the end of fantasy. Rest of the leagues have looked cracking so far. Necromunda squats look crap to me. Won’t be buying any of those. So please don’t say I don’t think you can criticise anything 40k. You can, I haven’t ever heard anyone on here say that. That’s just an empty accusation thrown around when anyone questions somebodies constant negativity.


Some people do actually seem to think that unfortunately, and It's a sentiment I've seen used quite a lot in other places when it comes to 40k stuff. Fans who'll act as if you either have to like it entirely or you're a "hater" for daring to think it isn't perfect, where no nuance is allowed.



That ain’t me, but I do get fed up of the negativity on here, and you get the impression, maybe wrongly, that some of them like nothing about the game. But maybe I’m just guilty of making the same assumptions they are?
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




Maybe you should just stop making assumptions about posters (who are all people, with their own opinions, since that seems to be unclear) and just stick to talking about the game and the models?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/08/02 23:40:13


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





Removed.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/08/03 18:13:56


 
   
Made in vn
Longtime Dakkanaut




The berserker with the fists looks like Blood Bowl Ogre
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





Chopstick wrote:
The berserker with the fists looks like Blood Bowl Ogre

The all do honestly. Strangely enough they end up having a pretty similar anatomy, just a different size.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Oh look, the guy who signed up here to just go straight into arguing about the Leagues and within only 5 posts of joining had already decided to be rude, insulting and condescending is doing it yet again.

This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2022/08/03 12:25:33


 
   
Made in fi
Calculating Commissar







derpherp wrote:
I wouldnt bother mate, the howling gamer Karens don't have anything better going on in their lives so they spend all their time moaning online.


Spare us your insipid conjectures and strive, instead, for silence. Pretend that noble virtue if you don't possess it yourself, rather than profane our ears with another utterance of such unhinged witlessness.

So dig me a grave where I can rave and scribble for all time
Dig me a grave where I can vent articulate splenetic rhyme
Dig me a grave where I can nurture a hatred most sublime
For the fools who made this mess and think it not a crime 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I kind of think Codex: Mini Ogryn is so weird and unique it might have a kind of charm. I sort of want them, even if I am opposed.

But equally, its not unreasonable to say I was looking for Codex: The beard that walks like a man. And while Fyreslayers were a failure (for me at least), I can't help feeling these Beserks would be cooler if they were channelling the 1990s Slayer characters.
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





Tyel wrote:
I kind of think Codex: Mini Ogryn is so weird and unique it might have a kind of charm. I sort of want them, even if I am opposed.

But equally, its not unreasonable to say I was looking for Codex: The beard that walks like a man. And while Fyreslayers were a failure (for me at least), I can't help feeling these Beserks would be cooler if they were channelling the 1990s Slayer characters.


Something doesnt really work here, I'd say that visually it's the lack of bear (I'm sorry, but beardless/shortbeard dwarf will always look off especially when they don't have a big armor to hide their rotund physiology) but where it really fail is the lore.

Where the FB slayers had a pretty specific explanation for their existence, one that perfectly fit and deepen the general lore of their race as an honor-bound society, and what losing your honor meant for them, these guys just have no good explanation as to why they are there and do not fit AT ALL with the rest of their race.

It's as if the people in charge of the LoV where forced to check some "mandatory stereotypes" but didn't understood why they existed in the first place.
"Ho yeah, slayers. Angry shirtless dudes with 2H axes, right?"
It's painfully superficial.
   
Made in us
Speed Drybrushing





Tangentville, New Jersey

I agree with (HN). The feel is off and the lore doesn't line up.

I think I actually prefer the unreleased originals:



If the lore got overhauled and the models were somewhere between what we're getting and what never was released, I'd be a lot happier about them.

This is just my take on things; I certainly don't begrudge anyone who prefers the Leagues.


 
   
Made in gb
Utilizing Careful Highlighting




U.k

There’s actually a reasonably strong consensus here, most don’t like the posing and the lore is problematic. They feel shoehorned in. Everything else feels ok to me so far but these aren’t the best. Nowhere near bad enough to put me off the whole line and I am still stoked to see squats back, but these will most likely be a long way down my list to add to my army.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 (HN) wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I kind of think Codex: Mini Ogryn is so weird and unique it might have a kind of charm. I sort of want them, even if I am opposed.

