Shadenuat wrote: Crazy xenos idea: GW can split classic marines and primaris in 2 books while creating new lore about schism within the empire and putting 2 loyal Primarches (one leading primaris, one leading old marines) against each other. Civil war insues and grimdark intensifies. Old marines get new kits similar to Chaos Marines - more proportional and prettier, maybe with some Heresy era designs; Primaris also get more modern tacticool kits.
Both sides of the marine fanbase are put against each other in confrontation on which codex is better while buying more things and used to make more money for GW simultaneously.
Pretty boring. That's just diet Horus Heresy. You've got a whole game built around Astartes v Astartes if you want more of that.
I'd rather they focus on writing good rules for Primaris and expanding the range as quickly as possible. They can keep regular Astartes as index units.
More Primarchs should return as well.
Agreed, except on more Primarchs - I'm not really fussed about that.
I think the whole "let's have an Imperial Civil War" is a lazy narrative, personally. The Imperium already IS threatened, it already is weak. It's only thanks to the Primaris and Guilliman that it's not collapsed. Personally, I don't see any Primarchs realistically opposing Guilliman of causing a Civil War, barring the Lion, and ONLY if Guilliman blamed him for the Fallen stuff (which Guilliman wouldn't do in this situation).
There's too much at stake in-universe for a civil war, so I don't think any Primarchs would do anything. At this point as well, no humans can really oppose Guilliman directly in a military manner, due to his status and explicit support from the Emperor and Custodes.
I think this is all fine. The Imperium still sucks. Everything's still "grimdark". The fact that there's simply more going on now narratively opposed to a few years ago is much better for narrative players.
Martel732 wrote: Based off tabletop performance, I would absolutely do that.
Good. Get started. The sooner you abandon this sinking ship you hate the sooner you will feel so much more positive.
Nah, I hate the IG at this point. I feel dirty even souping them in.
No one cares what you like or don't like. You have a one note, negative and non-constructive opinion. I don't think I've seen a response from you that wasn't a complaint to or dislike of something.
Zero vanilla lieutenants you could buy separately.
It takes almost zero effort to make a Lieutenant out of a normal marine.
And that's actually part of my problem when it comes to these Primaris HQ units (and, actually, several HQ units in general). This ends up leading to these strict models where you get nothing. The fact that regular Captains even HAVE as many options as they do shocks me.
Martel732 wrote: Based off tabletop performance, I would absolutely do that.
Good. Get started. The sooner you abandon this sinking ship you hate the sooner you will feel so much more positive.
Nah, I hate the IG at this point. I feel dirty even souping them in.
No one cares what you like or don't like. You have a one note, negative and non-constructive opinion. I don't think I've seen a response from you that wasn't a complaint to or dislike of something.
Then quit reading my posts like you did with the other guy in the other thread. Or consider me your cosmic balance to your cheerleading of a mediocre product.
Martel732 wrote: Based off tabletop performance, I would absolutely do that.
Good. Get started. The sooner you abandon this sinking ship you hate the sooner you will feel so much more positive.
Nah, I hate the IG at this point. I feel dirty even souping them in.
No one cares what you like or don't like. You have a one note, negative and non-constructive opinion.
He isn't incorrect though on the bad balance existing. Your endless defending isn't being a white Knight but it's pretty darn close. Accept there's legit criticism or get off the internet and live in your little bubble where everything is perfect.
"Bad balance existing" isn't the same as "Absolutely the most terrible thing ever". There are more states than "100% good" and "100% bad". The problem is just how extreme Martel is in his claims of the problem. If someone owes me $100, it's not correct to say "he owes me millions of dollars". You could deconstruct down t a technically-true meaning (0.0001 millions of dollars), but it should certainly be called out as incorrect.
There's also context. Responding to every discussion with "IG are OP" isn't any more correct than responding to "How are you today" with "Columbus sailed the ocean blue". It may be true, but saying it in that context is incorrect.
Spamming nonsense, even when technically true, just drowns out everything else. So posting "IGOP" in every thread *hurts* legit criticism. We don't need pages in every thread complaining about how the favorite faction has bad rules right now. Especially when the complaints add nothing new to the conversation.
Martel732 wrote: Based off tabletop performance, I would absolutely do that.
Good. Get started. The sooner you abandon this sinking ship you hate the sooner you will feel so much more positive.
Nah, I hate the IG at this point. I feel dirty even souping them in.
No one cares what you like or don't like. You have a one note, negative and non-constructive opinion.
He isn't incorrect though on the bad balance existing. Your endless defending isn't being a white Knight but it's pretty darn close. Accept there's legit criticism or get off the internet and live in your little bubble where everything is perfect.
"Bad balance existing" isn't the same as "Absolutely the most terrible thing ever". There are more states than "100% good" and "100% bad". The problem is just how extreme Martel is in his claims of the problem. If someone owes me $100, it's not correct to say "he owes me millions of dollars". You could deconstruct down t a technically-true meaning (0.0001 millions of dollars), but it should certainly be called out as incorrect.
There's also context. Responding to every discussion with "IG are OP" isn't any more correct than responding to "How are you today" with "Columbus sailed the ocean blue". It may be true, but saying it in that context is incorrect.
Spamming nonsense, even when technically true, just drowns out everything else. So posting "IGOP" in every thread *hurts* legit criticism. We don't need pages in every thread complaining about how the favorite faction has bad rules right now. Especially when the complaints add nothing new to the conversation.
Agree. I do think marines are badly balanced and catachan shows it very clearly. But I do think everyone gets it already. And like you said Martel just responds with a one liner about how bad marines are without any real discussion about how or what could be done to fix it. Every time I see his name I know he will point out how much "x marine" suck. I do enjoy some marine bashing but I like some more meat on it
Martel732 wrote: Based off tabletop performance, I would absolutely do that.
Good. Get started. The sooner you abandon this sinking ship you hate the sooner you will feel so much more positive.
Nah, I hate the IG at this point. I feel dirty even souping them in.
No one cares what you like or don't like. You have a one note, negative and non-constructive opinion.
He isn't incorrect though on the bad balance existing. Your endless defending isn't being a white Knight but it's pretty darn close. Accept there's legit criticism or get off the internet and live in your little bubble where everything is perfect.
"Bad balance existing" isn't the same as "Absolutely the most terrible thing ever". There are more states than "100% good" and "100% bad". The problem is just how extreme Martel is in his claims of the problem. If someone owes me $100, it's not correct to say "he owes me millions of dollars". You could deconstruct down t a technically-true meaning (0.0001 millions of dollars), but it should certainly be called out as incorrect.
There's also context. Responding to every discussion with "IG are OP" isn't any more correct than responding to "How are you today" with "Columbus sailed the ocean blue". It may be true, but saying it in that context is incorrect.
Spamming nonsense, even when technically true, just drowns out everything else. So posting "IGOP" in every thread *hurts* legit criticism. We don't need pages in every thread complaining about how the favorite faction has bad rules right now. Especially when the complaints add nothing new to the conversation.
Oh I don't disagree Martel can be a one-track mind. However, keep in mind the other poster is just being Positive Paula.
Pointing out the math has been posted ad nauseum has been posted ad nauseum.
See how reductive and unuseful such posts are?
Not really. I'm not typing it out again. I'm clarifying that this point has been addressed and those that accept it have accepted it and those that explain it away have explained it away.
My dream is that, instead of squatting RealMarines, they instead squash the rules. Basic Tac squads represent Tactical Marines and Intercessors, with all the options for both. Same profile.
This'd probably leave the base Marine profile at W2 A2. Not a fan of all Bolt weapons going to Ap-1, but it wouldn't be the worst thing GW has done.
This way, people who love the DOW3 asethetic and design can have their MarinesButBetterMoarDakka squads, and I can have my MarinesWithTacticalLoadouts. Everybody wins.
This way, people who love the DOW3 asethetic and design can have their MarinesButBetterMoarDakka squads, and I can have my MarinesWithTacticalLoadouts. Everybody wins.
I remember when I was all fantasy 20 years and was not interested in 40K at all. How things have changed. Honesty, I like my old marines from when I got them in the 5th better that what is out there now for tac. marines. I use a few of the new squads as full squads of Sternguard.
I have thought of collecting the old metal ones, and perhaps I may start that up. Either way if GW decides to discontinue the army, than I am either doing oldhammer with my old armies, or doing something else with them. Just like on the Fantasy side of the house, I will slowly cease to become a customer of them.
Martel732 wrote: The problem was back in the day AP of -3 to -6 were running around. And terminators were SO expensive, well, you can do the math.
I'll never forget my first run-in with a manbaby who lost his gak after losing 15 terminators in one turn to Eldar. I gotta be honest, terminators are actually better now I think.
Yes... they're so much better now on a 2+ with so much -3 running around and being so much cheaper than a Tactical marine.... A 3+ -6 is 9+ out of 12(actually 11 because you can't roll a 1) - or 36% safe rolls . a 2+ -3 is a 5+ or 33% safe rolls. The roughly 30 point Tactical Marine is now roughly 15 points. The roughly 65 point terminator is now roughly 35 points. So they cost relatively more, and save relatively less. But they're in a much better place than they were.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tygre wrote: Sometimes I think that Space Marine players forget that a game is supposed to be a fair fight (50/50 win chance). But for Space Marines to fight like they do in the background it would be so unfair on the other player. Space Marines would pick the battlefield; pick the size of the opposition; pick where and how to deploy (for both sides) etc. To show how Space Marines prefer to fight doesn't fit a standard 40k very well.
I think it's a dice have no memory thing. When the first lasgun takes out your marine, that sticks in your mind more than when the first ten ping off a shoulder plate - this is combined with some more-than-basic-but-less-than-complex math problems. There are any number of rules/math issues that resolve in favor of the horde army over the elite army. The Loyal 32 - and the reason for taking them CP Generation to feed the army you enjoy vs the army you need- is one example - IG get 5CP for 180 points out of a 1500 point list, SM have to spend SM have to spend closer to 600 before they get to move into the theme they want. Objective Securing counting models over points, or power level, or something else that should theoretically be uniform across army types is another. A third is the game difference between 75 points of 5+ vs 175 points of 3+ on a 6 sided die isn't big enough for 100 points.
I was speaking to my local store manager yesterday, before laying the eldar smack down on some dark angels, according to him the old school marines are still one of his best sellers.
Of course one local gw store is nothing more than anecdotal but I suspect that it's a fairly common situation.
kingheff wrote: I was speaking to my local store manager yesterday, before laying the eldar smack down on some dark angels, according to him the old school marines are still one of his best sellers.
Of course one local gw store is nothing more than anecdotal but I suspect that it's a fairly common situation.
I belive it, especially as most marine armies likely consist of something like 2 squads of intercessors a scout squad, a captain with jump pack, 2 predators a contemptor dread, and a stormraven (just for example) in short I'd be willing to bet most armies are mixed armies.
I belive it, especially as most marine armies likely consist of something like 2 squads of intercessors a scout squad, a captain with jump pack, 2 predators a contemptor dread, and a stormraven (just for example) in short I'd be willing to bet most armies are mixed armies.
I'd make that bet too. The Primaris line isn't complete enough yet, so they'll get their Primaris where they can, and fill in with 1.0 Marines. Most of my lists are mixed as well as I work out what I used to use vs the new stuff and which I like better going forwards. As soon as Eliminitaors get their kit, and 3 + and optional 3 more rule for one Force Org Slot (I'm assuming they'll get an expand to 6 squad size when their full kit and datasheet come out) , I'll try running some of them vs Sniper Scouts. In other ways, I use the old marines when there isn't an Primaris equivalent - Predators, Techmarines, Thunderfire Cannon - Jump Pack lieutenants and the like.
Silver144 wrote: Dorn/Russ/Lion returns and now we have primaris against not primaris cold war? Count me in.
Anything that gives us more reasons to have faction vs. faction (especially Imperial vs. Imperial) I'm all for.
In a way, I wish Cawl would be declared a Heretek and take off with half the Admech clans.
Then, Guilliman embraces progress and champions the Primaris, ditching the oldmarines.
However, Dorn/Lion returns and makes the case that the oldmarines are the Emperor's chosen, and pushes for the elimination of "wanna-be Warmaster Guilliman and his abominations"
Russ then returns, gives Guilliman (and the Lion) the finger and openly rebels with the wolves and wolfen.
Then Creed throws his gauntlet into the ring and starts stomping rebellious marines (and Admech) on all sides with the guns of the Imperial Guard.
And Knights tell everyone "screw this noise" and bolster their own houses as petty fiefdoms kicking everyone else out of the way.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Agreed, except on more Primarchs - I'm not really fussed about that.
I think the whole "let's have an Imperial Civil War" is a lazy narrative, personally. The Imperium already IS threatened, it already is weak. It's only thanks to the Primaris and Guilliman that it's not collapsed. Personally, I don't see any Primarchs realistically opposing Guilliman of causing a Civil War, barring the Lion, and ONLY if Guilliman blamed him for the Fallen stuff (which Guilliman wouldn't do in this situation).
There's too much at stake in-universe for a civil war, so I don't think any Primarchs would do anything. At this point as well, no humans can really oppose Guilliman directly in a military manner, due to his status and explicit support from the Emperor and Custodes.
I think this is all fine. The Imperium still sucks. Everything's still "grimdark". The fact that there's simply more going on now narratively opposed to a few years ago is much better for narrative players.
More Primarchs should return if for no other reason than so all the books have at least one. The chaos folks aren't going to have to pick one Black Legion primarch for their Death Guard force, and the same Black Legion Primarch for their Khorn force etc. etc. Non UM's shouldn't have to drag Guilliman around just to have a Primarch. They're not going to do the Civil War 2.0, and they're not going to squat Marines. They'll let the players squat Marines by continually making Primaris just a little bit better. I'd also say the Primarchs have to remain an odd number - for the fluff. They need to have a voter who can break ties, and not be less than a primarch. The best choice to return with the Lion is Sanguinius - they already did this with Imperium Secundus. But they won't - both because the already did it, and they don't know what they're going to do with Sanguinius/BA yet anyway. Russ makes a good alternative who doesn't like or dislike either Johnson or Guilliman. They could bring back Vulkhan as a Sanguinius stand-in for the most Humane primarch.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Agreed, except on more Primarchs - I'm not really fussed about that.
I think the whole "let's have an Imperial Civil War" is a lazy narrative, personally. The Imperium already IS threatened, it already is weak. It's only thanks to the Primaris and Guilliman that it's not collapsed. Personally, I don't see any Primarchs realistically opposing Guilliman of causing a Civil War, barring the Lion, and ONLY if Guilliman blamed him for the Fallen stuff (which Guilliman wouldn't do in this situation).
There's too much at stake in-universe for a civil war, so I don't think any Primarchs would do anything. At this point as well, no humans can really oppose Guilliman directly in a military manner, due to his status and explicit support from the Emperor and Custodes.
I think this is all fine. The Imperium still sucks. Everything's still "grimdark". The fact that there's simply more going on now narratively opposed to a few years ago is much better for narrative players.
More Primarchs should return if for no other reason than so all the books have at least one. The chaos folks aren't going to have to pick one Black Legion primarch for their Death Guard force, and the same Black Legion Primarch for their Khorn force etc. etc. Non UM's shouldn't have to drag Guilliman around just to have a Primarch. They're not going to do the Civil War 2.0, and they're not going to squat Marines. They'll let the players squat Marines by continually making Primaris just a little bit better. I'd also say the Primarchs have to remain an odd number - for the fluff. They need to have a voter who can break ties, and not be less than a primarch. The best choice to return with the Lion is Sanguinius - they already did this with Imperium Secundus. But they won't - both because the already did it, and they don't know what they're going to do with Sanguinius/BA yet anyway. Russ makes a good alternative who doesn't like or dislike either Johnson or Guilliman. They could bring back Vulkhan as a Sanguinius stand-in for the most Humane primarch.
I still think they should have squatted BA with the Nids. Think of the drama. It could have been red wedding-esque, pun intended.
This way, people who love the DOW3 asethetic and design can have their MarinesButBetterMoarDakka squads, and I can have my MarinesWithTacticalLoadouts. Everybody wins.
Did anybody love the DOW3 aesthetic?
Love is a strong word but I was certainly entertained by the wacky dancing Ork buildings and silly shenanigans like launching Ork boyz right from a trukk into battle. Why? Well, it fit the Ork theme. Though on the other hand there was a somersaulting SM dude in terminator armour. Only because of this incident I felt an urge to tar and feather the devs.
Martel732 wrote: I still think they should have squatted BA with the Nids. Think of the drama. It could have been red wedding-esque, pun intended.
That would have been beutiful, Baal falls, Tyranids get even more of a threat, surviving Blood Angels get rolled into Codex Space Marines. One less slighlty different Marine Codex the better... same treatment need to happen to the Dark Angels as well.
I suspect that GW's plan is to eventually have Codex Primaris, and that is that. It will have the rules for the classic chaptes, and some new Primaris exclusive ones. This will of course be years down the line, 5-10.years at least. I think in the mean time we'll see more and more of them Primaris line be released, then one the line is fully fleshed out we'll see one either a split, or one final Codex that combnes the two. Once the old range has ran out of stock, Primaris should be in a strong sales position and be the new Iconic Marine that GW build their success upon. What will be interesting is to see what GW do with Grey Knights and Deathwatch.
As it is at the moment, GW will keep selling loads of old Marines as they are an Iconic model with a fully fleshed out line, change is going to happen, just takes a while. A cautionary glance at AoS shows that a lot of the old popular plastic kits have either sold out, or been removed; Basic Orcs Boyz, High Elf White Lions, High Elf Spearmen, High Elf Archers, and Empire Knights... these units were the core of a some of the most common armies in WFB. White Lions weren't even that old a kit, 2012 I think they got updated.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Agreed, except on more Primarchs - I'm not really fussed about that.
