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.
So it's yet more people who don't like the Dwarf aesthetic making out as if there aren't features that are common to the way their look is usually depicted and have to misconstrue things in order to try and justify them, those are the people telling those that are disappointed that they're "Dwarf enough" with their look. The ones who don't want Space Dwarfs to look like Space Dwarfs because apparently all that it involves aesthetically is being a (maybe) short (maybe) bearded humanoid and there aren't any more features to establishing the look properly than that. Really telling.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2022/07/21 11:20:58
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.
A heavier tank-like vehicle (that'll probably look like the StarCraft siege tank) and a few HQ choices I presume.
"Tabletop games are the only setting when a body is made more horrifying for NOT being chopped into smaller pieces."
- Jiado
Andykp wrote: 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?
Sir, this isn't reddit, nobody is impressed by you dumpsterdiving in other people posts history to make that kind of snooty remark.
Andykp wrote: 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.
Also, did you REALLY just made a post to announce to the world you were blacklisting people and pass your silly little moral judgement that nobody asked for and how you just don't want to hear others opinions... ON A FORUM MEANT FOR PEOPLE TO SHARE OPINION?
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
No no, YOU don't get it, you see the point of forums is to be echo-chambers, echo-chambers of what this guy thinks. People that disagree are just frankly annoying and will be blacklisted.
crumby_cataphract wrote: Have to say, 100% agree with you. I mean, their faces look Dwarfish, to me at least.
I'm going to put that here, for no particular reasons :
His Master's Voice wrote: 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.
I know right? I also find pretty funny how the people that suddenly decided to white knight for the LoV as if their lives depended on it, are very careful to avoid the elephant in the room: How the NecroSquats are clearly the real successor to the Squats, have a look that just fits better in the setting and are exactly what people that asked for the return of the squat hopped to get for 40k.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/07/21 13:37:09
I know right? I also find pretty funny how the people that suddenly decided to white knight for the LoV as if their lives depended on it, are very careful to avoid the elephant in the room: How the NecroSquats are clearly the real successor to the Squats, have a look that just fits better in the setting and are exactly what people that asked for the return of the squat hopped to get for 40k.
It’s not one or the other. Some folk prefer one, some like both, some like neither.
Please stop making silly claims.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Since a picture from the Warhammer Community article comparing the Necromunda walker to the 40k heavy infantry is being posted again I'll take the opportunity to say it would be strange of GW not to compare walker to walker if the first wave had such a model. Conventionally I'd say what we're missing so far is a heavy tank, characters and a walker. But because of that article I'm not expecting to see a walker at all, unless it's Knight sized and would therefore make for a poor comparison article. I don't know if that's something the new Squats will have, though.
I guess they could also get a flyer or an artillery unit.
Or a terrain piece. Genestealers lost their drill, and let's face it, if anyone were to steal a big piece of mining equipment...
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone?
Since a picture from the Warhammer Community article comparing the Necromunda walker to the 40k heavy infantry is being posted again I'll take the opportunity to say it would be strange of GW not to compare walker to walker if the first wave had such a model. Conventionally I'd say what we're missing so far is a heavy tank, characters and a walker. But because of that article I'm not expecting to see a walker at all, unless it's Knight sized and would therefore make for a poor comparison article. I don't know if that's something the new Squats will have, though.
I guess they could also get a flyer or an artillery unit.
Or a terrain piece. Genestealers lost their drill, and let's face it, if anyone were to steal a big piece of mining equipment...
Can't see them getting another Exo-suit unit, really. I could see some sort of large robot though as they've said there's the COG units.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s not one or the other. Some folk prefer one, some like both, some like neither.
Please stop making silly claims.
I'm not talking about people preference here, I'm talking about design coherence.
The Necrosquats are undeniably the proper evolution of the squat design, while the Votann as just completely different despite being thought as "the return of the squats".
One is what people asked and expected for decade, the other is totally out of nowhere and have nothing to do with what people asked or expected.
Now if you like it or not is another question entirely.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s not one or the other. Some folk prefer one, some like both, some like neither.
Please stop making silly claims.
I'm not talking about people preference here, I'm talking about design coherence.