But equally, its not unreasonable to say I was looking for Codex: The beard that walks like a man. And while Fyreslayers were a failure (for me at least), I can't help feeling these Beserks would be cooler if they were channelling the 1990s Slayer characters.


Something doesnt really work here, I'd say that visually it's the lack of bear (I'm sorry, but beardless/shortbeard dwarf will always look off especially when they don't have a big armor to hide their rotund physiology) but where it really fail is the lore.

Where the FB slayers had a pretty specific explanation for their existence, one that perfectly fit and deepen the general lore of their race as an honor-bound society, and what losing your honor meant for them, these guys just have no good explanation as to why they are there and do not fit AT ALL with the rest of their race.

It's as if the people in charge of the LoV where forced to check some "mandatory stereotypes" but didn't understood why they existed in the first place.
"Ho yeah, slayers. Angry shirtless dudes with 2H axes, right?"
It's painfully superficial.


Would have been so easy to solve the lore side of it, too. The Leagues are a meritocracy. Just make them into Kin who are so eager to prove themselves they forgo ranged weapons and armour because they believe the extra challenge to be overcome is worthwhile as they go around fighting whatever monsters they can find. A boasting sort of "defeated an Ork Warboss with nothing but this, to honour my ancestors and add to my reputation" situation. That would feel better than just "they're super brave miners", and be a bit a little closer to a sci-fi version of the fantasy Slayers which they're inspired by.

If they really didn't want to change that much about them though, then why not just make them Shipbreakers or Salvagers rather than miners? Their weapons would at least make more sense that way.

I also think level of augmentations just doesn't line up with the idea of them being "heavily augmented", it's not really shown the model itself. We've seen basic hearthkin with cybernetic eyes and feet and an Einhyr with a face cybernetics, even.They especially don't give across being augmented to the point of surviving in space or the ocean depths to me.

The idea of cyberslayers is cool enough on its own, but they just feel like there wasn't much thought put into doing both the model or the lore in a believable way.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/08/03 22:37:50


 
   
Made in gb
Mysterious Techpriest





Northumberland

 (HN) wrote:


I'd say that visually it's the lack of bear (I'm sorry, but beardless/shortbeard dwarf will always look off especially when they don't have a big armor to hide their rotund physiology)













One and a half feet in the hobby


My Painting Log of various minis:
# Olthannon's Oscillating Orchard of Opportunity #

 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





 Olthannon wrote:
 (HN) wrote:


I'd say that visually it's the lack of bear (I'm sorry, but beardless/shortbeard dwarf will always look off especially when they don't have a big armor to hide their rotund physiology)

Spoiler:













Nice flood of picture. I guess your point was supposed to be that... the old squats had short beard so my point is moot?
Too bad you pissed the part not only these guys still have a longer beard than anything in LoV, but also the fact that yeah, the shortbeard of the old Squats wasn't a good piece of design anyway and they would have looked better with a proper full dwarven beard, as FW as demonstrated with the evolution of that old design :



into that new design:



And sure, some could still have shorter beard, like the other FW squat, but that should only come when they have a good reason to have it, like an armor with some gorget preventing them to have a big beard.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/03 23:15:21


 
   
Made in gb
Mysterious Techpriest





Northumberland

 (HN) wrote:


And sure, some could still have shorter beard, like the other FW squat, but that should only come when they have a good reason to have it, like an armor with some gorget preventing them to have a big beard.





Just not a gorget like this because that doesn't count right?

Your opinion of course on that new FW Squat but that is a far worse miniature that the classic Squats, looks absolutely ugly as hell.

