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.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I think a lot of people who haven't been paying attention will be disappointed. They're shouting for "Enforcers" when what I think they mean is "Adeptus Arbites models with Necromunda rules". That's not happening. We'll get some Palatine Hive Enforcers, but what they'll look like, and how they'll be equipped, is anyone's guess. Arbites don't concern themselves with the Underhive - they're more concerned with making sure the planetary governor isn't evading his taxes - and the idea that the Necromunda Enforcers ape the uniforms and equipment of the Arbites looks like something that's going away. I think that was only an excuse because the models they sculpted weren't needed for 40k (a bit like the Ash Waste sniper and the Eldar Farseer).

I don't know about the disappointment part. So far the gangs have been visually close to the original gang concepts. The Enforcers were based closely on the Adeptus Arbites, from there own fluff, and had miniatures that looked close to the Arbites line. I think that the FW k9 handler mini could be along the lines of what they come up with.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I think a lot of people who haven't been paying attention will be disappointed. They're shouting for "Enforcers" when what I think they mean is "Adeptus Arbites models with Necromunda rules". That's not happening. We'll get some Palatine Hive Enforcers, but what they'll look like, and how they'll be equipped, is anyone's guess. Arbites don't concern themselves with the Underhive - they're more concerned with making sure the planetary governor isn't evading his taxes - and the idea that the Necromunda Enforcers ape the uniforms and equipment of the Arbites looks like something that's going away. I think that was only an excuse because the models they sculpted weren't needed for 40k (a bit like the Ash Waste sniper and the Eldar Farseer).

I don't know about the disappointment part. So far the gangs have been visually close to the original gang concepts. The Enforcers were based closely on the Adeptus Arbites, from there own fluff, and had miniatures that looked close to the Arbites line. I think that the FW k9 handler mini could be along the lines of what they come up with.

I'm fairly sure they've stated explicitly that they won't look like Arbites. What they will look like we don't know.

I still kind of hope we don’t see Enforcers or Arbite equivalents. The background is clear that barring the odd manhunt for Uphive Runners, the Underhive is basically left to the Gangs to Police - it’s just not important enough to the grand scheme of things.

Now, Guilders having some Muscle Boys on the payroll? That appeals more to me. Even some formal training would go a long way, and the better funding could easily translate to superior ammo rolls etc.

I'd rather see the enforcers be something unique anyways, instead of a gothic judge dredd ripoff. So I don't have any interest in arbites. But I think if they fit in oddball stuff like genestealers and chaos cults, there is enough there to justify bringing the enforcers into the game.

There is lot of potential with the guilders, but if they are resin only I can tell you i'm gonna pass before even seeing them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Plus I don't think those Guilder gangs will be plastic releases.

I'm pretty sure you're right, but stranger things have happened. An all resin gang* though will be DOA since it will be too costly for most. I think the gang needs to move beyond the original roots and look back to Confrontation as well as be free to explore other parts of the Hive. Nostalgia can only take you so far.


* unless the gan is basically 3-5 miniatures.

*crosses fingers for Brat Gangs*

So much more interesting that Spyrers (other opinions there are of course available)

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
*crosses fingers for Brat Gangs*

So much more interesting that Spyrers (other opinions there are of course available)

To be quite honest I'd love to see both of those in the new style. Spryers could be three narratively posed snap fit models for all I care. Brats could be a great source for other 40K civvies.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I still kind of hope we don’t see Enforcers or Arbite equivalents. The background is clear that barring the odd manhunt for Uphive Runners, the Underhive is basically left to the Gangs to Police - it’s just not important enough to the grand scheme of things.

Now, Guilders having some Muscle Boys on the payroll? That appeals more to me. Even some formal training would go a long way, and the better funding could easily translate to superior ammo rolls etc.

Thing is, N17 isn't exclusively set in the Underhive any more, and while the Governor's personal lackeys probably don't care about a chain of murders in Dregton-On-Sump, they might start meddling in things if you had unsanctioned gang warfare going on in the manufactory sectors, or cultists rousing the rabble etc. I hope if we do get them they play really differently to the existing gangs.

Regarding Brats and Spyrers - they could always merge them. Make the gang Brats and have the Spyrer suits as late-campaign wargear, gives those playing them some interesting choices for progression, and makes the rigs easier to balance since you don't have to account for them gaking all over some poor newbie gang.

Gangs that don't play by everyone else's rules are bad mmmkay.

 sockwithaticket wrote:

Also, what's the statute of limitations something being enough to make someone uncomfortable/offended?


