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.

Voss wrote:

Forgetting the infantry for now, there really wasn't anything for Squats until now, so saying this doesn't fit their vehicular theme from 2nd edition is a bit odd.

I mean... there absolutely was. And someone could certainly argue that the hoverbike does continue some of the themes from the engineering guild bikes. I personally don't think it does it very well, but you can trace themes and concepts (including the piles of gear and small gun, which says the priority is something other than shooting platform)

But Squats had a developed vehicle aesthetic in Epic, and the fact that we know there is a 'Hekaton Land Train' or whatever is obviously a call back to the Epic concepts. Whether it does it justice is up in the air, but they're very obviously pressing the nostalgia button there.

The buggy, on the other hand, doesn't share much of anything with the bikes, trikes or the Epic models. Its just a pretty NASA/Mass Effect/Halo looking lunar buggy, with a big cockpit for the pilot.

It’s a “land fortress” not a train.

The problem with using the epic stuff as inspiration for the new 40k stuff is two fold, firstly, the scale, it was epic so all the vehicles were big. The gyro-copter not so much but that might appear we don’t know. The land train and the colossus and leviathan don’t translate into 40k scale at all. And the Goliath cannon thing, makes no sense in 40k.yiu couldn’t make a vehicle inspired by them on the scale of a small transport.

Secondly is the era that those squat vehicles come from. Epic models then we’re not great, just take a look at abomination that was the thunder hawk. And the squat stuff wasn’t much better, it was basically different sized boxes with guns on. Not much to really work off. The next edition of epic added detail to a level that inspired 40k design for decades. That edition not so much.

So the only design cues that could have been carried over from those epic vehicles are that they were boxy, but that wasn’t unique to squats that was just the style and technical limitations at the time and they had Celtic knot work on them. They have no other design features at all. It just wouldn’t have translated.

Now before anyone jumps down my throat here, it doesn’t mean they had to go down the nasa-punk route they did. But it just means that they could just translate old epic squats vehicles (the only squat vehicles we had) in to 40k. Here wasn’t enough about them to take incorporation from. If squats had undergone the transformation into the next edition of epic they might have a solid base of models to work from, but they didn’t. They died off and weren’t seen again until now.

I have added a shot of the next editions thunderhawk to show what I mean about what happened between editions and how it still influence 40k design now.

Added the correct picture for next editon thunderhawk as pointed out below.

Andykp wrote:

I have added a shot of the next editions thunderhawk to show what I mean about what happened between editions and how it still influence 40k design now.

That wasn’t the next version of the thunderhawk, this was, but that’s still obviously different and I think closer to today’s model than the first one.

The Squats in Epic had only a few unique vehicles, and there was a distinct lack in the normal vehicle size, with their most distinctive units being superheavies, which would probably not translate well to the average 40K battlefield size. I also agree that they were mostly boxes with just a little bit of Celtic knotwork as their Squat detailing:





The Colossus was basically the same as an Imperial Guard Leviathan with transport capacity removed, to fit missiles, more cannons, and a spotting Gyrocopter. Like the Leviathan, it had void shields.

The Cyclops is a more extreme variant of the Cyclops with different missiles, fixed forward melta cannons, and its main Hellfury cannon which was meant to take out enemy superheavies and Titans. It was basically a spinal mount energy weapon, sort of like a starship lance, that could bore through multiple shields. The old Epic rules was hit on 2+ and -6 armor save mod I think. If it hit a shield, it would knock it down and score another hit on 3+, and so on until it knocked all shields down and hit the target itself or until it finally failed to hit again. It would be complete overkill against anything smaller.

The Goliath Mega Cannon is basically a giant nearly immobile artillery piece with a minimum range.

The Overlord Airship was an armored flying airship with a few battle cannon for guns but otherwise it was not very special.

Termites have already been done by FW.

That really only leaves the Land Train. The actual front engine and the cars were treated as vehicles, though arguably some have argued that the engine should have been a superheavy. The engine had a few cannons. The cars in order of that picture are a Berserker car (APC and a battle cannon), a big vehicular flamer car, a one shot rad bomb (big AoE but low AP, meant for anti swarm infantry), and finally a mortar car. I think later there was a flak AA car as well. The engine came with 2 shields + 1 shield for each car in the train. If the engine was destroyed, the remaining cars were immobilized. If a middle car was destroyed, all following cars were immobilized.

