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.

 GaroRobe wrote:
I feel like my liking of the squats will go up a loooot when people get their hands on them, and give them a better paint scheme.

I mean, just look at how much better this necromunda squat looks. I actually want to get them now

Despite the derpy double barrels, this guy looks LOADS better than the GW paint jobs.


I am still not happy with the kit, though. The Necromunda squats have options for three different 'backpack' weapons. The kit comes with two of one, and no indications that I can find of what the other two are even supposed to look like.

Every single squat model can take a 'stone saw', or a power axe, or a power pick. None are included in the kit.

Squat Flamers and Squat Meltas have different stats than normal Necromunda meltas and flamers. Any leader, champ, or specialist can take one. None are included in the kit.

This is a good looking kit, but even for Necromunda, egregiously lacking in options. It's like the basic box won't really be complete until they release an upgrade sprue in a year.

I like the models. I like the options. But why skimp on so many weapons options, GW?

The answer is always the same

Money, dear boy

Voss wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
Aye, six and two threes here as well.

There's been all sorts of experimentation with guns in the few years guns have been a thing. In 40,000 years I'm sure a few new ideas and ways of manufacturing weaponry to fire through multiple barrels at once or indeed alternate between them really shouldn't be a such a difficult concept to accept.

That's a weird approach to the argument. Multiple barrels exist on multiple 40k weapons.
Its just that usually, the firing chamber is at least vaguely aligned with the barrel (or obscured so you can't really see it).

On these, repeatedly on both squat and Votann models, the barrels and firing chambers just visibly don't line up and are painted to actually stand out. It doesn't take expert knowledge or second guessing. They're just visibly wrong.

Are they though?





All these Squat weapons are slightly different but likely have the same method of firing. The main difference being the exposed ammo for some reason and the ejection ports being on different sides. Exposed rounds seems daft but there you go. I guess looks like MGL mags. Let's consider them all as helical drum magazines. I mean the bottom machine gun things are just roided PP19s with another barrel plonked on top. I would assume they alternate at a very quick rate and likely both barrels fire nigh on simultaneously. So in order for that to work there must be a synchronisation gear that allows a different opening for spent cases to eject. It's possible the upper barrel on these guns has a round already in the breech in a closed bolt position. As that fires, the second one fires a moment later. I dunno it's 2am here. Maybe it's like some nuts version of the Evans repeater but fully automatic and double barrelled. It has to have some rotating mechanism within that housing at the front that pushes rounds through and fires the spent casings back out. It doesn't have to do that immediately, the spent casing could be retained for a split second and eject when the action allows.
That mechanism must be very intricate which is why the the barrels line up strangely. In order for the gun to work they probably would have to be off set.

Heat dissappation must be a problem which is why the larger barrelled weapons have the big ass holes.

Our current weaponry uses gas and springs to create automatic fire. There could be a toty wee shell loader platform in there that guides each round into the barrels in nanoseconds and pops them back out. It could all be entirely mechanised on runners. Sure its complicated as hell but why not.

Point is the guns are there in the game so in universe they work. Pick a reason to ease the turbulence.

None of that really has to make sense though because the aesthetic purpose of these models is all that really matters.


I do agree with Flinty that it's annoying that some of the guns have "modern" designs. That's the fault of the designers going for a spec ops style look. I'd rather the guns look mental as possible. Therefore there can be no doubt that there's not some normal mechanism in place. It's 40k, realism isn't necessary.

EDIT: pictures didn't work at first

Are they though?

...yes?
I'm really not sure why this is a question. The chamber goes into the casing, and that line is roughly in line with the upper half of the bottom barrel (at best), and it clearly rotates above that, in between the two barrels.

The drum ones are even dumber. The 'intricate mechanism' you're proposing would feth itself even if things were in line, and I have no idea at all how one ejection port is supposed to work with any of that.

Point is the guns are there in the game so in universe they work. Pick a reason to ease the turbulence.

The designers screwed up. That's the only reason that matters.

None of that really has to make sense though because the aesthetic purpose of these models is all that really matters.