The Necrosquats are undeniably the proper evolution of the squat design, while the Votann as just completely different despite being thought as "the return of the squats".
One is what people asked and expected for decade, the other is totally out of nowhere and have nothing to do with what people asked or expected.
Now if you like it or not is another question entirely.
So you basically are saying “this is my opinion on this subjective topic, ITS FACT SO THERE, disagree and you are wrong.”
Good contribution.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/21 16:06:09
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s not one or the other. Some folk prefer one, some like both, some like neither.
Please stop making silly claims.
I'm not talking about people preference here, I'm talking about design coherence.
The Necrosquats are undeniably the proper evolution of the squat design, while the Votann as just completely different despite being thought as "the return of the squats".
One is what people asked and expected for decade, the other is totally out of nowhere and have nothing to do with what people asked or expected.
Now if you like it or not is another question entirely.
So you basically are saying “this is my opinion on this subjective topic, ITS FACT SO THERE, disagree and you are wrong.”
Good contribution.
Except it isn't "subjective" that a sleek high-tech clean futuristic aesthetic is not something even slightly in line with being an evolution of the style of "The Squats" and their overall aesthetic tone, whether you like it or not. That's his whole point. You're allowed to like them, but that doesn't mean they're a faithful updated representation of the thing they're claimed to be.
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2022/07/21 17:17:05
Yep, the charm of the squats is gone with these new sculpts. However I might buy the Moon Buggy as an interesting terrain piece for my future Mars board.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s not one or the other. Some folk prefer one, some like both, some like neither.
Please stop making silly claims.
I'm not talking about people preference here, I'm talking about design coherence.
The Necrosquats are undeniably the proper evolution of the squat design, while the Votann as just completely different despite being thought as "the return of the squats".
One is what people asked and expected for decade, the other is totally out of nowhere and have nothing to do with what people asked or expected.
Now if you like it or not is another question entirely.
I do agree that the Necromunda squats look a lot more like the very old models. However, I don't know if very many people were hoping for those old models to come back. I mean, I'm sure that people who were in the hobby thirty years or more ago might have some fond recollection of them. But a lot of the people involved in the hobby today weren't even born when the old Squats were ... squatted. I've been in the hobby longer than any of the people around me, and even I came in well after the Squats were only a meme. And if I understand correctly, the original Squats were squatted in the first place because the design team themselves didn't find their archetype to be very interesting or compelling. If that's correct, then I'm not sure why anyone would expect that archetype to be resurrected for this release.
I think it's pretty clear that the Leagues are supposed to be seen as a re-imagining of the "Dwarves in space" archetype, not of the old Squats directly. Honestly, I think that's why they re-named them, to help clearly differentiate them from the Squats of old. So I can understand being disappointed that the old Squats are still in effect gone, outside of Neceromunda, but at the same time, I don't think that GW have been very dishonest about this. They've consistently indicated that they're going to be a spiritual successor, but also that they're going to be something different.
Sure as a piece of terrain the buggy would be fine and a little funny almost like an Easter egg form the 21st century. But the buggy looks nothing like what squats should have and calling it a transport when realistically it could transport 3 including the driver is like calling the ford pinto a military transport. It's frankly rediculas.
Except it isn't "subjective" that a sleek high-tech clean futuristic aesthetic is not something even slightly in line with being an evolution of the style of "The Squats" and their overall aesthetic tone, whether you like it or not. That's his whole point. You're allowed to like them, but that doesn't mean they're a faithful updated representation of the thing they're claimed to be.
And "short Vikings with sharp-edged runic armour" wouldn't be either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s not one or the other. Some folk prefer one, some like both, some like neither.
Please stop making silly claims.
I'm not talking about people preference here, I'm talking about design coherence.
The Necrosquats are undeniably the proper evolution of the squat design, while the Votann as just completely different despite being thought as "the return of the squats".
One is what people asked and expected for decade, the other is totally out of nowhere and have nothing to do with what people asked or expected.
Now if you like it or not is another question entirely.
