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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What if we're interpreting "Land Fortress" incorrectly, and this is another of "Land's" vehicles, such as the Raider and the Speeder, only one that the Squats still have the STC for.

So a chunky Land Raider...

Yeah I thought of that but why would they name one of their vehicles after a human, especially when their tech predates and branches away from Imperial tech. Apparently Hekatron is a reference to giants and the greek monster " the hundred handed one"- which makes me think its tracked [something like a sand crawler?] . I think its more likely to be around that Kratos heresy tank-sized, big but not super heavy sized.

Inspired by Hecatoncheires?

Maybe it's a giant close-combat tank covered in protruding hammers (and pintle-mounted shotguns).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Inspired by Hecatoncheires?

Maybe it's a giant close-combat tank covered in protruding hammers (and pintle-mounted shotguns).

If it looks like that guy I might be tempted to start squat at launch !

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Inspired by Hecatoncheires?

Maybe it's a giant close-combat tank covered in protruding hammers (and pintle-mounted shotguns).

*pintle mounted revolver bolt shot guns. With a literal hammer as part of the firing mechanism.

Maybe Arjac Rockfist's hammer that teleports back to him is actually a squat invention. And so that even melee only units will have ranged options and it explains how the tanks have unlimited ammo on the tabletop

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

"Berserks" is a stupid name to me. It's probably the laziest and most contrived name they pulled out their rear so far.
"Hey, how do we make Berserker trademark friendly?"
"I know, let's just drop the -er! Adjectives are the same as nouns, right?"

Berserk originated as a noun in English, before centuries gave us that extra 'er'.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Inspired by Hecatoncheires?

Maybe it's a giant close-combat tank covered in protruding hammers (and pintle-mounted shotguns).

*pintle mounted revolver bolt shot guns. With a literal hammer as part of the firing mechanism.

Oh you sweet summer child.

Clearly it’ll be revolver bolt shotguns with a pintle mounted Grav bolt shot revolver.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Grudgepyre is a fantastic name for a power. That's all I got to contribute.

Is WC4 the cheapest power? It seems pretty good for taking out things like custodes bikers or crisis suits, once you strip them of their ablative drones.

WC4 is the cheapest as far as I'm aware. I'll take your word for it on the ability to kill larger models as my phone won't let me read the text of any of the cards basically.

It needs a little setup to get “Judgment tokens” attached to the target (but that seems to be a core army mechanic that ties into a lot of stuff so should be relatively easy) but it’s 2d6+tokens vs. the target’s Ld to erase a model. No wounds, just “is destroyed” outright. Only problem is it can’t be a character, vehicle, or monster. So high-value multi-wound infantry/cavalry/bikers seem like the optimal target.

GW is getting remove from play rules that completely bypass defense mechanisms out of the dumb rules closet again? Groovy.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
I really hope the "Land Fortress" lives up to its name. If it's smaller than a Leman Russ, I'm going to be very cross

It might not be as tall, but it's bound to be wider.

Squats are small, so a Leman Russ is probably Baneblade sized in their minds

 Geifer wrote:
GW is getting remove from play rules that completely bypass defense mechanisms out of the dumb rules closet again? Groovy.

Out of the closet? That's what the so-called "morale" rules do already; bypassing all the methods of strength/AP/damage/toughness/armour/wounds to remove whole models.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
GW is getting remove from play rules that completely bypass defense mechanisms out of the dumb rules closet again? Groovy.

Out of the closet? That's what the so-called "morale" rules do already; bypassing all the methods of strength/AP/damage/toughness/armour/wounds to remove whole models.

Yeah, I guess. I was thinking less as a core rule and more as a weapon or power rule. Like someone's trying to one up the guy who wrote the railgun rules.

Also, can't blame a guy for trying his best to forget those morale rules even exist...

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

"Berserks" is a stupid name to me. It's probably the laziest and most contrived name they pulled out their rear so far.
"Hey, how do we make Berserker trademark friendly?"
"I know, let's just drop the -er! Adjectives are the same as nouns, right?"

Berserk originated as a noun in English, before centuries gave us that extra 'er'.

Hm, so it is. GW is really searching for archaic terms to use. Reivers is another example.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 silverstu wrote:
Isn't Cthonia another name for the Underworld? Thats the chat on Reddit and Discord.

As little faith as I have in GW to remember things, Cthonia is pretty front and centre of the new 30k edition, with the boxset and tiein books themed around it.

I wonder if it's NOT a coincidence that the Pioneer bike is in the Sons of Horus paint scheme?

The funny thing is, if this is the case is that the new HH edition has all but killed any interest that I had in 40K. HH looks to be better in almost every possible way.

On that note, has anyone noticed how the newer 40K stuff is starting to look more cartoony and more like MOBA style video games? Or am I just insane?

 Togusa wrote:
On that note, has anyone noticed how the newer 40K stuff is starting to look more cartoony and more like MOBA style video games? Or am I just insane?

It's been noted, not the least on the fantasy side. The preferred comparison used to be World of Warcraft and it's come up with the move away from more "historical" miniatures to embiggened beefcake models. That's been happening for over a decade by now.

On the 40k side we've had a longer period of calling models toylike, which had a way of coming up especially in the case of Marine flyers.

I'm tempted to say it's gone hand in hand with the expansion of the sculpting team. More work done by people with different sensibilities and all that.

Also worth noting that the "Eavy Metal style has changed over the decades to the current bright and clean one. It shows off the details on the models quite well, but has a way of coming across as cartoony.

Also worth noting that the "Eavy Metal style has changed over the decades to the current bright and clean one

uh... compared to the bright primary colors of the second edition era, the current 'bright and clean' style looks like autumn in London, outside a grime factory.