The problem with the Land Train in Epic was this made for a clunky and vulnerable setup. Its size made it hard to hide, and 6 void shields (for engine + 4 cars) sounds like a lot (the same as a Warlord Titan), but under sustained fire the shields vanished pretty quickly. Then the engine was easily destroyed since it wasn't a superheavy.

Obviously GW may rework the concept with the Hekaton Land Fortress. I will wait and see.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

Andykp wrote:

I have added a shot of the next editions thunderhawk to show what I mean about what happened between editions and how it still influence 40k design now.

That wasn’t the next version of the thunderhawk, this was, but that’s still obviously different and I think closer to today’s model than the first one.

Knew I’d got that wrong, cheers for the right pic, as you said, point still stands though. Whole thing got me thinking about the whole epic 40k line had a big influence on what we have now, especially flyers and super heavies and the look of them all.

Addenda to this ..

hoping for new Squats to be as much like the old Squats as new Genestealer Cult is like old Genestealer Cult.

Over the past several years GW has been introducing and reintroducing armies from 40k's past and background. AdMech, Custodes, GSCult, etc. All of these came out with very strong resemblances to the early miniatures and/or art that fans of the game have loved for decades. They were like physical incarnations of what we'd admired in books for years. Major nostalgia hits, well executed.

New Squats are not that.

I'm not surprised that lots of folks like the Votaan but given what has preceded them, it should be clear why many fans of Squats are disappointed with the treatment Squats in comparison to other recent (re)additions.

 Eilif wrote:
Addenda to this ..

hoping for new Squats to be as much like the old Squats as new Genestealer Cult is like old Genestealer Cult.

Over the past several years GW has been introducing and reintroducing armies from 40k's past and background. AdMech, Custodes, GSCult, etc. All of these came out with very strong resemblances to the early miniatures and/or art that fans of the game have loved for decades. They were like physical incarnations of what we'd admired in books for years. Major nostalgia hits, well executed.

New Squats are not that.

I'm not surprised that lots of folks like the Votaan but given what has preceded them, it should be clear why many fans of Squats are disappointed with the treatment Squats in comparison to other recent (re)additions.

That's fine, the community did ask for the squats back and they don't look like the old squats with guns and gambeson so it makes sense that person would be dissapointed. What's not fine is wanting the old squats back and then complaining that the new squats aren't dwarfy enough when the old squats had next to feth all that was dwarfy about them for 90% of their units.

The aesthetic looks close to the Karmen from AT 43, even down to the paint color choice.

My disappointment stems mostly from the generic SCI-FY aspect and that isn't ameliorated by some extra pouches or a shovel here and there.

I totally understood where GW was coming from when they said they didn't feel like Squats (space dwarves) were being done well in their game all those years ago.

So for me it makes sense that when they brought them back they couldn't repeat the same things that caused them to be removed in the first place. They also brought them back as something more than just being abhumans and I really like that. It helps form that divide between IoM and the LoV faction, a we are not our backwards cousins comparison.

Yeah, they definitely have a generic sci-fi look to them but I imagine that's how the IoM would look if they didn't fall back into the dark age of ignorance for a time.
I can also kind of see a chance for a dark secret with them between the cloning, men of iron, and super AIs. There appears to be nothing natural about them anymore.

I also think the color schemes are more for showroom presentation than actual artistic expression. To me they look like they will be fun to paint and look forward to them.

 ProtoClone wrote:
I totally understood where GW was coming from when they said they didn't feel like Squats (space dwarves) were being done well in their game all those years ago.

So for me it makes sense that when they brought them back they couldn't repeat the same things that caused them to be removed in the first place.

Except they were removed for not being very faithful to the Fantasy Dwarf archetype. They weren't removed for being "space dwarfs" but rather because of the whole "Silly bikers named Squats" thing that they'd chosen as the core of their presence in 40k and very, very few people want that side of them back. They'd turned the fantasy dwarf archetype into a joke rather than doing it justice, with their direction in Epic of using big, handcrafted war machines said to be closer to what they felt like they should have been doing with them, but by then it was too late.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:
I totally understood where GW was coming from when they said they didn't feel like Squats (space dwarves) were being done well in their game all those years ago.

So for me it makes sense that when they brought them back they couldn't repeat the same things that caused them to be removed in the first place.

Except they were removed for not being very faithful to the Fantasy Dwarf archetype. They weren't removed for being "space dwarfs" but rather because of the whole "Silly bikers named Squats"...

So, what I said, not doing them well.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:
I totally understood where GW was coming from when they said they didn't feel like Squats (space dwarves) were being done well in their game all those years ago.