I do agree that the Necromunda squats look a lot more like the very old models. However, I don't know if very many people were hoping for those old models to come back. I mean, I'm sure that people who were in the hobby thirty years or more ago might have some fond recollection of them. But a lot of the people involved in the hobby today weren't even born when the old Squats were ... squatted. I've been in the hobby longer than any of the people around me, and even I came in well after the Squats were only a meme. And if I understand correctly, the original Squats were squatted in the first place because the design team themselves didn't find their archetype to be very interesting or compelling. If that's correct, then I'm not sure why anyone would expect that archetype to be resurrected for this release.
The original squats were removed because they'd turned the proud fantasy dwarf archetype into more of a joke with them being short silly bikers named Squats, they didn't do the archetype justice with that side of things. They felt a lot better about the Epic direction of big master crafted warmachines and said they should have done the 40k side more like that stuff.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/07/21 18:01:43
"They should have been more dwarfy like the original squats." ... But the original squats aren't that dwarfy.
The new Votann grunt unit is way more "dwarfy" than these old grunts.
Look, the new votann have runes on their weapons and armour, use an axe, and wear belts with tools used for crafting which is telling of their dwarven craftsmanship.
One of the votann grunts even has a back pack full of tools along with a literal Pick Axe on their back.
The original squat grunts don't have any of this. The new squat grunts are just flat out more "dwarfy" that the original squat grunts.
Lastly, it is a perfectly valid opinion to hold that these are an evolution of the original squats. You can say that they aren't straight up copies of the old squats, but to say that they are objectively not evolutions and that no ones opinion is valid on this is just you denying other people their valid opinions.
derpherp wrote: "They should have been more dwarfy like the original squats." ... But the original squats aren't that dwarfy.
I don't think this is right. The view is that the old squats were not that dwarfy - and that's why they got squatted.
To include the missing bit of the Jervis Johnson Quote:
Anyway, the Squats made it into 2nd edition, and since we were doing army books for each of the races, we started to try and figure out what to do with them. Unfortunately we just couldn't figure out a way to update them and get them to work that we felt was good enough. 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. This 'muse' didn't strike any of us, and so, rather than bring out a second-rate product simply re-hashing the old background, we kept doing other army books instead, with stuff we did feel inspired by.
I think this is important, because I don't think they were really bound by those 1988/1989 bikes and trikes. They would after all re-release just about every other model in 40k over the following decade or so. The issue is they couldn't find the muse.
Which is the lament here. The 40k Squats seem to lack a strong theme. I don't know whether they'd best get that theme by being "more dwarf" or something else entirely - but I think they need something. The Hearthguard are especially bad for this. I just can't see it as anything other than a Gravis Marine with some slightly lumpy shoulderpads & a dwarf head. If you could take say the Exo-driller model, make it half the size (+/-) I feel you'd have a far more characterful unit.
derpherp wrote: "They should have been more dwarfy like the original squats." ... But the original squats aren't that dwarfy.
The new Votann grunt unit is way more "dwarfy" than these old grunts.
Look, the new votann have runes on their weapons and armour, use an axe, and wear belts with tools used for crafting which is telling of their dwarven craftsmanship.
One of the votann grunts even has a back pack full of tools along with a literal Pick Axe on their back.
The original squat grunts don't have any of this. The new squat grunts are just flat out more "dwarfy" that the original squat grunts.
Lastly, it is a perfectly valid opinion to hold that these are an evolution of the original squats. You can say that they aren't straight up copies of the old squats, but to say that they are objectively not evolutions and that no ones opinion is valid on this is just you denying other people their valid opinions.
I’ll reply for mentlegen324.
“No your wrong!! Belt buckles, archetypes, dwarves in space! Rarrrrgh!”
But in actual fact you make valid points. I love old squats, played most my early games of 40k against them. They were ace, these new ones aren’t them. But that’s great because it would have been rubbish to re hash all that. They also aren’t fantasy dwarves in space. They are new and different and exciting (my opinion not fact).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Lore wise hey are a clear evolution of squats, but look wise they are a fresh take on it entirely and that’s great.
If that necromunda character is what we would have got if they had “evolved” old squats into new 40k then thank god they didn’t. He doesn’t even really look like an old squat, he just has a quilted jacket on. Helmet-wrong, beard- wrong, weapons-wrong, visor-missing altogether. Maybe his gloves but even they seem off.