Well, ok, aesthetically I also find them awful, so... yeah. If that's all that matters, they're still just bad.

I dunno, maybe each round is fired by an electric priming system where an electric current from a firing lead passes through the firing pin to the primer as each round is rotated into the firing position? With the ones that don't have an ejection port, the spent casings could simply end up back in the magazine. Logically, a small hydraulic system could feed the barrels almost simultaneously as I said in my other post.

Fair enough if you don't like them. I'm not trying to convert anyone just suggesting the possibility that they would work after all.

It's 40k that's a lot of time in the future the bullits could literally teleportto where they need to be for all we know. Trying to figure out why a gun that far in the future works using today's knowledge of fire arms is daft. If humanity makes it any ware near that far into the future I promise we will be able to make guns look like anything we want them to and fire any way we like.

I hope that this doesn't come across as hostile, but I have to say that I just don't understand why the LoV weapons merit this much scrutiny. I'm not suggesting that we should just do away with any semblance of verisimilitude, but it just seems like dubious chambering mechanisms or gratuitous propulsion modes don't rank very high on the "40k absurdisms" index.

Astartes power armour would never be able to articulate with a human inside of it. And there is no way that a "miniature nuclear / fusion / black magic" generator like the one found in their backback would be able to generate the kind of power needed, certainly not without irradiating the wearer to death, melting it's confinement chamber, or just breaking at the first bullet impact.

The Imperial Guard use tanks that any Middle-Eastern militia could disable with Cold-War era weaponry, yet we're asked to believe that they can withstand the weaponry of Kardashev level three civilizations?

"But they have strong armour!"

No, there is no material known to science that could deal with the kind of attacks that they face.

Fully-mature rail gun technology? Toast.

Directed energy weapons with outputs on the order of giga- or *tera*watts? Donezo.

Weaponized heatguns that (somehow) generate temperatures sufficiently high to sublimate steel? Forget it.

Don't get me started on the Eldar's absurd "throwing star" guns.

Or the ridiculousness that is bi-pedal walkers.

Or the fact that a civilization as advanced as the Necrons would never do something as asinine as field armies of robots, but would probably just turn the galaxy into a soup of grey-goo using endless swarms of weaponized Von Neumann machines, and there would be exactly nothing that anyone could do to stop them.


I just don't see how the Votann using strange or superficially nonsensical analogues to real-world weaponry really deserves this much criticism when we've just accepted all of the other weirdness that is 40k as part of the charm. I mean, come on.

 crumby_cataphract wrote:
I hope that this doesn't come across as hostile, but I have to say that I just don't understand why the LoV weapons merit this much scrutiny. I'm not suggesting that we should just do away with any semblance of verisimilitude, but it just seems like dubious chambering mechanisms or gratuitous propulsion modes don't rank very high on the "40k absurdisms" index.

In much the same way a starship is protected by a gellar field and the golden throne is sustained by sacrifices of thousands of souls daily, Dakka Dakka is maintained by the act of constant nitpicking. If it ever ceased I'm not sure what would happen, but I'm certain it would be dark and terrible and also somehow involve daemons.

It’s because they are, very obviously, weapons that could theoretically be made. Except for the pretty obvious flaw.
People don’t question meltaguns because the mechanism is both hidden and outright fictional, so we have no frame of reference to say whether it looks like it could work or not. Bullet spitters on the other hand have real counterparts and the problem is self-evident to anyone who’s even slightly familiar with them.

Also marine armour and Guard tanks are frequently criticised in terms of mechanical effectiveness. Most of the rest is clear space magic that gets a pass as Mr Rose said

 crumby_cataphract wrote:
I hope that this doesn't come across as hostile, but I have to say that I just don't understand why the LoV weapons merit this much scrutiny. I'm not suggesting that we should just do away with any semblance of verisimilitude, but it just seems like dubious chambering mechanisms or gratuitous propulsion modes don't rank very high on the "40k absurdisms" index.

