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.
Wow, I haven’t been following this thread that closely and had no idea that it would be so triggering to say what I did. After the whole PL/points row I don’t have the energy for another argument.
I am just looking forward to this faction, I like the aesthetic, the fluff seems interesting and I am looking forward to more than just snippets of it and squats have long been a fave of mine.
Sorry they aren’t appearing to be to yours or others tastes. Bear in mind this is just the first wave, GW have form on adapting a new factions style quite quickly with future waves so you never know they might go more the way you want.
No insincerity here either, promise.
What a guy.
Spew the most tiresome strawman, and then just pull a "u triggered mad" card when someone calmly call him out on his bs.
Yes, please, do not feel the need to continue.
As for derpherp point, about GW trying to do "something unique rather than just going for something that scream dwarf" it would have been a good point except :
1) LoV are supposed to be the return of the Squat, GW itself used that angle (pretty heavily) when they started to reveal them, and Squats are literally "space dwarfs"
2) The only reason they are bringing back that specific army is because people have been asking for them for a long time (like they did for the GC), and the thing people asked if "space dwarfs".
3) The thing they are going for is the exact opposite of original, as many have pointed out it looks like a mix of Tau and generic human tech (like the stuff you'll find in the "miner" side of the GC).
4) Eldars are indeed still very distinctly elvish and pretending otherwise is just being blatantly dishonest.
Spoiler:
The literally share the same gods for feth sakes.
If GW really wanted to make something totally different than the expected Dwarvish Squats, they should have just left them in the dust and have made a Demiurg army instead, nobody would have minded that new angle (well, I still would have minded the rather gakky mary sue lore and overall ugly and derivative minies).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/06/28 23:37:49
Wow, I haven’t been following this thread that closely and had no idea that it would be so triggering to say what I did. After the whole PL/points row I don’t have the energy for another argument.
I am just looking forward to this faction, I like the aesthetic, the fluff seems interesting and I am looking forward to more than just snippets of it and squats have long been a fave of mine.
Sorry they aren’t appearing to be to yours or others tastes. Bear in mind this is just the first wave, GW have form on adapting a new factions style quite quickly with future waves so you never know they might go more the way you want.
No insincerity here either, promise.
What a guy.
Spew the most tiresome strawman, and then just pull a "u triggered mad" card when someone calmly call him out on his bs.
Yes, please, do not feel the need to continue.
As for derpherp point, about GW trying to do "something unique rather than just going for something that scream dwarf" it would have been a good point except :
1) LoV are supposed to be the return of the Squat, GW itself used that angle (pretty heavily) when they started to reveal them, and Squats are literally "space dwarfs"
2) The only reason they are bringing back that specific army is because people have been asking for them for a long time (like they did for the GC), and the thing people asked if "space dwarfs".
3) The thing they are going for is the exact opposite of original, as many have pointed out it looks like a mix of Tau and generic human tech (like the stuff you'll find in the "miner" side of the GC).
4) Eldars are indeed still very distinctly elvish and pretending otherwise is just being blatantly dishonest.
Spoiler:
If GW really wanted to make something totally different than the expected Dwarvish Squats, they should have just left them in the dust and have made a Demiurg army instead, nobody would have minded that new angle (well, I still would have minded the rather gakky mary sue lore and overall ugly and derivative minies).
Hostile much? And see if you can squeeze a few more clichés in there too, try virtue signalling, that one always goes down well. You’re a real treat.
Andykp wrote: Hostile much? And see if you can squeeze a few more clichés in there too, try virtue signalling, that one always goes down well. You’re a real treat.
Kekw, look at that one, pulling all the sophistry and fallacies he can after his bs got exposed.
How about you go gaslight somewhere else hm?
wonder if the necromunda squats slit helmets are calling back to this ancient rogue trader mini (image from Stuff of Legends) which is probably the first GW space dwarf
From what I've seen a lot of things back then (outside of leaders and such) didn't have much iconography on the miniatures though, not just the Squats.
Still, for an army that's meant to have that importance of their heritage, ancestors, family connection etc are their lore, you'd expect something on even the basic infantry. Especially when the majority
Geifer wrote: One of the earliest criticisms voiced when the first Squat model was shown off was that it looked like it belonged with Tau. That's an issue not just because the dwarf identity doesn't show, but because the lack thereof also makes it look like a part of an established army. That's not something a designer should want. Tau have the sleek, rounded sci-fi look covered at this point and if a new model looks like it's part of that army instead of having a recognizable identity of its own, I'd call that a problem with its design.
This is part of the problem I have too. The lack of Dwarf iconography, or any, is something that not only affects how their lore is showcased through the miniatures, but also takes away from giving the army a cohesive, distinct theme that isn't present elsewhere. I've seen people compare them to Space Marines because of their rounded bulky armour, and Tau because of the sleek high-tech style - the Armoured Sci-f Astronaut Dwarfs I think is a cool direction, but they need more to them so they stand out and the lack of decoration and iconography makes that problem worse. Even more so when they've got things that aren't too dissimilar from the Imperium's look, like their Plasma weapons and that Plasma Sword wouldn't be out of place on a Primaris Marine.
I’m glad they aren’t covered in dwarfish runes and stuff. That was never really part of the squat look, in the models or the artwork. It was there but in a very limited way. Dwarfs in space is not what’s needed really, times have moved on since we lazily ported fantasy tropes into 40k.
I’m hyped for votann but it’s a hard pass on the necromunda squats. The helmets look ridiculous, and barley like the old school ones at all. Can’t wait to see what votann character models look like.