Now, you don’t have to like the new look squats, but they are the new dwarfs in space. Moonbuggy and all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/21 19:29:09
derpherp wrote: "They should have been more dwarfy like the original squats." ... But the original squats aren't that dwarfy.
I don't think this is right. The view is that the old squats were not that dwarfy - and that's why they got squatted.
To include the missing bit of the Jervis Johnson Quote:
Anyway, the Squats made it into 2nd edition, and since we were doing army books for each of the races, we started to try and figure out what to do with them. Unfortunately we just couldn't figure out a way to update them and get them to work that we felt was good enough. 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. This 'muse' didn't strike any of us, and so, rather than bring out a second-rate product simply re-hashing the old background, we kept doing other army books instead, with stuff we did feel inspired by.
I think this is important, because I don't think they were really bound by those 1988/1989 bikes and trikes. They would after all re-release just about every other model in 40k over the following decade or so. The issue is they couldn't find the muse.
Which is the lament here. The 40k Squats seem to lack a strong theme. I don't know whether they'd best get that theme by being "more dwarf" or something else entirely - but I think they need something. The Hearthguard are especially bad for this. I just can't see it as anything other than a Gravis Marine with some slightly lumpy shoulderpads & a dwarf head. If you could take say the Exo-driller model, make it half the size (+/-) I feel you'd have a far more characterful unit.
But its only my view. If you like them, go nuts.
Yeah, I don't think i've seen anyone say the original squats were outright Dwarfy looking with the original models. It was there in a few places, but mostly present in their Epic depiction. People are saying they should have expanded upon the original theme or done something more substantial and than just a typical clean futuristic sci-fi that doesn't even have much of those Dwarf aesthetics ontop.
Even then, it's a bit unfair to use the original designs as an indicator for a lack of "Dwarfyness" when nearly everything back then was lacking in that sort of detail. No Aquilas on basic Guardsmen or Space Marines, for example.
“No your wrong!! Belt buckles, archetypes, dwarves in space! Rarrrrgh!”
But in actual fact you make valid points. I love old squats, played most my early games of 40k against them. They were ace, these new ones aren’t them. But that’s great because it would have been rubbish to re hash all that. They also aren’t fantasy dwarves in space. They are new and different and exciting (my opinion not fact).
I see you're still misconstruing what's been said despite it being explained multiple times, have missed the point entirely, and are just repeating "I like it!" (which is irrelevant to the points given) rather than actually address anything raised in a reasonable way, as usual
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2022/07/21 19:43:49
derpherp wrote: "They should have been more dwarfy like the original squats." ... But the original squats aren't that dwarfy.
I don't think this is right. The view is that the old squats were not that dwarfy - and that's why they got squatted.
To include the missing bit of the Jervis Johnson Quote:
Anyway, the Squats made it into 2nd edition, and since we were doing army books for each of the races, we started to try and figure out what to do with them. Unfortunately we just couldn't figure out a way to update them and get them to work that we felt was good enough. 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. This 'muse' didn't strike any of us, and so, rather than bring out a second-rate product simply re-hashing the old background, we kept doing other army books instead, with stuff we did feel inspired by.
I think this is important, because I don't think they were really bound by those 1988/1989 bikes and trikes. They would after all re-release just about every other model in 40k over the following decade or so. The issue is they couldn't find the muse.
Which is the lament here. The 40k Squats seem to lack a strong theme. I don't know whether they'd best get that theme by being "more dwarf" or something else entirely - but I think they need something. The Hearthguard are especially bad for this. I just can't see it as anything other than a Gravis Marine with some slightly lumpy shoulderpads & a dwarf head. If you could take say the Exo-driller model, make it half the size (+/-) I feel you'd have a far more characterful unit.
But its only my view. If you like them, go nuts.
I think when the models and the fluff are all release their will be a good theme for them, the models don’t stand alone, and the fluff bits so far are as good as the models for me. It always strikes me, the subjectivity of these things, when someone like yourself says something like that about the exo-driller. I think that model is horrifically poor, but you’d prefer to have more of that style in the look of the models. You’re not wrong, your opinion is valid, we are just poles apart on it. Definitely horses for courses. Luckily 30k is big enough to appeal to most tastes somewhere.