Mostly because it would have cost GW literally nothing to get it right, and there's zero payoff to their extremely visible visible disregard for basic physics. The absurdity of Space Marine armor or Dreadnoughts is more egregrious in scope but more palatable for it, because or suspension of disbelief is "rewarded" by allowing the existence of those extremely iconic creations who simply could not exist without those absurdities. "The rule of cool", as it's called. To a slightly lesser extent the same is true for things like Imperial Guard tanks.

Squat and Votann weapons, on the other hand, have nonsensical ammunition feeds for no readily apparent reason. It's also annoying me because it's the largest fault I can find in those ranges. In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man sticks out.

 GaroRobe wrote:
I feel like my liking of the squats will go up a loooot when people get their hands on them, and give them a better paint scheme.

I mean, just look at how much better this necromunda squat looks. I actually want to get them now

Yeah that scheme is really good.I've seen a few unboxing videos showing them off sprue and they look a lot better than the promo art. tempted to get a set to play around with paint schemes although I'm not entirely sold on the weapons .

Voss wrote:

The designers screwed up. That's the only reason that matters.

GW can never screw up, those are the best designed models out there, everything works as shown and you just fail to understand the advanced tech of the far future

/s

 Rihgu wrote:
This is off topic but I don't know if I'd call him uber broody.

He loves pizza, for example.

Dante is more of a Deadpool type than a Batman.

He might be referring to V or Nero.
Nero is less broody and more angry teenager though.

But yeah, Dante is like, the opposite of broody. He's just having a great time, unlike Vergil who is super serious all the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 silverstu wrote:

 GaroRobe wrote:
I feel like my liking of the squats will go up a loooot when people get their hands on them, and give them a better paint scheme.

I mean, just look at how much better this necromunda squat looks. I actually want to get them now

Yeah that scheme is really good.I've seen a few unboxing videos showing them off sprue and they look a lot better than the promo art. tempted to get a set to play around with paint schemes although I'm not entirely sold on the weapons .

That does look so much better than GW's paint scheme.

Poor paintjobs have been letting down Necromunda minis since the relaunch. At least the minis themselves are usually really good, barring some (mostly early) fw sculpts.

Edit: Hilariously, the same guy is behind the official minis and the one here. I am… speechless.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

N3p3nth3 wrote:
I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that this is going to be like the Corsairs sprue, ie. gives you multiple very different layouts - one of which, and its the one shown, is very kill-teamy due to the amount of specialists on display.

And I'm going to say no, because it's not a Kill Team sprue but a Necromunda one.
Oh and because we already saw the sprues.

Was talking about the Hearthkyn, obviously.

 xttz wrote:
In much the same way a starship is protected by a gellar field and the golden throne is sustained by sacrifices of thousands of souls daily, Dakka Dakka is maintained by the act of constant nitpicking. If it ever ceased I'm not sure what would happen, but I'm certain it would be dark and terrible and also somehow involve daemons

And the sad part is, 90% of the time said nitpicking is completely wrong (see all the whining about primaris tanks, literally the only SM design based nearly 1:1 on RL vehicle tested in multiple wars, said geniuses complaining it's ""unrealistic"" unlike terribad squat SM designs that wouldn't be able to drive over fallen branch or aim the gun at standing infantry). Go figure.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
It’s because they are, very obviously, weapons that could theoretically be made. Except for the pretty obvious flaw.
People don’t question meltaguns because the mechanism is both hidden and outright fictional, so we have no frame of reference to say whether it looks like it could work or not. Bullet spitters on the other hand have real counterparts and the problem is self-evident to anyone who’s even slightly familiar with them.

Erm, no. People here know guns from Hollywood or at best from shooting some M16 clone. Put unusual design in front of them and they would be complaining it's 'problematic' and 'unrealistic' too.

Case in point, this Russian GSh-23 gun produced by the thousands. Two barrels, one ammo feed, one side switching twin mechanism, one ejection port. Gee, what does this remind you of?

 Irbis wrote:
And the sad part is, 90% of the time said nitpicking is completely wrong...

The irony here may suffocate me.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Irbis wrote:
And the sad part is, 90% of the time said nitpicking is completely wrong...

The irony here may suffocate me.

Do you have Irbis on follow?

What if there are no shells, and it is caseless ammunition, with an emergency ejection port for the rare misfired round?