....I didn't say to "cover them in dwarfish runes and stuff". If that's what you thought was being said then then you're really missing the point entirely.
This whole "You just want them to be fantasy Dwarfs In space!" that keeps getting repeated is just utterly absurd, especially as it never seems to consist of anything more than that. It would be nice if the points mentioned already and how the lack of that stuff affects them would be engaged with rather than just giving a vague dismissal without any elaboration in any way. What's wanted is a basic level of theming to show the lore on their models in the same way so many other armies have theirs, not that stuff plastered all over their miniatures to the point it becomes their core trait. Subtle bits of it tie their army together in a way that makes sense and to realize the lore they have via the models. Just going "Dwarfs in Space would be lazy!" comes across as if you have some baffling idea that wanting more Dwarfy-ness means something like wanting them to just take Dwarf Ironbreakers and just stick them in 40k when no, that isn't it in the slightest.
Are Mantics' Forgefathers "Just Fantasy Dwarfs in Space"? Are the Deep Rock Galactic Dwarfs just "Just Fantasy Dwarfs in Space"? Grendl Grendlsen? Hardcore Miniatures Original Squat inspired miniatures? Scibors Dwarves? Wargames Atlantic's Einherjar? The Original Squats? They all have Dwarf archetype inspired elements in their look. Are the Eldar Lazy for being "Elves in Space"? If you don't like the Dwarf archetype, then that's Fine, but if any level of inclusion of the Dwarf Archetype theming to you makes them " just Fantasy Dwarfs In space" then I guess the Leagues aren't going to be something you like much then - because as was mentioned already, they're undeniably "Dwarfs in Space" with both their lore and parts of their look we've seen elsewhere. What's wanted is for that to be better showcased on their core infantry in the same way as something like the Necromunda Ironheads or Grendl Grendlesen.
Wow, I haven’t been following this thread that closely and had no idea that it would be so triggering to say what I did. After the whole PL/points row I don’t have the energy for another argument.
I am just looking forward to this faction, I like the aesthetic, the fluff seems interesting and I am looking forward to more than just snippets of it and squats have long been a fave of mine.
Sorry they aren’t appearing to be to yours or others tastes. Bear in mind this is just the first wave, GW have form on adapting a new factions style quite quickly with future waves so you never know they might go more the way you want.
No insincerity here either, promise.
You haven't engaged with any of the points raised or seemingly read them, as it has just been said how they aren't what YOU want from them because they're evidently dwarfs in space which you don't want. To ignore all that entirely and just go "Oh they aren't what you want, sorry!" comes across as disingenuous.
derpherp wrote: I realise people are enjoying having a moan, but most of you haven't really grasped the intent when it comes to the LoV visual design and why they have been shown they way they have been shown so far.
The dwarf aesthetic should be subtle over the top of the underlying look and should be developed over years until it is its own distinct brand. The easy route is slapping a few dwarven hammers and dwarven belt buckles on them and calling it a day, the hard route is designing something that can stand on its own like the Eldar look can.
If I was trying to take my first steps down the hard route to having something like the Eldar but for Squats the very last thing I would want to do is ruin the first images shown to the world of this new brand aesthetic I'm trying to build by dumping dwarfy stuff all over it like giving them power hammers, or a dwarven belt buckle, or using nordic runes everywhere. Showing them with a sword and not a big power hammer was done very very intentionally.
I am sure you will be given the option of a dwarfy power hammer and dwarfy belt buckles at some point, but trying to achieve and present a brand look and image as distinct as the eldar are from elves is the current goal.
Eldar aren't really "distinct from Elves" though. They're a sci-fi version of the Elf Archetype which involves curved, sleek, elegant designs. They're broadly in line with what you'd expect of an Elf in Space.
Regardless of that it's strange how this keeps getting claimed as things like "You want Runes and Nordic stuff all over and fantasy Dwarf everything in place of what they have already!" which is missing the point entirely and not at all what has been said. Dwarf theming does not in any way mean they have to take away from the DAoT Armoured Astronaut look, especially as they have some aspects of it already. What they don't have is it done in a way that feels natural. The Dwarf Aesthetic should be integrated throughout their model line or else it feels jarring and out of place, like the Theyn Banner feels randomly stuck on. Grendlesen and the Ironheads have it to a subtle level, that sort of small amount ontop of - not instead of - what the Leagues have is what's lacking for their basic infantry, and it matters especially on the basic infantry because that's the core of their model line.
It’s not meant to, sorry. Please don’t read more into than that, I did not realise what I was wading into and am wholeheartedly back tracking. If you don’t want to accept that then that’s fine. As you were, pretend I was never here.
It's fine to not want to get involved in the discussion heavily, but saying something that entirely ignores what's been said to you as if you hadn't even read it, when it was something that countered your original point and showed you were wrong, and then conveniently backing out without even acknowledging that either after it's been pointed out, doesn't come across as good in the slightest.
Eldar aren't really "distinct from Elves" though. They're a sci-fi version of the Elf Archetype which involves curved, sleek, elegant designs. They're broadly in line with what you'd expect of an Elf Aesthetic in Space.
Regardless of that it's strange how this keeps getting claimed as things like "You want Runes all over and fantasy Dwarf everything in place of what they have!" which is missing the point entirely. Dwarf theming does not in any way mean they have to take away from the DAoT Armoured Astronaut look, especially as they have some aspects of it already. What they don't have is it done in a way that feels natural. The Dwarf Aesthetic should be integrated throughout their model line or else it feels jarring and out of place. Like the Theyn Banner feels randomly stuck on.