“No your wrong!! Belt buckles, archetypes, dwarves in space! Rarrrrgh!”
But in actual fact you make valid points. I love old squats, played most my early games of 40k against them. They were ace, these new ones aren’t them. But that’s great because it would have been rubbish to re hash all that. They also aren’t fantasy dwarves in space. They are new and different and exciting (my opinion not fact).
I see you're still misconstruing what's been said despite it being explained multiple times, have missed the point entirely, and are just repeating "I like it!" (which is irrelevant to the points given) rather than actually address anything raised in a reasonable way, as usual
Shouldn’t have looked! Note to self, don’t look.
Anyway, I was agreeing with derpherp, who spelled out exactly why your claim of objective factual correctness was not that all. All you are doing is saying you don’t like it, but trying to justify that as no one should like it. FOR 90 PAGES!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/21 19:39:11
derpherp wrote: "They should have been more dwarfy like the original squats." ... But the original squats aren't that dwarfy.
I don't think this is right. The view is that the old squats were not that dwarfy - and that's why they got squatted.
To include the missing bit of the Jervis Johnson Quote:
Anyway, the Squats made it into 2nd edition, and since we were doing army books for each of the races, we started to try and figure out what to do with them. Unfortunately we just couldn't figure out a way to update them and get them to work that we felt was good enough. 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. This 'muse' didn't strike any of us, and so, rather than bring out a second-rate product simply re-hashing the old background, we kept doing other army books instead, with stuff we did feel inspired by.
I think this is important, because I don't think they were really bound by those 1988/1989 bikes and trikes. They would after all re-release just about every other model in 40k over the following decade or so. The issue is they couldn't find the muse.
Which is the lament here. The 40k Squats seem to lack a strong theme. I don't know whether they'd best get that theme by being "more dwarf" or something else entirely - but I think they need something. The Hearthguard are especially bad for this. I just can't see it as anything other than a Gravis Marine with some slightly lumpy shoulderpads & a dwarf head. If you could take say the Exo-driller model, make it half the size (+/-) I feel you'd have a far more characterful unit.
But its only my view. If you like them, go nuts.
I think when the models and the fluff are all release their will be a good theme for them, the models don’t stand alone, and the fluff bits so far are as good as the models for me. It always strikes me, the subjectivity of these things, when someone like yourself says something like that about the exo-driller. I think that model is horrifically poor, but you’d prefer to have more of that style in the look of the models. You’re not wrong, your opinion is valid, we are just poles apart on it. Definitely horses for courses. Luckily 30k is big enough to appeal to most tastes somewhere.
“No your wrong!! Belt buckles, archetypes, dwarves in space! Rarrrrgh!”
But in actual fact you make valid points. I love old squats, played most my early games of 40k against them. They were ace, these new ones aren’t them. But that’s great because it would have been rubbish to re hash all that. They also aren’t fantasy dwarves in space. They are new and different and exciting (my opinion not fact).
I see you're still misconstruing what's been said despite it being explained multiple times, have missed the point entirely, and are just repeating "I like it!" (which is irrelevant to the points given) rather than actually address anything raised in a reasonable way, as usual
Shouldn’t have looked! Note to self, don’t look.
Anyway, I was agreeing with derpherp, who spelled out exactly why your claim of objective factual correctness was not that all. All you are doing is saying you don’t like it, but trying to justify that as no one should like it. FOR 90 PAGES!
Myself and several others have explained our issues with them multiple times. All you then do is ignore any points raised and just go "I Like them!" with no further thought given, missing the point entirely. As evident by you now claiming that people (me) are saying "no one should like them" when at no point has anyone even suggested you're not allowed to like them and whether you "like them" or not is utterly besides the points raised.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/21 19:49:31
derpherp wrote: "They should have been more dwarfy like the original squats." ... But the original squats aren't that dwarfy.
I don't think this is right. The view is that the old squats were not that dwarfy - and that's why they got squatted.