I think the whole "let's have an Imperial Civil War" is a lazy narrative, personally. The Imperium already IS threatened, it already is weak. It's only thanks to the Primaris and Guilliman that it's not collapsed. Personally, I don't see any Primarchs realistically opposing Guilliman of causing a Civil War, barring the Lion, and ONLY if Guilliman blamed him for the Fallen stuff (which Guilliman wouldn't do in this situation).
There's too much at stake in-universe for a civil war, so I don't think any Primarchs would do anything. At this point as well, no humans can really oppose Guilliman directly in a military manner, due to his status and explicit support from the Emperor and Custodes.
I think this is all fine. The Imperium still sucks. Everything's still "grimdark". The fact that there's simply more going on now narratively opposed to a few years ago is much better for narrative players.
More Primarchs should return if for no other reason than so all the books have at least one. The chaos folks aren't going to have to pick one Black Legion primarch for their Death Guard force, and the same Black Legion Primarch for their Khorn force etc. etc. Non UM's shouldn't have to drag Guilliman around just to have a Primarch. They're not going to do the Civil War 2.0, and they're not going to squat Marines. They'll let the players squat Marines by continually making Primaris just a little bit better. I'd also say the Primarchs have to remain an odd number - for the fluff. They need to have a voter who can break ties, and not be less than a primarch. The best choice to return with the Lion is Sanguinius - they already did this with Imperium Secundus. But they won't - both because the already did it, and they don't know what they're going to do with Sanguinius/BA yet anyway. Russ makes a good alternative who doesn't like or dislike either Johnson or Guilliman. They could bring back Vulkhan as a Sanguinius stand-in for the most Humane primarch.
I still think they should have squatted BA with the Nids. Think of the drama. It could have been red wedding-esque, pun intended.
if you wanna stop playing blood angels, stop playing blood angels; don't demand GW eliminate a faction many other people enjoy just so you can justify going to play guard or whatever faction you want to play
Silver144 wrote: Dorn/Russ/Lion returns and now we have primaris against not primaris cold war? Count me in.
Anything that gives us more reasons to have faction vs. faction (especially Imperial vs. Imperial) I'm all for.
In a way, I wish Cawl would be declared a Heretek and take off with half the Admech clans.
Then, Guilliman embraces progress and champions the Primaris, ditching the oldmarines.
However, Dorn/Lion returns and makes the case that the oldmarines are the Emperor's chosen, and pushes for the elimination of "wanna-be Warmaster Guilliman and his abominations"
Russ then returns, gives Guilliman (and the Lion) the finger and openly rebels with the wolves and wolfen.
Then Creed throws his gauntlet into the ring and starts stomping rebellious marines (and Admech) on all sides with the guns of the Imperial Guard.
And Knights tell everyone "screw this noise" and bolster their own houses as petty fiefdoms kicking everyone else out of the way.
Fantastic post proving that, as bad as GW can be at writing fluff, they've never written something that makes people cringe compared to people on this forum.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Agreed, except on more Primarchs - I'm not really fussed about that.
I think the whole "let's have an Imperial Civil War" is a lazy narrative, personally. The Imperium already IS threatened, it already is weak. It's only thanks to the Primaris and Guilliman that it's not collapsed. Personally, I don't see any Primarchs realistically opposing Guilliman of causing a Civil War, barring the Lion, and ONLY if Guilliman blamed him for the Fallen stuff (which Guilliman wouldn't do in this situation).
There's too much at stake in-universe for a civil war, so I don't think any Primarchs would do anything. At this point as well, no humans can really oppose Guilliman directly in a military manner, due to his status and explicit support from the Emperor and Custodes.
I think this is all fine. The Imperium still sucks. Everything's still "grimdark". The fact that there's simply more going on now narratively opposed to a few years ago is much better for narrative players.
More Primarchs should return if for no other reason than so all the books have at least one. The chaos folks aren't going to have to pick one Black Legion primarch for their Death Guard force, and the same Black Legion Primarch for their Khorn force etc. etc. Non UM's shouldn't have to drag Guilliman around just to have a Primarch. They're not going to do the Civil War 2.0, and they're not going to squat Marines. They'll let the players squat Marines by continually making Primaris just a little bit better. I'd also say the Primarchs have to remain an odd number - for the fluff. They need to have a voter who can break ties, and not be less than a primarch. The best choice to return with the Lion is Sanguinius - they already did this with Imperium Secundus. But they won't - both because the already did it, and they don't know what they're going to do with Sanguinius/BA yet anyway. Russ makes a good alternative who doesn't like or dislike either Johnson or Guilliman. They could bring back Vulkhan as a Sanguinius stand-in for the most Humane primarch.
I still think they should have squatted BA with the Nids. Think of the drama. It could have been red wedding-esque, pun intended.
if you wanna stop playing blood angels, stop playing blood angels; don't demand GW eliminate a faction many other people enjoy just so you can justify going to play guard or whatever faction you want to play
He's not entirely incorrect. Both the Angels armies need to be consolidated because that's part of what's leading to imbalance.
Silver144 wrote: Dorn/Russ/Lion returns and now we have primaris against not primaris cold war? Count me in.
Anything that gives us more reasons to have faction vs. faction (especially Imperial vs. Imperial) I'm all for.
In a way, I wish Cawl would be declared a Heretek and take off with half the Admech clans.
Then, Guilliman embraces progress and champions the Primaris, ditching the oldmarines.
However, Dorn/Lion returns and makes the case that the oldmarines are the Emperor's chosen, and pushes for the elimination of "wanna-be Warmaster Guilliman and his abominations"
Russ then returns, gives Guilliman (and the Lion) the finger and openly rebels with the wolves and wolfen.
Then Creed throws his gauntlet into the ring and starts stomping rebellious marines (and Admech) on all sides with the guns of the Imperial Guard.
And Knights tell everyone "screw this noise" and bolster their own houses as petty fiefdoms kicking everyone else out of the way.
Fantastic post proving that, as bad as GW can be at writing fluff, they've never written something that makes people cringe compared to people on this forum.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Agreed, except on more Primarchs - I'm not really fussed about that.
I think the whole "let's have an Imperial Civil War" is a lazy narrative, personally. The Imperium already IS threatened, it already is weak. It's only thanks to the Primaris and Guilliman that it's not collapsed. Personally, I don't see any Primarchs realistically opposing Guilliman of causing a Civil War, barring the Lion, and ONLY if Guilliman blamed him for the Fallen stuff (which Guilliman wouldn't do in this situation).
There's too much at stake in-universe for a civil war, so I don't think any Primarchs would do anything. At this point as well, no humans can really oppose Guilliman directly in a military manner, due to his status and explicit support from the Emperor and Custodes.
I think this is all fine. The Imperium still sucks. Everything's still "grimdark". The fact that there's simply more going on now narratively opposed to a few years ago is much better for narrative players.
More Primarchs should return if for no other reason than so all the books have at least one. The chaos folks aren't going to have to pick one Black Legion primarch for their Death Guard force, and the same Black Legion Primarch for their Khorn force etc. etc. Non UM's shouldn't have to drag Guilliman around just to have a Primarch. They're not going to do the Civil War 2.0, and they're not going to squat Marines. They'll let the players squat Marines by continually making Primaris just a little bit better. I'd also say the Primarchs have to remain an odd number - for the fluff. They need to have a voter who can break ties, and not be less than a primarch. The best choice to return with the Lion is Sanguinius - they already did this with Imperium Secundus. But they won't - both because the already did it, and they don't know what they're going to do with Sanguinius/BA yet anyway. Russ makes a good alternative who doesn't like or dislike either Johnson or Guilliman. They could bring back Vulkhan as a Sanguinius stand-in for the most Humane primarch.
I still think they should have squatted BA with the Nids. Think of the drama. It could have been red wedding-esque, pun intended.
if you wanna stop playing blood angels, stop playing blood angels; don't demand GW eliminate a faction many other people enjoy just so you can justify going to play guard or whatever faction you want to play
He's not entirely incorrect. Both the Angels armies need to be consolidated because that's part of what's leading to imbalance.
no what's leading to inbalance is "ohh hey, you know whats a good idea, let's give guard chapter tactics on all their units, and marines only on a handful, and lets also give them access to orders to buff them even further. ohh and let's make them 4 PPM" the problem is that they're writing Marines like they're almost too good, and hobbling them, and giving other armies like guard force multipler after force multiplier.
no what's leading to inbalance is "ohh hey, you know whats a good idea, let's give guard chapter tactics on all their units, and marines only on a handful, and lets also give them access to orders to buff them even further. ohh and let's make them 4 PPM" the problem is that they're writing Marines like they're almost too good, and hobbling them, and giving other armies like guard force multipler after force multiplier.
Astartes should be the force multiplier for the guard not the other way around. The fact that Marines do not get their chapter tactic is one of the stupidest things that they can easily fix.
GW has already indirectly squatted BA by making their signature play style a) futile for them and b) done better by other codices such as GSC. It's more intellectually honest to just get rid of them or roll them in or whatever.
no what's leading to inbalance is "ohh hey, you know whats a good idea, let's give guard chapter tactics on all their units, and marines only on a handful, and lets also give them access to orders to buff them even further. ohh and let's make them 4 PPM" the problem is that they're writing Marines like they're almost too good, and hobbling them, and giving other armies like guard force multipler after force multiplier.
Astartes should be the force multiplier for the guard not the other way around. The fact that Marines do not get their chapter tactic is one of the stupidest things that they can easily fix.
ohh on that I agree. Marines need force multipliers
Silver144 wrote: Dorn/Russ/Lion returns and now we have primaris against not primaris cold war? Count me in.
Anything that gives us more reasons to have faction vs. faction (especially Imperial vs. Imperial) I'm all for.
In a way, I wish Cawl would be declared a Heretek and take off with half the Admech clans.
Then, Guilliman embraces progress and champions the Primaris, ditching the oldmarines.
However, Dorn/Lion returns and makes the case that the oldmarines are the Emperor's chosen, and pushes for the elimination of "wanna-be Warmaster Guilliman and his abominations"
Russ then returns, gives Guilliman (and the Lion) the finger and openly rebels with the wolves and wolfen.
Then Creed throws his gauntlet into the ring and starts stomping rebellious marines (and Admech) on all sides with the guns of the Imperial Guard.
And Knights tell everyone "screw this noise" and bolster their own houses as petty fiefdoms kicking everyone else out of the way.
Fantastic post proving that, as bad as GW can be at writing fluff, they've never written something that makes people cringe compared to people on this forum.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Agreed, except on more Primarchs - I'm not really fussed about that.
I think the whole "let's have an Imperial Civil War" is a lazy narrative, personally. The Imperium already IS threatened, it already is weak. It's only thanks to the Primaris and Guilliman that it's not collapsed. Personally, I don't see any Primarchs realistically opposing Guilliman of causing a Civil War, barring the Lion, and ONLY if Guilliman blamed him for the Fallen stuff (which Guilliman wouldn't do in this situation).
There's too much at stake in-universe for a civil war, so I don't think any Primarchs would do anything. At this point as well, no humans can really oppose Guilliman directly in a military manner, due to his status and explicit support from the Emperor and Custodes.
I think this is all fine. The Imperium still sucks. Everything's still "grimdark". The fact that there's simply more going on now narratively opposed to a few years ago is much better for narrative players.
More Primarchs should return if for no other reason than so all the books have at least one. The chaos folks aren't going to have to pick one Black Legion primarch for their Death Guard force, and the same Black Legion Primarch for their Khorn force etc. etc. Non UM's shouldn't have to drag Guilliman around just to have a Primarch. They're not going to do the Civil War 2.0, and they're not going to squat Marines. They'll let the players squat Marines by continually making Primaris just a little bit better. I'd also say the Primarchs have to remain an odd number - for the fluff. They need to have a voter who can break ties, and not be less than a primarch. The best choice to return with the Lion is Sanguinius - they already did this with Imperium Secundus. But they won't - both because the already did it, and they don't know what they're going to do with Sanguinius/BA yet anyway. Russ makes a good alternative who doesn't like or dislike either Johnson or Guilliman. They could bring back Vulkhan as a Sanguinius stand-in for the most Humane primarch.
I still think they should have squatted BA with the Nids. Think of the drama. It could have been red wedding-esque, pun intended.
if you wanna stop playing blood angels, stop playing blood angels; don't demand GW eliminate a faction many other people enjoy just so you can justify going to play guard or whatever faction you want to play
He's not entirely incorrect. Both the Angels armies need to be consolidated because that's part of what's leading to imbalance.
no what's leading to inbalance is "ohh hey, you know whats a good idea, let's give guard chapter tactics on all their units, and marines only on a handful, and lets also give them access to orders to buff them even further. ohh and let's make them 4 PPM" the problem is that they're writing Marines like they're almost too good, and hobbling them, and giving other armies like guard force multipler after force multiplier.
It's special snowfalke units with a lack of actual "chapter tactics" coupled with needing to errata and update each book separately for every single change that gets made when they share so many units. The SM line is already bloated with units that have no clear purpose or who are competing with other units that do the intended job better. Tossing chapter specific units into the mix that just add to that mess is an issue. It's much easier to balance 5 distinct units then it is 15 indistinct, or worse 25 indistinct with these 2 only being available to these guys and these 3 only available to those guys etc etc...
It's a bad situation that keeps being made worse. Spreading it out into 4 books 3 of which are treated as their own armies is mad when they could just as easily be chapters.
Lance845 wrote: It's special snowfalke units with a lack of actual "chapter tactics" coupled with needing to errata and update each book separately for every single change that gets made when they share so many units. The SM line is already bloated with units that have no clear purpose or who are competing with other units that do the intended job better. Tossing chapter specific units into the mix that just add to that mess is an issue. It's much easier to balance 5 distinct units then it is 15 indistinct, or worse 25 indistinct with these 2 only being available to these guys and these 3 only available to those guys etc etc...
It's a bad situation that keeps being made worse. Spreading it out into 4 books 3 of which are treated as their own armies is mad when they could just as easily be chapters.
ahh so it's grumpy xenos players upset that space marines get all the kits, gotcha.
the theory is that multiple space marine codices makes it harder to balance, yeah I'm not sure I get the logic eaither
The balance problems are far more prevalent in the generic rules, not the paint and chapter symbol or codex. There are very few BA/DA specific rules - probably just as many as there are for SW, probably less than DW. BA aren't balanced because Close Combat currently sucks as a whole - basic CQB troops don't have enough attacks and enough negative armor save mods to keep up with their shooty counterparts. DA, and their Terminators have been (relatively) bad since 3rd Ed, the Ravenwing is expensive and again close combat oriented. Green Wing is BARELY different than Codex SM. All of the Marine codexes share the problems Codex:SM - and just about every elite/low model count army has. The game is balanced on points costs, and victory pointed on model count. Command Points are based on (basically) Force Org slots filled, over the quality of the unit filling the chart. i.e. A double Battalion of Grots - the famously well trained, courageous, obedient beings they are - generate 13 CP (3+5+5) while a Ravenwing/Deathwing combination force of the best of the best of the chapter, including both of their Captains, will generate.. 6? 3+1+1+1 maybe?
It's OK to require Battle Forged for CP, but CP should be some variation on Power Level, or Points based. It should also scale based on Army size, so people playing 500 point games get enough to use some the entire game. I feel like I average around 90-100PL and 8-12 ish CP at 1750 points using the Battalion detachment. I'd wager most armies can't make diverse (significant variations in unit/theme selection) Batallion armies at 1000 points. Even fewer can make one at all at 500 points. If 500 is still the low end of the points they advise (I didn't read the beginner/intro section of the rule book all that closely yet) - then at 500 points you should be able to hammer out at least 6 CP - one per turn, as you get bigger you get diminishing returns.
If you got 5 for being battle forged, and 1 for the Detachments that give you 1, 2 for a Battallion, and 4 (or 5 as it's 2 Batallions+/-) for a Brigade, that's closer, but still not enough. Especially for the Specialty Detachment stuff they're trying to expand into with the campaign books. For 1 CP during Army Creation making this a specialist detachment, you may choose to spend another CP or more during Army Creation to make specialist squads then able to use any of four more stratagems for 1CP during The Game. If they want to make that into a viable pre-battle army customization option, they'll need to up the CP Generation dramatically. And make more varied Specialist Detachements more available to more armies more often potentially able to pay for/offset itself i.e. - IF you make this detachment a specialist detachment gain 3CP, and at least one unit must be a specialist unit, but then each of the stratagems is 2 CP to use that may or may not refund one CP but does not stack with other refund abilities. I found the Specialist Detachment for the Ravenwing Attack Squadron (and Windrider Host) particularly cruel. An army already relegated to 1CP Generating Outrider Detachments - and lucky to get to 6 total in the first place - is expected to pay 1CP for access to a 2CP stratagem?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: It's special snowfalke units with a lack of actual "chapter tactics" coupled with needing to errata and update each book separately for every single change that gets made when they share so many units. The SM line is already bloated with units that have no clear purpose or who are competing with other units that do the intended job better. Tossing chapter specific units into the mix that just add to that mess is an issue. It's much easier to balance 5 distinct units then it is 15 indistinct, or worse 25 indistinct with these 2 only being available to these guys and these 3 only available to those guys etc etc...
It's a bad situation that keeps being made worse. Spreading it out into 4 books 3 of which are treated as their own armies is mad when they could just as easily be chapters.
So you're saying the imbalance lies in the differences between the Nephilim Jet Fighter and the Stormtalon Gunship, not 5 CP for 180 points vs 5CP for 600 points? That because Terminators are available in four different army books, that's why they haven't been able to make them not bad for 20 years? That taking away all the game-mechanic available bonus attacks for close combat units - ruining Close Combat in general for everyone, was just to nerf Blood Angels because they had Sanguinary Guard AND Vanguard Veterans?
