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.
That'll teach me to ever click on a post by someone I've ignored--keep reminding myself there's a reason I did that.
Nah, all you have to say is "Damn, I now realize how foolish and untenable my position was." or "[insert here more malformed postmodernist and uneducated opinion]".
But hey, I guess it's easier to just ignore people when you have no way to defend your position.
Geifer wrote: I understand why GW reveals things the way they do, but I don't think they're doing themselves any favors revealing the faction slowly and bit by bit instead of presenting the complete vision for it. It just creates a different, potentially false first impression compared to a comprehensive view of the faction, and I'm not sure if that isn't going to stick around and taint the faction to some degree for quite some time.
That's very true, just look at the reception of that vehicle compared to the infantry.
Had they just presented the whole faction at once and clearly established what their general look was they probably wouldn't have people struggling between what they expected, what GW pretended to deliver and what they are actually delivering.
Why are you so aggressive all the time? This is supposed to be a fun hobby. Just had a look through your previous posts and you have been on the attack from the get go? What’s wrong?
Tyel wrote: I guess my issue is just that Tau were clearly different to what came before. The 2001(?) Fire Warrior Squad was frankly an excellent kit - and something unique to what was available in 40k at the time. The whinging about the race because they didn't fit miserabalist 40k grognard views was different.
I look at these Squats and just think they are some weird abhuman hybrid of marines/admech/Tau/nu-guard, in the style of Necromunda Van Saar. And I think that's probably partly intentional - but equally its incredibly boring *for me*.
I'm not sure Exo-armour as essentially "Egg-Terminators" would work in 2022 (but come on, break out Dr Robotnik and make it happen somehow). But its got to beat some hybrid of Gravis marines & crisis suits, which just leave me cold.
Squats could be that. The biggest thing getting in the way might be that they aren't new but an at least in part reimagined old thing. Unlike with Tau, GW seems to want to strike a balance between making something new and fit for the times, as has been amply argued for even on this page, and trying to hit those nostalgia buttons for extra moneys. I really hope they can reconcile those things and add something of lasting value to the setting. Unlike Tau that were introduced at a different time under different circumstances as an entirely new thing, the reintroduction of Squats comes with a bit of baggage not just from the community but by GW's own desire to use the marketing potential of the return of an old faction.
I understand why GW reveals things the way they do, but I don't think they're doing themselves any favors revealing the faction slowly and bit by bit instead of presenting the complete vision for it. It just creates a different, potentially false first impression compared to a comprehensive view of the faction, and I'm not sure if that isn't going to stick around and taint the faction to some degree for quite some time.
I think this is it, really. Unlike if they'd been a brand new faction entirely, being "The Squats" re-introduced comes with certain expectations, and so far I think they've done a very poor job of meeting those aesthetically while the lore has been great. Like the new sleek high-tech space colonist vibe or not, I don't think you really say that it's a direction that does justice to the Squats, because it's at complete odds to what they were. Not the silly biker side of them that got them removed, but the gritty harsh uncomplicated space Dwarf feel that even their 2019 Necromunda miniatures (The first new look at them in over 20 years) retained. Expectations were some form of faithful but more serious update (as in, no silly biker stuff), what we're getting is the Demiurg concept art aesthetic with the Squat lore.
It's a cool enough look and idea on its own, the issue just comes when they're meant to be the Squats. Hopefully more later on gives a better impression and feels closer to that original feel.
And you sir/Madame are going on ignore, not because you are offensive but I can’t bear to hear about how you are you happy with styling of the new models every time something new is shown to us. It’s 90 pages now, we get it, the models aren’t working for you, we get it.
Incase you didn't realize I was responding to someone else and agreeing with them about the expectations set by the reveal method. Are you really going to be so disingenuous as to say that they do look like a faithful update to the Squats? You've made no attempt to even acknowledge any points raised and discuss them reasonably and for that reason you've already been on ignore for quite a while.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/07/21 00:05:44
It’s 90 pages now, we get it, the models aren’t working for you, we get it.
ikr. I came across a person filling votann threads on three different forums, literally hundreds and hundreds of comments of complaining.