EDIT: it was a flood of pictures because I just wanted to make sure you got my point, you struggle with that apparently.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2022/08/03 23:31:23


One and a half feet in the hobby


My Painting Log of various minis:
# Olthannon's Oscillating Orchard of Opportunity #

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Quite a few of the dwarf miniatures around that time had relatively short beards (in comparison to what they were later on) from what I can tell from the poor quality images I can find, it seems to have just been part of how they were back then. It did vary but it wasn't really consistent.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/08/03 23:48:01


 
   
Made in gb
Mysterious Techpriest





Northumberland

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Quite a few of the dwarf miniatures around that time had relatively short beards (in comparison to what they were later on) from what I can tell, it seems to have just been part of how they were back then. It did vary but it wasn't really consistent.


Yes quite right. It is as if the aesthetic of what makes a Dwarf in Warhammer can change over time or something right?

One and a half feet in the hobby


My Painting Log of various minis:
# Olthannon's Oscillating Orchard of Opportunity #

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Olthannon wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Quite a few of the dwarf miniatures around that time had relatively short beards (in comparison to what they were later on) from what I can tell, it seems to have just been part of how they were back then. It did vary but it wasn't really consistent.


Yes quite right. It is as if the aesthetic of what makes a Dwarf in Warhammer can change over time or something right?


It seems a little ironic to say that when you just said that the Kin shouldn't have big beards because the Squats didn't.
   
Made in gb
Mysterious Techpriest





Northumberland

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
 Olthannon wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Quite a few of the dwarf miniatures around that time had relatively short beards (in comparison to what they were later on) from what I can tell, it seems to have just been part of how they were back then. It did vary but it wasn't really consistent.


Yes quite right. It is as if the aesthetic of what makes a Dwarf in Warhammer can change over time or something right?


It seems a little ironic to say that when you just said that the Kin shouldn't have big beards because the Squats didn't.


I didn't say that, (HN) said that. I'm just parroting back your arguments back to you to prove the point that it's bollocks. I'm not going to go back and quote your posts back to you, but in the 70 pages of whinging on this thread your key whinges have been: Not Dwarfy enough and Don't look like the old Squats.

Neither of those work because the old Squats weren't that Dwarfy and the new Leagues have touches of the old and are totally new.

If you just said: I don't like them, not to my taste. That would be that.

And this is why this is the dullest thread in human existence. We get you don't like them. You've taken so much time to make it clear you don't. We get that some people do.

Here's the opportunity for Dakka to come together as a community and give this thread a rest, eh?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/04 00:10:23


One and a half feet in the hobby


My Painting Log of various minis:
# Olthannon's Oscillating Orchard of Opportunity #

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Olthannon wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
 Olthannon wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Quite a few of the dwarf miniatures around that time had relatively short beards (in comparison to what they were later on) from what I can tell, it seems to have just been part of how they were back then. It did vary but it wasn't really consistent.


Yes quite right. It is as if the aesthetic of what makes a Dwarf in Warhammer can change over time or something right?


It seems a little ironic to say that when you just said that the Kin shouldn't have big beards because the Squats didn't.


I didn't say that, (HN) said that. I'm just parroting back your arguments back to you to prove the point that it's bollocks. I'm not going to go back and quote your posts back to you, but in the 70 pages of whinging on this thread your key whinges have been: Not Dwarfy enough and Don't look like the old Squats.

Neither of those work because the old Squats weren't that Dwarfy and the new Leagues have touches of the old and are totally new.


"My arguments"? Just where have I said that they can't be updated?

It isn't some mutuality exclusive decision where it has to be either "Old Squats, therefore not Dwarfy" or "Dwarfy, therefore not Squats", it doesn't have to be one or the other. Grendlsen is already an example of a modernized take that has both Dwarf and classic Squat elements. But regardless of that even just doing justice to the aesthetics of one the two sides would have been fine (and the artwork certainty does the Dwarf side of the theme quite well)

It sounds as if you're doing the thing of trying to make out that only positive things should be allowed to be discussed and/or if you like something you shouldn't criticize it. The Cthonian Beserks were only just revealed so they're being discussed, positive or negative.

I do like the Leagues, i wouldn't have been here talking about them for so long if i didn't.

This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2022/08/04 01:28:37


 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





 Olthannon wrote:
Just not a gorget like this because that doesn't count right?