Lance845 wrote: It's special snowfalke units with a lack of actual "chapter tactics" coupled with needing to errata and update each book separately for every single change that gets made when they share so many units. The SM line is already bloated with units that have no clear purpose or who are competing with other units that do the intended job better. Tossing chapter specific units into the mix that just add to that mess is an issue. It's much easier to balance 5 distinct units then it is 15 indistinct, or worse 25 indistinct with these 2 only being available to these guys and these 3 only available to those guys etc etc...
It's a bad situation that keeps being made worse. Spreading it out into 4 books 3 of which are treated as their own armies is mad when they could just as easily be chapters.
ahh so it's grumpy xenos players upset that space marines get all the kits, gotcha.
So you're saying the imbalance lies in the differences between the Nephilim Jet Fighter and the Stormtalon Gunship, not 5 CP for 180 points vs 5CP for 600 points? That because Terminators are available in four different army books, that's why they haven't been able to make them not bad for 20 years? That taking away all the game-mechanic available bonus attacks for close combat units - ruining Close Combat in general for everyone, was just to nerf Blood Angels because they had Sanguinary Guard AND Vanguard Veterans?
Terminators are bad because what exactly is their niche that another unit isn't doing better? Primarus are more durable (or at least equally durable while being more capable) with their extra wound in gravis armor (even without the invul save). Other units do better in melee even though none of the SM line does great at it in 40k (apoc handles it much better). Jump units handle deepstrike better especially with a higher M and FLY. Other units handle shooting better.
Terminator pay a premium for a 2+ save with a 5++ that isn't worth what you pay for and are not capable of impacting the field in the ways other units can. So what are you using them for?
That right there... thats the problem with the whole SM line. Primaris are at least units with a distinct job. When the eventual axe gets dropped on old marines and they get squatted SM will be left with a bunch of units that fill distinct roles and complement each other instead of the mess it is now. The side codex armies just help to further muddy the waters.
So you're saying the imbalance lies in the differences between the Nephilim Jet Fighter and the Stormtalon Gunship, not 5 CP for 180 points vs 5CP for 600 points? That because Terminators are available in four different army books, that's why they haven't been able to make them not bad for 20 years? That taking away all the game-mechanic available bonus attacks for close combat units - ruining Close Combat in general for everyone, was just to nerf Blood Angels because they had Sanguinary Guard AND Vanguard Veterans?
Terminators are bad because what exactly is their niche that another unit isn't doing better? Primarus are more durable (or at least equally durable while being more capable) with their extra wound in gravis armor (even without the invul save). Other units do better in melee even though none of the SM line does great at it in 40k (apoc handles it much better). Jump units handle deepstrike better especially with a higher M and FLY. Other units handle shooting better.
Terminator pay a premium for a 2+ save with a 5++ that isn't worth what you pay for and are not capable of impacting the field in the ways other units can. So what are you using them for?
That right there... thats the problem with the whole SM line. Primaris are at least units with a distinct job. When the eventual axe gets dropped on old marines and they get squatted SM will be left with a bunch of units that fill distinct roles and complement each other instead of the mess it is now. The side codex armies just help to further muddy the waters.
Perhaps you should take your own advice? That did not answer a single question I asked. Are the questions too complex to read?
I gave you two specific examples of units with similar function in two of the codexes. Is the problem rooted in the differences between the Nephilim Jet Fighter and the Stormtalon Gunship?
Terminators have been bad far far far longer than Primaris have been around. The question asked was- Is the presence of Terminators in four+ different books why they haven't been good in over 20 years?
You don't think the inconsistent use of points/power level and Model Count/Force Org Chart Completion affecting in-game mechanics is a far bigger balance problem?
Are you suggesting the global close combat rules were so severely curtailed and minimized simply to nerf Blood Angels because they have Sanguinary Guard, Vanguard Veterans (and Death Company)?
Maybe when you quote me you should actually quote me instead of using a quote box and then typing out a sentence I did not write.
Primaris are not the things making the SM line bloated. If anything they are cleaning it up. Again, they have distinct roles to fill and do not overlap each other or step on each others toes for getting a job done. The rest of the SM line can't say that. SM have been bloated for a long time before that.
I don't think that points/PL are a problem. I don't think the force org chart is a probem except that the ones used in 40k basically serve no purpose because they are not restricting in any capacity.
When did I say anything about a conspiracy to nerf specific armies by creating core melee rules that are not great? Black Templar suffer just as much and they don't need to have their own book to do it.
I honestly don't know enough about the gunships to comment on them, which is why I didn't. I also don't care enough about them and CP to research them and find out what you are talking about. You can explain it out for me and I may or may not agree with you. But as it stands it's simply a talking point I don't know enough about to debate.
You mentioned Terminators being crap. I explained why.
Primaris are still terrible in practice, though. Gravis is a failure. D2 dominates non-intercessors so hard at their price. Too much reliance on plasma that falls apart vs minus to hit.
Martel732 wrote: Primaris are still terrible in practice, though. Gravis is a failure. D2 dominates non-intercessors so hard at their price. Too much reliance on plasma that falls apart vs minus to hit.
Right now Primaris is a partial line. With the rate they release new kits the rest of the line will fill out and the roles they don't fill yet will get filled. Once old marines are gone they won't have to get priced in comparison to old marines and can probably recieve a modest points discount. This of course is assuming GW is in any capacity competent and not going to over value durability again for the primaris line. It very well may be that the whole SM line sucks for a long time because GW sucks at doing their job. But a army of pure primaris is filling out. Named characters are starting to come out. Lots of generic characters exist. More and more units and vehicles to fill the roles needed to make a army are being released quicker then ever. Just a matter of time.
Lance845 wrote: Maybe when you quote me you should actually quote me instead of using a quote box and then typing out a sentence I did not write.
Primaris are not the things making the SM line bloated. If anything they are cleaning it up. Again, they have distinct roles to fill and do not overlap each other or step on each others toes for getting a job done. The rest of the SM line can't say that. SM have been bloated for a long time before that.
I don't think that points/PL are a problem. I don't think the force org chart is a probem except that the ones used in 40k basically serve no purpose because they are not restricting in any capacity.
When did I say anything about a conspiracy to nerf specific armies by creating core melee rules that are not great? Black Templar suffer just as much and they don't need to have their own book to do it.
I honestly don't know enough about the gunships to comment on them, which is why I didn't. I also don't care enough about them and CP to research them and find out what you are talking about. You can explain it out for me and I may or may not agree with you. But as it stands it's simply a talking point I don't know enough about to debate.
You mentioned Terminators being crap. I explained why.
I noticed the error and fixed it, my last edit time stamp is :54, while your post time is :56. I was going to toss your own snark back at you, then changed it to doing so with a quote and forgot to hit paste. Sue me.
The New stuff doesn't make it bloated, its the old stuff that was here first. Excellent Hot Take.
You don't think armies that are bought in points used to balance horde and elite armies but win on model count that totally favors the horde is a problem? But a black jet fighter with a BIG Dakka Bolter for DA and a Blue jet fighter with either a medium Dakka Gun or two anti-tank lasers is totally game breaking? I'm asking a third time because you still have not answered the question. I see you do admit you don't actually know the two units in question from the two codexes you are blaming for this imbalance. So you don't know what is in the books you blame for the balance issues?
You don't know enough about a BRB Game mechanic to comment on how game breaking it may be while you're complaining about two faction books you're not familiar enough yet still blame for balance issues? Nor do you care enough about this potential balance issue to bother figuring out if your claim is correct?
As for the Blood Angel thing, it was a question, not a statement. And it was more than a little Reductio Ad Absurdum - as you blame the BA (And DA) codex for the balance issues in the BRB containing close combat rules. In other words, I'm pointing out how laughably ridiculous it is - with yet another example (Close combat, Victory Points/Objective Securing, Command Points/Force Org) - to claim four Space Marine Chapter books cause the balance issues when the Big Rule Book has enough all on it's own.
Martel732 wrote: I get that, but most primaris-heavy lists are still autolosing to triple ravager in my area. And multi-damage spam IG lists.
Sure. What Primaris do now has nothing to do with what Primaris will be when they are done. Honestly it's a big unknown how effective the final product will be. It's not a question of if there will be a Primaris only line (there will be). It's only a question of if GW can price the units and write the rules competently (good luck. Sincerely... good luck. I want the armies to be balanced.).
For good or bad the game is about as balanced as I've ever seen it since starting way back in 3rd edition.
I don't think GW really want balance, they seem to just love these days changing what is unbalanced in a more regular fashion. Running it round and round so people chase the meta.
I mean you can say Primaris will clean up marines, but to me it just makes it so much more dull, lacking the choice and interest of why I liked marines in the first place. There are few units more boring at this moment than Primaris battleline troops with just bolt rifles.
Lance845 wrote: Maybe when you quote me you should actually quote me instead of using a quote box and then typing out a sentence I did not write.
Primaris are not the things making the SM line bloated. If anything they are cleaning it up. Again, they have distinct roles to fill and do not overlap each other or step on each others toes for getting a job done. The rest of the SM line can't say that. SM have been bloated for a long time before that.
I don't think that points/PL are a problem. I don't think the force org chart is a probem except that the ones used in 40k basically serve no purpose because they are not restricting in any capacity.
When did I say anything about a conspiracy to nerf specific armies by creating core melee rules that are not great? Black Templar suffer just as much and they don't need to have their own book to do it.
I honestly don't know enough about the gunships to comment on them, which is why I didn't. I also don't care enough about them and CP to research them and find out what you are talking about. You can explain it out for me and I may or may not agree with you. But as it stands it's simply a talking point I don't know enough about to debate.
You mentioned Terminators being crap. I explained why.
I noticed the error and fixed it, my last edit time stamp is :54, while your post time is :56. I was going to toss your own snark back at you, then changed it to doing so with a quote and forgot to hit paste. Sue me.
Yup. And it took me more than 2 seconds to write my post. So my comment was still valid last I looked at what I was responding to. Or do you think I type 6,930 words per minute?
The New stuff doesn't make it bloated, its the old stuff that was here first. Excellent Hot Take.
Thank you.
You don't think armies that are bought in points used to balance horde and elite armies but win on model count that totally favors the horde is a problem?
I think basic 40k has ALOT of problems.
But a black jet fighter with a BIG Dakka Bolter for DA and a Blue jet fighter with either a medium Dakka Gun or two anti-tank lasers is totally game breaking? I'm asking a third time because you still have not answered the question. I see you do admit you don't actually know the two units in question from the two codexes you are blaming for this imbalance. So you don't know what is in the books you blame for the balance issues?
I know a lot about whats in the books. I don't know the specific issues between every unit. I know that SM have like... 5 different units they want in melee with clearly superior choices and clearly inferior choices while none of them are performing particularly well. I know that Spacewolves then get extra units that also want to be in melee. And then Blood angles get extra units that want to be in melee. And then DA get extra units that want to be in melee. Tell me, how are DAs Deathwing Knights compare to regular melee terminators compared to assault marines compared to vanguard vets?
What are Crusader squads vs all those other units? How about the wolf riders for space wolves? Death Company? Sanguinary Guards?
All these units are doing the same job. Thats the bloat. The special snowflake variants are still just another unit on the pile of units trying to do the same job. Again, look at the primaris on their own as the army they will one day be. Each unit has a distinct place. It's the difference between termagants and hormagaunts and gargoyles. I don't have 5 different versions of the hormagaunt with special snowflake versions based on hive fleet on top of that. I just have hormagaunts. Their role is distinct. Even when you then add in genestealers the genestealers have enough different about them that hormagaunts and genestealers fill different roles and I bring them in a list to fulfill different purposes.
You don't know enough about a BRB Game mechanic to comment on how game breaking it may be while you're complaining about two faction books you're not familiar enough yet still blame for balance issues? Nor do you care enough about this potential balance issue to bother figuring out if your claim is correct?
Again, read. I didn't say I don't know enough about the core rules. I seem to have a better grasp on them then you. I said I don't know enough about those 2 units and their problems. Stop taking what I am saying and inferring dumb nonsense from it. Take the words I wrote and answer those words. It should be easy. Use the quote function and then read it while you are responding. Don't change what I wrote and you won't have to be confused about what I was actually saying.
As for the Blood Angel thing, it was a question, not a statement. And it was more than a little Reductio Ad Absurdum - as you blame the BA (And DA) codex for the balance issues in the BRB containing close combat rules.
I did not say that. I would ask you to quote me saying that but your quoting skills are currently in question.
In other words, I'm pointing out how laughably ridiculous it is - with yet another example (Close combat, Victory Points/Objective Securing, Command Points/Force Org) - to claim four Space Marine Chapter books cause the balance issues when the Big Rule Book has enough all on it's own.
The SM "Chapter books" add to and conflate the issues. They are at best unnecessary. At face value part of the problem. At worst some of the more egregious examples of the problem.
AngryAngel80 wrote: For good or bad the game is about as balanced as I've ever seen it since starting way back in 3rd edition.
I don't think GW really want balance, they seem to just love these days changing what is unbalanced in a more regular fashion. Running it round and round so people chase the meta.
I mean you can say Primaris will clean up marines, but to me it just makes it so much more dull, lacking the choice and interest of why I liked marines in the first place. There are few units more boring at this moment than Primaris battleline troops with just bolt rifles.
Most of those choices are false choices at the moment. You can't afford to equip tac marines because it makes them too fragile.
At the highest levels of competitive most books have lots of dead choices and I can't remember when people were actually considering standard tac marines to be " Good " outside of 3rd edition Rhino Rush Tactics.
Closest that came was for the stretch of time in 5th Grey Hunters were considered to be amazing, which they were quite good.
At the end of the day I'd still like more choices as opposed to less and embrace style over uniformity of dull. Choices are only bad if the game designers are so abysmal as to make them all bad. Which isn't a fault of the tactical marine by its nature but more to show GW is just piss poor at figuring out what makes marines good aside from visuals and even that they find a way to foul up sometimes.
AngryAngel80 wrote: At the highest levels of competitive most books have lots of dead choices and I can't remember when people were actually considering standard tac marines to be " Good " outside of 3rd edition Rhino Rush Tactics.
Closest that came was for the stretch of time in 5th Grey Hunters were considered to be amazing, which they were quite good.
At the end of the day I'd still like more choices as opposed to less and embrace style over uniformity of dull. Choices are only bad if the game designers are so abysmal as to make them all bad. Which isn't a fault of the tactical marine by its nature but more to show GW is just piss poor at figuring out what makes marines good aside from visuals and even that they find a way to foul up sometimes.
We are not talking about a codex having a unit that just isn't very good. Not even getting into super competitive. Just in a very general sense. We are talking about too many units in too limited a design space for them to even have a chance to be good or even distinct. It's not a matter of this unit just isn't that great. There are just full on too many units. Why can't sanguinary Guard be Vanguard vets with special BA bits and a different paint scheme? Why are Deathwing Knights not just Terminators with a melee loadout? How come Thunderwolves are not just Bikers for spacewolves with a unique model?
There are entire books filled with how each chapter paints their armor different for different companies and units along with unique kits or upgrade sprus for various chapters. These things don't need a whole datasheet. And they are not distinct enough or fill a distinct enough role to warrant it.
And just to point out this as being fair. It's really dumb that thornback and screamer killer carnifexes are different datasheets instead of just options for the standard carnifex too. The fex doesn't need 4 variants. The standard and stone crusher is more than enough.
The New stuff doesn't make it bloated, its the old stuff that was here first. Excellent Hot Take.
Thank you.
Oh that's all you, I couldn't have pointed out you blame the old stuff for being there first if you hadn't said it.
Yup. And it took me more than 2 seconds to write my post. So my comment was still valid last I looked at what I was responding to.
Well as valid as can be when complaining you told someone to read something, and the quote was paraphrased but still the gist of your snark. Especially from someone who likes to complain about semantics.
I think basic 40k has ALOT of problems.
Which is of course why you're blaming the non-codex Marine books for it. This is almost as good as blaming the stuff that was already there for bloating the army lists.
I know that SM have like... 5 different units they want in melee with clearly superior choices and clearly inferior choices while none of them are performing particularly well
I know a lot of Armies have multiple units they want in melee that aren't performing particularly well because melee itself doesn't perform particularly well. If only someone had been making that point when mentioning the BRB is the source of the balance issues, not the codexes.
All these units are doing the same job.
No, they're not. Sanguinary Guard are Command Squad equivalents/remnants for Dante and/or Jump Captains/etc and provide a fairly hefty Jump/CCW role as well as a Jump Medic, and a Jump Ancient with Banner. This is an overlapping, but not identical job as the Vanguard Vets, or the Death Company, or even the assault squad. All of these units perform a similar role but at a different level with a different investment cost thus performing a different job, Again look at the Primaris and how much the Intercessors and Infiltrators don't perform the same job. Oh wait. That's sure a fly in your ointment. How does one claim these jump pack marines with different rules, gear, and costs perform the same job as that jump pack marines while saying these bolter 3+ Primaris Marine troops don't perform the same job as those 3+ bolter Primaris troops. Incidentally, I bring Vanguard and Assault Marines to different lists for different purposes.
Again, read. I didn't say I don't know enough about the core rules. I seem to have a better grasp on them then you.
I honestly don't know enough about the gunships to comment on them, which is why I didn't. I also don't care enough about them and CP to research them and find out what you are talking about.
It sure sounds like you did. For having a "better grasp" you didn't understand a pretty clear reference to the affects of the Loyal 32, Soup, and the rates at which 2000 points of horde armies, 2000 points of elite armies, and 2,000 points of fluffy and elite but not Battalion based Armies will generate CP's and capture objectives. Still. Again. Yet More. But at least you've got a better grasp on how...
I don't think that points/PL are a problem. I don't think the force org chart is a probem except that the ones used in 40k basically serve no purpose because they are not restricting in any capacity.
the Force Org Charts are "not restricting in any capacity" for the -Wing Armies, White Scar Biker Armies, Pure Knight (without their special rule) or Saim Hann Jetbike, and so on armies.