I have some Spanish ancestry and you can buy figures that represent the Moors who pillaged and enslaved their way through the country. You can buy figures of Vikings who likely did the same to my British ancestors.

Hell, the Aztecs brutalised and enslaved most of the people's around them, should Lizardmen not be allowed to have an Aztec-inspired aesthetic for fear of offending someone?

Consider the present day position of the disadvantaged group and the current balance of power/prosperity between the perpetrating and the infringed-upon group.

Your personal example seems comically ridiculous/inadequate because it sounds as though you've never identified as Spanish. There's no living individual with direct ties to a Spaniard who was injured by a Moor.

I hope they tease Delaque tonight at nova, but they won't post anything from the seminar on the community site until it's over. Anyone know about what time that would be?

 Thargrim wrote:
I hope they tease Delaque tonight at nova, but they won't post anything from the seminar on the community site until it's over. Anyone know about what time that would be?

Apparently it is only just starting, which is frustrating cos I need to go to bed!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Gangs that don't play by everyone else's rules are bad mmmkay.

Not intrinsically so, so long as they are balanced over the course of the campaign. I think a mechanism where the Enforcers have to earn creds through competing for budgets (success = more funding) and extorting creds from captured gangers/areas under their "protection" could make them play very similar to standard gangs if necessary though. Make them totally bent coppers and they function basically as gangs.

 Altruizine wrote:

 sockwithaticket wrote:

Also, what's the statute of limitations something being enough to make someone uncomfortable/offended?


I have some Spanish ancestry and you can buy figures that represent the Moors who pillaged and enslaved their way through the country. You can buy figures of Vikings who likely did the same to my British ancestors.

Hell, the Aztecs brutalised and enslaved most of the people's around them, should Lizardmen not be allowed to have an Aztec-inspired aesthetic for fear of offending someone?

Consider the present day position of the disadvantaged group and the current balance of power/prosperity between the perpetrating and the infringed-upon group.

But that's the point of contention, isn't it. Not all of us agree in categorising everyone by crude "groups", or that membership of such a group gives your offense greater justification than anyone else's regarding anything else.

I'm perpetually irritated by the typical presentation in the media of people with autism spectrum disorders as being either amoral hyper-competent renaissance-savants who just act a bit wooden in social situations or head-smacking shouty types with a mental age of five, but that doesn't mean because I happen to have an ASD that I should be able to call for that crappy Ben Affleck movie about an aspie assassin or whatever guff it was to be banned and be taken seriously.

We agreed as a society that people or groups doing specific, unequivocally bigoted things towards other people was wrong and could be punished, and there are plenty of arguments to be had about whether that principle has been sufficiently enforced in practice(spoiler: it hasn't, what a shock eh), but everything beyond that is a matter for individuals to deal with themselves. Anyone is perfectly free to be offended by anything, but that doesn't give any of us license to control other people's perfectly legal behaviours and artistic expressions based on comparing some ridiculous, nebulous, subjective "identity rank".

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:

 sockwithaticket wrote:

Also, what's the statute of limitations something being enough to make someone uncomfortable/offended?


I have some Spanish ancestry and you can buy figures that represent the Moors who pillaged and enslaved their way through the country. You can buy figures of Vikings who likely did the same to my British ancestors.

Hell, the Aztecs brutalised and enslaved most of the people's around them, should Lizardmen not be allowed to have an Aztec-inspired aesthetic for fear of offending someone?

Consider the present day position of the disadvantaged group and the current balance of power/prosperity between the perpetrating and the infringed-upon group.

But that's the point of contention, isn't it. Not all of us agree in categorising everyone by crude "groups", or that membership of such a group gives your offense greater justification than anyone else's regarding anything else.

I'm perpetually irritated by the typical presentation in the media of people with autism spectrum disorders as being either amoral hyper-competent renaissance-savants who just act a bit wooden in social situations or head-smacking shouty types with a mental age of five, but that doesn't mean because I happen to have an ASD that I should be able to call for that crappy Ben Affleck movie about an aspie assassin or whatever guff it was to be banned and be taken seriously.

We agreed as a society that people or groups doing specific, unequivocally bigoted things towards other people was wrong and could be punished, and there are plenty of arguments to be had about whether that principle has been sufficiently enforced in practice(spoiler: it hasn't, what a shock eh), but everything beyond that is a matter for individuals to deal with themselves. Anyone is perfectly free to be offended by anything, but that doesn't give any of us license to control other people's perfectly legal behaviours and artistic expressions based on comparing some ridiculous, nebulous, subjective "identity rank".