If I knew nothing about 40k and individually saw a helmeted eldar, or an eldar tank, or an eldar titan I would not immediately think elves. I would very likely think asian influence first well before elven influence because I wouldnt be aware they aren't human. Asian influence isn't exactly typical tolkien mate.
Literally in this thread someone photoshopped a cliche hammer and a dwarven belt buckle onto a squat lmao.
The Votann have one rune icon logo on their right shoulders. They are short. They all wear tool belts as a natural nod to dwarven craftsmanship. Their guns have one gold rune marked on them.
These are good and cleverly made dwarven nods. It has just the right amount of runes.
Dwarven belt buckles and dwarven hammers are crude in comparison. They beat you over the head and scream dwarf. Sorry but they just do. They are bad for this presentation's intention.
How many more runes do you want to add? I'm sure there will be stickers that come with the kit to add more to them if you care that much, but for this presentation in which they wanted to avoid screaming dwarf! they picked the right amount of runes.
I think they are nailing the LoV to be honest, the creative director behind them has clearly put an incredible amount of thought into what they want squats to become and is handling them better than anything GW has done in a long time. As long as the vehicles yet to be revealed are at similar high standards then GW might pull of one of its best faction introductions ever.
The way they've been chosen to be painted on this occasion =/= the extent the miniatures themselves showcase their identity. It's strange to take "wearing a belt with pouches" as being meant to be some sort of nod towards them being Dwarfs.
I guess you must think almost every other faction has their faction identity implemented in an overdone way. The Imperial Guard has their iconography on their Lasgun, Helmet and Chest, Space Marines on their chest and bolters, Skiitari with the Cog on their chest armour, Necrons with the Ankh, Genestealer cults have their symbol on their belts, Chaos has their stuff, The Necromunda Ironhead Squats have their belt decoration, Grendlesen has the Backpack and bolter and belt buckle, Orks have their Glpyhs, Tau have their shoulderpad. Then there's all the other little themed decorations included in kits too. The majority of armies - even the ones where that isn't extremely important to them - have something to connect their miniatures to their armies identity or culture, but when it comes to wanting the new army that is meant to be proud of their ancestors and heritage to have something like their faction icon on the backpack so that things like the Theyn banner feel more natural as the Dwarf theme does not consist of 1 part stuck onto 1 miniature in a Squad but it instead present throughout the army to some basic extent, that's suddenly "screaming Dwarf" in an extremely obnoxious way?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/28 23:50:21
What a guy.
Spew the most tiresome strawman, and then just pull a "u triggered mad" card when someone calmly call him out on his bs.
Yes, please, do not feel the need to continue.
As for derpherp point, about GW trying to do "something unique rather than just going for something that scream dwarf" it would have been a good point except :
1) LoV are supposed to be the return of the Squat, GW itself used that angle (pretty heavily) when they started to reveal them, and Squats are literally "space dwarfs"
2) The only reason they are bringing back that specific army is because people have been asking for them for a long time (like they did for the GC), and the thing people asked if "space dwarfs".
3) The thing they are going for is the exact opposite of original, as many have pointed out it looks like a mix of Tau and generic human tech (like the stuff you'll find in the "miner" side of the GC).
4) Eldars are indeed still very distinctly elvish and pretending otherwise is just being blatantly dishonest.
Sorry to break it to you mate but you show the average person something like this and they do not immediately think elf. Nice failed attempt at a deflection, but the eldar as they currently are look nothing like the elf on the horse, which itself doesnt fully look 100% like a generic tolkien elf in the first place because warhammer elves are their own slight slant on generic tolkien elves. In fact I showed this to a friend who knows nothing about warhammer and their description of it was "Anime Gundam" lmao
1. The Squat soldiers were barely space dwarf in model. They didn't wear armour. They had no runes. They had no hammers. They had no dwarven Belt buckles. They have less about them that make them dwarfy than the LoV does.
2. They are a company, yes, amazing observation sherlock, they like to make money. They also see a better stronger brand that has more staying power by going the distinct route of the eldar rather than just dwarves in space! Remember, the reason Squats were discontinued originally was literally because they were just dwarves in space lol.
3. The original soldier squats are generic asf. They are soldiers wearing normal clothing who are short and have guns. They aren't the peak of design like you seem to imagine.
4. The eldar are pretty far from generic tolkien elves as I just demonstrated by showing my friend, its blatantly dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.
As I said, what we have been shown is designed for first impressions and to build the LoV as being a distinct aesthetic, not to push 'dwarves in space'. If you care that much about dwarfiness then I am certain you will be able to give every one of your plastic space dwarf soldiers a power hammer and cover them in rune stickers as part of the kit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/28 23:53:58
What a guy.
Spew the most tiresome strawman, and then just pull a "u triggered mad" card when someone calmly call him out on his bs.
Yes, please, do not feel the need to continue.
As for derpherp point, about GW trying to do "something unique rather than just going for something that scream dwarf" it would have been a good point except :
1) LoV are supposed to be the return of the Squat, GW itself used that angle (pretty heavily) when they started to reveal them, and Squats are literally "space dwarfs"
2) The only reason they are bringing back that specific army is because people have been asking for them for a long time (like they did for the GC), and the thing people asked if "space dwarfs".
3) The thing they are going for is the exact opposite of original, as many have pointed out it looks like a mix of Tau and generic human tech (like the stuff you'll find in the "miner" side of the GC).