Take the words I wrote and answer those words. It should be easy.
I would have thought so too, but you had an incredibly amount of difficulty directly answering my simple questions.
As for the Blood Angel thing, it was a question, not a statement. And it was more than a little Reductio Ad Absurdum - as you blame the BA (And DA) codex for the balance issues in the BRB containing close combat rules.
I did not say that. I would ask you to quote me saying that but your quoting skills are currently in question.
You didn't?
It's special snowfalke units with a lack of actual "chapter tactics" coupled with needing to errata and update each book separately for every single change that gets made when they share so many units. The SM line is already bloated with units that have no clear purpose or who are competing with other units that do the intended job better. Tossing chapter specific units into the mix that just add to that mess is an issue. It's much easier to balance 5 distinct units then it is 15 indistinct, or worse 25 indistinct with these 2 only being available to these guys and these 3 only available to those guys etc etc...
It's a bad situation that keeps being made worse. Spreading it out into 4 books 3 of which are treated as their own armies is mad when they could just as easily be chapters.
I know a lot about whats in the books. I don't know the specific issues between every unit. I know that SM have like... 5 different units they want in melee with clearly superior choices and clearly inferior choices while none of them are performing particularly well. I know that Spacewolves then get extra units that also want to be in melee. And then Blood angles get extra units that want to be in melee. And then DA get extra units that want to be in melee. Tell me, how are DAs Deathwing Knights compare to regular melee terminators compared to assault marines compared to vanguard vets?
What are Crusader squads vs all those other units? How about the wolf riders for space wolves? Death Company? Sanguinary Guards?
I don't see a lot of pointing out the problem with close combat is in the BRB, I see a lot of blaming the codexes for having close combat units in them.
Then you should practice your reading comprehension. The VOLUME of melee units with the same targets is the issue I am pointing at. Not the general effectiveness of melee. I chose melee units as an example. It is not the only example and the fact that core melee rules have problems too is besides the point.
Go back. Read. Try to understand. Come back when you can put 2 sentences together and understand the bigger point they make together.
Lance845 wrote: Then you should practice your reading comprehension. The VOLUME of melee units with the same targets is the issue I am pointing at. Not the general effectiveness of melee. I chose melee units as an example. It is not the only example and the fact that core melee rules have problems too is besides the point.
Go back. Read. Try to understand. Come back when you can put 2 sentences together and understand the bigger point they make together.
Says the guy who didn't understand the point of CP Generation, Force Org, and game balance.
I see your "better grasp" of the game is still holding strong.
You said wrote:]All these units are doing the same job.
I said wrote:No, they're not. Sanguinary Guard are Command Squad equivalents/remnants for Dante and/or Jump Captains/etc and provide a fairly hefty Jump/CCW role as well as a Jump Medic, and a Jump Ancient with Banner. This is an overlapping, but not identical job as the Vanguard Vets, or the Death Company, or even the assault squad. All of these units perform a similar role but at a different level with a different investment cost thus performing a different job, Again look at the Primaris and how much the Intercessors and Infiltrators don't perform the same job. Oh wait. That's sure a fly in your ointment. How does one claim these jump pack marines with different rules, gear, and costs perform the same job as that jump pack marines while saying these bolter 3+ Primaris Marine troops don't perform the same job as those 3+ bolter Primaris troops. Incidentally, I bring Vanguard and Assault Marines to different lists for different purposes.
You Doubled Down with wrote:The VOLUME of melee units with the same targets
They don't have the same targets. They don't have the same job. Vanguard Vets with their access to AP -2 etc power weapons have entirely different target lists - and niche in an Army List -than Assault Marines with their AP -0 chainswords and even different than a 15 model unit of Death Company or a small unit of Sanguinary Guard. And this is long before we get to the target lists - let alone other strategic and tactical uses - of Assault Terminators, Inceptors, Centurions, Aggressors, and Reivers.
As I already mentioned, but you didn't appear to read Sanguinary Guard are the Command Squad role, and will be supporting cast for Dante or a Jump Captain/etc Warlord. Vanguard Veterans will most frequently be used as a hammer on the anvil, Assault Marines are best used - in this edition- for back line harassment of glass cannons, or squishy rear guard like Guard HW Teams. Surely with your superior grasp of the rules you already understood that units performing similar functions to different quality levels for different investment costs meant they had different primary, secondary, and tertiary uses and did not perform the SAME job? But then, why would you keep trying to claim this after it's been pointed out to you?
Lance845 wrote: Good. So why are sanguinary guard not a command squad with jump packs as a upgrade and unique models? Why are they their own unit?
For the same reason Dante isn't a generic chapter master with a jump pack upgrade? Fluff. Variety. For the same reason the Captain, Terminator Captain, Phobos Captain, Gravis Captain, etc. aren't Captain with Terminator/Cataphracti/Bike/Gravis/Phobos/Primaris/etc upgrades resulting in a four page datasheet of If/Then/Else statements bound to confuse people into accidental cheating let alone intentional. For the same reason Infiltrators aren't Intercessors with a backpack upgrade? I realize this sounded rhetorical, but I would like an answer -
Primaris are not the things making the SM line bloated. If anything they are cleaning it up. Again, they have distinct roles to fill and do not overlap each other or step on each others toes for getting a job done. The rest of the SM line can't say that. SM have been bloated for a long time before that.
How does one claim these jump pack marines with different rules, gear, and costs perform the same job as that jump pack marines while saying these bolter 3+ Primaris Marine troops don't perform the same job as those 3+ bolter Primaris troops.
For now, I shall content myself in your "superior grasp" of the game acknowledging they don't have the same job and you now plan to move the goal posts into homogenizing the very variety that makes these non codex chapters unique.
I could see that it would be hard to make all choices of JP Infantry well balanced and equally viable in a BA list. Since if they arent priced perfectly one of the units will be better at another units intended role for a cheaper price.
But we arent at that place right now that any one of them is in the place they should be. They all have easy problems to fix first that shouldnt take GW years to fix.
Why is the Death Company the lowest LD space marine unit? I remember them as being more fearless than even usual marines with actually having the rule Fearless. Now you must pay for a character to babysit them so they dont run away in fear if one of their death crazed brothers die, cause thats what scares suicidal marines. Easy fix is to add 2-3 ld to them. I hope this is a typo and GW just dont want to admit they fethed up.
Why are there different rules for the Sanguinary Guard weapons? Best choice right now is the powerfist you only get 1 of in the box since the weapons you get more of are way overpriced. There should probably just be Encarmine Blades/Weapons as a single choice with a relic blade statline and price. Why split it up and then be unable to balance them at all in the first place. And their rule for rerolls close to warlord should probably be changed. They are Dantes guard unit and he already gives them full rerolls.
Vanguard vets are fine but should perhaps be a fast attack choice for Blood Angels or count as chosen by the player. Unlike normal marines BA already have DC and SG as even more elite JP units in the elite slot.
Assault Marines is probably one of the worst assault units in the game for its costs. You can barely win against pure shooting units in melee with them at the same point cost. They shouldnt lose their chainswords for taking a special weapon and their special melee weapon choice should be free. Perhaps a 1pt decrease in price or made troops so they become mobile scorers and that being their niche and not "Assaulting".
Company veterans and company champion rules should probably be moved to the other veterans units and these choices then be removed to lessen the bloat.
If they fixed these easy and obvious problems with the units then there would be more of a discussion on how to properly balance them for each role and perhaps there wont ever be a time all 4 units is the best at their intended role but right not that isnt even the biggest problem with those units. And if they cant do 4 different units then they could probably just remove VV for BA and let assault marines have an extra melee weapon and a storm shield or 2 and be something in between. Would fit the JP and assault focused marine chapter.
I have used assault marines and company vetetans quite a bit these last 2 months and I feel they have their uses and best use for "assault" marines have been to not charge anything harder than grots and understrength guard squads. Instead just focus on scoring while hiding out of los
Company veterans and company champion rules should probably be moved to the other veterans units and these choices then be removed to lessen the bloat.
They made a mistake breaking up the Command Squad, and I'll bet they know it. My money is on they were trying to get the specialists (almost assuredly The Apothecary) out of the Command squad as a solo option like it was - and in keeping with movie narratives of one guy with a medical bag running from squad to squad as people shout "Corpsman!" "Medic!"- combined with the new targeting character rules and characters joining units making a retinue difficult and clunky. To make matters worse they didn't make all the retinue specialists HQ/Characters or No Slot choices like a Retinue used to be at times clogging up the FOC if you do try and mimic the retinue in your new lists. As HQ's you could turn the Retinue into a Supreme Command, as no slot, you wouldn't be using 4 slots for what used to be one "squad" in your list. If they keep the characters can't normally join units thing, I'm betting they still come up with a Retinue rule (During Deployment you can deploy Champions, Ancients, Captains, Chaplains, Librarians etc together in one unit that must stay one unit.... ) on command squads/company veterans to get command squads of some kind going again.
Daba wrote: If Space Marines are coca cola, Primaris are new coke.
I kind of like them. I'll probably like them more when they're finished. I really like the Phobos. Space Marine Scouts as some sort of Boy Wonder and the Teen Titans never really appealed to me. But I did like the idea of the 10th Scout Company and now that we finally have a Scout Company Captain, hes not really the Scout Company Captain, he's just a Captain wearing the new Scout/Phobos Armor. They're creating a lot of headaches for themselves and their fluffy fans/players trying to make Primaris both different, and still similar to. What does a full Primaris Chapter look like in the first and 10th companies? I suppose a Primaris Chapter First Company is probably 10 squads of 10 Indomitus Crusaders Gray Shields Intercessors. The 3+3 Inceptor/Aggressor squads are already give me OCD nightmares as they morph from/into 10 man Reiver/Hellbalster squads. Do the two, four, or seven guys who didn't get to change their armor just have the day off?
I'll just repeat what most have said. They won't be squat'ed yet, they just won't receive anymore models. All Primaris, all the time.
They definitely won't be gone in 9th, but we might see certain units disappear - no Index for those who aren't in the main 'dex - coinciding with their kits going LCTB.
By 10th however, when most of the OldMarine line has had a Primaris'ed replacement of sorts, they'll probably pull the plug. By that point most people will have 'upgraded' their collections and not care, as well as an insurgence of newbies who haven't known any different, and those who dislike the squat'ing will be drowned out, probably with lines like "Well you had to know this was coming", most likely from the same people who also insisted GW would never squat OldMarines.
Arbitrator wrote: I'll just repeat what most have said. They won't be squat'ed yet, they just won't receive anymore models. All Primaris, all the time.
They definitely won't be gone in 9th, but we might see certain units disappear - no Index for those who aren't in the main 'dex - coinciding with their kits going LCTB.
By 10th however, when most of the OldMarine line has had a Primaris'ed replacement of sorts, they'll probably pull the plug. By that point most people will have 'upgraded' their collections and not care, as well as an insurgence of newbies who haven't known any different, and those who dislike the squat'ing will be drowned out, probably with lines like "Well you had to know this was coming", most likely from the same people who also insisted GW would never squat OldMarines.
It won't even be the models, it'll be the rules. Would you rather have a 10 man Tac Squad for 170, or a 10 man Intercessor for 170? Few people will take the Tacticals unless they're looking for transport tricks. 10 Intercessors for 350 or 10 Devs, with 8 heavy weapons for 400 and two slots?
Daba wrote: If Space Marines are coca cola, Primaris are new coke.
I kind of like them. I'll probably like them more when they're finished. I really like the Phobos. Space Marine Scouts as some sort of Boy Wonder and the Teen Titans never really appealed to me. But I did like the idea of the 10th Scout Company and now that we finally have a Scout Company Captain, hes not really the Scout Company Captain, he's just a Captain wearing the new Scout/Phobos Armor. They're creating a lot of headaches for themselves and their fluffy fans/players trying to make Primaris both different, and still similar to. What does a full Primaris Chapter look like in the first and 10th companies? I suppose a Primaris Chapter First Company is probably 10 squads of 10 Indomitus Crusaders Gray Shields Intercessors. The 3+3 Inceptor/Aggressor squads are already give me OCD nightmares as they morph from/into 10 man Reiver/Hellbalster squads. Do the two, four, or seven guys who didn't get to change their armor just have the day off?
I was against Primaris myself when they first came out. However, after getting Shadowspear and painting a few of the Phobos marines (I also really like Phobos armor) I have been making a Primaris, mostly, only army. To me, the jump in quality from non-Primaris to Primaris is equal to Mantic's Enforcers to Space Marines. I can't say I am a fan of single weapon loadouts for squads, but at the same time, while I might want a couple of stalker bolters with my bolt rifle Intercessors I think the unit would be lesser for it anyways.
As for scouts, until more word comes down from GW on how they work, I am treating my personal Ultima Founding chapter, the Avenging Eagles, scouts as a combination recon/CIA operative/Wetworker/Spy. Since scouts appear human far more than full space marines, they can infiltrate hive cities as gather intelligence and/or perform covert ops that full space marines are just too conspicuous. It is no secret that my Scouts see more game time in a Kill Team game instead of full 40k game for the above reasons. But my chapter is heavily influenced by United States military from WWII to Vietnam. In 40k terms, they are basically the Raptors chapter if they happened to be Blood Angels. Not because that makes any sense, but because my play style naturally leads me to assault/CQC. At the same time, I certainly don't see my chapter's use of Scouts fitting with most chapters in 40k as they would find these actions dishonorable.
I personally would prefer a combining of codices. Even after describing my chapter as Raptors if they were Blood Angels, I am not going to purchase the Blood Angels codex when the Space Marine one gets me everything I want with more flexibility to not play the same chapter over and over if I don't want to. I also prescribe to the idea that chances are most Chapters out there have special snowflake things going on themselves. I am not bound to the old ways of 40k, I would much rather see a streamline (read: blanding if you must) of many units. Pretty much all terminators could just be the same thing with different models instead every mark getting its own rules. The same goes for Deathwing. I mean I really like Deathwing, but I don't necessarily think they need their own rules at the scale and scope that 40k is now commonly played at. Same goes for power weapons. I really would prefer that power swords, mauls and axes were just one profile so I could model whatever and be done with it.
I can easily understand why players want all the special stuff. I just think they don't necessarily realize that more options is going to mean less balance. More options is introducing more complexity into the system and more complexity into the system means more places for issues to occur. Given that GW is only ever going to put so much effort into balancing their rules, this means more options that are out there the more white noise of options that aren't very good from a competitive stand point are going to be. It like asking for 20 pounds of groceries to fit in a single bad and weigh 5 pounds. It is just not possible. I am not even certain that even if GW poured all the resources into balancing that 40k, it still wouldn't have a bunch loser units that still aren't worth taking at even a semi-competitive level. It is just too much stuff with too few roles in the way the game is played.
Lance845 wrote: Then you should practice your reading comprehension. The VOLUME of melee units with the same targets is the issue I am pointing at. Not the general effectiveness of melee. I chose melee units as an example. It is not the only example and the fact that core melee rules have problems too is besides the point.
Go back. Read. Try to understand. Come back when you can put 2 sentences together and understand the bigger point they make together.
Says the guy who didn't understand the point of CP Generation, Force Org, and game balance.
I see your "better grasp" of the game is still holding strong.
You said wrote:]All these units are doing the same job.
I said wrote:No, they're not. Sanguinary Guard are Command Squad equivalents/remnants for Dante and/or Jump Captains/etc and provide a fairly hefty Jump/CCW role as well as a Jump Medic, and a Jump Ancient with Banner. This is an overlapping, but not identical job as the Vanguard Vets, or the Death Company, or even the assault squad. All of these units perform a similar role but at a different level with a different investment cost thus performing a different job, Again look at the Primaris and how much the Intercessors and Infiltrators don't perform the same job. Oh wait. That's sure a fly in your ointment. How does one claim these jump pack marines with different rules, gear, and costs perform the same job as that jump pack marines while saying these bolter 3+ Primaris Marine troops don't perform the same job as those 3+ bolter Primaris troops. Incidentally, I bring Vanguard and Assault Marines to different lists for different purposes.
You Doubled Down with wrote:The VOLUME of melee units with the same targets
They don't have the same targets. They don't have the same job. Vanguard Vets with their access to AP -2 etc power weapons have entirely different target lists - and niche in an Army List -than Assault Marines with their AP -0 chainswords and even different than a 15 model unit of Death Company or a small unit of Sanguinary Guard. And this is long before we get to the target lists - let alone other strategic and tactical uses - of Assault Terminators, Inceptors, Centurions, Aggressors, and Reivers.
As I already mentioned, but you didn't appear to read Sanguinary Guard are the Command Squad role, and will be supporting cast for Dante or a Jump Captain/etc Warlord. Vanguard Veterans will most frequently be used as a hammer on the anvil, Assault Marines are best used - in this edition- for back line harassment of glass cannons, or squishy rear guard like Guard HW Teams. Surely with your superior grasp of the rules you already understood that units performing similar functions to different quality levels for different investment costs meant they had different primary, secondary, and tertiary uses and did not perform the SAME job? But then, why would you keep trying to claim this after it's been pointed out to you?
LOL at thinking Blood Angels have enough variety for those roles.
If you have to force a unit to do a different job than it was already intended, it is a failure in design. Each chapter only need 3-4 unique units at MOST. No, Blood Angels don't need a separate entry for an Apothecary. No, Dark Angels don't need a whole separate Deathwing entry.
Get over it. Also it was funny when someone said it was Xenos players complaining when, news flash, I'm a Marine player telling you this fake "variety" makes it harder to balance the armies.
It's wrong to blame the separate Chapter Codices for the Space Marines underperforming. Even when they were all in the Index they weren't exactly dominating the scene. The one Gulliman/Razerback/Stormraven build was quickly nerfed. Soup Marine lists don't seem to be a thing, which you would expect if the division of the armies was causing a power problem. I think that the Primaris were designed with 7th Ed in mind. The line continues to be designed by model designers instead of game designers. Hopefully they bring the games design in line with the great models.