I do feel like there is a point past where it goes beyond being reasonable and just becomes an obsession. It's not like Games Workshop can redo these models. The expensive steel casts have already been made and the first manufacturing run has been no doubt already been done for the range. Being unreasonably vocal about it isn't going to change anything.
I have seen quite a bit of backlash to that kind of behaviour, so I don't think it's just us who thinks it has gotten a bit much and are just hearing the exact same stuff repeated ad nauseum.
Andykp wrote: It’s 90 pages now, we get it, the models aren’t working for you, we get it.
Except you clearly don't get it, 'cause you keep telling him that his views on the issue are invalid/wrong. If you got it, you wouldn't say that. You would at least be able to acknowledge that many of us find these new Squats to be:
1. Bland knock-offs of other sci-fi things, and more generic than even Mantic gak. 2. Not-Dwarf like in the slightest (outside of, y'know, being short) as they have next to no iconography or design touchstones that would indicate them as having some resonance with Dwarven archetypes and imagery.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/07/21 01:14:54
2. Not-Dwarf like in the slightest (outside of, y'know, being short) as they have next to no iconography or design touchstones that would indicate them as having some resonance with Dwarven archetypes and imagery.
Whereas these so called Space Dwarves. You can barely see the models for all them Dwarven archetypes and imagery. They're riddled with it.
GW really are dreadful at that aren't they?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/21 03:07:48
2. Not-Dwarf like in the slightest (outside of, y'know, being short)
And having facial hair, and being durable, and engineering exemplary weapons, and worshipping ancestors, and a tradition of mining, and isolationist fortressing, and...
But no, you're right, the property of being Dwarf-like depends on ... *checks notes* ... iconography. A-and... design touchstones that would indicate them as having some resonance with Dwarven archetypes and imagery. Are you sure you're not talking about Dark Eldar? Because that sentence was torture to read.
2. Not-Dwarf like in the slightest (outside of, y'know, being short)
And having facial hair, and being durable, and engineering exemplary weapons, and worshipping ancestors, and a tradition of mining, and isolationist fortressing, and...
But no, you're right, the property of being Dwarf-like depends on ... *checks notes* ... iconography. A-and... design touchstones that would indicate them as having some resonance with Dwarven archetypes and imagery. Are you sure you're not talking about Dark Eldar? Because that sentence was torture to read.
Have to say, 100% agree with you. I mean, their faces look Dwarfish, to me at least. And their weapons and armor look like better-crafted versions of Imperial tech (which seems very Dwarfish to me). I suppose that they don't have the same leather-based rough-and-tumble aesthetic of the old models, but frankly - and again, speaking only for myself - I find this design direction much, much more interesting! I'm not telling anyone that they're wrong for not liking the look of this release so far. There's plenty of models in 40k that I dislike. But to say that the LoV don't look like Dwarfs is just baffling to me, honestly.
I'm not going to re-re-re-re-re-re-explain it. Mentlegen324 (and others) have done far more comprehensive and well-worded treatises on the subject in this very thread.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm not going to re-re-re-re-re-re-explain it. Mentlegen324 (and others) have done far more comprehensive and well-worded treatises on the subject in this very thread.
It's just I'm fascinated to know where all the iconography or design touchstones that would indicate them as having some resonance with Dwarven archetypes in those original Squat infantry models. Now it can't just be because they're short because that's apparently not good enough right?
Is it the field caps? The cut off leather jackets? The short beards? Or no beards at all? The sunglasses maybe? The gamebesons?
Thinking back, I do remember seeing all those things in the old WFB Dwarves. Because when I think Dwarves I certainly picture all those things.
crumby_cataphract wrote: But to say that the LoV don't look like Dwarfs is just baffling to me, honestly.