4) Eldars are indeed still very distinctly elvish and pretending otherwise is just being blatantly dishonest.
1. The Squat soldiers were barely space dwarf in model. They didn't wear armour. They had no runes. They had no hammers. They had no dwarven Belt buckles. They have less about them that make them dwarfy than the LoV does.
You know what other basic infantry was lacking in iconography for their faction actually as part of their miniatures back then? Several things, from what I can see looking at photos of them. Space Marines, Imperial Guard etc don't appear to really have Aquillas and such on them unless i'm just missing them, it was mainly champions and things like that that sort of thing was on. It not being present back for the Squats basic troops does not have much weight to this.
2. They are a company, yes, amazing observation sherlock, they like to make money. They also see a better stronger brand that has more staying power by going the distinct route of the eldar rather than just dwarves in space! Remember, the reason Squats were discontinued originally was literally because they were just dwarves in space lol.
Nope. People really need to stop parroting this nonsense. Their removal from the game wasn't because they were "Dwarfs in Space", they were removed beacuse they weren't that.
No, the reason that the Squats were dropped was because the creatives in the Studio (people like me, Rick, Andy C, Gav etc) felt that we had failed to do the Dwarf 'archetype' justice in its 40K incarnation. From the name of the race (Squats - what *were* we thinking?!?!) through to the short bikers motif, we had managed to turn what was a proud and noble race in Warhammer and the other literary forms where the archetype exists, into a joke race in 40K. We only fully realised what we had done when we were working on the 2nd edition of 40K. Try as we might, we just couldn't work up much enthusiasm for the Squats. The mistake we made then (deeply regreted since) was to leave them in the background and the 'get you by' army list book that appeared. With hindsight, we should have dropped the Squats back then, and saved ourselves a lot of grief later on.
...
Now, while this was all going on for 40K, we were actually doing some rather good stuff for the Squats in Epic. On this scale there was a natural tendancy to focus on the big 'hand-made' war machines the Squat artisans produced, and this created an army with a feel that was very different to the biker hordes in 40K. However, this tended to reinforce the problems we saw in the Squat background rather than alleviate them, underlining what we *should* have done with the Squats in 40K.
From Jervis Johnson. Removed because the silly bikers named Squats was not a good implementation of the proud, noble, stoic, master-craftsmen Fantasy Dwarf Archetype.
3. The original soldier squats are generic asf. They are soldiers wearing normal clothing who are short and have guns. They aren't the peak of design like you seem to imagine.
As I said, what we have been shown is designed for first impressions and to build the LoV as being a distinct aesthetic, not to push 'dwarves in space'. If you care that much about dwarfiness then I am certain you will be able to give every one of your plastic space dwarf soldiers a power hammer and cover them in rune stickers as part of the kit.
Once again, the same "You just want them to be Fantasy Dwarfs" line that is acting like the iconography and the DAoT aesthetic are mutually exclusive.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/06/29 00:03:41
The way they've been chosen to be painted on this occasion =/= the extent the miniatures themselves showcase their identity. It's strange to take "wearing a belt with pouches" as being meant to be some sort of nod towards them being Dwarfs.
I guess you must think almost every other faction has their faction identity implemented in an overdone way. The Imperial Guard has their iconography on their Lasgun, Helmet and Chest, Space Marines on their chest and bolters, Skiitari with the Cog on their chest armour, Necrons with the Ankh, Genestealer cults have their symbol on their belts, Chaos has their stuff, The Necromunda Ironhead Squats have their belt decoration, Grendlesen has the Backpack and bolter and belt buckle, Orks have their Glpyhs, Tau have their shoulderpad. Then there's all the other little themed decorations included in kits too. The majority of armies - even the ones where that isn't extremely important to them - have something to connect their miniatures to their armies identity or culture, but when it comes to wanting the new army that is meant to be proud of their ancestors and heritage to have something like their faction icon on the backpack so that things like the Theyn banner feel more natural as the Dwarf theme does not consist of 1 part stuck onto 1 miniature in a Squad but it instead present throughout the army to some basic extent, that's suddenly "screaming Dwarf" in an extremely obnoxious way?
....The.... The... Votann... literally have their faction symbol.... on their right shoulder.... Did you, uh... not notice that?..... BIG oof there mate. Maybe look next time before going off on a normal one. Just a thought.
And yes, the LoV are being handled very well just as the eldar. A giant power hammer plus a giant metal buckle with a dwarf face and a big bushy beard on it while covering them in generic dwarf runes is just not good enough. Sorry. Better is expected.
The way they've been chosen to be painted on this occasion =/= the extent the miniatures themselves showcase their identity. It's strange to take "wearing a belt with pouches" as being meant to be some sort of nod towards them being Dwarfs.
I guess you must think almost every other faction has their faction identity implemented in an overdone way. The Imperial Guard has their iconography on their Lasgun, Helmet and Chest, Space Marines on their chest and bolters, Skiitari with the Cog on their chest armour, Necrons with the Ankh, Genestealer cults have their symbol on their belts, Chaos has their stuff, The Necromunda Ironhead Squats have their belt decoration, Grendlesen has the Backpack and bolter and belt buckle, Orks have their Glpyhs, Tau have their shoulderpad. Then there's all the other little themed decorations included in kits too. The majority of armies - even the ones where that isn't extremely important to them - have something to connect their miniatures to their armies identity or culture, but when it comes to wanting the new army that is meant to be proud of their ancestors and heritage to have something like their faction icon on the backpack so that things like the Theyn banner feel more natural as the Dwarf theme does not consist of 1 part stuck onto 1 miniature in a Squad but it instead present throughout the army to some basic extent, that's suddenly "screaming Dwarf" in an extremely obnoxious way?