GW can update/overhaul/improve all the Space Marines books at once if they choose to do so. Chapter Approved, White Dwarf, Vigilus style books and the FAQs all allow GW to update fundamental aspects that cut across the four main Marine books (like they did with the Bolter rule). Some changes to other books such as Astra Militarum and the Aeldari/Drukahri would also help Space Marines improve. I fail to see how combining the DA/BA/SW and Space Marines would achieve a positive effect.
I get that some folks don't like the Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Space Wolves. Don't play them. Ultimately the market will decide. It would seem that the separate books will hang around for now as they are still popular. Perhaps the same will hold true for "Oldmarines." If they sell well and don't cost too much (in terms of opportunity cost/distribution/shelf space etc then we can expect some aspect of them to hang around.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: It's wrong to blame the separate Chapter Codices for the Space Marines underperforming. Even when they were all in the Index they weren't exactly dominating the scene. The one Gulliman/Razerback/Stormraven build was quickly nerfed. Soup Marine lists don't seem to be a thing, which you would expect if the division of the armies was causing a power problem. I think that the Primaris were designed with 7th Ed in mind. The line continues to be designed by model designers instead of game designers. Hopefully they bring the games design in line with the great models.
GW can update/overhaul/improve all the Space Marines books at once if they choose to do so. Chapter Approved, White Dwarf, Vigilus style books and the FAQs all allow GW to update fundamental aspects that cut across the four main Marine books (like they did with the Bolter rule). Some changes to other books such as Astra Militarum and the Aeldari/Drukahri would also help Space Marines improve. I fail to see how combining the DA/BA/SW and Space Marines would achieve a positive effect.
I get that some folks don't like the Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Space Wolves. Don't play them. Ultimately the market will decide. It would seem that the separate books will hang around for now as they are still popular. Perhaps the same will hold true for "Oldmarines." If they sell well and don't cost too much (in terms of opportunity cost/distribution/shelf space etc then we can expect some aspect of them to hang around.
It IS part of the reason though. They're all the same units being costed as the same as Ultramarines in a Roboute bubble. That becomes a domino effect into units that are bad such as Death Company, because they're all around the same unit.
That's not even dealing with unit redundancies. Can you really look at me with a straight face and tell me that Deathwing should really be their own entry instead of how Terminators are handled in the Vanilla codex? That a Furioso can't just be handled with the Ironclad entry? That either army shouldn't have Centurions for reasons?
It's stupid, it really is. The fact that people continue to defend it is absurd.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: It's wrong to blame the separate Chapter Codices for the Space Marines underperforming. Even when they were all in the Index they weren't exactly dominating the scene. The one Gulliman/Razerback/Stormraven build was quickly nerfed. Soup Marine lists don't seem to be a thing, which you would expect if the division of the armies was causing a power problem. I think that the Primaris were designed with 7th Ed in mind. The line continues to be designed by model designers instead of game designers. Hopefully they bring the games design in line with the great models.
GW can update/overhaul/improve all the Space Marines books at once if they choose to do so. Chapter Approved, White Dwarf, Vigilus style books and the FAQs all allow GW to update fundamental aspects that cut across the four main Marine books (like they did with the Bolter rule). Some changes to other books such as Astra Militarum and the Aeldari/Drukahri would also help Space Marines improve. I fail to see how combining the DA/BA/SW and Space Marines would achieve a positive effect.
I get that some folks don't like the Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Space Wolves. Don't play them. Ultimately the market will decide. It would seem that the separate books will hang around for now as they are still popular. Perhaps the same will hold true for "Oldmarines." If they sell well and don't cost too much (in terms of opportunity cost/distribution/shelf space etc then we can expect some aspect of them to hang around.
It IS part of the reason though. They're all the same units being costed as the same as Ultramarines in a Roboute bubble. That becomes a domino effect into units that are bad such as Death Company, because they're all around the same unit.
That's not even dealing with unit redundancies. Can you really look at me with a straight face and tell me that Deathwing should really be their own entry instead of how Terminators are handled in the Vanilla codex? That a Furioso can't just be handled with the Ironclad entry? That either army shouldn't have Centurions for reasons?
It's stupid, it really is. The fact that people continue to defend it is absurd.
Can you tell me with a straight face that having a Deathwing entry has anything to do with Terminators being behind the 8-Ball this edition? As for distinctiveness, the Deathwing have their own aesthetic, long-established lore, and differences in weapons loadout and morale. Again, don't play them if you don't want to. You don't need the DA Codex if you are running something else. The range of units available to the DA and BA has increased this edition. Lacking access to Centurions is not a deal-breaker. If it was, just soup some in. I fail to see what streamlining the Space Marine armies into one book would achieve in terms of improving the balance for those armies. Meanwhile, you would lose plenty of distinctiveness and flavour. That flavour is not hurting you.
As for costing of Space Marines units being set with a Roboute bubble, I think that you are really reaching (never mind that the Azrael aura effect is what lets DA hang in there). Even if it were true, a few points does not make a difference. Space Marines have some structural issues when they face most non-Space Marine opponents (or when considered for inclusion in an Imperium army). Those issues need to be addressed (cost/effectiveness of AM infantry, plethora of Xenos weapons that make a mockery of Space Marines and Primaris, etc).
Deathwing morale is handled by a dark angle chapter tactic. Their aesthetic is bits in a box. Their lore is less than a page of fluff in a codex. None of that requires an entirely new datasheet.
Nobody is disputing that sm have other issues too. Sm are fully capable of having multiple problems at the same time. One of those problems is an excess of redundant units that only gets worse when you look at ba, da, and sw. Trim the fat. Condense. And once you have condensed the special snow flake units into their baseline units while keeping their special kits for bits and fluff you end up with no reason to keep giving them their own books. Then, with less bull gak to juggle it becomes easier to cost it all correctly and give it all distinct roles to fill.
Lance845 wrote: Deathwing morale is handled by a dark angle chapter tactic. Their aesthetic is bits in a box. Their lore is less than a page of fluff in a codex. None of that requires an entirely new datasheet.
Nobody is disputing that sm have other issues too. Sm are fully capable of having multiple problems at the same time. One of those problems is an excess of redundant units that only gets worse when you look at ba, da, and sw. Trim the fat. Condense. And once you have condensed the special snow flake units into their baseline units while keeping their special kits for bits and fluff you end up with no reason to keep giving them their own books. Then, with less bull gak to juggle it becomes easier to cost it all correctly and give it all distinct roles to fill.
Exactly. Literally the only unique thing is the Plasma Cannon and that's about it. Hardly worth the unit entry and probably something everyone should've gotten anyway.
And the only differance between a devestator and a tactical marine is devestators have more heavy weapons, let's just fold them into the same bloody datasheet too!
BrianDavion wrote: And the only differance between a devestator and a tactical marine is devestators have more heavy weapons, let's just fold them into the same bloody datasheet too!
That is a big difference.
Termagants and Gargoyles both come with fleshborers. Gargs occupy a different FoC slot and come with a higher M and FLY. They serve distinct purposes.
Tac Marines are meant to be a adjustable take all comers unit that fills out your troops. Devestators are meant to be a heavy weapons kill the tanks strike unit with a distinct role of heavy fire support.
But Deathwing Knights are just melee Terminators. Ravenwing Bikers are just bikers. They don't have a different job from their generic counterpart. They do the same job with a different model kit in the same FoC slot. The generic unit has to compete with the snowflake.
The Carnifex, Thornback, and Screamer Killer are pointless distinctions. It's just a regular carnifex with some of the wargear the regular carnifex can take and it's own datasheet for no good reason.
The many versions of the Landraider is the same thing. Could just have the landraider and then different wargear options that changes it's purpose to the different load outs. It doesn't need to be like 5 different datasheets.
Blood ravens are the new hot thing from GW. That being said, they are a dying chapter, because they lost their geneseed progenitor. They don't have a place to make new ones. Their fluff specifically states they are dying out.
HOW ARE THEY MAKING PRIMARIS BRs? Honestly, I think this is how GW plans on NOT mothballing the Oldboys. Because technically, their hot new toy can't be re-made into Primaris. They don't even know who their founder is.
But hay, maybe GW will just say feth the lore, and now we have Primaris BRs, GKs, and Custodes.
Blood ravens are the new hot thing from GW. That being said, they are a dying chapter, because they lost their geneseed progenitor. They don't have a place to make new ones. Their fluff specifically states they are dying out.
HOW ARE THEY MAKING PRIMARIS BRs? Honestly, I think this is how GW plans on NOT mothballing the Oldboys. Because technically, their hot new toy can't be re-made into Primaris. They don't even know who their founder is.
But hay, maybe GW will just say feth the lore, and now we have Primaris BRs, GKs, and Custodes.
We know for a fact blood ravens can make new primaris, it's in their white dwarf stuff. Also they've been able to make marines this whole time even without knowing who their primarch is, I think they'll be fine.
Lance845 wrote: Deathwing morale is handled by a dark angle chapter tactic. Their aesthetic is bits in a box. Their lore is less than a page of fluff in a codex. None of that requires an entirely new datasheet.
Nobody is disputing that sm have other issues too. Sm are fully capable of having multiple problems at the same time. One of those problems is an excess of redundant units that only gets worse when you look at ba, da, and sw. Trim the fat. Condense. And once you have condensed the special snow flake units into their baseline units while keeping their special kits for bits and fluff you end up with no reason to keep giving them their own books. Then, with less bull gak to juggle it becomes easier to cost it all correctly and give it all distinct roles to fill.
Deathwing morale is not just Grim Resolve - they have their own rule. If their aesthetic is just bits in a box then all 40K aesthetics is just bits in a box. They have 30 years of lore.
Never mind their distinct weapons load-out that is more than a Plasma Cannon (@Slayer - they can mix weapons weapons unlike other Chapters).
Back at Lance, "trimming the fat" does not achieve anything. I get the feeling that you just don't like some stuff (using Special Snowflake and some vulgarity is a bit of a giveaway). It's OK - you don't need to play them.
Parking all of that, Space Marine problems at the competitive level are not because they have multiple books. The solutions are found in other books (nerfs to the biggest offenders), or patches that can be applied to all Marines (like the Bolter rule).
Lance845 wrote: Deathwing morale is handled by a dark angle chapter tactic. Their aesthetic is bits in a box. Their lore is less than a page of fluff in a codex. None of that requires an entirely new datasheet.
Nobody is disputing that sm have other issues too. Sm are fully capable of having multiple problems at the same time. One of those problems is an excess of redundant units that only gets worse when you look at ba, da, and sw. Trim the fat. Condense. And once you have condensed the special snow flake units into their baseline units while keeping their special kits for bits and fluff you end up with no reason to keep giving them their own books. Then, with less bull gak to juggle it becomes easier to cost it all correctly and give it all distinct roles to fill.
Deathwing morale is not just Grim Resolve - they have their own rule. If their aesthetic is just bits in a box then all 40K aesthetics is just bits in a box. They have 30 years of lore.
Never mind their distinct weapons load-out that is more than a Plasma Cannon (@Slayer - they can mix weapons weapons unlike other Chapters).
Back at Lance, "trimming the fat" does not achieve anything. I get the feeling that you just don't like some stuff (using Special Snowflake and some vulgarity is a bit of a giveaway). It's OK - you don't need to play them.
Parking all of that, Space Marine problems at the competitive level are not because they have multiple books. The solutions are found in other books (nerfs to the biggest offenders), or patches that can be applied to all Marines (like the Bolter rule).
Oh yeah I forgot about mixing weapons. It's perfectly reasonable to do one dude with LCs, one with an Assault Cannon, one with a TH/SS, one with a Chainfist, and the Power Sword Sergeant because.
Nobody mixes, dude. Come on. It's pointless because you want something specialized.
Oh yeah they do have their own rule too! Did you know that, instead of just losing just one model to morale like other Dark Angels, they lose none? Soooooo distinct!
You are incorrect about me likeing or not liking them. At worst i am neutral. At best i really enjoy their fluff. This isnt a hate crusade.
Trimming the fat works wonders every time. Every. Time. Trim the fat is one of the best things anyone can do in any medium. Hanging onto nonsense that weighs down the army/game/whatever out of some sense of nostalgia is a massive mistake. Again, i dont have, need, or want 5 different variations on the hormagaunt based on hive fleet. I think the 2 new (read remade from older editions) carnifex datasheets are dumb as feth and a waste of pages. Dont give screamer killers a beter bioplasma. Just make bioplasma good, cost it correctly, and put it on the regular carnifex data sheet.
The whole sm line is a bloated mess of expansion over decades with no trimming of the hedges. Its over grown, ugly, and in its own way. Time to cut it back. Long past time.
Blood ravens are the new hot thing from GW. That being said, they are a dying chapter, because they lost their geneseed progenitor. They don't have a place to make new ones. Their fluff specifically states they are dying out.
HOW ARE THEY MAKING PRIMARIS BRs? Honestly, I think this is how GW plans on NOT mothballing the Oldboys. Because technically, their hot new toy can't be re-made into Primaris. They don't even know who their founder is.
But hay, maybe GW will just say feth the lore, and now we have Primaris BRs, GKs, and Custodes.
you don't need a primarch to produce geneseed. chapters tithe to the ad mech for just this reason. in the blood ravens case, they're no worse off then the legion of other chapters whose genetic herritage is "unknown" and the fluff does NOT specificly say they're dying out. the index astartes article mentions they where in crap shape, but between the events of the dawn of war series and being on the wrong side of the great rift this is no suprise. but thats not dying.
also the BR aren't some "new hot" they're a space marine chapter that has been around for awhile as the protegionist chapter of the dawn of war series. which makes them 15 years old.
Also its heavily implied that cawl was not super specific about which gene seed he used to make the first batches of primaris. He has stock of all 20 origional legions (even the lost ones) and while he was forbidden from using the lost or traitor ones to make primaris cawl wanted to experiment and hes done a lot of gak hes been forbidden to do before because science so... Chances are a bunch of the primaris running around are not from loyalist gene stock to begin with.
LOL at thinking Blood Angels have enough variety for those roles.
If you have to force a unit to do a different job than it was already intended, it is a failure in design. Each chapter only need 3-4 unique units at MOST. No, Blood Angels don't need a separate entry for an Apothecary. No, Dark Angels don't need a whole separate Deathwing entry.
Get over it. Also it was funny when someone said it was Xenos players complaining when, news flash, I'm a Marine player telling you this fake "variety" makes it harder to balance the armies.
You appear to have misunderstood my point - The Apothecary was part of the Sanguinary Guard command squad. It, like all Apothecaries were split out. The multiple units point was about Sanguinary Guard, Vanguard Vets and Assault Marines having different roles/jobs. You wouldn't use them for the same purpose. As for the apothecary split - They didn't need it, but that was a design choice they decided to make - along with Champions and the like - across the board with Marine Command Squads - you'll see the same thing in the DA codex with the DW/RW Apothecary/Champion, the SM Codex with the Company Champion and Apothecary. I think it was a mistake, and will be reverted soon. I think they should have left the Command Squad as-is and made a seperate datasheet for a roving apothecary if they wanted to give people the choice of a Movie Medic, or a Squad Medic. They already sort of figured that out with Infiltrators - making the Medic a squad upgrade like a Vox Caster or Special/Heavy.
As for the Deathwing/Ravenwing point you appear to have misunderstood - Sure they need it. In the first place, Deathwing have different rules. In the second we don't need a 4 page if/then/else data sheet for units If you are Dark Angels, Then Gain Inner Circle, Else go to option 2 - Option 10, If you have Inner Circle, then gain Objective Secured, Else Go to Option 11. Option 497: If Tartaros Then Plasma Blaster Else Assault Cannon, Option 498....In the third place, Deathwing/Ravenwing/Windrider/White Scar bike/etc armies are already punished enough - for being fluffy no less - and don't need to be punished further on the FOC/Detachment/CP front forcing them to either get less fluffy or less effective.
Variety does make it harder to balance the armies. Not so much as to justify a decrease in variety. Once they have the proper formula they can balance all the variety we want. We could require every army to have two bare bones guard commanders, 3 infantry squads with 1 vox, and 1 grenade Launcher and nothing else. You'd certainly get rid of the variety, and the armies would be fairly balanced. They'd be boring, but they'd be balanced. I'd rather they balance their variety than force everyone to play with the exact same army.
It IS part of the reason though. They're all the same units being costed as the same as Ultramarines in a Roboute bubble.
Citation needed. Can you show me where they're being costed around a Guilliman bubble?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: Deathwing morale is handled by a dark angle chapter tactic. Their aesthetic is bits in a box. Their lore is less than a page of fluff in a codex. None of that requires an entirely new datasheet.
Nobody is disputing that sm have other issues too. Sm are fully capable of having multiple problems at the same time. One of those problems is an excess of redundant units that only gets worse when you look at ba, da, and sw. Trim the fat. Condense. And once you have condensed the special snow flake units into their baseline units while keeping their special kits for bits and fluff you end up with no reason to keep giving them their own books. Then, with less bull gak to juggle it becomes easier to cost it all correctly and give it all distinct roles to fill.
The aesthetic between bikes and tactical marines are bits in a box. Sure they're pretty important bits, but they're still bits in a box. I too can reduce fairly important rules to "bits in a box". Just how big are you planning on making these pages in a codex? I've got the DA Codex here, and there's a lot more than one page of fluff. Are you planning on making the codex books 4 feet by 8 feet? Will the Codex double as the table we play on? Can we emboss some scenery on it? What happens when you have to look up a rule? Magnetize the mini bases so they stick to the cover?
You keep assuming they are going to go back to the way it was before. Why would GW go back to selling you 1 50.00 box with 5 models instead of 5 single figure characters at 25-30 a piece?