To include the missing bit of the Jervis Johnson Quote:
Anyway, the Squats made it into 2nd edition, and since we were doing army books for each of the races, we started to try and figure out what to do with them. Unfortunately we just couldn't figure out a way to update them and get them to work that we felt was good enough. 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. This 'muse' didn't strike any of us, and so, rather than bring out a second-rate product simply re-hashing the old background, we kept doing other army books instead, with stuff we did feel inspired by.
I think this is important, because I don't think they were really bound by those 1988/1989 bikes and trikes. They would after all re-release just about every other model in 40k over the following decade or so. The issue is they couldn't find the muse.
Which is the lament here. The 40k Squats seem to lack a strong theme. I don't know whether they'd best get that theme by being "more dwarf" or something else entirely - but I think they need something. The Hearthguard are especially bad for this. I just can't see it as anything other than a Gravis Marine with some slightly lumpy shoulderpads & a dwarf head. If you could take say the Exo-driller model, make it half the size (+/-) I feel you'd have a far more characterful unit.
But its only my view. If you like them, go nuts.
I think when the models and the fluff are all release their will be a good theme for them, the models don’t stand alone, and the fluff bits so far are as good as the models for me. It always strikes me, the subjectivity of these things, when someone like yourself says something like that about the exo-driller. I think that model is horrifically poor, but you’d prefer to have more of that style in the look of the models. You’re not wrong, your opinion is valid, we are just poles apart on it. Definitely horses for courses. Luckily 30k is big enough to appeal to most tastes somewhere.
“No your wrong!! Belt buckles, archetypes, dwarves in space! Rarrrrgh!”
But in actual fact you make valid points. I love old squats, played most my early games of 40k against them. They were ace, these new ones aren’t them. But that’s great because it would have been rubbish to re hash all that. They also aren’t fantasy dwarves in space. They are new and different and exciting (my opinion not fact).
I see you're still misconstruing what's been said despite it being explained multiple times, have missed the point entirely, and are just repeating "I like it!" (which is irrelevant to the points given) rather than actually address anything raised in a reasonable way, as usual
Shouldn’t have looked! Note to self, don’t look.
Anyway, I was agreeing with derpherp, who spelled out exactly why your claim of objective factual correctness was not that all. All you are doing is saying you don’t like it, but trying to justify that as no one should like it. FOR 90 PAGES!
Myself and several others have explained our issues with them multiple times. All you then do is ignore any points raised and just go "I Like them!" with no further thought given.
derpherp wrote: "They should have been more dwarfy like the original squats." ... But the original squats aren't that dwarfy.
I don't think this is right. The view is that the old squats were not that dwarfy - and that's why they got squatted.
To include the missing bit of the Jervis Johnson Quote:
Anyway, the Squats made it into 2nd edition, and since we were doing army books for each of the races, we started to try and figure out what to do with them. Unfortunately we just couldn't figure out a way to update them and get them to work that we felt was good enough. 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. This 'muse' didn't strike any of us, and so, rather than bring out a second-rate product simply re-hashing the old background, we kept doing other army books instead, with stuff we did feel inspired by.
I think this is important, because I don't think they were really bound by those 1988/1989 bikes and trikes. They would after all re-release just about every other model in 40k over the following decade or so. The issue is they couldn't find the muse.
Which is the lament here. The 40k Squats seem to lack a strong theme. I don't know whether they'd best get that theme by being "more dwarf" or something else entirely - but I think they need something. The Hearthguard are especially bad for this. I just can't see it as anything other than a Gravis Marine with some slightly lumpy shoulderpads & a dwarf head. If you could take say the Exo-driller model, make it half the size (+/-) I feel you'd have a far more characterful unit.
But its only my view. If you like them, go nuts.
I think when the models and the fluff are all release their will be a good theme for them, the models don’t stand alone, and the fluff bits so far are as good as the models for me. It always strikes me, the subjectivity of these things, when someone like yourself says something like that about the exo-driller. I think that model is horrifically poor, but you’d prefer to have more of that style in the look of the models. You’re not wrong, your opinion is valid, we are just poles apart on it. Definitely horses for courses. Luckily 30k is big enough to appeal to most tastes somewhere.
“No your wrong!! Belt buckles, archetypes, dwarves in space! Rarrrrgh!”