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
What if there are no shells, and it is caseless ammunition, with an emergency ejection port for the rare misfired round?

Then wouldn't you need two, one for each barrel?

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Do you have Irbis on follow?

Wrong place, right time?

 Irbis wrote:

 xttz wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
It’s because they are, very obviously, weapons that could theoretically be made. Except for the pretty obvious flaw.
People don’t question meltaguns because the mechanism is both hidden and outright fictional, so we have no frame of reference to say whether it looks like it could work or not. Bullet spitters on the other hand have real counterparts and the problem is self-evident to anyone who’s even slightly familiar with them.

Erm, no. People here know guns from Hollywood or at best from shooting some M16 clone. Put unusual design in front of them and they would be complaining it's 'problematic' and 'unrealistic' too.

Case in point, this Russian GSh-23 gun produced by the thousands. Two barrels, one ammo feed, one side switching twin mechanism, one ejection port. Gee, what does this remind you of?

I don’t think the double barrel thing has been tagged as a problem in isolation. It’s the position of the barrels (and by extension the breech, feed mechanisms, etc) in relation to whatever ammo holding device tue gun has. It looks incredibly awkward for a bullet to go from storage into the shooty bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean all they really had to do was put the magazine cylinders obviously in the outside of the gun, rather than having the worky bits of the lower barrel taking up space that could have been holding bullets. For the revolver, they could have added a second cylinder up top feeding the upper barrel. But they didn’t. They went half way and ended up with something that makes me think “yuck, why would you do that”, and then I’m not interested any more. I realise that I’m not the only audience, but it would have taken minimal effort to not be in this position.

When I eventually get some of these, I'll be removing the lower barrels and replacing the revolving cylinder with a magazine... probably by just filling the dimples in the cylinder with green stuff.

I'm not a fan of the odd positioning of the cylinders or the extra barrels but that isn't going to stop me from getting some.

It will take minimal work and all the problems just ebb away... .

Yeah but the way a helical magazine works you can jam it in whereever and the follower should do the job.



The Evans repeater had a 26 round helical magazine in the stock. Had problems early on but the fixed that with the new model. That Russian gun there works fine too.

Like I said earlier on the machine guns they have are clearly modelled on PP19s.





The way I see it, the offset of the barrel and magazines has to look wonky for the double barrel nature of the gun to work successfully.

You can just hate how they look as an aesthetic. Like that's totally fine I'm not disputing that at all in this thread because that's people's opinions. I just think the guns would work okay. To dislike them based on the fact they might not work I don't understand

But again, each to their own.

 Irbis wrote:

Erm, no. People here know guns from Hollywood or at best from shooting some M16 clone. Put unusual design in front of them and they would be complaining it's 'problematic' and 'unrealistic' too.

Case in point, this Russian GSh-23 gun produced by the thousands. Two barrels, one ammo feed, one side switching twin mechanism, one ejection port. Gee, what does this remind you of?

Not the Squat guns, I can tell you that.
A revolver cylinder is not a belt feed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Olthannon wrote:


You can just hate how they look as an aesthetic. Like that's totally fine I'm not disputing that at all in this thread because that's people's opinions. I just think the guns would work okay. To dislike them based on the fact they might not work I don't understand

But again, each to their own.

What if the reason one doesn't like the aesthetic is because it looks unfeasible?
Similar to how some people don't like boob plates, gunblades, impractically large swords, guns with exposed wiring and lightsabers with laser hilts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inso wrote:
When I eventually get some of these, I'll be removing the lower barrels and replacing the revolving cylinder with a magazine... probably by just filling the dimples in the cylinder with green stuff.

I'm not a fan of the odd positioning of the cylinders or the extra barrels but that isn't going to stop me from getting some.

It will take minimal work and all the problems just ebb away... .

Just turn one of the barrels into a flashlight.
Surely they still have weapon attachments like that in the 41st millennium.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Erm, no. People here know guns from Hollywood or at best from shooting some M16 clone. Put unusual design in front of them and they would be complaining it's 'problematic' and 'unrealistic' too.