Instead of making strawman arguments and pretending they have an actual point maybe you could answer the actual arguments being made.
Blood ravens are the new hot thing from GW. That being said, they are a dying chapter, because they lost their geneseed progenitor. They don't have a place to make new ones. Their fluff specifically states they are dying out.
HOW ARE THEY MAKING PRIMARIS BRs? Honestly, I think this is how GW plans on NOT mothballing the Oldboys. Because technically, their hot new toy can't be re-made into Primaris. They don't even know who their founder is.
But hay, maybe GW will just say feth the lore, and now we have Primaris BRs, GKs, and Custodes.
What makes you think Primaris will follow the same recreation process and requirements? At this point we don't even know if Primaris go through the scout process. They've been exceptionally careful to stay away from describing the Primaris Only Chapters. I suspect because even they don't know what they want to do, and don't want to get locked into yet another fluff headache.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: Also its heavily implied that cawl was not super specific about which gene seed he used to make the first batches of primaris. He has stock of all 20 origional legions (even the lost ones) and while he was forbidden from using the lost or traitor ones to make primaris cawl wanted to experiment and hes done a lot of gak hes been forbidden to do before because science so... Chances are a bunch of the primaris running around are not from loyalist gene stock to begin with.
Where is that heavily implied? Its outright stated the Gray Shields knew which chapter genestock they came from. Its also fluffy fact that chapters tithe their geneseed. I doubt Cawl would be stupid enough to release a chapter of Luna Wolves Primaris - especially as Luna Wolves geneseed had a strong impact on their marines ending up looking like Horus, something/someone Guilliman might notice/recognize - with the realization they'll have to tithe their geneseed for testing. That's not to say he wouldn't be stupid enough to make them. It is heavily impled, and they are absolutely going to make Traitor Legion Primaris if the Primaris Project re-balances Marines like they want. And it'll make a great campaign book as someone - probably Fabius Bile because the Emperor's Children are due for a turn in the spotlight soon - stages a raid on Cawl's hidden store house on... oh I don't know... Ullanor under the cover of oh I don't know... a Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka WAAAGH! because he's due for a turn in the spotlight again too, and the last couple used GSC/Nids.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: You keep assuming they are going to go back to the way it was before. Why would GW go back to selling you 1 50.00 box with 5 models instead of 5 single figure characters at 25-30 a piece?
Instead of making strawman arguments and pretending they have an actual point maybe you could answer the actual arguments being made.
Um, what do you think a Strawman argument is? Hypothesizing about the future actions of a third party is not a strawman. However claiming someone doesn't have an actual point on the actual arguments - based on your say so alone - could be argument by dismissal. Try and google "Your Logical Fallacy Is... " They have a poster and a chart that will help you. I hope.
As to your question - for starters they're not selling me 5 models for 25-30 a piece. The only stand alone box right now is the Primaris Apothecary The normal apothecary is still in the Command Squad bo. There may be a Primaris Ancient- and it was available in starter sets. The Regular Ancient is still in the Command Squad Box As far as I know there is no Primaris Champion box or data sheet, and the Company Veterans holding the place of the Command Squad marines without the Apothecary and Champion don't (usually) have a box either and are most likely to came from the command squad box. This was an experiment, it was a failed one. As I've mentioned before breaking up the Command squad has put a huge strain on the Elites section of the FOC for people who want to continue using an ersatz command squad. The Champion, Medic and Apothecary also cost more. (And are admittedly statistically better as well which is a design choice that could go either way)
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.
Me. Deathwing Terminators are the same as Terminators. They occupy the same FoC slot and if you just equip terminators with melee weapons then they are just like Deathwing Knights. The differences are minimal and there is no reason why they should be so many different units.
You: Tac marines are exactly the same as Bikes right!? Thats what you are saying? This is the same argument you are making.
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.
Me. Deathwing Terminators are the same as Terminators. They occupy the same FoC slot and if you just equip terminators with melee weapons then they are just like Deathwing Knights. The differences are minimal and there is no reason why they should be 2 different units.
You: Tac marines are exactly the same as Bikes right!? Thats what you are saying? This is the same argument you are making.
I.E. Strawman.
You:
You keep assuming they are going to go back to the way it was before. Why would GW go back to selling you 1 50.00 box with 5 models instead of 5 single figure characters at 25-30 a piece?
Instead of making strawman arguments and pretending they have an actual point maybe you could answer the actual arguments being made.
Not mentioning when you got called out for your composition/division fallacy made it hard to understand what you were erroneously calling a Strawman. No, that was Reductio Ad Absurdum. I took your argument and reduced it to the absurd to point out the flaw. In this case you claimed DeathWing were just regular Terminators with different bits - leaning heavily on the connotation that bits are cosmetic not functional - even more specifically that this melee weapon bit is the same as that melee weapon bit. I took that and reduced it to the absurd - bikes are just marines with bits - mocking your attempt to imply the bits aren't important.
Really, look up Your Logical Fallacy Is. For my sake, if not your own.
And I'll save you some time. When you look up Reductio Ad Absurdum, it can be a fallacy too. I'm going to reply with the Fallacy Fallacy.
For example this:
Why would GW go back to selling you 1 50.00 box with 5 models instead of 5 single figure characters at 25-30 a piece?
is a Begging the Loaded Question. GW isn't selling anyone 5 single figure boxes at 25-30 for what they used to sell in the command squad boxes for $50.
You're also conflating model kits and datasheets. One could absolutely proxy some Deathwing Knights using four Double LC Terminators, and 1 TH/SS Terminator for the Knight Master and Flail. But you'd be proxying them using the Deathwing Knights Datasheet and require the tolerance of your opponent. And the Deathwing Knight Datasheet.
Getting back to yet another question I've posed - how long do you expect these datasheets to be? When we fold BA/DA/SW/DW/GK/Sisters?/etc into this one codex, and the datasheet for Basic Power Armored Unit is created... how long is it going to be for all the If/Then/Else programming required? IF Sisters, -1S -1T + 1 Faith. Then Option 15: Adeptus Sororitas Bolters, Else Option 9: IF Blood Angels. Are we going to have to edit data sheets? If Wolves, If Tactical, Then -1LD to the Sgt Else If Wolves, If Long Fangs, +1LD and Unlock Heavy Weapons, Else Start Over. If Blood Angels, IF Assault Marines, IF Black Rage, Then unlock Jump Packs, and Power Weapons Else Start Over.
I expect them to not have the redundant options. I said, from the beginning, trim the fat.
Not make 1 datasheet with a gak ton of fat packed onto it.
Cut it out.
Terminators is a perfectly fine datasheet with a lot of options. When you look at the DA fluff they can talk about the Deathwing and the Deathwing knights describing how they are equiped. And then you, the player, wanting to be fluffy can equip your terminators with the bits to make them "Deathwing Knights", paint them up like the pictures you see and field them as you see fit.
1 unit instead of 3 competing for design space.
Repeat that over and over for all the other dumb bull gak that is bloating the SM line. Has it really taken you 3 pages to understand what I have been saying this whole time?
Or better, going with the subject of the thread, squat them all and make primaris.
Lance845 wrote: I expect them to not have the redundant options. I said, from the beginning, trim the fat.
Not make 1 datasheet with a gak ton of fat packed onto it.
Cut it out.
Terminators is a perfectly fine datasheet with a lot of options. When you look at the DA fluff they can talk about the Deathwing and the Deathwing knights describing how they are equiped. And then you, the player, wanting to be fluffy can equip your terminators with the bits to make them "Deathwing Knights", paint them up like the pictures you see and field them as you see fit.
1 unit instead of 3 competing for design space.
Repeat that over and over for all the other dumb bull gak that is bloating the SM line. Has it really taken you 3 pages to understand what I have been saying this whole time?
Or better, going with the subject of the thread, squat them all and make primaris.
Oh, I see, not only do you want to get rid of... 49 pages (50 in the codex -1 (the one you were willing to keep)) x 4? More codexes = 196+ pages of fluff you want to get rid of multitudes of weapons and variations like the Maces of Absolution.
You are incorrect about me likeing or not liking them. At worst i am neutral. At best i really enjoy their fluff. This isnt a hate crusade.
I just want to squat them until they DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE until they only have one page of fluff. That I like. Because Only the units I like should be in the codex. And it should be the only codex. The rest of it is a bloated mess, even if it was there first, the new stuff I like better should be all that's there.
Ah yes. More strawmans. Instead of answering the things I said you pretend I said something I didn't without actually answering my point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I get that you want to hang onto the old stuff. I do. But Primaris is the future and they are squatting the old marines. Enjoy it while it lasts. It won't last for long. You have basically until the named characters have been primarisized. By that point you will get a closer to Terminator equivalent, a few more vehicles and some dedicated melee units and then it's over. Old marines will be gone.
Oh, I see, not only do you want to get rid of... 49 pages (50 in the codex -1 (the one you were willing to keep)) x 4? More codexes = 196+ pages of fluff you want to get rid of multitudes of weapons and variations like the Maces of Absolution.
You are incorrect about me likeing or not liking them. At worst i am neutral. At best i really enjoy their fluff. This isnt a hate crusade.
I just want to squat them until they DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE until they only have one page of fluff. That I like. Because Only the units I like should be in the codex. And it should be the only codex. The rest of it is a bloated mess, even if it was there first, the new stuff I like better should be all that's there.
And you accused me of making up what you said... when you said:
You are incorrect about me likeing or not liking them. At worst i am neutral. At best i really enjoy their fluff. This isnt a hate crusade
Deathwing morale is handled by a dark angle chapter tactic. Their aesthetic is bits in a box. Their lore is less than a page of fluff in a codex.
Or better, going with the subject of the thread, squat them all and make primaris.
Please, again, I beg you, please go to the webpage and learn what the fallacies are.
So I'm curious. In this trim the fat plan you have.. until you can squat the Terminators entirely - what is the fat between Heavy Flamers, Assault Cannons, and Cyclone Missile Launchers? Storm Bolters are already doing the bullet job, so the Assault Cannon must be some fat to be trimmed right? Oh wait, Bolters do the bullet flinging job. So lets get rid of stormbolters too? The Cyclone is gone, because Devastators already have a missile launcher., The Crux Terminatus gives an invuln, so they don't need Stormshields. The Power Fist, Chainfist and Lightning Claws, and Thunderhammer all do the same bashy/punchy job. We already got rid of the Stormshield, so lets ditch the Thunderhammer. The power fist was probably there before the chainfist, so lets get rid of the power fist because the old stuff causes the bloat, right? Terminators don't need the lightning claws, because Shrike can do it better AND he's newer. So they're gone. There you have it. The new Balanced Terminator Squad for all chapters gets to have a Heavy Flamer and a Chain Fist. Oh wait. Titans have a Chainfist, and they're WAY better than Terminators. So long Chainfist. Sternguard have a Heavy Flamer, and they're newer. So long Heavy Flamer. So Terminator squads now get to... walk around with their hands in their pockets. That sure balanced the hell out of that unit. Totally fixed. I think they're practically auto-take now. No more Captains. Sergeants already do the leadership/close combat weapon thing right? What else can we get rid of? I know you don't like multiple variant datasheets in a world with the rule of three, so lets dump the Dreadnaughts. Let's also dump the Land Raiders. After all Rhinos already transport, and Predators already tank. Suppressors have an autocannon. Repulsors have a Twin Linked Las Cannon, so they don't need a Turret. Of course, they can't have sponsons, we've already got a unit with Heavy Bolters, Lascannons, and Heavy Flamers. At least until we balance those Sternguard, and Devastators.
You know, if we do this right, we can whittle the game down to one datasheet. They're all just guardsmen with bits, right? You're starting to convince me. Its much better to force everyone to play your way, rather than let them have options and variety more relevant than paint chips and cosmetic bits.
Now, what do we do about Intercessors and Infiltrators? I know you SAID Primaris Units don't have the same job, but you also said all the BA Jump Infantry had the same job... so even though they have different bits, it still feels like Intercessors and Infiltrators have the same job. Those 3+ Bolter troops unit. Of course they don't have bolters anymore. We gave those to the Inceptors when they lost their plasma to the Hellblasters. But still, they're at least as similar as Death Company and Vanguard Vets... so we have to do something. What do you suggest?
Lance845 wrote: Deathwing morale is handled by a dark angle chapter tactic. Their aesthetic is bits in a box. Their lore is less than a page of fluff in a codex. None of that requires an entirely new datasheet.
Nobody is disputing that sm have other issues too. Sm are fully capable of having multiple problems at the same time. One of those problems is an excess of redundant units that only gets worse when you look at ba, da, and sw. Trim the fat. Condense. And once you have condensed the special snow flake units into their baseline units while keeping their special kits for bits and fluff you end up with no reason to keep giving them their own books. Then, with less bull gak to juggle it becomes easier to cost it all correctly and give it all distinct roles to fill.
Deathwing morale is not just Grim Resolve - they have their own rule. If their aesthetic is just bits in a box then all 40K aesthetics is just bits in a box. They have 30 years of lore.
Never mind their distinct weapons load-out that is more than a Plasma Cannon (@Slayer - they can mix weapons weapons unlike other Chapters).
Back at Lance, "trimming the fat" does not achieve anything. I get the feeling that you just don't like some stuff (using Special Snowflake and some vulgarity is a bit of a giveaway). It's OK - you don't need to play them.
Parking all of that, Space Marine problems at the competitive level are not because they have multiple books. The solutions are found in other books (nerfs to the biggest offenders), or patches that can be applied to all Marines (like the Bolter rule).
Oh yeah I forgot about mixing weapons. It's perfectly reasonable to do one dude with LCs, one with an Assault Cannon, one with a TH/SS, one with a Chainfist, and the Power Sword Sergeant because.
Nobody mixes, dude. Come on. It's pointless because you want something specialized.
Oh yeah they do have their own rule too! Did you know that, instead of just losing just one model to morale like other Dark Angels, they lose none? Soooooo distinct!
Not losing any models to morale is a big deal when its Terminators. Large Terminator squads become viable. Regarding the weapons mixt that you dismiss, you might just mix in a Thunderhammer and Stormshield to a five or ten-man Deathwing Terminator Squad that has Stormbolters and Assault Cannons or Cyclone Launchers . Its nice to have a 3++ save worked in there - that is the point to having the Deathwing weapons mix. Additionally, since they are part of a distinct Codex they have access to some specific Stratagems. All of this gives them distinctness on the tabletop. Now, this is not a tactics thread and am not I advocating that Deathwing Terminators can win LVO. I am saying, though, that there is enough to make them their own datasheet as part of a distinct Dark Angels Codex.
The problems with Terminators are not related to having the Deathwing. All loyalist Space Marine Terminators need a buff not related to points. This buff (I am not a game designer, but something related to resilience could help) could be applied to all Terminators in the same way that the Bolter rule was.
Trying to turn to the thread topic, I suppose we'll see how serious GW is about keeping the non-Primaris in how they handle Terminators going forward. The drop in points in CA indicates that they do care on some level. As we move forward the Primaris approach (or lack of one) to Terminators and Bikes should be a prime indicator of GW's intentions.
I think marines need to be trimmed down a bit. Not much but some. Terminators is a good example. I see no reason for them to not just have 1 entry and then be able to load them out however you want.
Having company vets, vanguards, sternguards and codex specific veterans is too many units. Just have most of them as one entry and let the weapon choices and JP or not be what decides what they are used for. Scouts are 1 entry now and CC scouts and sniper scouts are more different than company vets and vanguard vets for me as a BA player yet 2 different entries.
Power weapons is a good category to reduce bloat in. Dont understand why they made it 3 choices instead of the old "power weapon". Same with force weapons and encarmine weapons. They cant balance the melee weapons as it is and then they split them even further. Just makes it more annoying for the player to kit out his squads with competitive weapons.
They could probably consolidate some of the ranged weapon profiles too. The list of ranged weapons just for space marines is huge and almost impossible to remember what is what without looking it up. Half the list is just bad anyway so better have fewer but better choices.
They dont have to remove and actual playable models but just make combi and non combi version of a weapon play the same, they cost the same right now anyway. Just make it a visual choice.
They could probably do the same thing with land raiders, dreadnoughts and leman russes. Dont think 6 leman russ variants on the main gun is needed. Having the 4 most distinct visually looking have their own rules would probably be enough.
In a few years old marines will probably be used as count as for primaris anyway. Rather have them start trimming it already and make them balanced while we still have them
Units that have many choices were a few of them are just bad or makes no difference are good candidates for merging. But only those with the same statlines and mostly the same cost, weapons and battle field role. You cant just have all 1w marines be 1 datasheet with 10000 of options and I dont think any one has suggested anything close to that since it would be stupid and everyone knows it. The opposite argument would be that plasma devastators need a different datasheet from melta devastators and that is equally dumb.
The problems with Terminators are not related to having the Deathwing. All loyalist Space Marine Terminators need a buff not related to points. This buff (I am not a game designer, but something related to resilience could help) could be applied to all Terminators in the same way that the Bolter rule was.
Trying to turn to the thread topic, I suppose we'll see how serious GW is about keeping the non-Primaris in how they handle Terminators going forward. The drop in points in CA indicates that they do care on some level. As we move forward the Primaris approach (or lack of one) to Terminators and Bikes should be a prime indicator of GW's intentions.
They do need a pretty hefty buff to resilience and/or Cost Benefit Analysis. I don't think they're very serious about keeping the non-Primaris line around at all, and they're letting us self-determine when they get rid of them by making the Primaris line more cost effective than the original line - Intercessors vs Tacs being the most obvious comparison. I don't think Terminators are the measuring stick because they've been bad for 20 years. The rest of the codex has risen and fallen with a given edition. Terminators have just always been bad since they lost their 2D6 armor save. They're the Rock that loses to Paper and Scissors. Your Generic Terminator is about 35 points. The Intercessor is 17. Put the Terminator at 20-25 after wargear and it starts getting interesting.