But in actual fact you make valid points. I love old squats, played most my early games of 40k against them. They were ace, these new ones aren’t them. But that’s great because it would have been rubbish to re hash all that. They also aren’t fantasy dwarves in space. They are new and different and exciting (my opinion not fact).
I see you're still misconstruing what's been said despite it being explained multiple times, have missed the point entirely, and are just repeating "I like it!" (which is irrelevant to the points given) rather than actually address anything raised in a reasonable way, as usual
Shouldn’t have looked! Note to self, don’t look.
Anyway, I was agreeing with derpherp, who spelled out exactly why your claim of objective factual correctness was not that all. All you are doing is saying you don’t like it, but trying to justify that as no one should like it. FOR 90 PAGES!
Myself and several others have explained our issues with them multiple times. All you then do is ignore any points raised and just go "I Like them!" with no further thought given.
I like them.
Great, so do i.
Maybe if you put more effort in beyond just jumping straight to that though you'd be able to at least slightly comprehend the problem and see why people are disapointed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/21 19:53:48
I like the NASApunk aesthetic, but I’m sad it’s being “wasted” on the squats. A new, human yet non-Imperial faction with this design would have been awesome. A revisit of the Squats, with more of the old flavor to mash that nostalgia button would have been awesome. These new squats are just not hitting either theme alone hard enough to sell me on them, and both themes together seem to be in some state of conflict.
Perhaps GW just waited too long, and companies like Mantic, Wargames Atlantic, Hasslefree, Bob solely and others have had too much time to solidify the space-dwarf design space in gaming culture. When I think Space Dwarfs, I think Forgefathers and Einherjar.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I like the NASApunk aesthetic, but I’m sad it’s being “wasted” on the squats. A new, human yet non-Imperial faction with this design would have been awesome. A revisit of the Squats, with more of the old flavor to mash that nostalgia button would have been awesome. These new squats are just not hitting either theme alone hard enough to sell me on them, and both themes together seem to be in some state of conflict.
Perhaps GW just waited too long, and companies like Mantic, Wargames Atlantic, Hasslefree, Bob solely and others have had too much time to solidify the space-dwarf design space in gaming culture. When I think Space Dwarfs, I think Forgefathers and Einherjar.
The issue GW would have had with going the Einherjar route is they are just Viking is space, short ones, but Viking is space. And GW have already used that niche and used it hard. Squats would have ended up as short space wolves. Personally the forgefathers are ugly as sin, cannot stand those models.
On the idea of a new non-imperial/chaos human faction, I don’t thinks there a space for that in the setting, people are already struggling with the idea that LoV aren’t in the imperium or being wiped out by them, despite the squat leagues always being separate. If they’d released a human faction that sat outside but not against the imperium there would have been nerd rage everywhere. I am. Not against it, it’s a big galaxy, if I can forgive tau, I can forgive that. Personally working on a non imperium human army as project for our narrative games, but very small and very localised (more rogue trader era inspired)
derpherp wrote: "They should have been more dwarfy like the original squats." ... But the original squats aren't that dwarfy.
I don't think this is right. The view is that the old squats were not that dwarfy - and that's why they got squatted.
To include the missing bit of the Jervis Johnson Quote:
Anyway, the Squats made it into 2nd edition, and since we were doing army books for each of the races, we started to try and figure out what to do with them. Unfortunately we just couldn't figure out a way to update them and get them to work that we felt was good enough. 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. This 'muse' didn't strike any of us, and so, rather than bring out a second-rate product simply re-hashing the old background, we kept doing other army books instead, with stuff we did feel inspired by.
I think this is important, because I don't think they were really bound by those 1988/1989 bikes and trikes. They would after all re-release just about every other model in 40k over the following decade or so. The issue is they couldn't find the muse.
Which is the lament here. The 40k Squats seem to lack a strong theme. I don't know whether they'd best get that theme by being "more dwarf" or something else entirely - but I think they need something. The Hearthguard are especially bad for this. I just can't see it as anything other than a Gravis Marine with some slightly lumpy shoulderpads & a dwarf head. If you could take say the Exo-driller model, make it half the size (+/-) I feel you'd have a far more characterful unit.
But its only my view. If you like them, go nuts.