I think it's pretty telling that of the factors Altruizine listed, only facial hair is part of their visual design rather than just lore. If the only things that visually communicate 'space dwarf' are short and (sometimes) beard, well, that's not a lot- especially on otherwise generic sci-fi designs.
The reveals so far are just weird to me because I love the various Necromunda Squats. Those, to me, do a much better job of evoking the dwarfs-in-space aesthetic as well as calling back to the old Squats, as if they were made by a totally separate team with no cross-communication. I'd love to collect an army based on that design language, and maybe we just haven't seen their modern counterparts yet, but the Votann we have seen make me wonder if GW had design concepts for a DAoT-remnant army and decided to minorly adjust them and call them Squats as nostalgia bait.
catbarf wrote: If the only things that visually communicate 'space dwarf' are short and (sometimes) beard, well, that's not a lot- especially on otherwise generic sci-fi designs.
Except that as discussed earlier, the comparisons based on base size seem to put the NuSquats somewhere around the same height as a Cadian. So not actually particularly short, which, to me, would be a more important 'Dwarf' visual than even the beard.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/21 04:46:16
PenitentJake wrote: It is literally impossible for 40k to rip off Starcraft.
Well, you say that, but...
(NB: I didn't make that picture, BTW - had it used against me years ago when I made the same argument you're making Jake! )
It's been a couple of years since I had this debate But if I recall correctly there were Warhammer Tyranid models with scythe arms well before the Hydralisk, so that image is incorrect if it is implying Warhammer got Scythe arms from Hydralisks.
What, you mean the old Carnifex? It's a stretch to say that because of that model the revised Tyranid units that came about in 3rd Ed can't possibly look like the Starcraft Zerg.
Yeah, no, the argument still holds. It's hard to look at the Tyranid Warrior redesign (and, as catbarg pointed out, the Raveners that first showed up in 3rd) and then see what came before (including Starcraft) and not go "Wait a minute...".
None of this excuses Blizzard mind you, they rip off everyone, but don't pretend that there aren't a lot of similarities in the pic above.
I'm a gentle old soul and prefer 'inspired by' to 'ripped off' but why not take inspiration from the 'inspired by' to improve your product.
As for the Votann, I'm likely not in the market for them as an army but I am considering the transport for one of my Kharadron Overlords with Squat arms hybrid squads. Or even for my old school plastic Squat force.
PS would it be cheating to cast a 'Not An April Fool's' vote in the poll above?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/21 05:52:35
H.B.M.C. wrote: What, you mean the old Carnifex? It's a stretch to say that because of that model the revised Tyranid units that came about in 3rd Ed can't possibly look like the Starcraft Zerg.
Yeah, no, the argument still holds. It's hard to look at the Tyranid Warrior redesign (and, as catbarg pointed out, the Raveners that first showed up in 3rd) and then see what came before (including Starcraft) and not go "Wait a minute...".
None of this excuses Blizzard mind you, they rip off everyone, but don't pretend that there aren't a lot of similarities in the pic above.
Not the Carnifex which inspired the Ultralisk.
There are elements that inspired each other, but that comparison image is really disingenuous with the first image it used implying zerg invented arm scythes when the 1995 Hormogaunt exists, which I believe came out nearly 4 years before starcraft came out in 1998.
There's also the lictor.
And the termagants with their mini scythes like the zerglings
There are even mini hydralisks
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/21 06:20:18
H.B.M.C. wrote: What, you mean the old Carnifex? It's a stretch to say that because of that model the revised Tyranid units that came about in 3rd Ed can't possibly look like the Starcraft Zerg.
Yeah, no, the argument still holds. It's hard to look at the Tyranid Warrior redesign (and, as catbarg pointed out, the Raveners that first showed up in 3rd) and then see what came before (including Starcraft) and not go "Wait a minute...".
None of this excuses Blizzard mind you, they rip off everyone, but don't pretend that there aren't a lot of similarities in the pic above.
Here you go, loremaster:
Lictors also had arms with the same configuration of joints and claws.