This still cheeses me. The old marine look is so much more memerable. Especially the helmets. Model-wise, that might be the only thing bad about primaris marines (besides the lack of options, etc)- their inferior looking helms.
In the future there will be no primaris marines. It will alll just be Space Marines.
A lotta people like the helmets. and I garentee if GW ever discontinued old school marines third party producers would swiftly move to produce knock offs of the MK 7 head
The problems with Terminators are not related to having the Deathwing. All loyalist Space Marine Terminators need a buff not related to points. This buff (I am not a game designer, but something related to resilience could help) could be applied to all Terminators in the same way that the Bolter rule was.
Trying to turn to the thread topic, I suppose we'll see how serious GW is about keeping the non-Primaris in how they handle Terminators going forward. The drop in points in CA indicates that they do care on some level. As we move forward the Primaris approach (or lack of one) to Terminators and Bikes should be a prime indicator of GW's intentions.
They do need a pretty hefty buff to resilience and/or Cost Benefit Analysis. I don't think they're very serious about keeping the non-Primaris line around at all, and they're letting us self-determine when they get rid of them by making the Primaris line more cost effective than the original line - Intercessors vs Tacs being the most obvious comparison. I don't think Terminators are the measuring stick because they've been bad for 20 years. The rest of the codex has risen and fallen with a given edition. Terminators have just always been bad since they lost their 2D6 armor save. They're the Rock that loses to Paper and Scissors. Your Generic Terminator is about 35 points. The Intercessor is 17. Put the Terminator at 20-25 after wargear and it starts getting interesting.
In my mind, changes should be made to rules first. A units rules should accuratly represent their fluff before making points changes. For such an iconic unit, one that might be more iconic than marines in mkvii armour, their rules really are dissapointing.
At the same time, it would be madness to get rid of terminators.
But then again, these are the same guys that are phasing out real and believable (for the setting) tanks for a line of nothing but hover tanks. That alone decreases the immersiveness and plot of the setting, let alone makes 40k much more bland. I mean, what other sci-fi setting doesnt use hover tanks?
Klickor wrote: Dont think 6 leman russ variants on the main gun is needed.
Its the Rule of Three. Make a 2.000 point fully Mechanized Guard Army, and only use three Leman Russ.
Having company vets, vanguards, sternguards and codex specific veterans is too many units. Just have most of them as one entry and let the weapon choices and JP or not be what decides what they are used for. Scouts are 1 entry now and CC scouts and sniper scouts are more different than company vets and vanguard vets for me as a BA player yet 2 different entries.
The "Company" Vet's are the remnant of the Command Squad and still have a Look Out Sir! style special rule. They're a placeholder for the people with command squad models they didn't want to get rid of the datasheet for yet. And I think they're going to be command squads again soon enough. Probably with some sort of "At the beginning of the game this squad can be attached to a charaacter and they will be one unit...." if they keep the characters can't join and leave units thing going forward But maybe not, I haven't played with their Look Out Sir! yet, it may work better for the players, and we always made fun of the fact that the boss wasn't allowed to tell the command squad to wait here while he runs over to the Tac's for a message. This could be the best of both worlds on that front. Vanguards shouldn't be in the Elites. They should be in the FA slot. I know they're trying to do the it's the Terminator squads in power armor thing, but that's even more reason they should be in the FA slot. If you're making an all first company, you'd fill the elites slot on Termies, troops on Sternguard, and the FA on Vanguard, HS maybe Dreads and/or Land Raiders, I don't know. Sternguard aren't THAT Elite.
They should also give the Close Combat oriented squads a boost to the Attacks characteristic to make up for losing so many from Charging/Two CCW/etc - another reason not to merge Sternguard and Vanguard.
Power weapons is a good category to reduce bloat in. Dont understand why they made it 3 choices instead of the old "power weapon". Same with force weapons and encarmine weapons. They cant balance the melee weapons as it is and then they split them even further. Just makes it more annoying for the player to kit out his squads with competitive weapons.
I've heard the guy who did this edition loved 2nd, and I can see a lot of 2nd Edition in what's out there. Way back then you could outfit your Assault Squad with about 6 different power weapons that all traded 1 point here for 1 point there. The Mauls, Hammers, Lances, etc To some extent it's silly and overboard, but some variation is also nice. Power Blunt Weapons +2S AP -1 and Power Edged +1S and AP -2 would have been enough. Just be glad they didn't bring back Parry on the swords.
They dont have to remove and actual playable models but just make combi and non combi version of a weapon play the same, they cost the same right now anyway. Just make it a visual choice.
I was under the impression they did play the same? Or at least sort of the same. If you have a Combi-Plas you can fire plasma all game long now? You could also fire just the bolter, but why? Finally you can fire both at a -1 to both, which seems like a fair trade at first glance?
One place they can trim Terminators is the Tartaros/Cataphractii/Normal. They should have kept the Power Armor paradigm and just made them all rules identical - especially as they didn't make a Librarian/Chaplain in Cataphractii/Tartaros People who Kit-bash a Chaplain in Tartaros Armor to name him Jiminus Reynorus with the skull helm and black Starcraft Marine looking armor will have to play it counts as anyway.
In my mind, changes should be made to rules first. A units rules should accuratly represent their fluff before making points changes. For such an iconic unit, one that might be more iconic than marines in mkvii armour, their rules really are dissapointing.
At the same time, it would be madness to get rid of terminators.
But then again, these are the same guys that are phasing out real and believable (for the setting) tanks for a line of nothing but hover tanks. That alone decreases the immersiveness and plot of the setting, let alone makes 40k much more bland. I mean, what other sci-fi setting doesnt use hover tanks?
GW are masters at the art of screwing up.
The changes to Vehicles now having Wounds and Armor Saves makes balancing Terminators even more difficult with the rules. They can't return them to 2D6 Armor saves unless the Vehicles also do that. Which isn't bad but then you'll have to rework all the Anti Tank AP, and the Toughness/Armor Save on vehicles.
As it currently stands, Terminators are stuck in a no-man's-land. They have the low toughness and numbers to fall to the thousand points of light in a lasgun, and the high armor and low model count to attract the anti-tank weapons. Potentially you could fold Terminator Armor into an inverse Power Fist... instead of giving them a 2+/5++ you give them T(x2) like power fists are S(x2) and a 2+ or 3+ armor save, and who knows what you do with storm shields. At that point they're two wound vehicles and won't be as susceptible to the small arms fire they're supposed to be the fluffy cure for. T8 2+ 2W Terminators are going to shrug off a lot of Bolter and Lasgun fire but still drop fast to Lascannon and Plasma.
They could make things more different so they have a reason to exist but as right now I do not think many of the things I mentioned fulfill that.
If every option felt different and were priced/ruled accordingly to make them all useful I wouldn't advocate for merging options. Current GW can't and to make it easier for GW and the players they should just merge some of the options. Then they could try to make those remaining units and weapons feel more distinct from each other but as it is right now they all blend together.
You can equip a sternguard squad like a tactical or devastator squad if you wanted. Only thing VV have over company veteran is the relic blade on the leader and a cheaper price. Company veterans have like a million options and could be equipped like sternguards or vanguards or a mix of them just with the addition of being bodyguards which isnt that useful due to them not having the same rules as shield drones.
A bunch of units can take either a combi weapon or a special weapon for the same price, no reason not to take the combi version. And then the 7 or so pistol versions added to that.
With the scale of the targets ranging from weak 4pt guardsmen to 704pts castellans the amount of options Space Marines have that add a tiny little difference between them just feels bloated. Do we really need that detail when the abstraction everywhere else is so huge? Most of all the other armies options feel much better since they are usually far fewer and you can feel more of a difference between them.
All the difference options are also bad for newer players. The few options you get in any 1 box is usually a trap since the most optimal loadouts, and you need them if you play marines, are usually found elsewhere. I'm happy I bought a bunch of dark angel veteran boxes years ago for converting my blood angel veterans. All those extra bits comes in handy now when I try to re equip my squads. But for those that don't have extra bits lying around from a decade ago it must really suck. The split of power weapons doesnt bother me since I have extra axes and mauls lying around. Stormshields and stormbolters I also have extra from those DA boxes but were is a new player supposed to find those today without having to buy expensive terminators just to steal their stormbolters.
Klickor wrote: They could make things more different so they have a reason to exist but as right now I do not think many of the things I mentioned fulfill that.
If every option felt different and were priced/ruled accordingly to make them all useful I wouldn't advocate for merging options. Current GW can't and to make it easier for GW and the players they should just merge some of the options. Then they could try to make those remaining units and weapons feel more distinct from each other but as it is right now they all blend together.
You can equip a sternguard squad like a tactical or devastator squad if you wanted. Only thing VV have over company veteran is the relic blade on the leader and a cheaper price. Company veterans have like a million options and could be equipped like sternguards or vanguards or a mix of them just with the addition of being bodyguards which isnt that useful due to them not having the same rules as shield drones.
VV are the elite Assault Squad. Don't think of the Company Veterans as Veterans. Think of them as a Command Squad. They're in a bad place right now, but that's because they're a left over GW didn't figure out what to do with, but still had to create a datasheet(s) for the models we had.
A bunch of units can take either a combi weapon or a special weapon for the same price, no reason not to take the combi version. And then the 7 or so pistol versions added to that.
Pistols are very different than combi weapons - in previous editions they were an extra attack, plus the short range special/heavy for an assault/VV squad. Now they're still that, and can be shot into combat.
With the scale of the targets ranging from weak 4pt guardsmen to 704pts castellans the amount of options Space Marines have that add a tiny little difference between them just feels bloated. Do we really need that detail when the abstraction everywhere else is so huge? Most of all the other armies options feel much better since they are usually far fewer and you can feel more of a difference between them.
The 4pt Guardsman and the 704 point Castellan aren't in the SM Codex, or even the same Codex. The smaller differences still serve a purpose. If I can't afford a VV squad, but still want some mobile rear area harassment, I can take an Assault Squad. If I have lots of points, I can upgrade them to VV and use them to support a smash captain or terrorize a flank. SM List creation is usually about juggling 25-50 points at a time prioritizing which best and which serviceable units you want.
All the difference options are also bad for newer players. The few options you get in any 1 box is usually a trap since the most optimal loadouts, and you need them if you play marines, are usually found elsewhere. I'm happy I bought a bunch of dark angel veteran boxes years ago for converting my blood angel veterans. All those extra bits comes in handy now when I try to re equip my squads. But for those that don't have extra bits lying around from a decade ago it must really suck. The split of power weapons doesnt bother me since I have extra axes and mauls lying around. Stormshields and stormbolters I also have extra from those DA boxes but were is a new player supposed to find those today without having to buy expensive terminators just to steal their stormbolters.
So you do know about the parry rule. You can also get them from the Commander/Command Squad/Company/Vanguard Veterans Boxes. The new players are supposed to get them the same way we did. Save them from other boxes and kit bash. Get the Upgrade sprue blister I'd love it to get 5 of everything in a 5 man box. But that's never been GW's style. This isn't the first time someone starting out is at a disadvantage to someone who's been playing for a while. Someone starting WOW today isn;t going to start with 1,000 mounts, millions of gold, and raid quality epics.
Klickor wrote: With the scale of the targets ranging from weak 4pt guardsmen to 704pts castellans the amount of options Space Marines have that add a tiny little difference between them just feels bloated. Do we really need that detail when the abstraction everywhere else is so huge? Most of all the other armies options feel much better since they are usually far fewer and you can feel more of a difference between them.
This point here (while fair) hits on a different problem which is that weapons in this edition are far too similar and the impact of having specialist weapons (like a melts gun, lascannon, flamer, etc) is greatly diminished and you can in theory just drown the target in dice using less than optimal weapon types. A meltagun in the mix was a huge deal and could end the life of a landraider in 1 shot if delivered well or take a serious chunk out of a Knight/Stompas/Baneblades/etc. Now its just one of many dice rolls that chips away at the health of bigger stuff. The benefit of having that melee weapon upgrade could go from an assault squad being all but dead at the hands of a deff dread to being able to have a real chance of knocking that dread's block off with a TH or PF hit. That or the reality of a VV squad being able to fairly reliably sweep a unit from the field on the charge due to power weapons (win combat, run them down) vs just getting stuck in a protracted slap fight when everyone has chainswords (or misused such as having power swords when fighting 2+ armor). The game lost a lot of it's strategic depth and tactical opportunity so it's now more of a numbers game where bringing the mathmatically best weapon is not as hard to calculate and generally works on a wide enough range of targets that you don't need as many options.
Unsure if you like how many different datasheets and options we have or not. I understand where they came from but I dont see the need for them.
The guardsmen and castellan isnt in the codex but they show how big the span it is between the different units in the game. The differences in the space marine options are miniscule and kinda ridiculous when you consider most of them kill a guardsmen on 2+ or do 1dmg to a knight on a 6+. The game is very abstract except for all SM options. The game is becoming larger in scope overall except space marine options are the reverse.
But when I started out I didnt have that many options to choose from for my SM units and I slowly built up a bitsbox with left over weapons. Some of those boxes are only on the online store now and it is quite a waste to have to buy some weird boxes just to get your bits when the future is Primaris anyway. Just another reason to start consolidating some of the old units since they wont get any more updates and probably not any good rules either so better start trimming them and keep them at least useful while we still have them.
Klickor wrote: Unsure if you like how many different datasheets and options we have or not. I understand where they came from but I dont see the need for them.
The guardsmen and castellan isnt in the codex but they show how big the span it is between the different units in the game. The differences in the space marine options are miniscule and kinda ridiculous when you consider most of them kill a guardsmen on 2+ or do 1dmg to a knight on a 6+. The game is very abstract except for all SM options. The game is becoming larger in scope overall except space marine options are the reverse.
But when I started out I didnt have that many options to choose from for my SM units and I slowly built up a bitsbox with left over weapons. Some of those boxes are only on the online store now and it is quite a waste to have to buy some weird boxes just to get your bits when the future is Primaris anyway. Just another reason to start consolidating some of the old units since they wont get any more updates and probably not any good rules either so better start trimming them and keep them at least useful while we still have them.
I always like more options. Not all of them need rules, and can just be cosmetic. I'm guessing by "most options" you mean the plethora of Bolter-based small arms? They wound the Guardsman on a 3+ not? S4vT3 = 3+. In fact, with T3 Guardsmen, and T8 knights, to wound the Guardsmen on a 2+ you need a S6 or higher weapon which would wound a T8 knight on a 5+ or less.
The reason you think we should consoldiate units and rules is because they're not good now, and won't be good in the future, so just make them one really not good unit? Which fixes what? Codex SM was 379 pages. Codex DA was 241. I didn't pay more for Codex SM. It doesn't cost us more to see 78 datasheets instead of 73. They're not going to give us a refund or drop the price of the next codex if they drop down to 65 datasheets. Note: I did not count the datasheets, I could look up the page numbers on the ebook. As far as I know, no detachment forces you to take one of everything. There's no rule saying you have to take a unit you don't like, so why tell someone who might like it they can't take it anymore? There's nothing to gain by yanking datasheets. The balance problem isn't in how many units there are, its in GW's core rules, and how they write them.
Klickor wrote: Unsure if you like how many different datasheets and options we have or not. I understand where they came from but I dont see the need for them.
The guardsmen and castellan isnt in the codex but they show how big the span it is between the different units in the game. The differences in the space marine options are miniscule and kinda ridiculous when you consider most of them kill a guardsmen on 2+ or do 1dmg to a knight on a 6+. The game is very abstract except for all SM options. The game is becoming larger in scope overall except space marine options are the reverse.
But when I started out I didnt have that many options to choose from for my SM units and I slowly built up a bitsbox with left over weapons. Some of those boxes are only on the online store now and it is quite a waste to have to buy some weird boxes just to get your bits when the future is Primaris anyway. Just another reason to start consolidating some of the old units since they wont get any more updates and probably not any good rules either so better start trimming them and keep them at least useful while we still have them.
I always like more options. Not all of them need rules, and can just be cosmetic. I'm guessing by "most options" you mean the plethora of Bolter-based small arms? They wound the Guardsman on a 3+ not? S4vT3 = 3+. In fact, with T3 Guardsmen, and T8 knights, to wound the Guardsmen on a 2+ you need a S6 or higher weapon which would wound a T8 knight on a 5+ or less.
The reason you think we should consoldiate units and rules is because they're not good now, and won't be good in the future, so just make them one really not good unit? Which fixes what? Codex SM was 379 pages. Codex DA was 241. I didn't pay more for Codex SM. It doesn't cost us more to see 78 datasheets instead of 73. They're not going to give us a refund or drop the price of the next codex if they drop down to 65 datasheets. Note: I did not count the datasheets, I could look up the page numbers on the ebook. As far as I know, no detachment forces you to take one of everything. There's no rule saying you have to take a unit you don't like, so why tell someone who might like it they can't take it anymore? There's nothing to gain by yanking datasheets. The balance problem isn't in how many units there are, its in GW's core rules, and how they write them.
I like cosmetic options but not everything needs rules. What I tried to tell with the example was that we have so many different detailed options vs how many different target statlines we have that in many cases it doesnt really matter. Most antitank wounds on a 4+ and then the knight gets his 4++ save and then we roll a d6 for damage. Most anti infantry kills an orc on a 3+ or a 4+ so we don't need 20 different weapons that do that. Especially in an edition where everything can wound everything. Load of dice means more than the actual stats anyway.