....The.... The... Votann... literally have their faction symbol.... on their right shoulder.... Did you, uh... not notice that?..... BIG oof there mate. Maybe look next time before going off on a normal one. Just a thought.
I'm guessing you didn't even read what was said:
The way they've been chosen to be painted on this occasion =/= the extent the miniatures themselves showcase their identity.
We're talking about what's part of the miniature design itself. Not the way they've been chosen to be painted at this time.
And no, that isn't their "faction symbol" anyway, that's a League symbol, their faction symbol is the Dwarf head. That decal is no more representative of their faction as a whole than the Ultramarines Chapter Symbol is of the entire Imperium.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/06/29 00:09:50
Sorry to break it to you mate but you show the average person something like this and they do not immediately think elf. Nice failed attempt at a deflection, but the eldar as they currently are look nothing like the elf on the horse, which itself doesnt fully look 100% like a generic tolkien elf in the first place because warhammer elves are their own slight slant on generic tolkien elves. In fact I showed this to a friend who knows nothing about warhammer and their description of it was "Anime Gundam" lmao
Tell me you have no idea what a warhammer elf looks like without telling me you don't know gak and still want to talk.
Nobody gives a gak about what normies think a tolkien elf look like, it's pretty obvious people are talking about warhammer elf here, so either you are literally too dumb to get that obvious fact or you are just intentionally being disenginous just to make a gakky point.
derpherp wrote: 1. The Squat soldiers were barely space dwarf in model. They didn't wear armour. They had no runes. They had no hammers. They had no dwarven Belt buckles. They have less about them that make them dwarfy than the LoV does.
Again, you are just proving that you have no fething clue what warhammer fantasy battle is and it's getting very cringy.
These guys have literally Dwarf Rangers.
I bet in your mind Dwarfs are only Gimli and that's it.
I wont even wast more of my time with the rest of your garbage post, you clearly don't know gak, have no clue what warhammer fantasy was and have been talking out of your ass.
I'll tell you again, cut your loss, you are just embarrassing yourself.
You know what other basic infantry was lacking in iconography for their faction actually as part of their miniatures back then? Several things, from what I can see looking at photos of them. Space Marines, Imperial Guard etc don't appear to really have Aquillas and such on them unless i'm just missing them, it was mainly champions and things like that that sort of thing was on. It not being present back for the Squats basic troops does not have much weight to this.
"1) LoV are supposed to be the return of the Squat, GW itself used that angle (pretty heavily) when they started to reveal them, and Squats are literally "space dwarfs""
So you just openly admitted they have barely anything dwarfy about them. Cool, good to know champ.
Nope. People really need to stop parroting this nonsense. Their removal from the game wasn't because they were "Dwarfs in Space", they were removed beacuse they weren't that.
"just dwarves in space" literally, without flavour. That's why I prefaced the sentence with Eldar, they are elves with flavour.
They were dropped because they were incredibly shallow, they were just dwarves in space, aka literally just short people, with no actual flavour or distinction like warhammer fantasy.
They did not want to create cardboard 2 dimensional generic dwarves in space with hammers and runes, they wanted to create the equivalent of the Eldar but with dwarves. Distinct.
What they are doing now is what they wanted to do back then.
Once again, the same "You just want them to be Fantasy Dwarfs" line that is acting like the iconography and the DAoT aesthetic are mutually exclusive.
Okay Mentlegen. Explain to me how you want them to be more dwarfy in a way that doesnt include more runes, more hammers, silly things like dwarven belt buckles, and does not affect their dark age of technology aesthetic, because you seem to be demanding something that directly conflicts with these things.
The only thing I might agree with is bigger beards, but then that means no closing of helms lol.
All comments on design and lore are markedly the opinion of the person espousing them, and neither of the 'sides' here has some absolute 'rightness' about anything at all.
Is this not getting close to being woefully off topic now that we're getting into heated tangents about he-said/she-said?
You know what other basic infantry was lacking in iconography for their faction actually as part of their miniatures back then? Several things, from what I can see looking at photos of them. Space Marines, Imperial Guard etc don't appear to really have Aquillas and such on them unless i'm just missing them, it was mainly champions and things like that that sort of thing was on. It not being present back for the Squats basic troops does not have much weight to this.
"1) LoV are supposed to be the return of the Squat, GW itself used that angle (pretty heavily) when they started to reveal them, and Squats are literally "space dwarfs""
So you just openly admitted they have barely anything dwarfy about them. Cool, good to know champ.
Nope. People really need to stop parroting this nonsense. Their removal from the game wasn't because they were "Dwarfs in Space", they were removed beacuse they weren't that.
"just dwarves in space" literally, without flavour. That's why I prefaced the sentence with Eldar, they are elves with flavour.
They were dropped because they were incredibly shallow, they were just dwarves in space, aka literally just short people, with no actual flavour or distinction like warhammer fantasy.
They did not want to create cardboard 2 dimensional generic dwarves in space with hammers and runes, they wanted to create the equivalent of the Eldar but with dwarves. Distinct.
What they are doing now is what they wanted to do back then.
Once again, the same "You just want them to be Fantasy Dwarfs" line that is acting like the iconography and the DAoT aesthetic are mutually exclusive.