So for me it makes sense that when they brought them back they couldn't repeat the same things that caused them to be removed in the first place.

Except they were removed for not being very faithful to the Fantasy Dwarf archetype. They weren't removed for being "space dwarfs" but rather because of the whole "Silly bikers named Squats" thing that they'd chosen as the core of their presence in 40k and very, very few people want that side of them back. They'd turned the fantasy dwarf archetype into a joke rather than doing it justice, with their direction in Epic of using big, handcrafted war machines said to be closer to what they felt like they should have been doing with them, but by then it was too late.

This is debatable tho.

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 realized 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 regretted 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.

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.

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 tendency 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.

Jervis Johnson Head Fanatic

we had failed to do the Dwarf 'archetype' justice in its 40K incarnation.

40K incarnation. A 40K incarnation isn't the same thing as saying "very faithful to the Fantasy Dwarf archetype". A 40K incarnation could be two steps removed from their archetype like the Eldar or the Necrons. It doesnt mean strict fantasy dwarves in space.

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 applies to the new squats. They found something they found cool and exciting about the squat army and worked it up into a strong theme.

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 tendency 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.

The war machines in Epic that they thought were more suited for the Squat army that they dreamed of really weren't that dwarfy.

The collosus, goliath, and gyrocopter don't really have anything I'd call dwarfy, and these are the vehicles that they thought more suitable for the squats they dreamed of.

The things that are a bit dwarfy are the land train and the airship, but that only goes as far as a few tossed on runes. Little else about these designs, that they thought should have been what their dream squats were supposed to be like, were particularly dwarfy, and in some cases were pretty much the same stuff the imp guard had.

derpherp wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:
I totally understood where GW was coming from when they said they didn't feel like Squats (space dwarves) were being done well in their game all those years ago.

So for me it makes sense that when they brought them back they couldn't repeat the same things that caused them to be removed in the first place.

Except they were removed for not being very faithful to the Fantasy Dwarf archetype. They weren't removed for being "space dwarfs" but rather because of the whole "Silly bikers named Squats" thing that they'd chosen as the core of their presence in 40k and very, very few people want that side of them back. They'd turned the fantasy dwarf archetype into a joke rather than doing it justice, with their direction in Epic of using big, handcrafted war machines said to be closer to what they felt like they should have been doing with them, but by then it was too late.

This is debatable tho.

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 realized 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 regretted 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.

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.

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 tendency 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.

Jervis Johnson Head Fanatic

we had failed to do the Dwarf 'archetype' justice in its 40K incarnation.

40K incarnation. A 40K incarnation isn't the same thing as saying " very faithful to the Fantasy Dwarf archetype". A 40K archetype could be two steps removed from their archetype like the Eldar or the Necrons. It doesnt mean strict sci-fi dwarves.

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 applies to the new squats. They found something they found cool and exciting about the squat army and worked it up into a strong theme.

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 tendency 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.

The war machines in Epic that they thought were more suited for the Squat army that they dreamed of really weren't that dwarfy.

The collosus, goliath, termite, and gyrocopter don't really have anything I'd call dwarfy, and these are the vehicles that they thought more suitable for the squats they dreamed of.

The things that are a bit dwarfy are the land train and the airship, but that only goes as far as a few tossed on runes. Nothing else about these designs that they thought should have been what their dream squats were supposed to be like were particularly dwarfy.

Yeah well, we've already established the you appear to have have a bit of a strange definition of what a "Dwarfy" aesthetic involves when you consider having a belt with pouches "Dwarfy".

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Yeah well, we've already established the you appear to have have a bit of a strange definition of what a "Dwarfy" aesthetic involves when you consider having a belt with pouches "Dwarfy".

"Dwarves NEVER have toolbelts full of tools that they use for crafting! They totally aren't a trope race of crafters!"

lol. lmao.

And all the runes and knot work are actually just painted on, not modelled on the land train and the airship.

So the actual models were just boxes with guns. Great aesthetic to be inspired by.

All bickering aside, can we at least all agree that even if there isn't enough "True Squat" in the LoV, that the most important things are: 1. The army has good internal and external balance. 2. They fill a new niche in the game. 3. The fluff is at least okay in quality. 4. There had better be more than 7 units in this army.

 cuda1179 wrote:
All bickering aside, can we at least all agree that even if there isn't enough "True Squat" in the LoV, that the most important things are: 1. The army has good internal and external balance. 2. They fill a new niche in the game. 3. The fluff is at least okay in quality. 4. There had better be more than 7 units in this army.

For me,

Don’t care about 1. Not an issue.
2 and 3 are looking good so far.
4, for units we know are coming it’s sitting around 7 or 8 already. So fingers crossed for a few more.

 cuda1179 wrote:
There had better be more than 7 units in this army.

Maybe after the second wave with a second codex a year after the first.

Andykp wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
All bickering aside, can we at least all agree that even if there isn't enough "True Squat" in the LoV, that the most important things are: 1. The army has good internal and external balance. 2. They fill a new niche in the game. 3. The fluff is at least okay in quality. 4. There had better be more than 7 units in this army.

For me,

Don’t care about 1. Not an issue.
2 and 3 are looking good so far.
4, for units we know are coming it’s sitting around 7 or 8 already. So fingers crossed for a few more.

....What? You don't care about them being balanced?

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
All bickering aside, can we at least all agree that even if there isn't enough "True Squat" in the LoV, that the most important things are: 1. The army has good internal and external balance. 2. They fill a new niche in the game. 3. The fluff is at least okay in quality. 4. There had better be more than 7 units in this army.

For me,

Don’t care about 1. Not an issue.
2 and 3 are looking good so far.
4, for units we know are coming it’s sitting around 7 or 8 already. So fingers crossed for a few more.

....What? You don't care about them being balanced?

I know this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp, but the vast majority of people buying GW products don't give two shakes about balance.

Couldn't they make a scaled down version of the Land Train using a Cargo-8 Ridgehauler as an STC?

Given the NASApunk look, I can easily reimagine the goliath mega cannon by taking the quake cannon mount off the warbringer titan carapace and mounting it on an appropriately sized crawler transport. Kind of like the old GIJoe General tank now that I think about it.

derpherp wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Yeah well, we've already established the you appear to have have a bit of a strange definition of what a "Dwarfy" aesthetic involves when you consider having a belt with pouches "Dwarfy".

"Dwarves NEVER have toolbelts full of tools that they use for crafting! They totally aren't a trope race of crafters!"

lol. lmao.

Oh look, a strawman that misconstrues what was said. So unexpected. if you actually, yknow, read what was said, you'll quite clearly see that Dwarf craftsmen using tools wasn't mentioned anywhere. Infact tools weren't mentioned at all.

YOU have decided out of nowhere that a belt containing a weapon holster, grenades and pouches but does not contain any visible tools is a "toolbelt" that's "full of tools".

Lol. lmao.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
All bickering aside, can we at least all agree that even if there isn't enough "True Squat" in the LoV, that the most important things are: 1. The army has good internal and external balance. 2. They fill a new niche in the game. 3. The fluff is at least okay in quality. 4. There had better be more than 7 units in this army.

For me,

Don’t care about 1. Not an issue.
2 and 3 are looking good so far.
4, for units we know are coming it’s sitting around 7 or 8 already. So fingers crossed for a few more.

....What? You don't care about them being balanced?

I know this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp, but the vast majority of people buying GW products don't give two shakes about balance.

Let’s not derail this thread with that, it’s been discussed in many others. I know a lot of people care about it, that’s why I started that post with “for me” because it was explicitly just my take on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Given the NASApunk look, I can easily reimagine the goliath mega cannon by taking the quake cannon mount off the warbringer titan carapace and mounting it on an appropriately sized crawler transport. Kind of like the old GIJoe General tank now that I think about it.

The problem with the mega cannon is it has no place operating on the 40k size battle field. It was even a bit daft in the epic size battle field and the ranges involved. A bit like the death strike missile launcher, I like the model and the rules seem fun but why would an army ever fire that at a target a hundred feet or so away.?!

 ProtoClone wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:
I totally understood where GW was coming from when they said they didn't feel like Squats (space dwarves) were being done well in their game all those years ago.

So for me it makes sense that when they brought them back they couldn't repeat the same things that caused them to be removed in the first place.

Except they were removed for not being very faithful to the Fantasy Dwarf archetype. They weren't removed for being "space dwarfs" but rather because of the whole "Silly bikers named Squats"...

So, what I said, not doing them well.

So they repeated it and went for non-space dwarves.

Promises well for longevity when they do same reason that got them removed in the first point.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
All bickering aside, can we at least all agree that even if there isn't enough "True Squat" in the LoV, that the most important things are: 1. The army has good internal and external balance. 2. They fill a new niche in the game. 3. The fluff is at least okay in quality. 4. There had better be more than 7 units in this army.

withought at least loose balance there can be no game. As Age of Sigmare found out during its inseption games workshop demands such high fees and is spoken about so often I'd derived primarily from the game withought that 40k will go the way age of sigmar was going before they added the game bavk to it. Your simply wrong in this regard.

For me,

Don’t care about 1. Not an issue.
2 and 3 are looking good so far.
4, for units we know are coming it’s sitting around 7 or 8 already. So fingers crossed for a few more.

....What? You don't care about them being balanced?

I know this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp, but the vast majority of people buying GW products don't give two shakes about balance.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Withought at least loose balance there can be no game withought a game 40k would go the route of Age of Sigmar on its release. Your simply wrong in this regard. The entirity that is 40k would valaps almost overnight withought the game side of things.

The quake cannon on the Warbringer is also kind of a peashooter compared to the Mega Canon, which was near enough to ship grade weaponry. That being why it needed to use the planet it was standing on as a backstop.

Anyway, yes, the use of orbital artillery to hit anything on the same continent as itself is kind of underutilisation. Assuming it can even achieve ranges so low.

Also what unique space do they fill within that game. T4 probably 4 plus save? That's not new. Honestly 40k is monolithic in size and should move to a d10 or d12 system. (die 12 so that people could still use 2 die 6) so that everything within it can be represented more easily and with greater distinction.

Andykp wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Given the NASApunk look, I can easily reimagine the goliath mega cannon by taking the quake cannon mount off the warbringer titan carapace and mounting it on an appropriately sized crawler transport. Kind of like the old GIJoe General tank now that I think about it.

The problem with the mega cannon is it has no place operating on the 40k size battle field. It was even a bit daft in the epic size battle field and the ranges involved. A bit like the death strike missile launcher, I like the model and the rules seem fun but why would an army ever fire that at a target a hundred feet or so away.?!

The truth is that if you don't already understand the appeal of firing a doomsday weapon point blank, no amount of explaining will make you see the light. Just trust me, these things need to exist in the game.

Boosykes wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
All bickering aside, can we at least all agree that even if there isn't enough "True Squat" in the LoV, that the most important things are: 1. The army has good internal and external balance. 2. They fill a new niche in the game. 3. The fluff is at least okay in quality. 4. There had better be more than 7 units in this army.

withought at least loose balance there can be no game. As Age of Sigmare found out during its inseption games workshop demands such high fees and is spoken about so often I'd derived primarily from the game withought that 40k will go the way age of sigmar was going before they added the game bavk to it. Your simply wrong in this regard.

For me,

Don’t care about 1. Not an issue.
2 and 3 are looking good so far.
4, for units we know are coming it’s sitting around 7 or 8 already. So fingers crossed for a few more.

....What? You don't care about them being balanced?

I know this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp, but the vast majority of people buying GW products don't give two shakes about balance.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Withought at least loose balance there can be no game withought a game 40k would go the route of Age of Sigmar on its release. Your simply wrong in this regard. The entirity that is 40k would valaps almost overnight withought the game side of things.

Again, I said specifically for me, not the game as a whole or anyone, it is just my personal opinion. To me the rules are the least important part. TO ME. So I’m not “wrong”, I just care about different things. I am not saying shouldn’t matter to anyone else or anything at all. And again, this isn’t the place for this discussion, where again I am told I am hobbying wrong simply to have to explain that peoples tastes are subjective. Anyway……


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Geifer wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Given the NASApunk look, I can easily reimagine the goliath mega cannon by taking the quake cannon mount off the warbringer titan carapace and mounting it on an appropriately sized crawler transport. Kind of like the old GIJoe General tank now that I think about it.

The problem with the mega cannon is it has no place operating on the 40k size battle field. It was even a bit daft in the epic size battle field and the ranges involved. A bit like the death strike missile launcher, I like the model and the rules seem fun but why would an army ever fire that at a target a hundred feet or so away.?!

The truth is that if you don't already understand the appeal of firing a doomsday weapon point blank, no amount of explaining will make you see the light. Just trust me, these things need to exist in the game.

I can see it, up to the point I put it I’m the battlefield.Then I’m out, sorry. I know it’s stupid letting common sense get in the way of 40k cool, and the death strike is cool.

Iracundus wrote:
Then the engine was easily destroyed since it wasn't a superheavy.

It was (Codex Titanicus, page 107).