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.
John D Law wrote: Gotta admit most of the Votann stuff does look very cool but too me it doesn’t scream”dwarf”. I’m likely out of step on this modern version but it’s too generic human sci fi to be dwarf. Still cool looking in a basic sense though.
I've seen a lot of people saying "this stuff doesn't look dwarf" and I keep wondering, where it was even implied that it is "dwarf" as we think of dwarves. I don't think GW is trying to make them into "dwarf" but trying to make a new and unique faction within an established universe. And in my opinion, they're succeeding quite well.
They're meant to be the settings version of the Dwarf archetype.That was the whole point to the Squats in the first place, being Space Dwarfs (which they were even called) and the Leagues are definitely Dwarf-themed lore-wise.
That’s the thing though, what exactly is the “dwarf archetype”? If you mean the utterly cliched, done to death, Tolkien ripoff that populates almost every setting containing dwarfs, then no thanks.
I was hoping that, if they ever brought squats back, they’d think of something different to do with them. They didn’t. They look like the same cliched crap in the form of better, more modern minis. They’re too “dwarf archetype” for me. I was bored of the same old fantasy tropes 30 years ago.
That is literally what fantasy dwarfs are. Most "dwarfs" are some variation of Tolkien Dwarf, which in turn were inspired by the dwarfs of Germanic myth; short humanoids who live in mountains and mine. If it's not a short humanoid who mines, it cannot by definition be a dwarf.
You might as well complain that the horse archetype is that of a large, quadrupedal mammal of the Equus genus that is used for transport and labor, and that they don't go baa and can't be sheared.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/07/18 21:56:52
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
Flinty wrote: Is that a good thing? I think it’s a good thing
It's a good thing. This is the first release for the NotVerySquats that is a solid 'Oh, yes!' from me. Love it. Enough that I might even buy one for use elsewhere despite the inevitably painful price.
Edit... although looking at it some more, I'm wondering how the driver gets in and out. The seat looks built in place and solid around the back, so no entrance through the vehicle's rear. If the canopy swings open it would hit the rollcage, leaving a fairly narrow aperture to crawl... and would require clambering up and over the rollcage and sliding in under the half-open canopy. I'd be tempted to cut away the panel behind the seat and mount it on a sliding swivel, so it can retract back into the cabin.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/07/18 22:08:26
MonkeyBallistic wrote: The fact anyone can say, “that’s what dwarfs are” just shows how creatively bankrupt the vast majority of fantasy is.
It sounds like you don't understand what tropes and archetypes are because in order to be "Dwarfs" then they broadly have to be what the idea of the archetype of "Dwarfs" involves.
ou do realize that 40k is a setting that was founded primarily on taking existing archetypes and putting them in Space, Right? You're complaining about a Fantasy-in-space setting having the iconic Fantasy races.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/07/18 22:12:21
insaniak wrote: This is the first release for the NotVerySquats that is a solid 'Oh, yes!' from me.
Why though? Is it because this is the first of the Votann models that's made you go "Ah! This is what they're going for!" or "Yes, now I see the aesthetics of this race coming together!"? Or is it that you just like the design in general and, as you said in the next part of your post, that you might just get one to use it elsewhere?
See I think it's a cool design. I also think it doesn't look 40k-ish at all, and certainly don't scream "The Squats have returned!" to me. Nothing in this Votann line is moving the needle for me (unlike the Newcromunda Squats).
insaniak wrote: Edit... although looking at it some more, I'm wondering how the driver gets in and out. The seat looks built in place and solid around the back, so no entrance through the vehicle's rear. If the canopy swings open it would hit the rollcage, leaving a fairly narrow aperture to crawl... and would require clambering up and over the rollcage and sliding in under the half-open canopy. I'd be tempted to cut away the panel behind the seat and mount it on a sliding swivel, so it can retract back into the cabin.
Maybe they can't get out?
Maybe that's the grimdark 'other shoe' that we've been waiting for when it comes to the Votann, where outside of "Our Computer-Gods haven't had a firmware update in 5000 years!" it always seemed like everything was going perfectly for them. Instead, the true terror is that they can't ever leave their vehicles/armour. They're stuck in there forever.
Their armour will be their prison cells... oh wait that's just Starcraft again...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/07/18 22:12:16
H.B.M.C. wrote: Why though? Is it because this is the first of the Votann models that's made you go "Ah! This is what they're going for!" or "Yes, now I see the aesthetics of this race coming together!"?
Or is it that you just like the design in general and, as you said in the next part of your post, that you might just get one to use it elsewhere?
Yeah, the rest of the range so far has been fairly uninspiring, and I have no particular interest in buying any of them. I would buy this to use as a Necromunda ash waste explorator vehicle, or as an Epirian prospector vehicle in MEdge.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/18 22:11:37
insaniak wrote: This is the first release for the NotVerySquats that is a solid 'Oh, yes!' from me.
certainly don't scream "The Squats have returned!" to me. Nothing in this Votann line is moving the needle for me (unlike the Newcromunda Squats).
I do somewhat agree with this part, but at the same time I don't see how they could have a moon rover ATV that does feel obviously more Squats/Space Dwarfs. Any examples of the sort of thing you think would have been better for them?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/07/18 22:16:47
The odd repurposed/militarised mining/prospecting equipment look which the League's seem to have going on is strange, because we already have a faction using STC mining gear in the Genestealer Cults.
The moon buggy from Armageddon doesn't communicate 'military transport' at all.
Nor does it communicate Squats/dwarfs. If it was a Necromunda release, or a Genestealer Cult vehicle, nobody would bat an eye.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/18 22:25:47
Why have a hover trike and then a wheeled buggy transport?
I personally would have liked a wheeled trike over a hover buggy.
Consistency in a force helps tie it together.
I'm not seeing wheeled Tau or Eldar or Dark Eldar bike/buggies/transports.
The Primaris Mario Cart for the new space marines is a notable exception to fixing a style in a force.
2024: Games Played:0/Models Bought:32/Sold:291/Painted: 90
2023: Games Played:0/Models Bought:287/Sold:0/Painted: 203
2020-2022: Games Played:42/Models Bought:1271/Sold:631/Painted:442
2016-19: Games Played:369/Models Bought:772/Sold:378/ Painted:268
2012-15: Games Played:412/Models Bought: 1163/Sold:730/Painted:436
I do somewhat agree with this part, but at the same time I don't see how they could have a moon rover ATV that does feel obviously more Squats/Space Dwarfs. Any examples of the sort of thing you think would have been better for them?
I think the disconnect is coming from the fact that the new Squats are supposed to be more high-tech than the Imperium, and so they're trying to show that with the rounded, more conventionally sci-fi gear. If it had been my call, Space Dwarfs would have gear that was starkly utilitarian. Their vehicles and armour would be chunky and practical, and rely as much as possible on mechanical (ie: less prone to failure or interference) functionality over tech. They would be better than their Imperial equivalents because they were better designed, built and maintained, rather than because they were more advanced.
Vehicles, at least in the first wave, would use consistent technology (either multiple wheels or a variable multiple track unit arrangement) rather than the current mix of grav bike and wheeled transport.
And if I were going to use vaguely Celtic embellishment, it would be worked into every model to look like a part of the design, rather than just slipped in here and there as an afterthought.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: The fact anyone can say, “that’s what dwarfs are” just shows how creatively bankrupt the vast majority of fantasy is.
You, uh, might actually have a point about this. When I think about the variety of Dwarves in fiction their variety feels less than elves which are themselves not that varied.
I think that might be because dwarves have become so refined and detailed over the years in the general public's heads that they have to be a certain way.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/07/18 22:49:38
Togusa wrote: I've seen a lot of people saying "this stuff doesn't look dwarf" and I keep wondering, where it was even implied that it is "dwarf" as we think of dwarves. I don't think GW is trying to make them into "dwarf" but trying to make a new and unique faction within an established universe. And in my opinion, they're succeeding quite well.
See, that's the problem. They aren't doing a 'brand new and unique faction with an established universe", they are doing "the return of the squats".
This is the whole reason they are making that new faction, to bring back something a lot of people have been asking for decades now, and they clearly started their reveal by directly linking them to the squats.
Nobody would have problem with them not looking like what they expected them to look if GW didn't decided for some reason to reuse a known name to sell something that has nothing to do with it, as I've said many times, if they really wanted to make something totally new and unrelated to "space dwarfs" then why didn't they do just that? Well the reason is rather obvious, is for the same reason hollywood has been butchering adaptation for decades, for the brand recognition.
They could have called them the Demiurge, make them not look like short bearded men and nobody would have had a problem with them (outside of some pretty lazy or bad designs here and there).
You cannot blame people for being disapointed that the Votann aren't going in the direction they expected (space dwarf) when GW iself is the one that decided to pretend these guys were the new space dwarfs.
The situation remind me of that video
"Haha, what did you thought it was going to be? Are you sad and upset that it's not what the box said? HAHA get fethed!"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/18 23:05:45
H.B.M.C. wrote: and certainly don't scream "The Squats have returned!" to me.
They're Squats, but not as we know them.
Hasn't that been the entire point? They aren't really supposed to be screaming the Squats have returned. These are the Leagues of Votann. It's not for everyone, but for those that prefer the old style, that's why the Necromunda Squats exist. Aptly named, go figure!
I was hoping that, if they ever brought squats back, they’d think of something different to do with them. They didn’t. They look like the same cliched crap in the form of better, more modern minis. They’re too “dwarf archetype” for me. I was bored of the same old fantasy tropes 30 years ago.
You can't be serious mate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Waaagh_Gonads wrote: Why have a hover trike and then a wheeled buggy transport?
I personally would have liked a wheeled trike over a hover buggy.
Consistency in a force helps tie it together.
I'm not seeing wheeled Tau or Eldar or Dark Eldar bike/buggies/transports.
The Primaris Mario Cart for the new space marines is a notable exception to fixing a style in a force.
Amen to that, sadly GW just lost that very important and primordial piece of design knowledge when they decided to vomit antigrave primaris tank.
lord_blackfang wrote: Being able to split one squad amongst two transports is a weird army gimmick NGL
And how much do you want to bet that it's going to go horribly wrong rulewise which will probably feth this thing forever?
It looks like yet another case of "the artists were allowed to play unsupervised again and now we are trying to explain how that gak that's clearly not fit for purpose is actually totally fit for purpose.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/07/18 22:55:33
H.B.M.C. wrote: and certainly don't scream "The Squats have returned!" to me.
They're Squats, but not as we know them.
Hasn't that been the entire point? They aren't really supposed to be screaming the Squats have returned. These are the Leagues of Votann. It's not for everyone, but for those that prefer the old style, that's why the Necromunda Squats exist. Aptly named, go figure!
When they've been going on about how these are the Squats bought back and they've returned after so long, being disappointed that they don't meet the expectations for Squats aesthetically seems perfectly fair, but then again a lot of the Squat units in the first place were based around Imperial stuff outside of their units for Epic, it's more the Space Dwarf side of the aesthetic that is missing. They could have updated the originals without loosing what made them what they are - look at Grendlesen. Grendl even seems like he might be a League Mercenary considering he shares a few design elements.
The Necromunda Squats aren't the "Original" Squats at all despite sharing the name, it's the Leagues that are meant to be. The Necromunda version are just called that because they're in Imperial territory and that's what the Imperium calls them.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/07/18 22:59:27
H.B.M.C. wrote: and certainly don't scream "The Squats have returned!" to me.
They're Squats, but not as we know them.
Hasn't that been the entire point? They aren't really supposed to be screaming the Squats have returned. These are the Leagues of Votann. It's not for everyone, but for those that prefer the old style, that's why the Necromunda Squats exist. Aptly named, go figure!
When they've been going on about how these are the Squats bought back and they've returned after so long, being disappointed that they don't meet the expectations for Squats aesthetically seems perfectly fair, but then again a lot of the Squat units in the first place were based around Imperial stuff outside of their units for Epic, it's more the Space Dwarf side of the aesthetic that is missing. They could have updated the originals without loosing what made them what they are - look at Grendlesen. Grendl even seems like he might be a League Mercenary considering he shares a few design elements.
The Necromunda Squats aren't the "Original" Squats at all despite sharing the name, it's the Leagues that are meant to be. The Necromunda version are just called that because they're in Imperial territory and that's what the Imperium calls them.
I don't necessarily agree there. I mean right at the start, in the very first teaser, they said "don't call them Squats". It was sort of meant to be more than a light joke about their size. They clearly made the choice to make them different. Thing is the people who were actually around for the Squats in 40k is slim in comparison to those who collects in the hobby these days. 1993 was a depressingly long time ago now. I think there's a lot of people who cling to it despite not having really been around at the time (no judgement). To me, the Squat aesthetic of old has become too much of a meme. Not to mention they were clearly deeply tainted at GW. It made far more sense to reinvent their aesthetic and they've certainly gone for that.
I liked the models back in the old times and sure, the new models could do with a bit more dwarvishness. But that's a real easy fix than any hobbyist should be able to manage, should they choose to. I know I certainly will, just I have done with the Necromunda Squats. I still like the new Votanni models. It's a bit of a refreshing design choice for 40k, I like the 60s Space Exploration aesthetic going on.
EDIT: you'll have to forgive me if that doesn't all make sense, it's far too bloody hot in the UK
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/07/18 23:19:40
H.B.M.C. wrote: and certainly don't scream "The Squats have returned!" to me.
They're Squats, but not as we know them.
Hasn't that been the entire point? They aren't really supposed to be screaming the Squats have returned. These are the Leagues of Votann. It's not for everyone, but for those that prefer the old style, that's why the Necromunda Squats exist. Aptly named, go figure!
When they've been going on about how these are the Squats bought back and they've returned after so long, being disappointed that they don't meet the expectations for Squats aesthetically seems perfectly fair, but then again a lot of the Squat units in the first place were based around Imperial stuff outside of their units for Epic, it's more the Space Dwarf side of the aesthetic that is missing. They could have updated the originals without loosing what made them what they are - look at Grendlesen. Grendl even seems like he might be a League Mercenary considering he shares a few design elements.
The Necromunda Squats aren't the "Original" Squats at all despite sharing the name, it's the Leagues that are meant to be. The Necromunda version are just called that because they're in Imperial territory and that's what the Imperium calls them.
I don't necessarily agree there. I mean right at the start, in the very first teaser, they said "don't call them Squats". It was sort of meant to be more than a light joke about their size. They clearly made the choice to make them different. Thing is the people who were actually around for the Squats in 40k is slim in comparison to those who collects in the hobby these days. 1993 was a depressingly long time ago now. I think there's a lot of people who cling to it despite not having really been around at the time (no judgement). To me, the Squat aesthetic of old has become too much of a meme. Not to mention they were clearly deeply tainted at GW. It made far more sense to reinvent their aesthetic and they've certainly gone for that.
I liked the models back in the old times and sure, the new models could do with a bit more dwarvishness. But that's a real easy fix than any hobbbiest should be able to manage, should they choose it.
They said "Don't call them Squats" because it's an in-universe derogatory term used by the Imperium that they don't like to be called, that wasn't something aimed at us.
I don't think people are asking for the Zany biker gang style of them to be back, it's the more Dwarf-inspired elements as was seen on their infantry and war machines - the grounded, down-to earth Dwarfs with rugged looking designs wearing Field Caps and gambesons with some of the Dwarf aesthetic in the way of ancestor sigils and such . The originals weren't removed for anything to do with them being Space Dwarfs, they were removed for what was in essence the opposite; they'd taken the proud, stoic fantasy Dwarf archetype and turned it into a joke of silly bikers named Squats rather than doing something more suitable. .
I don't think it's about nostalgia for the old Squats look but rather just wanted Space Dwarfs to look like Space Dwarfs. And it's not like the Leagues are extremely far removed from that anyway as Grendl has shared elements with both the classics and the Leagues - they're just, for some reason, taking too much of that Space Dwarf side away to the point it feels like it's just an afterthought when it does show up.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/07/19 00:25:22
McDougall Designs wrote: the new vehicle looks like a matchbox toy from when i was a kid in the 90s.
I know! fething ace isn’t it.
The only thing about squats coming back are the necromunda models (the only ones called squats). They are ugly. All things league so far are looking amazing.
insaniak wrote: This is the first release for the NotVerySquats that is a solid 'Oh, yes!' from me.
certainly don't scream "The Squats have returned!" to me. Nothing in this Votann line is moving the needle for me (unlike the Newcromunda Squats).
I do somewhat agree with this part, but at the same time I don't see how they could have a moon rover ATV that does feel obviously more Squats/Space Dwarfs. Any examples of the sort of thing you think would have been better for them?
Sharper angles/heavier plates, the twisted knotwork that they used on the hearthguard, no bubbles. No fixed forward guns (because that relies on the agility of the vehicle and reflexes of the driver, which is inherently not-Dwarfy). A more reinforced, armored turret.
Actual cargo area if it has to be a transport.
Doing moonrover ATV at all seems like an elementary mistake, rather than a scaled down land train. Or a half-track. I could get behind a dwarfish half-track, going for sturdiness and stability with a lower height profile.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/19 02:30:20
Kind of funny that there are multiple examples on this page of people saying "they would be more Dwarfy if they just used obsolete technology".
Gambesons and half-tracks? What happened to that other Dwarf archetype, being master craftsmen who push the limits of design and produce items of unparalleled superiority?
H.B.M.C. wrote: and certainly don't scream "The Squats have returned!" to me.
They're Squats, but not as we know them.
Hasn't that been the entire point? They aren't really supposed to be screaming the Squats have returned. These are the Leagues of Votann. It's not for everyone, but for those that prefer the old style, that's why the Necromunda Squats exist. Aptly named, go figure!
Except gw made big point that this isn't new faction but is return of the squats...
Gw is the one that said "squats are back!". No wonder people wanted then squats and not new faction...
John D Law wrote: Gotta admit most of the Votann stuff does look very cool but too me it doesn’t scream”dwarf”. I’m likely out of step on this modern version but it’s too generic human sci fi to be dwarf. Still cool looking in a basic sense though.
I've seen a lot of people saying "this stuff doesn't look dwarf" and I keep wondering, where it was even implied that it is "dwarf" as we think of dwarves. I don't think GW is trying to make them into "dwarf" but trying to make a new and unique faction within an established universe. And in my opinion, they're succeeding quite well.
They're meant to be the settings version of the Dwarf archetype.That was the whole point to the Squats in the first place, being Space Dwarfs (which they were even called) and the Leagues are definitely Dwarf-themed lore-wise.
That’s the thing though, what exactly is the “dwarf archetype”? If you mean the utterly cliched, done to death, Tolkien ripoff that populates almost every setting containing dwarfs, then no thanks.
I was hoping that, if they ever brought squats back, they’d think of something different to do with them. They didn’t. They look like the same cliched crap in the form of better, more modern minis. They’re too “dwarf archetype” for me. I was bored of the same old fantasy tropes 30 years ago.
That is literally what fantasy dwarfs are.
Most "dwarfs" are some variation of Tolkien Dwarf, which in turn were inspired by the dwarfs of Germanic myth; short humanoids who live in mountains and mine.
If it's not a short humanoid who mines, it cannot by definition be a dwarf.
You might as well complain that the horse archetype is that of a large, quadrupedal mammal of the Equus genus that is used for transport and labor, and that they don't go baa and can't be sheared.
Except horses are real and dwarfs are not so can be reinvented however you like. The fact that they are some variation of Tolkien dwarf just shows how unimaginative fantasy creators have got with them. Tolkien reinvented dwarfs. His dwarfs deviated in many ways from their mythic roots but very few fantasy writers have done what he did. Instead they just copy Tolkien.
There is no reference in early Norse myth to dwarfs being short. A small number of writers have actually made dwarfs into giants. There is no reason why these Votann guys couldn’t have been 10 feet tall and still been ‘dwarfs’.
In mythological sources the word we translate as dwarfs is used interchangeably with elves or, more specifically, dark elves. The Votann could have been the result of Dark Age of Technology genecrafters splicing human and Aeldari dna. That again would be more true to their mythological roots than just short guys who like mining.
In some early mythological sources dwarfs are associated with the undead (that’s why they live underground perhaps). Maybe the League’s dark secret is that they animate their dead to fight again battle?
I think tall but bulky abhumans created using xenos dna, who use animated corpses as cannon fodder would be a legitimate take on mythological dwarfs and far more interesting than Gimli in space. But that’s just off the top of my head. I’m not a professional creative type who’s paid to spend months developing an idea.
And if GW had wanted to go for that fine. But instead they marketed votan as RETURN OF THE SPACE DWARVES.
They rode on the image of classic dwarves. If they had marketed them as anything other than return of the classic squats it would be fine but they instead chose deliberately to use squats instead.
Blatant exploiting affraid of losing money if they don't try to piggyride on space dwarf idea.
Currently they look like they fit better in a more generic scifi setting than they do in the gothic grimdark/derp of 40k.
The very few "dwarf" details (particularly the leaders' animal drakkar heads) look even worse because they feel so out of place.
So, I kinda like some of the designs, I kinda not like some others (no real strong reaction either way), but mostly they leave me cold and wondering if they were meant for another game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/19 06:14:05
Albertorius wrote: Currently they look like they fit better in a more generic scifi setting than they do in the gothic grimdark/derp of 40k.
The very few "dwarf" details (particularly the leaders' animal drakkar heads) look even worse because they feel so out of place.
So, I kinda like some of the designs, I kinda not like some others (no real strong reaction either way), but mostly they leave me cold and wondering if they were meant for another game.
I think that’s the root of my objects too. Adding a new faction to 40K is a big deal and this feels so underwhelming. Everything feels very generic. It’s like the entire design language was just the first thing they thought of.
My other concern about current GW is the way their move towards increasing diversity seems to have stalled. Yes, it is a step forward to paint some of their minis in different skin tones. It’s a step forward to model some heads with a diversity of features. I don’t want to take away from that. However, here’s a “new” faction and it’s just the same old northwestern European archetypes that already dominate the model ranges.
~4100
~1660