Okay Mentlegen. Explain to me how you want them to be more dwarfy in a way that doesnt include more runes, more hammers, silly things like dwarven belt buckles, and does not affect their dark age of technology aesthetic, because you seem to be demanding something that directly conflicts with these things.
The only thing I might agree with is bigger beards, but then that means no closing of helms lol.
Just got told they weren't removed for being Dwarfs in Space but instead removed because they weren't that, so you once again claim it was because they were Dwarfs in Space. Not only that but a lot of your argument seems to rely on you making up your own absurd narrative about "what they wanted back then" without even the slightest basis.
I'm not going to bother responding if you're going to be disingenuous and condescending.
Tell me you have no idea what a warhammer elf looks like without telling me you don't know gak and still want to talk.
Nobody gives a gak about what normies think a tolkien elf look like, it's pretty obvious people are talking about warhammer elf here, so either you are literally too dumb to get that obvious fact or you are just intentionally being disenginous just to make a gakky point.
Goddam you are ultra seething mad lmao.
Yes, the layman's opinion absolutely matters on this because it is a question of how generic something is. They are only familiar with generic elves, they actually have a superior point of view on this that both of us as they haven't been influenced by other sources. It's the perfect demonstrator of how Eldar are distinct from the generic. Which they are.
Using niche warhammer elves that the general public aren't really aware of is on you. And for that matter that last image you linked of the Lumineth is another step removed from generic tolkien elves, its certainly less elf like than the elf on the horse you linked although it still has an elfy feel, I think elf first and not asia or whatever. The same cant be said for an Eldar in its suit.
Dwarf Rangers.
Wow. Rangers not soldiers. Got my memory there. Fortunately literally all of my points still stand for these and the adventurers and warriors.
Lul, ofc you would also pull the "u mad" card too. You are so predictable is honestly pretty boring.
But just so we are clear I'm just having fun roasting your clueless ass and it looks like I'm not the only one. The simple fact that you didn't got that shows a quasi autistic lack of selfawarness.
derpherp wrote: Using niche warhammer elves that the general public aren't really aware of is on you.
That argument is so inane I don't know what to say, so I'll just point out and laugh at you.
Wow. Rangers not soldiers. Got my memory there. Fortunately literally all of my points still stand for these and the adventurers and warriors.
This is what the terminal level of Dunning Kruger looks like.
"Rangers" are a specific archetype of dwarfs, one that use almost the same kind of "light" quilted cloth than thos squat, and use ranged weapons.
The point I was making isn't that you got the name wrong (the fact that you thought that shows how incredibly stupid you are), it's the fact that they are one of the main achetype of dwarfs out there. Because they are SPACE DWARFS has the writing on the box of thos guys said.
Btw, gotha love how you just dodge the eldar miniature comparison. What a pathetic loser.
Just got told they weren't removed for being Dwarfs in Space but instead removed because they weren't that, so you once again claim it was because they were Dwarfs in Space. Not only that but a lot of your argument seems to rely on you making up your own absurd narrative about "what they wanted back then" without even the slightest basis.
I'm saying you misunderstood what I meant.
"we had failed to do the Dwarf 'archetype' justice in its 40K incarnation."- Jervis. aka Justice like the Eldar.
But whatever, its not important.
I'm not going to bother responding if you're going to be disingenuous and condescending.
Well I apologise, I may have had some spill over from how snarky that other guy was being, I struggle to manage 2 similar conversations at once on old style forums and they kind of blur together.
I am actually genuinely curious what your answer to this is:
"How do you want them to be more dwarfy in a way that doesnt include generic things like more runes, more hammers, things like dwarven belt buckles, and does not affect their dark age of technology aesthetic?"
Because I don't see how this can be done. The major thing you could do is make blockier armour, but that ruins the DaoT aesthetic, big beards don't fit in helms, and more generic dwarven stuff like hammers has the problem of moving away from the goal which is to make a dwarven 'eldar'.
Do you want a small amount of more subtle things? like a couple of celtic knots sculpted into the armour perhaps?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/06/29 01:13:54
Just got told they weren't removed for being Dwarfs in Space but instead removed because they weren't that, so you once again claim it was because they were Dwarfs in Space. Not only that but a lot of your argument seems to rely on you making up your own absurd narrative about "what they wanted back then" without even the slightest basis.
And I'm saying you misunderstood what I meant.
"we had failed to do the Dwarf 'archetype' justice in its 40K incarnation."- Jervis. aka Justice like the Eldar.
But whatever, its not important.
You can't ignore what's being said and instead make up your own story and then try and use that to support it. You're the one who's decided all by yourself without any basis that there's an Eldar comparison.
The "Justice" in that situation was that the Short silly Biker Dwarfs - which, in their 40k depiction was pretty much the core of their identity - was a terrible way to have Dwarfs a 40k version of the Fantasy Dwarf archetype. They were dropped because they didn't do a good job at being "Fantasy Dwarfs in Space".
As he said, in that very quote I gave, the mastercraftsmen with big hand-crafted war Machines and intricate technology was more the direction they wanted.
I'm not going to bother responding if you're going to be disingenuous and condescending.
Well I apologise, I may have had some spill over from how snarky that other guy was being, I struggle to manage 2 similar conversations at once on old style forums and they kind of blur together.
I am actually genuinely curious what your answer to this is:
"How do you want them to be more dwarfy in a way that doesnt include generic things like more runes, more hammers, things like dwarven belt buckles, and does not affect their dark age of technology aesthetic?"