You'll be hard pressed to find bright primary colors in the 2nd ed Chaos codex showcase, or something drab like Catachans. Bright and happy happened on armies whose heraldry was supposed to stand out as such. On more sinister armies, not so much. Compare that to today where every army is bright and shiny, including Death Guard. The change is there.

 Geifer wrote:
You'll be hard pressed to find bright primary colors in the 2nd ed Chaos codex showcase, or something drab like Catachans. Bright and happy happened on armies whose heraldry was supposed to stand out as such. On more sinister armies, not so much. Compare that to today where every army is bright and shiny, including Death Guard. The change is there.

Change is there, but we have radically different eyes.

'Bright and shiny' isn't anything like what I'm seeing in cursory glance, even on ultramarines or custodes, which are supposed to be shiny.. The ultras from KT Moloch look like crimson fists without the red fists.

The brightest thing on the front page are the keyring helmets. Deathguard are muddled and muted, light greens, browns and khaki shades, with some faded purple and blue cloth on the marines.

The Imperial Knight Gallant under featured products is a bright red and white (with hazard stripes) but looks like its intentionally trying to evoke 2nd edition (or epic) stylings. Everything else looks like one wash just wasn't enough for the painter.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
What if we're interpreting "Land Fortress" incorrectly, and this is another of "Land's" vehicles, such as the Raider and the Speeder, only one that the Squats still have the STC for.

So a chunky Land Raider...

Ah yes, Arkhan Land's distant relative amongst the Squats, Hekaton Land.

I think its great to see berzerkers back in with the squats (yes squat berzerkers were a thing). I was initially worried that Gw "threw out the baby with the bathwater" when it came to redesigning them, but so far we've seen equivalents of the bikers, berzerkers and a vague rumor of some sort of "Land Fortress" (don't even joke about Arkan? Land being involved. Just Dont!!) hopefully we'll get hearthguard equivalent elites soon.

Its nice amidst these days of unbalanced codexes (and I say that as a NID player) and price rises to find something that I am genuinely excited to learn more about (sorry, no interest in Horus Heresy at all). Seems like GW are at least trying to incorporate a fair amount of the original squat background into the Leagues.

Are we sure it's a vehicle and not a fortification? Maybe the Land Fortress is like a regular fortress except it's on land!

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
Are we sure it's a vehicle and not a fortification? Maybe the Land Fortress is like a regular fortress except it's on land!

Squats are just so used to fortresses being space-based, that they need to point out when one is actually planetside.

 Geifer wrote:
Yeah, I guess. I was thinking less as a core rule and more as a weapon or power rule. Like someone's trying to one up the guy who wrote the railgun rules.

Codices are an exercise in lurching from one paradigm to the next, and constant escalation, so I'd say your reasoning is sound.

 Geifer wrote:
Also, can't blame a guy for trying his best to forget those morale rules even exist...

No, I cannot. I wish that rule would go away...

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Ah yes, Arkhan Land's distant relative amongst the Squats, Hekaton Land.

Well, they use STCs, so why couldn't it be related?

No need to be a jerk about it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
Ah yes, Arkhan Land's distant relative amongst the Squats, Hekaton Land.

Well, they use STCs, so why couldn't it be related?

No need to be a jerk about it.

Well, even if they were using STC technology, they would have named their vehicles in isolation from the Imperium, and Land wouldn't get his naming convention applied.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Where is the "Hekaton Land Fortress" mentioned?

Some fairly interesting stuff in there, although not really anything that's unexpected. It does seem to imply they'll be getting hover bikers, too.

The first line of cards (Bastion Running), in the link .

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
Yeah, I guess. I was thinking less as a core rule and more as a weapon or power rule. Like someone's trying to one up the guy who wrote the railgun rules.

Codices are an exercise in lurching from one paradigm to the next, and constant escalation, so I'd say your reasoning is sound.

 Geifer wrote:
Also, can't blame a guy for trying his best to forget those morale rules even exist...

No, I cannot. I wish that rule would go away...

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Ah yes, Arkhan Land's distant relative amongst the Squats, Hekaton Land.

Well, they use STCs, so why couldn't it be related?

No need to be a jerk about it.

How is that in any way "being a jerk about it"? It's a joke about the naming convention of Land's vehicles with it instead being "Hekaton Land(s)" Fortress.

 Togusa wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 silverstu wrote:
Isn't Cthonia another name for the Underworld? Thats the chat on Reddit and Discord.

As little faith as I have in GW to remember things, Cthonia is pretty front and centre of the new 30k edition, with the boxset and tiein books themed around it.

I wonder if it's NOT a coincidence that the Pioneer bike is in the Sons of Horus paint scheme?

The funny thing is, if this is the case is that the new HH edition has all but killed any interest that I had in 40K. HH looks to be better in almost every possible way.

On that note, has anyone noticed how the newer 40K stuff is starting to look more cartoony and more like MOBA style video games? Or am I just insane?

You know, the color scheme and general design of that squat hover trike remind me of the Karmen from AT-43. Anyone else seeing this?

You're not the first person to bring that up. A lot of us have seen that.

Zachectomy wrote:

You know, the color scheme and general design of that squat hover trike remind me of the Karmen from AT-43. Anyone else seeing this?

The color is pretty close, and the Karmans did have some kind of hover bikes or speeders, I seem to recall, so you're on the money there.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

Zachectomy wrote:

You know, the color scheme and general design of that squat hover trike remind me of the Karmen from AT-43. Anyone else seeing this?

The color is pretty close, and the Karmans did have some kind of hover bikes or speeders, I seem to recall, so you're on the money there.

They both also feature 1950s American car style curves in their design.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/06/06/lore-of-the-votann-introducing-the-ironkin-mechanical-members-of-the-leagues/

new unit!!!