Welcome to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum! Log in and join the community.

Talk:Squat

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search

contradiction

this article is confused. First it states that in canon the tyranids ate the squats, then it says that in canon "the squats never existed". Which is it?! --Obscured 16:59, 27 June 2008 (CEST)

Officially they were retconned out of the fluff, the tyranid-thingy is not really official AFAIK. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 17:56, 27 June 2008 (CEST)

So It's True...?

The very last bit about the Squat sources bugs the hell out of me. Is it true that the moderators would ban and delete the thread? Were they trying to squash the existence of the Squats by removing any information about them that links to the GW sites? --Lygris 22:22, 24 September 2008 (CEST)

I'm not sure. I hadn't visited those forums for some time before they closed (and didn't know they had closed until I tried to go back to them a couple of months ago).
When I was active on them, mention of Squats wasn't completely banned, but there was very little you could ask or say about them without incuring the displeasure of the admins (you could for example safely ask or answer the question "What were Squats?", or tell people that you had your own Squat homepage or forum, but not much else.
Whether or not they got even stricter after I left, I don't know.


IIRC, the reason why they banned discussion of Squats (or at least the reason they gave) was that they were not going to bring them back, at all, ever, and they were fed up with people bugging them about it. Which to be honest, I think is a stupid reason for censoring the boards, but that's what the mods there were like, which was one of the reasons I stopped using the forums. (Discusing model prices, or saying anything that was in any way critical of Games Workshop was also strictly prohibited).
Iapetus 20:59, 5 January 2009 (CET)

They are in 6ed rulebook!

The Squats are mentioned, with the correct latin name, at the Sixth edition rulebook Appendices, under the heading of Abhumans. I do not have the book right at hand, so could someone look it up and add to the page. Quite bold move from GW. Dige 3 July 2012

Do they have own rules, like the Ratlings, or are they just mentioned background-wise? When the Squats were killed off, it was mentioned, that Squat-miniatures were still valid, but only as proxy for other Imperial Guard. --DetlefK 16:01, 3 July 2012 (CEST)
All I have hear and seen so far (it is out since June 29, meaning it would be extremely surprising anything else comes up now): it's this one mention. No rules or anything like that. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 19:57, 3 July 2012 (CEST)
From the Lexicanum point of view, the new info in the 6th edition doesnt really change anything. GW never actually removed the Squats from the background fluff - they just removed them as a playable race by letting the Tyranids eat them. Whether there are rules for them isn't relevant to the Lexi unless said rules gave new background info. The Lemur 22:23, 3 July 2012 (CEST)
Yes an no. We also have "Note" or "Trivia" sections to inform readers of "out-of-universe" occurences. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 11:32, 8 July 2012 (CEST)

Image list for later use

  • Rulebook 2nd ed pg 26, 57
  • Dark Millennium pg. 12
  • Dark Millennium models pg. 49
  • Battle Manual (1992) pg. 22/ inner back cover

Squat worlds under direct imperial rule

There are mentions of Squat-Imperium relations in the Codex: Imperial Guard (2nd Edition), pg. 8

  • In the early Imperium, the Inquisition conducted DNA screening on newly discovered human worlds, eradicating abhuman populations and resettling the planets.
  • Only later were abhumans accepted as human and integrated.
  • There are no Squat Stronghold planets in the Imperium anymore, the last of them seceded during the Age of Apostasy.

Orsay (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The page has now been un-protected and can therefore be accordingly edited. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The Kin

I see the word Squat is being used liberally in the new Votann-related articles out of historical habit.

It seems the naming of the "Squat" is being replaced by "The Kin" as far as Lore is concerned.

see : https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/04/22/the-leagues-of-votann-are-coming-but-what-actually-is-a-votann/

  • A secretive people in a galaxy full of mortal threats, the Kin

and also : https://www.warhammer-community.com/2022/04/02/what-april-fools-the-41st-millenniums-next-faction-is-real-heres-a-model-to-prove-it/

  • And while those nasty Necromundans still call them Squats, that’s not at all how they refer to themselves. These warriors have a long and proud martial history, and to those who aren’t on their bad side, they’re known as the Leagues of Votann – though they refer to themselves as Kin

It is my opinion, that i'm opening for discussion, there should be a clearer distinction between the "Squat" as a Rogue Trader faction between 1987-1993, and "The Kin" as a 40k faction from 2022 onwards.

I propose there should be a brand new article about "The Kin", and that the "Squat" as an article should remain an historical study, separated from what GW is gonna do with the Space Dwarfs from now on.