Because I don't see how this can be done. The major thing you could do is make blockier armour, but that ruins the DaoT aesthetic, big beards don't fit in helms, and more generic dwarven iconography has the problem of moving away from the goal which is to make a dwarven 'eldar'.
Do you want a small amount of more subtle things? like a couple of celtic knots sculpted into the armour perhaps?
Again, you are the one who has decided that they want to "make a dwarven 'eldar' even though nowhere has that been even slightly implied. You can't use that to try and counter anything without any actual evidence.
This has been explained multiple times over the past few pages though.
The DAoT space suit direction left as it (Maybe some better boots though) is because that's a cool unique idea for Space Dwarfs, but with a few Dwarf embellishments to showcase the factions lore and the archetype they're based on. Their faction icon - the Votann Head - on the backpack, a knot or similar pattern on the side of the weapons (for some reason, it's only on the bolter). Like these here:
Same basic level of ornamentation seen on nearly every other army in the game. Dwarf culture/lore implemented to a better extent without loosing the style they have. Infact you can't say that would take away from their style when you consider that it's already part of them with the Theyn and other parts we've seen having stuff like it, it's just for some reason not present on the basic miniatures at the core of the faction like Hearthkin, Hernkin and Ironkin. That's the issue.
Nothing drastic, nothing that makes it their entire look and takes away from what they're going for. Just something simple to add a little bit of Dwarf theme to them rather than the almost none they have and so things like the Theyn banner aren't just jarringly stuck ontop of them for some reason. The Dwarf side of their look needs to be implemented throughout their miniatures to feel more natural than it does so far.
A new take that integrates the Dwarf Archetype in the same way the Kharadron Overlords does in AoS, not at the expense of the Dwarf aesthetics.
This message was edited 11 times. Last update was at 2022/06/29 01:42:17
Mentlegen324 wrote: Same basic level of ornamentation seen on nearly every other army in the game. Dwarf culture/lore implemented to a better extent without loosing the style they have.
Nothing drastic, nothing that makes it their entire look and takes away from what they're going for. Just something simple to add a little bit of Dwarf theme to them rather than the almost none they have and so things like the Theyn banner aren't just jarring stuck ontop of them for some reason.
A new take on the classic Dwarf Archetype in the same way the Kharadron Overlords are for AoS.
Something like what they shown here:
They just had to add a bit more dwarvish iconography on thos armors... and also make armors that don't look as bad as the once they ended up with.
Again, I know I keep getting back to it, but I find just mindbogling that they discarded the way better "Squat" design to Necromunda to pick that frankly silly looking one for LoV.
Even without the belt buckle, the legs of thos Squats are so much better when it comes to defining a silhouette than ... that gak they went with in the end.
I suspect that they are going to keep all the dwarvish icons and runes for the more elite unites, which is an incredibly stupid idea since, as I've already said, an army core identity is always tied to their main troop, not some random elite ones.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/29 01:29:26
was a terrible way to have Dwarfs a 40k version of the Fantasy Dwarf archetype. They were dropped because they didn't do a good job at being "Fantasy Dwarfs in Space".
As he said, in that very quote I gave, the mastercraftsmen with big hand-crafted war Machines and intricate technology was more the direction they wanted.
The new squats are master craftsman with big war machines and intricate technology. I don't think this means generic dwarves when he said this and I say that because when he says "Doing justice" it makes me think of the eldar and the necron, they were done justice and are several steps detached from their archetype despite having elements, such as crafting, that still exists with them.
The original squats in comparison were just plain vanilla short dudes with trikes.
To add to why I get that from 'doing justice': "The 'art' of working on an army as a designer is to find the thing that you think is cool and exciting about an army, and work it up into a strong theme." - Jarvis.
A strong theme like the eldar and necron. Strictly generic space dwarves wouldnt be strong like those two imo.
I've read what Jervis Johnson said before and I get a different interpretation than you. Shrug.
Again, you are the one who has decided that they want to "make a dwarven 'eldar' even though nowhere has that been even slightly implied. You can't use that to try and counter anything without any actual evidence.
Okay, then what other reason is there to abandon going hard on the crowd pleasing generic dwarven feel other than wanting to build a dwarf that feels unique to 40k? Because I look at the pattern of previous imported races and that seems to be what they like doing.
Their faction icon - the Votann Head - on the backpack, a knot or similar pattern on the side of the weapons (for some reason, it's only on the bolter). Like these here:
So another icon like on the shoulder on the powerpack... have we seen the backs? how do you know there isn't an icon or something already there?
and the guns, more stickers like on the bolter... the guns which all seem to have suspiciously nice clean flat spots perfect for kit stickers. Hmmm.
Fair enough, but my OP was about how GW seem to want to go down their own road to make something visually distinct for dwarves like Eldar, and wanted to give this impression for their first presentation, and how they might be intentionally holding back more obviously dwarfy things like giant hammers, hence the sword.
I suspect that it will be possible to go pretty dwarfy if a person wants to.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/06/29 02:43:19
Its the 3rd time this discussion of " they are not good dwarf designs cause they need loads of little icons spam to make them so " leads to nothing. I can understand new people chipping in but the same posters flooding the same opinion does not help. Its just spam.
Squats designs are fresh deal with it. Some people dont like tau some do, some think Primaris are the work of the devil others love it.
Point being opinions are great but become obnoxious if you behave like a broken record and keep on spamming.
Andykp wrote: Hostile much? And see if you can squeeze a few more clichés in there too, try virtue signalling, that one always goes down well. You’re a real treat.