I think when the models and the fluff are all release their will be a good theme for them, the models don’t stand alone, and the fluff bits so far are as good as the models for me. It always strikes me, the subjectivity of these things, when someone like yourself says something like that about the exo-driller. I think that model is horrifically poor, but you’d prefer to have more of that style in the look of the models. You’re not wrong, your opinion is valid, we are just poles apart on it. Definitely horses for courses. Luckily 30k is big enough to appeal to most tastes somewhere.
“No your wrong!! Belt buckles, archetypes, dwarves in space! Rarrrrgh!”
But in actual fact you make valid points. I love old squats, played most my early games of 40k against them. They were ace, these new ones aren’t them. But that’s great because it would have been rubbish to re hash all that. They also aren’t fantasy dwarves in space. They are new and different and exciting (my opinion not fact).
I see you're still misconstruing what's been said despite it being explained multiple times, have missed the point entirely, and are just repeating "I like it!" (which is irrelevant to the points given) rather than actually address anything raised in a reasonable way, as usual
Shouldn’t have looked! Note to self, don’t look.
Anyway, I was agreeing with derpherp, who spelled out exactly why your claim of objective factual correctness was not that all. All you are doing is saying you don’t like it, but trying to justify that as no one should like it. FOR 90 PAGES!
Myself and several others have explained our issues with them multiple times. All you then do is ignore any points raised and just go "I Like them!" with no further thought given.
I like them.
Great, so do i.
Maybe if you put more effort in beyond just jumping straight to that though you'd be able to at least slightly comprehend the problem and see why people are disapointed.
“The problem” is just a matter of opinion though, not fact. You can’t please all the people all the time, I’m disappointed by a number of releases, I just don’t clog up 90+ pages going on about it. Because it’s just my opinion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/21 20:18:35
I think the trouble people are having is the huge jump in time and looks. We are talking about a 25 year gap from the time the Squats last had a rules set. Look at any other army from 1997 and compare it to its modern self. Someone that has never seen 3rd-8th editions looking between their collection and the new Primaris marines, and particularly their vehicles, would be having the same rage-storm.
The only reason we don't see the changes in other armies is because those changes came gradually over the last quarter century. A bit of the "frog in a pot of slowly boiling water" trope.
Should GW have brought back the Squats at all? Maybe, maybe not. They did though, and they needed to do certain things to them to make them fit in to today's niches.
Personally I'd have preferred if they had kept a bit of the Quilted Vest armor look, but the look they did choose isn't a dealbreaker for me, especially when that look is still there for the Necromunda Squats. I too would have preferred a bit more Fantasy beard, but head swaps are the simplest thing in the world to do. I can also dig the name change. "Squats" being more of a knick-name for the race is okay with me. I seriously don't know of anyone that uses the terms "Astra Militarum" or "Adeptus Astares" in general conversation. It's always Imperial Guard and Space Marines.
As for the vehicles, everyone complains about new vehicles that bring a new look to the game. I remember when the Defiler was new, people whined then. Heck, we still use the term "Dinobots" to refer to some of the Chaos units. There was also hate for Primaris vehicles, and even the Marine AA tanks. LoV vehicles just look more out of place because they don't meet our early 90's design expectations.
Let's all just remember two things: 1. We haven't seen the entire range yet, and it may look better when we do. 2. Just because New Squats aren't the same old thing you used to love yesterday doesn't mean it can't be something new you will love tomorrow.
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.
Well there’s the Hekaton Land Fortress to come. The Beserks as well, which will be interesting. Also maybe some heavy weapon infantry? Maybe an update on the thunderers with some of the weapons they showcased in the art?
I’d love a walker as well, hard to tell how big the initial release will be. I’m thinking they might show a character next if they don’t show the whole army set that’s expected.
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.
Well there’s the Hekaton Land Fortress to come. The Beserks as well, which will be interesting. Also maybe some heavy weapon infantry? Maybe an update on the thunderers with some of the weapons they showcased in the art?
I’d love a walker as well, hard to tell how big the initial release will be. I’m thinking they might show a character next if they don’t show the whole army set that’s expected.
Does everyone think the Land fortress will be mobile, I hope so.
)