You've returned several times to an idea of material being "controlled" or "banned" that I don't take seriously.

Did you see some Twitterfolk calling for the KKKawdor Guy molds to be physically liberated by PC commandos? For legal sanctions against Forgeworld for daring to do such a thing? Or are you just... exaggerating?

The only thing "controlling" behaviour here is the desire to avoid public shaming and controversy. And anyone producing a piece of material that they implicitly accept carries controversial, shame-worthy qualities should probably begin by examining their notions of propriety before martyring themselves on the altar of lost rights.

Everything is nebulous and subjective. You can't prove that I'm a sapient agent and you're not talking to a subroutine of the Great Universal Simulation. People who demand legalistic, quantified hierarchies of "offendedness" don't get it. No one is going to do insult math for you. If you care about other people, you'll do it yourself. We live together in a society, things change over time, it's scary and uncomfortable not to have absolute knowledge, but that's how it is.

 Altruizine wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:

 sockwithaticket wrote:

Also, what's the statute of limitations something being enough to make someone uncomfortable/offended?


I have some Spanish ancestry and you can buy figures that represent the Moors who pillaged and enslaved their way through the country. You can buy figures of Vikings who likely did the same to my British ancestors.

Hell, the Aztecs brutalised and enslaved most of the people's around them, should Lizardmen not be allowed to have an Aztec-inspired aesthetic for fear of offending someone?

Consider the present day position of the disadvantaged group and the current balance of power/prosperity between the perpetrating and the infringed-upon group.

But that's the point of contention, isn't it. Not all of us agree in categorising everyone by crude "groups", or that membership of such a group gives your offense greater justification than anyone else's regarding anything else.

I'm perpetually irritated by the typical presentation in the media of people with autism spectrum disorders as being either amoral hyper-competent renaissance-savants who just act a bit wooden in social situations or head-smacking shouty types with a mental age of five, but that doesn't mean because I happen to have an ASD that I should be able to call for that crappy Ben Affleck movie about an aspie assassin or whatever guff it was to be banned and be taken seriously.

We agreed as a society that people or groups doing specific, unequivocally bigoted things towards other people was wrong and could be punished, and there are plenty of arguments to be had about whether that principle has been sufficiently enforced in practice(spoiler: it hasn't, what a shock eh), but everything beyond that is a matter for individuals to deal with themselves. Anyone is perfectly free to be offended by anything, but that doesn't give any of us license to control other people's perfectly legal behaviours and artistic expressions based on comparing some ridiculous, nebulous, subjective "identity rank".

You've returned several times to an idea of material being "controlled" or "banned" that I don't take seriously.

Did you see some Twitterfolk calling for the KKKawdor Guy molds to be physically liberated by PC commandos? For legal sanctions against Forgeworld for daring to do such a thing? Or are you just... exaggerating?

I've put multiple disclaimers in my posts pointing out that we don't actually know why the image was pulled and the KKK thing is just rumour/speculation. Your comments, and mine in reply, are more general and so don't require qualification or explicit links to this specific instance, but of course you know that fine-well and are just engaging in the time honoured practice of ascribing excessive emotion to people who disagree with you to try and cast them as unreasonable.

The only thing "controlling" behaviour here is the desire to avoid public shaming and controversy. And anyone producing a piece of material that they implicitly accept carries controversial, shame-worthy qualities should probably begin by examining their notions of propriety before martyring themselves on the altar of lost rights.

But that's exactly the point - not everyone agrees anything about this instance, or indeed many other instances, qualify as "shame-worthy", and the fact that a minority of neopuritan outrage merchants have appointed themselves as arbiters of what is an isn't acceptable and are willing to try and use public shaming and controversy(usually with a stonking heap of dishonest framing and context-elimination to make the object of their offence seem far worse than it actually is to punters who otherwise wouldn't care) is exactly the problem.

Everything is nebulous and subjective. You can't prove that I'm a sapient agent and you're not talking to a subroutine of the Great Universal Simulation. People who demand legalistic, quantified hierarchies of "offendedness" don't get it. No one is going to do insult math for you. If you care about other people, you'll do it yourself. We live together in a society, things change over time, it's scary and uncomfortable not to have absolute knowledge, but that's how it is.

What on earth does this nonsense have to do with anything? The only ones demanding hierarchies of anything here are the people advocating your position, mine has only one solitary distinction: legal/not legal. Everything else is utterly dependent on context and intent, and should never prompt anything more than debate and discussion. Not shaming. Not demands that other people censor themselves.