Kekw, look at that one, pulling all the sophistry and fallacies he can after his bs got exposed.
How about you go gaslight somewhere else hm?
Wasn’t actually dealing with you at all but thanks for the input and and for squeezing in gaslighting in there too. Bravo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NAVARRO wrote: Its the 3rd time this discussion of " they are not good dwarf designs cause they need loads of little icons spam to make them so " leads to nothing. I can understand new people chipping in but the same posters flooding the same opinion does not help. Its just spam.
Squats designs are fresh deal with it. Some people dont like tau some do, some think Primaris are the work of the devil others love it.
Point being opinions are great but become obnoxious if you behave like a broken record and keep on spamming.
Just realise the guy who jumped all over my comments and then graciously didn’t accept an apology is the same guy from 60 pages ago still complaining about the belt buckles. Points for persistence at least.
End of the day votann will look how they look. Don’t like it, tough I guess. I am still excited for this release. The new models look good to me, and only question mark is in bigger vehicles really?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/29 09:28:28
Its been a long time something so fresh has got into 40k, we really need that to keep the universe engaging.
I would love to see some kind of giant Drill vehicle for Necro Squats. For 40k I have no idea what to expect after the first hoover vehicle and thats the exiting part.
Its been a long time something so fresh has got into 40k, we really need that to keep the universe engaging.
I would love to see some kind of giant Drill vehicle for Necro Squats. For 40k I have no idea what to expect after the first hoover vehicle and thats the exiting part.
At this point, my most fervent wishlisting would be to see the hybrid offspring of Ramshackle Games' Minimum Squat's Bounty Crew land train and Watcore's recent Giga Hauler!
That's never going to happen but some form of hover tank to outclass the various Primaris -sors would be nice.
I'm tired (heh) of all the hovering flyers everywhere, I want to see some ground-based vehicles for once again. Everyone and their mother gets flying tanks nowadays.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/29 10:05:45
"Tabletop games are the only setting when a body is made more horrifying for NOT being chopped into smaller pieces."
- Jiado
Its been a long time something so fresh has got into 40k, we really need that to keep the universe engaging.
I would love to see some kind of giant Drill vehicle for Necro Squats. For 40k I have no idea what to expect after the first hoover vehicle and thats the exiting part.
At this point, my most fervent wishlisting would be to see the hybrid offspring of Ramshackle Games' Minimum Squat's Bounty Crew land train and Watcore's recent Giga Hauler!
That's never going to happen but some form of hover tank to outclass the various Primaris -sors would be nice.
I like how some times they go totally in an unexpected direction like the last admech vehicles release which I didn’t see coming at all but still fit the overall aesthetic. So far I think they have the look spot on. Expect characters to be more ornate form the artwork and can’t wait for that too.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: I'm tired (heh) of all the hovering flyers everywhere, I want to see some ground-based vehicles for once again. Everyone and their mother gets flying tanks nowadays.
Its been a long time something so fresh has got into 40k, we really need that to keep the universe engaging.
I would love to see some kind of giant Drill vehicle for Necro Squats. For 40k I have no idea what to expect after the first hoover vehicle and thats the exiting part.
Yes I'm loving how new they are, great to see something so fresh coming into the setting and it seems [so far ]to be very well set out.
derpherp wrote:
The new squats are master craftsman with big war machines and intricate technology. I don't think this means generic dwarves when he said this and I say that because when he says "Doing justice" it makes me think of the eldar and the necron, they were done justice and are several steps detached from their archetype despite having elements, such as crafting, that still exists with them.
The original squats in comparison were just plain vanilla short dudes with trikes.
To add to why I get that from 'doing justice': "The 'art' of working on an army as a designer is to find the thing that you think is cool and exciting about an army, and work it up into a strong theme." - Jarvis.
A strong theme like the eldar and necron. Strictly generic space dwarves wouldnt be strong like those two imo.
Yes I totally get that- eldar had this unique take on "elves" -I remember them seeming so interesting when WD 127 came out- I jumped from squats to eldar pretty quick. Squats then seemed to be mostly just small imperials. This design approach for the Leagues is what I was hoping for, similar to what they did for the Kharadrons in AoS- a fresh take on the dwarf archetype. As a long time dwarf collector it was so exciting to see the KO and I have the same feeling for Leagues.
Its been a long time something so fresh has got into 40k, we really need that to keep the universe engaging.
I would love to see some kind of giant Drill vehicle for Necro Squats. For 40k I have no idea what to expect after the first hoover vehicle and thats the exiting part.
At this point, my most fervent wishlisting would be to see the hybrid offspring of Ramshackle Games' Minimum Squat's Bounty Crew land train and Watcore's recent Giga Hauler!
That's never going to happen but some form of hover tank to outclass the various Primaris -sors would be nice.
I like how some times they go totally in an unexpected direction like the last admech vehicles release which I didn’t see coming at all but still fit the overall aesthetic. So far I think they have the look spot on. Expect characters to be more ornate form the artwork and can’t wait for that too.
we have seen remarkably little so far -its going to be interesting to see the breadth and depth of the range unfold. I'm even just excited to see the characters and what special characters they get. The basic troops look excellent and they always tend to be sparing on the trooper designs so I'm expecting some of the other elements to have more ornate equipment. I'm expecting to be a little shocked by whatever comes next as I have no idea what anything is going to look like..
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: I'm tired (heh) of all the hovering flyers everywhere, I want to see some ground-based vehicles for once again. Everyone and their mother gets flying tanks nowadays.
/pic218394.jpg)