This would serve the double purpose of referring to this particular faction as it is named by GW from now on trough internal links, and keep the Historical drama tied to the Squat faction in its own bubble article.

--Siegfriedfr (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. The original Squats are an almost entirely seperate thing to the Leagues themselves, both in terms of within the setting and outside of it. I think it would be far better to leave the previous Squat page for historical reasons and make something new for the Leagues, after all at the moment it's just some strange combination of entirely out of date old lore that's also had the newer lore tried to be fit into it despite not being relevant.

--TheVoidDragon (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that it is also worth mentioning that per current information, the Leagues do not represent all Squats. The Ironhead Squat Prospectors are described as a distinct civilization that are Squats, but not part of the Leagues. In addition, Grendl Grendlsen (at least per what can be gleaned from his story in Uprising (Anthology)) belongs to yet another Squat culture which is not part of either Leagues or Ironhead Squat Prospectors - in fact, Grendl's group does not seem to include clones and instead reproduce in the more traditional way. So there are probably at least three Squat civilizations. AdeptusExtra11 (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
So we could make Squat the “species” article (I know they’re a subspecies but still) and have separate articles for each civilisation (the same way human is a separate article to Imperium and the various minor human civilisations like the Diasporex and the Auretians). KazilDarkeye (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)



I feel like it would be best to revert the Squat article to what it was before the Leagues reveal and then make a separate set for the Leagues, and another for the Ironheads. I'm not sure where Grendl would fit as I don't know the specifics of his lore though. Trying to mesh it all together just seems like a needlessly complicated way to do it and would mean a loss of that original Squat lore, the Leagues and the originals - while related - aren't really compatible in a way where that works. --TheVoidDragon (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I am also against forcibly trying to staple together which by nature is doomed to fail. Therefore I would suggest to create new articles for the Squat revamp and where appropriate/ necessary put a link at the top linking to the old lore. And if there are two identically named topics to create a disambiguation with for example "Squats (pre 2022)" and "Squats (post 2022)". --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
My original plan was once whenever their codex came out to make a separate article for the Votann while mentioning them and other squats (such as the prospectors on Necromunda) on the squat page. Much like how the human page links to the imperium. These are “Squats”, in their unveiling article they are referred to as squats, but the league of votann has its own vernacular and the necromunda ones seem closer to the classic. I suspect GW couldn’t copyright the term squat so introduced alternative terms like “Kin” (much like they did with imperial guard becoming Astra militarum). So far there is nothing to suggest this is separate race or a compete retcon that doesn’t fit in the universe.
So far, GW seems to go from “squats were loosely affiliated with the imperium but went extinct at the hands of Tyranids”. To “squats were loosely affiliated with the imperium but thought exterminated by the Tyranids. Some clsssic squats survived on worlds such as necromunda while another more different civilization called the leagues of Votann exists and was possibly only recently rediscovered”.
Anyone is free to make the split now and make a totally separate leagues of votann page or to completely keep the squat page in old lore instead of updating things. I don’t have as much free time as I used to Harriticus (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not too sure on including the Ironheads as part of the previous version of Squats. While they are still called Squats, they appear to have no relation to the originals as they're descendants of the Leagues; they left the League homeworlds after the Heresy to help re-build on Necromunda. As the Leagues seem to be a complete replacement for the classic squats and were around during the Heresy and were always a clone race with ironkin and all that, at this point there has been no indication the "classic squats" even existed in-universe anymore. I suppose there's Grendlsen/Gunnstein who have lore with slightly more classic terms like "Hearthguard" but that's not really much of an indication otherwise when you consider that Grendl is quite clearly wearing some form of League-associated gear. --TheVoidDragon (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be best to wait for the new codex to come out so we can see definitively which bits of lore they’ve kept and what terminology they’re now using for the various stuff? KazilDarkeye (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Do we have an ETA on that? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
They've said the first wave of them will be releasing sometime this year, but I don't think waiting for the codex release is neccesary, really. It's evident that there are substantial differences between the classic Squats and the Leagues to the point they're essentially entire separate despite the similarities and references. Like the whole ancestor/votann thing, being clones, barrier tech psykers etc can't be fit into the original squat lore and that would mean having to replace and thereby lose that original stuff, which i think would just be a shame. --TheVoidDragon (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
"Losing" old lore never has been an option in the Lexicanum, no worries. The only question is where and how to preserve it. Definitely not "if". My proposition stands of simply creating two articles with the suffix "pre 2022" and "post 2022". Or 2021. Whatever. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)