Case in point, this Russian GSh-23 gun produced by the thousands. Two barrels, one ammo feed, one side switching twin mechanism, one ejection port. Gee, what does this remind you of?

A revolver cylinder is not a belt feed.

Is it definitely meant to be a revolver cylinder, though?

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Erm, no. People here know guns from Hollywood or at best from shooting some M16 clone. Put unusual design in front of them and they would be complaining it's 'problematic' and 'unrealistic' too.

Case in point, this Russian GSh-23 gun produced by the thousands. Two barrels, one ammo feed, one side switching twin mechanism, one ejection port. Gee, what does this remind you of?

A revolver cylinder is not a belt feed.

Is it definitely meant to be a revolver cylinder, though?

It looks a lot like one due to the grooves and the placement.
It could very well be that it's just a drum magazine, but in that case it should really be under the gun.
Sort of like this, but replace the box mag with a drum mag



You know you done goofed, when your faction of craftsmen makes less plausible weapons than orks.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:



What if the reason one doesn't like the aesthetic is because it looks unfeasible?
Similar to how some people don't like boob plates, gunblades, impractically large swords, guns with exposed wiring and lightsabers with laser hilts.

Again fair enough. However, I'd argue there's been lots of guns throughout our history that have looked unfeasible, and yet they have still been feased.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

What if there are no shells, and it is caseless ammunition, with an emergency ejection port for the rare misfired round?

When you hear hoofbeats, expect horses, not zebras.

 Olthannon wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:



What if the reason one doesn't like the aesthetic is because it looks unfeasible?
Similar to how some people don't like boob plates, gunblades, impractically large swords, guns with exposed wiring and lightsabers with laser hilts.

Again fair enough. However, I'd argue there's been lots of guns throughout our history that have looked unfeasible, and yet they have still been feased.

“Feased” - that will win you any argument, have an exalt! Bravo!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

What if there are no shells, and it is caseless ammunition, with an emergency ejection port for the rare misfired round?

When you hear hoofbeats, expect horses, not zebras.

Said the man about to be run over by a zebra.

The more I see what GW decided to go with for the Votann, the less I like it, and what makes it worse is that they tried to piggyback on the thing that people actually wanted, ie the Squats, ie Space Miner Dwarfs, pretended that's what they were going for at the start just to pull a bait a switch to go into something totally different.

And just to make it EVEN WORSE they are releasing in parallel something way, WAY closer to what I, and many others, expected the new Squats to be with... welp, the "Squats" of Necromunda.

What did that last reveal gave us?
Female heads that looks like the Bogdanofs.
The robot heads that are a total waste of a cool idea "oh yeah, they got quasi man of iron, but that's just a headswap compared to a standard guy".
And other heads look very samey to the point that the best look one are the helmeted with open visor one because it makes the whole armor feel more bulky and help the mini look better overal.

And speaking of armor, its just not dwarvish enough (which could be fine) but then they randomly slap a very out of place piece of "dwarvish" stuff on the sergeant that just don't match with the rest. They don't seem to know what they want to do with these faction look.

Also... sword, really? Short sword on top of that. That just doesn't match, give them axes (which they have), hammer, powerfist or something cool and unique.
They could have had a more coherent dwarvish look on thos armor by simply slapping some motifs on their armors like on that portrait



After thinking a bit more about it, I think one of the thing I like the least about thos votanns are the legs. Where on the squats the armored legs look great and help giving an armored look to the mini, the weld astronaut pant they gave to the votann just doesnt work, especially with how heavy the top armor look.
If you swapped the votann legs and belt for the squat's, the result would be way better.

I did a quick mockup of that, trying to bring more dwarfish vib to the Votann and I don't know about you, but I find the merging of both way more interesting.
The squat sergeant legs with the cloth on top of the legs looks ever better, it makes the thing look more, well, squatter.
Also painting some parts as brass goes a long way to tie the whole thing together


Still not amazing, but already way better imho.

Nope. In the mines the miners need their miner helms to protect from falling rocks and miner lights to see in the dark... Necromunda heads are fine, specially the fully enclosed ones.