Hey, wana tone down the pedanticness a bit? If it's to pull some bitchy passive agressive gak just don't bother.

So yes, the LoV dont have long beard, and yes, that can be explain by their armor design that doesn't work with it.

GUESS WHAT?
That just means the armor design isn't good for dwarf.

Yeah, I know, that was a rather simple and obvious conclusion you could have made yourself if you weren't so focus on playing the contrarian mean girl game.



 Olthannon wrote:
Your opinion of course on that new FW Squat but that is a far worse miniature that the classic Squats, looks absolutely ugly as hell.

Did you... just said that the FW squat is a far worse miniature than the classic squats (trying to decipher what you actually mean between your non verbal passive aggressive bs and trash writting skill)?
If so then ... I guess to each their own. It just turns out that your own is a painfully bad sens of style and aesthetic.

 Olthannon wrote:
EDIT: it was a flood of pictures because I just wanted to make sure you got my point, you struggle with that apparently.

Welp, since I clearly got what the meaning of your petty post without text was, I didn't struggle much didn't I? Again, tone down your bs, you are just coming across like a douche.

Your point was trash anyway, since as Mentle pointed out, the squat beard is pretty standard for the dwarfs of that era, and ofc style evolve since so people are expecting the squat to follow that same evolution.
What you did is the equivalent of pointing at Slambo and say that this is what everyone expect a modern chaos warrior to look like, it's low tier sophistry.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/08/04 02:14:18


 
   
Made in ca
Dakka Veteran





 Mentlegen324 wrote:
 (HN) wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I kind of think Codex: Mini Ogryn is so weird and unique it might have a kind of charm. I sort of want them, even if I am opposed.

But equally, its not unreasonable to say I was looking for Codex: The beard that walks like a man. And while Fyreslayers were a failure (for me at least), I can't help feeling these Beserks would be cooler if they were channelling the 1990s Slayer characters.


Something doesnt really work here, I'd say that visually it's the lack of bear (I'm sorry, but beardless/shortbeard dwarf will always look off especially when they don't have a big armor to hide their rotund physiology) but where it really fail is the lore.

Where the FB slayers had a pretty specific explanation for their existence, one that perfectly fit and deepen the general lore of their race as an honor-bound society, and what losing your honor meant for them, these guys just have no good explanation as to why they are there and do not fit AT ALL with the rest of their race.

It's as if the people in charge of the LoV where forced to check some "mandatory stereotypes" but didn't understood why they existed in the first place.
"Ho yeah, slayers. Angry shirtless dudes with 2H axes, right?"
It's painfully superficial.


Would have been so easy to solve the lore side of it, too. The Leagues are a meritocracy. Just make them into Kin who are so eager to prove themselves they forgo ranged weapons and armour because they believe the extra challenge to be overcome is worthwhile as they go around fighting whatever monsters they can find. A boasting sort of "defeated an Ork Warboss with nothing but this, to honour my ancestors and add to my reputation" situation. That would feel better than just "they're super brave miners", and be a bit a little closer to a sci-fi version of the fantasy Slayers which they're inspired by.

If they really didn't want to change that much about them though, then why not just make them Shipbreakers or Salvagers rather than miners? Their weapons would at least make more sense that way.

I also think level of augmentations just doesn't line up with the idea of them being "heavily augmented", it's not really shown the model itself. We've seen basic hearthkin with cybernetic eyes and feet and an Einhyr with a face cybernetics, even.They especially don't give across being augmented to the point of surviving in space or the ocean depths to me.

The idea of cyberslayers is cool enough on its own, but they just feel like there wasn't much thought put into doing both the model or the lore in a believable way.

Would either of you be so kind as to link me to the Beserks lore? I've been desperately searching for the lore, but all I've been able to find is ~150 words worth of blurbs from a recent Warhammer Community preview. I would love to replace that -- clearly not enough of anything to constitute lore, so you must be talking about a separate lore lode -- with lore, but the hypothetical lore hoard remains elusive. I'm having difficulty getting properly lored up, and it's beginning to affect my life in unexpected ways.
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: