Squats return! - Page 11

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.

**MajorWesJanson**

MonkeyBallistic wrote:
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.

I think GW is better served on the diversity front by expanding the current ranges like the cadian upgrades or various marine chapters than by making a new race specifically ethnic, which could lead to unfortunate implications or idiot racists latching on to make noise.

**Dysartes**

Nice to see the designers have been enjoying playing with LEGO kits recently.

**tneva82**

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.

Yea it's like they wanted to try something new, weren't sure where they wanted to take and then affraid it will fail decided post-fact that let's ride on squat fame to try to get money that way.

**Mentlegen324**

MonkeyBallistic wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Mentlegen324 wrote:
Togusa wrote:
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.

They aren't meant to be a take on mythological Dwarfs at all. They're a take on the Fantasy Dwarf archetype.

Just like Eldar aren't a take on mythological Elfs but the fantasy elf archetype. The 40k settting is fantasy-in-space.

**CthuluIsSpy**

MonkeyBallistic wrote:

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.

Aren't those just Plague Marines? Swap out xenos with chaos taint and the Emperor's genetic space magic and that pretty much matches them.

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 early dwarf myths, yes. In later myths, such as the in the Legendary Sagas, they became short. Those are the myths that spread, not the early ones.
And yeah, there is a reason why they couldn't be ten feet tall and be dwarfs - look up the very definition of "dwarf". A dwarf star isn't called that because it's huge.
If it's 10 feet tall it's a giant, not a dwarf.

**Andykp**

Boosykes wrote:
More trash hopefully they sell bad and are done away with in 2 or 3 edition s.

No, it’s awesome and I alone will probably buy enough to keep the line in production for ever.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Andykp wrote:
Boosykes wrote:
More trash hopefully they sell bad and are done away with in 2 or 3 edition s.

No, it’s awesome and I alone will probably buy enough to keep the line in production for ever.

If you have the money for that, you could probably just cut out the middle man and buy GW.

**Andykp**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Andykp wrote:
Boosykes wrote:
More trash hopefully they sell bad and are done away with in 2 or 3 edition s.

No, it’s awesome and I alone will probably buy enough to keep the line in production for ever.

If you have the money for that, you could probably just cut out the middle man and buy GW.

I can but dream, and if you thought the company was run badly under Kirby, wait and see what I’d do to it! I ain’t no business man!

**Dysartes**

Boosykes wrote:
More trash hopefully they sell bad and are done away with in 2 or 3 edition s.

If the Tau are still around, with their "trash" models and themes, I'm reasonably confident the Leagues will remain for quite a while.

**MonkeyBallistic**

Yes, I know they’re meant to be a take on the fantasy dwarf archetype. That’s exactly why I don’t like them.

If they’d simply announced, ‘hey we’re making a new faction for 40K and the twist is we’re going to make it the laziest, most derivative stereotype we can think of’, it wouldn’t have been far off the mark.

Anyway, I’ve had my say. I’m mostly just disappointed because of all the existing factions that need further development, but they’re giving us this crap instead. Crap which is now going to be shoehorned into every novel to drive model sales.

Again, just my opinion.

**CthuluIsSpy**

You don't like that the army that they introduced to cash in on the squats nostalgia is catering to squats nostalgia?

I mean, I sort of get what you mean, cash ins suck, but expecting them to not make an army of space dwarfs when they did it to respond to about 20+ years of "Squats when GW, give me back squats!" is a bit of an odd take.

**Mentlegen324**

MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Yes, I know they’re meant to be a take on the fantasy dwarf archetype. That’s exactly why I don’t like them.

If they’d simply announced, ‘hey we’re making a new faction for 40K and the twist is we’re going to make it the laziest, most derivative stereotype we can think of’, it wouldn’t have been far off the mark.

Anyway, I’ve had my say. I’m mostly just disappointed because of all the existing factions that need further development, but they’re giving us this crap instead. Crap which is now going to be shoehorned into every novel to drive model sales.

Again, just my opinion.

Once again, you're calling them "lazy" "derivative" "stereotypes" for being what they're meant to be as if for some absurd reason you think something can magically still be considered Dwarf without meeting any of the critera for what defines the Dwarfs.You don't like the Fantasy Dwarfs idea in general, That's fine, but it's absurd to complain about the new army who's whole purpose is to be the Dwarf archetype being the Dwarf archetype and whining that they get rid of everything that defines the idea in the first place.

It really gives the impression that you absolutely do no understand what archetypes, The Dwarfs, or even 40k in general is meant to be. The whole origins of the 40k setting was to be those typical beloved Fantasy tropes in Space, that was the point of it. I guess you don't like the Eldar or Orks either, because they're also Fantasy Archetypes in Space. Would you have seen the Eldar originally and also gone "Wow, they're typical tall pointy eared fantasy elves with sleek, elegant designs, high use of magic, and a big sense of self superiority, such generic lazy stereotypes!"?

**Wha-Mu-077**

Personally I just think it's very impressive we have people in this very threat, arguing that they're the laziest, most derivative stereotype of dwarves ever, and then, simultenously, other people arguing that they're not remotely looking or feeling like dwarves.

**MonkeyBallistic**

Mentlegen324 wrote:
MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Yes, I know they’re meant to be a take on the fantasy dwarf archetype. That’s exactly why I don’t like them.

If they’d simply announced, ‘hey we’re making a new faction for 40K and the twist is we’re going to make it the laziest, most derivative stereotype we can think of’, it wouldn’t have been far off the mark.

Anyway, I’ve had my say. I’m mostly just disappointed because of all the existing factions that need further development, but they’re giving us this crap instead. Crap which is now going to be shoehorned into every novel to drive model sales.

Again, just my opinion.

Once again, you're calling them "lazy" "derivative" "stereotypes" for being what they're meant to be as if for some absurd reason you think something can magically still be considered Dwarf without meeting any of the critera for what defines the Dwarfs.You don't like the Fantasy Dwarfs idea in general, That's fine, but it's absurd to complain about the new army who's whole purpose is to be the Dwarf archetype, being the Dwarf archetype.

It really gives the impression that you absolutely do no understand what archetypes, The Dwarfs, or even 40k in general is meant to be. The whole origins of the 40k setting was to be those typical beloved Fantasy tropes in Space, that was the point of it. I guess you don't like the Eldar or Orks either, because they're also Fantasy Archetypes in Space.

Mate, I know exactly what 40K was meant to be. I bought Rogue Trader the day it was released. When you take off the nostalgia glasses, RT was an incoherent mess of a game with some good ideas. The worst of those ideas being fantasy in space.

Over the years 40K has evolved so far beyond that premise that squats feel like a backward step. The Imperium of Man is a fantastic creation. You’re totally correct though, Eldar and Orks are my least favourite factions and the more purely sci fi Tyranids, GSC and Necrons are my favourite xenos.

I thought it should be okay for my tastes to be different from other peoples, but to be honest I’m getting tired of replies that heavily imply that if I don’t like something, it must be because I’m too stupid to understand it.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Except nids and Necrons are also based on archetypes, just more sci-fi (sort of. Necrons are very much undead in space with sci-fi trappings, just as Eldar are elves with sci-fi trapping) archetypes as opposed to fantasy.
Nids and Tau are probably the least "fantasy" factions in the game. But if every faction were like them, 40k wouldn't be 40k; the schizophrenic mix of fantasy and sci-fi is what makes 40k the way it is.

**Voss**

MonkeyBallistic wrote:

Mate, I know exactly what 40K was meant to be. I bought Rogue Trader the day it was released. When you take off the nostalgia glasses, RT was an incoherent mess of a game with some good ideas. The worst of those ideas being fantasy in space.

Over the years 40K has evolved so far beyond that premise that squats feel like a backward step. The Imperium of Man is a fantastic creation. You’re totally correct though, Eldar and Orks are my least favourite factions and the more purely sci fi Tyranids, GSC and Necrons are my favourite xenos.

I thought it should be okay for my tastes to be different from other peoples, but to be honest I’m getting tired of replies that heavily imply that if I don’t like something, it must be because I’m too stupid to understand it.

I don't think its a matter of stupidity, just that other people are tired of seeing you insist that the fundamental basis of the game (fantasy in space) is wrong (even though you admit to understanding that) and the faction shouldn't be what it is. Its like showing up at an ice cream shop and complaining to the other customers that the shop sells ice cream.

**Platuan4th**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
NAVARRO wrote:
Nice. Its an exploration moon buggy with a temper. So many uses for this kit!

Patrol box will have one of these, a box of 10 infantry and something else for sure.
And they've built into the fluff that you need two of them.

Armigers have it written in the fluff that you need 3 of them alongside a big Knight but that's never stopped anyone before.

**MonkeyBallistic**

Voss wrote:
MonkeyBallistic wrote:

Mate, I know exactly what 40K was meant to be. I bought Rogue Trader the day it was released. When you take off the nostalgia glasses, RT was an incoherent mess of a game with some good ideas. The worst of those ideas being fantasy in space.

Over the years 40K has evolved so far beyond that premise that squats feel like a backward step. The Imperium of Man is a fantastic creation. You’re totally correct though, Eldar and Orks are my least favourite factions and the more purely sci fi Tyranids, GSC and Necrons are my favourite xenos.

I thought it should be okay for my tastes to be different from other peoples, but to be honest I’m getting tired of replies that heavily imply that if I don’t like something, it must be because I’m too stupid to understand it.

I don't think its a matter of stupidity, just that other people are tired of seeing you insist that the fundamental basis of the game (fantasy in space) is wrong (even though you admit to understanding that) and the faction shouldn't be what it is. Its like showing up at an ice cream shop and complaining to the other customers that the shop sells ice cream.

I’ve never once said anything was wrong. I’ve just expressed a preference for the parts of 40K that are not overtly fantasy inspired and been jumped all over for having an opinion other people don’t agree with.

**Kanluwen**

It reads like the Transvector for AdMech. Low capacity but multiples in the same detachment can transport a bigger unit.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Kanluwen wrote:
It reads like the Transvector for AdMech. Low capacity but multiples in the same detachment can transport a bigger unit.

How does that work though in regards to unit coherency? Do they have to disembark at the same time? Do they work like Combat Squads? Seems like an odd rule.

**JWBS**

MonkeyBallistic wrote:

Mate, I know exactly what 40K was meant to be. I bought Rogue Trader the day it was released. When you take off the nostalgia glasses, RT was an incoherent mess of a game with some good ideas. The worst of those ideas being fantasy in space.

Over the years 40K has evolved so far beyond that premise that squats feel like a backward step. The Imperium of Man is a fantastic creation. You’re totally correct though, Eldar and Orks are my least favourite factions and the more purely sci fi Tyranids, GSC and Necrons are my favourite xenos.

I thought it should be okay for my tastes to be different from other peoples, but to be honest I’m getting tired of replies that heavily imply that if I don’t like something, it must be because I’m too stupid to understand it.

My dad bought me RT when I was nine. Like yourself I gradually began to think fantasy in space was a bit lame, mainly the Orks if I'm honest, but I'm beginning to like them more nowadays and what I think of them is irrelevant anyway, there's plenty that like them and there's certainly room for them in the setting. I never had any hate for Eldar though. Tau, I was never fond of, despite being further removed from fantasy than most. Tyranids, whilst derivative, should be a staple in any (or at least many) dark sci-fi setting. Could do with being a bit less derivitive but whatever.

As for people calling you stupid for having your opinions yeah that's unfair, though tbh I don't think you're expressing them at all diplomatically and that is what's leading to a more confrontational form of disagreement. Personally I like them a lot!

**NAVARRO**

Would be wicked if they released a box set around a mining world with Voltan vs Genestealer cults and that the mining necromunda minis could be included. Or vice versa the new vehicle being converted to Necromunda.

Its weird to read some comments along the idea that "this is how it should be" as if your interpretation of how 40k should look or be is somewhat absolute. Well your personal tastes are valid debate as is your personal view on things but at the end of the day is GW that defines how it should be.

Variety is important in a universe plagued with space marines and skulls spam. Tau are a good example of what I personally think is a positive design route to reach 40k variety.... and Im glad to see that Leagues designers think alongside these lines with a fresh take on these models.

Does it appeal to everyone? Does anything really do?

Either way regardless of your preference or Bias this range opens doors and expands into an even wider audience.

**JWBS**

Yeah Squats are gonna be nice alongside my GSC. I don't like the Squats as much, but that's because GSC are my absolute favourites (and Primarines ofc).

**tneva82**

MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Yes, I know they’re meant to be a take on the fantasy dwarf archetype. That’s exactly why I don’t like them.

Except gw suggested it's dwarf archetype but it isn't. They are trying to cash on it without actually doing archetype. These aren't dwarf archetype.

It's like gw had released metallic robots after marketing aliens archetype.

**Agamemnon2**

I have to say, GW managing to please almost nobody, and offending so many conflicting groups of people in mutually-exclusive ways, is beautiful to behold.

**Wha-Mu-077**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
I have to say, GW managing to please almost nobody, and offending so many conflicting groups of people in mutually-exclusive ways, is beautiful to behold.

It feels kind of surreal, don't it? Somehow, they made models that appeal neither to people that like stereotypical dwarves and ones who don't. I have genuinely no idea what's so special about them that they work like this

**(HN)**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
I have to say, GW managing to please almost nobody, and offending so many conflicting groups of people in mutually-exclusive ways, is beautiful to behold.

Welp, that's what happen when you bait people with promise and don't follow trough on it.

They hyped that thing as the "return of the squat" because they knew that was something a lot of people wanted, and then proceeded to NOT do squats at all.
It's as out of touch as when netflix or hollywood makes an "adaptation" of an ip, but then just use the name to sell something that has literally nothing to do with it.

**Tyel**

Why aren't they squats?

I think this is the divide. I think this is a fairly close adaption of the 30 year old IP. The problem is that 30 year old IP was seemingly a dull road to nowhere which resulted in Squats famously being squatted.

Which I think is why you have people divided over wanting something more dwarf or less. Its unclear exactly which way to go - but they wanted something other than "Codex: Short fat ab-Van Saar".

But hey - some people seem to love it, so it may just be me.

**derpherp**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
I have to say, GW managing to please almost nobody, and offending so many conflicting groups of people in mutually-exclusive ways, is beautiful to behold.

"SQUATS ARE DOOMED!" "Nobody lieks them!" "THEY APPEALS TO NUU ONE!"

I don't know fellas. That's not what I'm seeing. That Votann ATV was nearly as popular as the new Angron on reddit. Angron the named character with multiple books written about him only had a a bit more popularity than a lunar squat car. The squats appear to be genuinely liked.

The complainers, whether that's too dwarfy, or not dwarfy enough, seem to be in the extreme minority.

**Agamemnon2**

To be fair, Angron isn't even the most liked World Eaters affiliated character in the Horus Heresy, casting him as some kind of beloved fan favorite is a bit of a misfire.