GW stole the head crest, but Blizzard was already stealing that from the Alien Queen.
Calling those piddly little Termagant claws as being anything even remotely similar to the Scything Talons that came later is a mighty stretch. Ditto for the Rippers.
And the OG Hormagaunts were made to look like the Xenomorphs from Aliens, much like the 3rd Ed Hive Tyrant was 100% a Alien Queen "homage".
And the OG Lictor looks nothing like what came later.
Please don't pretend that GW didn't take a healthy amount of "inspiration" from the Zerg, much the same way that Blizzard took a healthy amount of "inspiration" from 40k.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/21 06:21:36
While we're posting old art, might as well take a peek at how Tolkien rendered his Dwarves.
Iconography to boggle the mind. Dare I say resonance with archetypes was indicated via touchstones, or would that be going too far?
Here's some folk Dwarves.
I'm sure -- if they were wearing clothes -- there would be icons aplenty.
It seems what some people want, without being able/willing to state it clearly, are WHFB Dwarves and D&D Dwarves, and maybe some ripped off trickle down versions of those?
Honestly, the harder people lean into the VIKINGS OR BUST angle the more it reads like sublimated racist, 4chan-adjacent trash from the kind of idiots who watch HEMA youtube and dabble in Myfarog nights. Quit it with the rune-counting.
catbarf wrote: The reveals so far are just weird to me because I love the various Necromunda Squats.
It's funny how well the following official GW image shows the difference between extrapolating an existing visual theme, versus importing a completely new one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/21 07:43:04
Andykp wrote: It’s 90 pages now, we get it, the models aren’t working for you, we get it.
Except you clearly don't get it, 'cause you keep telling him that his views on the issue are invalid/wrong. If you got it, you wouldn't say that. You would at least be able to acknowledge that many of us find these new Squats to be:
1. Bland knock-offs of other sci-fi things, and more generic than even Mantic gak.
2. Not-Dwarf like in the slightest (outside of, y'know, being short) as they have next to no iconography or design touchstones that would indicate them as having some resonance with Dwarven archetypes and imagery.
I just disagree with him, it’s entirely subjective, I like the new guys, the direction GW have gone is great and for me they are plenty dwarfish enough. I get that for him they aren’t, I got that 90 pages ago. I also get that when they add iconography that he wanted it’s done wrongly and that he like the necromunda chap, that looks crap if you ask me. Don’t need telling again, and everyone who come here for some rumours doesn’t need telling either.
I am more than happy to contend to points a and b above, again I was 90 pages ago. Are you happy to the pints that I and many others think the new models look great and are really exciting?
NAVARRO wrote: So we got a big part of the army revealed already not sure what to expect more at this point in time. Maybe some characters and exosuit?
We have
Infantry
Heavy infantry
scout biker
Vehicle
I have a gut feeling we will probably get a 5 man scout snipers.
Article said another vehicle was coming, so probably a Heavy Support tank.
The data card leak mentioned a berserker unit.
Ancestor Lord psyker HQ in addition to the Thane or whatever the generic beatstick will be.
Hekaton Mobile Fortress I think (Cthonian Berserkers being the other unit).
Interestingly, a Hekatonkheires where the name comes from is a mythical set of greek giants, with 50 heads and a hundred arms.
So perhaps the Land Train returns looking something like a giant mechanical centipede?
Copying the AdMech idea of having various ways of locomotion on all their vehicles.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/21 09:24:10
PenitentJake wrote: It is literally impossible for 40k to rip off Starcraft.
Well, you say that, but...
(NB: I didn't make that picture, BTW - had it used against me years ago when I made the same argument you're making Jake! )
It's been a couple of years since I had this debate But if I recall correctly there were Warhammer Tyranid models with scythe arms well before the Hydralisk, so that image is incorrect if it is implying Warhammer got Scythe arms from Hydralisks.
Not just scythe arms, heads too. They didn't have crests like that before. The ravener looks a lot like a hydralisk too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/21 09:48:12
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
)
~4100
~1660