I mean have you actually reasoned out your logic here? Even for a moment? Child soldiers. Genetic experimentation without consent. Religious repression. Ableism. Totalitarian neofeudalism. If GW were to "do it themselves" 40K would cease to exist because the entire thing is a construct of controversial, even objectionable things. What reasonable people are capable of grasping is that it is a fiction, that depicting such things does not equate to endorsing them, and that just because some people can choose to interpret something in one way does not make their interpretation and the resulting outrage absolute or justified.

 Yodhrin wrote:


I mean have you actually reasoned out your logic here? Even for a moment? Child soldiers. Genetic experimentation without consent. Religious repression. Ableism. Totalitarian neofeudalism. If GW were to "do it themselves" 40K would cease to exist because the entire thing is a construct of controversial, even objectionable things. What reasonable people are capable of grasping is that it is a fiction, that depicting such things does not equate to endorsing them, and that just because some people can choose to interpret something in one way does not make their interpretation and the resulting outrage absolute or justified.

LOL, I have no idea how you got there, but now you're arguing my position for me.

You: All that matters is if it's legal, otherwise shut up. Follow that logic --> Totalitarian state ABC is legal, therefore its citizens can shut up?

Me: Culture advances, and our judgements about acceptable behaviour changes.

The line about depiction =/= endorsement has no bearing. People who are offended are offended by the choice to casually depict something with traumatic overtones (and the willingness to employ those motifs for gain, without attempting to understand or respect them), not by the perception that the depiction is an endorsement.

You're also being extremely generous by categorizing this example as "art." Art is usually understood to be expressive. An object like the Forgeworld model is aesthetically-informed merchandise. Which is why appropriation is so ugly -- it usually involves a member of an advantaged group lifting a culturally/historically important image from a disadvantaged group and bending it towards their own increase.

 Altruizine wrote:
Consider the present day position of the disadvantaged group and the current balance of power/prosperity between the perpetrating and the infringed-upon group.

No. This is fiction. Cawdor/Redemptionists aren't real. I don't have to consider anyone's real-world "live in" point of view on something that isn't real.

 Altruizine wrote:

You're also being extremely generous by categorizing this example as "art." Art is usually understood to be expressive. An object like the Forgeworld model is aesthetically-informed merchandise.

Let me define art for you: Any model GW, FW or anyone else has ever made is art.

A more knowledgeable man than me once said "There really is no such thing as art. There are only artists."

IdPol had no place In Necromunda, much less 40k as a whole.
Now, as this is actually somewhat related and we're seemingly having a civil discussion, I think the Ratskins will be done with class. Seeing the design aesthetic so far, matched with Blanche's old work, I have faith that they won't shy away from a little kitsch but keep the look strong and more true to it's stylistic roots.
P.S. Lets seriously try and keep the politics out of this, I don't want to have to be a representative for EVERY American Indian (yes, by blood, geez) because I like Ratskins, ok?

If we could please drop these tangents or at the very least take it to a topic other than the N&R thread, that would be great!

REMOVED

But to get back on topic - I like the model, I like the late medieval executioner vibe which fits nicely with the aesthetic of the rest of the gang.

Next person to ignore the warning is getting some much needed time off.

 Yodhrin wrote:


Regarding Brats and Spyrers - they could always merge them. Make the gang Brats and have the Spyrer suits as late-campaign wargear, gives those playing them some interesting choices for progression, and makes the rigs easier to balance since you don't have to account for them gaking all over some poor newbie gang.

Do like that concept. Make the suits VERY expensive....

T

Updated Chaos Cult Gangs - https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/09/04/the-dark-gods-rise-in-the-underhivegw-homepage-post-4fw-homepage-post-2/


Automatically Appended Next Post:


https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Necromunda_Chaos_Cults.pdf

Well that's a nice surprise. Anyone who has the old rules notice any updates? The GSC list was updated quite a bit.

Cool that they're providing stuff as free downloads. Also glad I didn't spring for the WD that contained this gang.

The Cult Witch now uses the Wyrd rules, there's more weapons (mostly from the Cawdor sprue) on the Cult Equipment List and they can get a Familiar (like a Caryatid or genestealer familiar, but without the penalty to Reputation that a Caryatid gives if it dies or leaves). Same sort of changes they made to the 'stealer cult rules.

Only things I noticed are the Familiar, new weapons and the Witch can now pack heat.


Looks like I got some shopping to do...

Without giving the profile, what's the broad differences between an autogun and a reclaimed autogun? I've lent my books to someone and I only have GW4 at the moment.