I don't think the amount of data sheets and options helps GW in balancing units and making them feel different from each other. Especially when they are obviously gonna replace them slowly over time. Lets take Sanguinary Guard for example. Right now the powerfist is the best choice since the other choices are way overpriced. If I removed all the axes and swords on the unit for powerfist to make them good and GW then swaps the price for the 2 weapons and make the axe the best weapon instead and the fist overpriced I am forced to either retire my unit, play with a bad unit or change all the weapons again. If Sanguinary Guard instead just had 1 weapon profile and the axes and swords were just cosmetic I wouldnt have to change the load out and GW just have to balance 1 statline. As it is now I don't see them keeping all 3 choices as a viable option and there is no inclination that they will start either. Having fewer actual rules would benefit both me and GW in this case and I don't see what I would gain from having it like it is now. Would also make it easier to distinguish the different JP units if they all had fewer options and have them balanced around that. It's hard to balance lets say DC as anti horde/chaff/infantry if they have access to thunder hammers which is a better elite/tank weapon than what the Sanguinary Guard has. Now GW has to price DC around them having Thunderhammers that can kill knights and elite infantry which leaves them less options for how to make them good and cheap enough for infantry duty.
A common saying is "Less is more" and that usually has some common accepted limits. You don't want to remove everything but in many cases too many options can actually lead to less actual choice since you can't really make everything an equally good choice. Somethings will always stand out as superior and keeping the inferior stuff is most often just an illusion of choice that can even lead to negative outcomes. In a perfect world with a GW that is good at balance and game design the more options would be better and as you mentioned the core rules is a large part of the problem. The amount of choices we have now would make more sense with the core rules back in 4th edition than they do now but we have to realize that the core rules probably won't be fixed to fit all these detailed choices. Especially not before these rules are removed from the game completely with the inevitable squatting of the old marines.
With more options just becoming cosmetic you get more choice in how you would paint and model your units and a bit less freedom in list building but that should probably be made up in ease of list building and hopefully in the balance of rules.
And I advocate trimming it with perhaps 20-30% or so in total. More than that and you will start to lose the different characteristics of units and weapons. SM would still have more choices than any other army out there. It has nothing to do with the actual size of the rule books but if you try to build a unit and get a good look at the different options you can take you will be swamped by choice. Even using Battlescribe it can be confusing with what you can take. And you have to remove or stream line some things over time or you will get a bloated mess. Having backwards compability will affect performance if gone to far back. And I feel GW has come to that point with SM. They are getting spread to thin to keep it all.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: As for costing of Space Marines units being set with a Roboute bubble, I think that you are really reaching (never mind that the Azrael aura effect is what lets DA hang in there). Even if it were true, a few points does not make a difference. Space Marines have some structural issues when they face most non-Space Marine opponents (or when considered for inclusion in an Imperium army). Those issues need to be addressed (cost/effectiveness of AM infantry, plethora of Xenos weapons that make a mockery of Space Marines and Primaris, etc).
A few point? No. A few points over 60+ models? Absolutely.
If a basic Marine were 10 points and a basic Primaris were 13 we would be having a different discussion right now.
I don't agree with the assertion that SM's are "over costed" because it's based off the assumption that Guard are "under costed". Without dredging up every tired argument here, you cannot make the fallacy that if X is true, then Y must be true, if you haven't demonstrated X to be true.
If anything, Intercessors do bring 17 ppm to the table. Oldboys don't bring their cost however. The extra wound essentially makes Primaris into termie light. If you want to argue to lower the cost of the oldboys now that the Primaris are being finally given options and updated, sure. But I think GW has pretty conclusively come out to put the argument to bed, that Oldboys are still being pushed. GW is done with them. And while not yet squatted, they aren't getting anymore focus/new toys.
SM are overcosted compared to every other list, not just IG. Drukhari. IKs. Demons. Eldar. Pick one. My CC units are a joke compared to Wraiths, Bulls, and Grotesques.
Martel732 wrote: SM are overcosted compared to every other list, not just IG. Drukhari. IKs. Demons. Eldar. Pick one. My CC units are a joke compared to Wraiths, Bulls, and Grotesques.
We cannot exist in a vacuum, therefor vacuum assertions are fallacious. Either quantify or stop using blanket assertions.
Martel732 wrote: SM are overcosted compared to every other list, not just IG. Drukhari. IKs. Demons. Eldar. Pick one. My CC units are a joke compared to Wraiths, Bulls, and Grotesques.
as you still trying to use assault marines as dedicated CC Martel? honest question I seem to recall your saying as such awhile back. (I mean for what it's worth I agree that assault marines SHOULD be something other then a giant flaming turd in CC but..)
I haven't used ASM as assault elements since 3rd ed. SG and DC just don't stack up to real CC units. On a cost basis, of course. If they were cheaper, they'd compare fine.
I occasionally use ASM as plasma goons, but that's all.
Martel732 wrote: SM are overcosted compared to every other list, not just IG. Drukhari. IKs. Demons. Eldar. Pick one. My CC units are a joke compared to Wraiths, Bulls, and Grotesques.
We cannot exist in a vacuum, therefor vacuum assertions are fallacious. Either quantify or stop using blanket assertions.
That wasn't a vacuum assertion. It's SM vs the field. We could remove IG from the game and SM would largely have the same problems.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I don't agree with the assertion that SM's are "over costed" because it's based off the assumption that Guard are "under costed". Without dredging up every tired argument here, you cannot make the fallacy that if X is true, then Y must be true, if you haven't demonstrated X to be true.
If anything, Intercessors do bring 17 ppm to the table. Oldboys don't bring their cost however. The extra wound essentially makes Primaris into termie light. If you want to argue to lower the cost of the oldboys now that the Primaris are being finally given options and updated, sure. But I think GW has pretty conclusively come out to put the argument to bed, that Oldboys are still being pushed. GW is done with them. And while not yet squatted, they aren't getting anymore focus/new toys.
Intercessors finally after 2 rounds of points reductions are just about starting to see some play at competitive levels.
However marines have so few worthwhile strategums that paying a troops tax for CP your struggling to use effectively makes them appear worse than they are.
If marine strategums were better we might see more intercessors.
Tactical marines are vastly overcosted when compaired to intercessors but I suspect that GW is fixed on a tac is 13 points of model(regardless of what results show).
If numbers included in placing lists is an indication of the level of balance of a unit, IG are one of the most efficent/OP codex's out there.
If your going to say that guard is balanced then marines and a number of other codex's need points reductions or rules improvement to be able to compete with staples of lists such as the 32. Tripple comander spam double battalions.
Knights are a very different codex that has become esentially the new blood angles codex, terrible mono due to nerfs to fix soup lists and still good enough to cherry pick units from.
Marines need to be able to offer enough depth of good units to make the advantage of being mono marines worth more than just souping in the IG option for the task you have.
Blood ravens are the new hot thing from GW. That being said, they are a dying chapter, because they lost their geneseed progenitor. They don't have a place to make new ones. Their fluff specifically states they are dying out.
HOW ARE THEY MAKING PRIMARIS BRs? Honestly, I think this is how GW plans on NOT mothballing the Oldboys. Because technically, their hot new toy can't be re-made into Primaris. They don't even know who their founder is.
But hay, maybe GW will just say feth the lore, and now we have Primaris BRs, GKs, and Custodes.
We know for a fact blood ravens can make new primaris, it's in their white dwarf stuff. Also they've been able to make marines this whole time even without knowing who their primarch is, I think they'll be fine.
Right, I think maybe you missed my point. Since they were "un-founded" and all records of them were wiped out, where are they getting NEW Gene-seed? Honestly asking.
I think on a game design level the system and mechanics are stressed in a specific way that isn't easily remedied. It has to do with point and dice granularity.
The point system is straight forward enough you have a number of points that in theory have a direct and proportional relationship to the unit or option they represent. The problem is a case of what exactly is a point worth. While fractional numbers are the tiniest part of it they make it easy to understand the issue. These points have to be whole numbers and when on some level they aren't they're rounded up or down. It creates an ever growing inaccuracy in the relationship between cost and representation. As long as there is enough consistency though they can all average out, but they aren't. At a different level this is similar to what's happening when you have an ever growing number of units that are similar, but distinct and different being funneled into small number of distinct point costs. Marines and MEQ's being the example of this, where what 12-25 pts represent so many different things that are all underpinned to certain fundamental stats, but the volume of those little things and their tiny inaccuracies add up. Its made worse when certain abilities simply go unaccounted. The greater the number of things represented in a narrow band of points, the greater the likelihood that the proportionality of point costs lose the necessary consistency.
Think of that as a downward force that's squeezing the system. The equal and opposite upward force comes from the bottom most units pushing up. The system only allows units to be so bad, where once you reach a point each increment of getting worse means very little. Inversely anything that improves those units have a disproportionately positive effect. A lot of that comes down to the dice mechanics where the weakest units always have a 1/6 chance for a successful rolls, 1/36 chance for a successful sequence of rolls, and at worst a 1/216 chance killing something. What is this worst unit worth? -There is some point value that in theory should be the absolute lowest per model point cost. Things like IG and cultists are running up against that and so circumstantially whether through buffs or another mechanic end up quickly becoming better relative to their point costs.
The addition of Primaris only worsen these issues. To be worthwhile they had to be point efficient, but point efficiency is the opposite of point proportionality in representing units. Overpriced, underpriced, and efficient are euphemisms for inconsistent cost scaling, and they only further stress the ability of the system to represent all these different units with some sort of proportionality to what they do.
Its my opinion that a large part of fixing the game and the issue with marines is rescaling the point system relative to worse unit of the game, instead of pegging it to marines. Likely you'd see your current 2000pts army end up at 2500pts... where you'd see current 2000pts MEQ armies end up at 2100-2300pts.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I don't agree with the assertion that SM's are "over costed" because it's based off the assumption that Guard are "under costed". Without dredging up every tired argument here, you cannot make the fallacy that if X is true, then Y must be true, if you haven't demonstrated X to be true.
If anything, Intercessors do bring 17 ppm to the table. Oldboys don't bring their cost however. The extra wound essentially makes Primaris into termie light. If you want to argue to lower the cost of the oldboys now that the Primaris are being finally given options and updated, sure. But I think GW has pretty conclusively come out to put the argument to bed, that Oldboys are still being pushed. GW is done with them. And while not yet squatted, they aren't getting anymore focus/new toys.
Intercessors finally after 2 rounds of points reductions are just about starting to see some play at competitive levels.
However marines have so few worthwhile strategums that paying a troops tax for CP your struggling to use effectively makes them appear worse than they are.
If marine strategums were better we might see more intercessors.
Tactical marines are vastly overcosted when compaired to intercessors but I suspect that GW is fixed on a tac is 13 points of model(regardless of what results show).
If numbers included in placing lists is an indication of the level of balance of a unit, IG are one of the most efficent/OP codex's out there.
If your going to say that guard is balanced then marines and a number of other codex's need points reductions or rules improvement to be able to compete with staples of lists such as the 32. Tripple comander spam double battalions.
Knights are a very different codex that has become esentially the new blood angles codex, terrible mono due to nerfs to fix soup lists and still good enough to cherry pick units from.
Marines need to be able to offer enough depth of good units to make the advantage of being mono marines worth more than just souping in the IG option for the task you have.
Nah dude they are still too expensive. They should really be 15 points. With tacs being 10 or 11. This ofc is taking into account the status of troops providing CP and all aspects of gameplay. Intercessors bring 15ppm worth of ability to the table.5 intercessors does nothing - you really need to take them in 10 man squads to maximize their abilities and use stratagems on them. Even with a point drop to 15 - 10 intercessors costs more than 30 gaurdsmen. You still don't have a batallion yet - you cover 1/3 of the board space they do and you are at risk from being removed by any kind of multi damage weapon efficiently. What you do get is a pretty well rounded unit that is tough against small arms. Plus. Where gaurdsmen act as a screen for important models. Interecessors are important models and you really can't afford to screen your troops....This is why they aren't worth what you pay. Heck at the end of the day you are only getting 20 str 4 ap-1 shots at 30" for 170 points. That is pretty good but not amazing. At 17 points they are still playable but they really need to be 15 to be competitive with other troops.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I don't agree with the assertion that SM's are "over costed" because it's based off the assumption that Guard are "under costed". Without dredging up every tired argument here, you cannot make the fallacy that if X is true, then Y must be true, if you haven't demonstrated X to be true.
If anything, Intercessors do bring 17 ppm to the table. Oldboys don't bring their cost however. The extra wound essentially makes Primaris into termie light. If you want to argue to lower the cost of the oldboys now that the Primaris are being finally given options and updated, sure. But I think GW has pretty conclusively come out to put the argument to bed, that Oldboys are still being pushed. GW is done with them. And while not yet squatted, they aren't getting anymore focus/new toys.
Intercessors finally after 2 rounds of points reductions are just about starting to see some play at competitive levels.
However marines have so few worthwhile strategums that paying a troops tax for CP your struggling to use effectively makes them appear worse than they are.
If marine strategums were better we might see more intercessors.
Tactical marines are vastly overcosted when compaired to intercessors but I suspect that GW is fixed on a tac is 13 points of model(regardless of what results show).
If numbers included in placing lists is an indication of the level of balance of a unit, IG are one of the most efficent/OP codex's out there.
If your going to say that guard is balanced then marines and a number of other codex's need points reductions or rules improvement to be able to compete with staples of lists such as the 32. Tripple comander spam double battalions.
Knights are a very different codex that has become esentially the new blood angles codex, terrible mono due to nerfs to fix soup lists and still good enough to cherry pick units from.
Marines need to be able to offer enough depth of good units to make the advantage of being mono marines worth more than just souping in the IG option for the task you have.
Nah dude they are still too expensive. They should really be 15 points. With tacs being 10 or 11. This ofc is taking into account the status of troops providing CP and all aspects of gameplay. Intercessors bring 15ppm worth of ability to the table.5 intercessors does nothing - you really need to take them in 10 man squads to maximize their abilities and use stratagems on them. Even with a point drop to 15 - 10 intercessors costs more than 30 gaurdsmen. You still don't have a batallion yet - you cover 1/3 of the board space they do and you are at risk from being removed by any kind of multi damage weapon efficiently. What you do get is a pretty well rounded unit that is tough against small arms. Plus. Where gaurdsmen act as a screen for important models. Interecessors are important models and you really can't afford to screen your troops....This is why they aren't worth what you pay. Heck at the end of the day you are only getting 20 str 4 ap-1 shots at 30" for 170 points. That is pretty good but not amazing. At 17 points they are still playable but they really need to be 15 to be competitive with other troops.
This is where I both do and don't agree with you.
At 17ppm intercessors are actually IMHO a good base line for the game to be able to balanced around 20ppm intercessors would have been a great baseline, but at this point marine points costs are more outliers than baselines so either a lot of units need repointed in some cases entire codex's to be even on the same power curve as 20ppm intercessors.
So we're stuck with the race to the bottom and if we stick with the race to the bottom your right almost everything in Power armour needs to be costed for the actual 8th edition value of their stats.
But so do a number of other 3+Sv units.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I don't agree with the assertion that SM's are "over costed" because it's based off the assumption that Guard are "under costed". Without dredging up every tired argument here, you cannot make the fallacy that if X is true, then Y must be true, if you haven't demonstrated X to be true.
If anything, Intercessors do bring 17 ppm to the table. Oldboys don't bring their cost however. The extra wound essentially makes Primaris into termie light. If you want to argue to lower the cost of the oldboys now that the Primaris are being finally given options and updated, sure. But I think GW has pretty conclusively come out to put the argument to bed, that Oldboys are still being pushed. GW is done with them. And while not yet squatted, they aren't getting anymore focus/new toys.
Intercessors finally after 2 rounds of points reductions are just about starting to see some play at competitive levels.
However marines have so few worthwhile strategums that paying a troops tax for CP your struggling to use effectively makes them appear worse than they are.
If marine strategums were better we might see more intercessors.
Tactical marines are vastly overcosted when compaired to intercessors but I suspect that GW is fixed on a tac is 13 points of model(regardless of what results show).
If numbers included in placing lists is an indication of the level of balance of a unit, IG are one of the most efficent/OP codex's out there.
If your going to say that guard is balanced then marines and a number of other codex's need points reductions or rules improvement to be able to compete with staples of lists such as the 32. Tripple comander spam double battalions.
Knights are a very different codex that has become esentially the new blood angles codex, terrible mono due to nerfs to fix soup lists and still good enough to cherry pick units from.
Marines need to be able to offer enough depth of good units to make the advantage of being mono marines worth more than just souping in the IG option for the task you have.
Nah dude they are still too expensive. They should really be 15 points. With tacs being 10 or 11. This ofc is taking into account the status of troops providing CP and all aspects of gameplay. Intercessors bring 15ppm worth of ability to the table.5 intercessors does nothing - you really need to take them in 10 man squads to maximize their abilities and use stratagems on them. Even with a point drop to 15 - 10 intercessors costs more than 30 gaurdsmen. You still don't have a batallion yet - you cover 1/3 of the board space they do and you are at risk from being removed by any kind of multi damage weapon efficiently. What you do get is a pretty well rounded unit that is tough against small arms. Plus. Where gaurdsmen act as a screen for important models. Interecessors are important models and you really can't afford to screen your troops....This is why they aren't worth what you pay. Heck at the end of the day you are only getting 20 str 4 ap-1 shots at 30" for 170 points. That is pretty good but not amazing. At 17 points they are still playable but they really need to be 15 to be competitive with other troops.
This is where I both do and don't agree with you.
At 17ppm intercessors are actually IMHO a good base line for the game to be able to balanced around 20ppm intercessors would have been a great baseline, but at this point marine points costs are more outliers than baselines so either a lot of units need repointed in some cases entire codex's to be even on the same power curve as 20ppm intercessors.
So we're stuck with the race to the bottom and if we stick with the race to the bottom your right almost everything in Power armour needs to be costed for the actual 8th edition value of their stats.
But so do a number of other 3+Sv units.
Lots of elite infantry need to go down. Like...Incubi? What the heck are those guys? Terrible.
I agree with you about price points being funky with a primaris going down to 15. Though a 17 point intercessor might be fine if some of these SM rumors turn out to be true.
Blood ravens are the new hot thing from GW. That being said, they are a dying chapter, because they lost their geneseed progenitor. They don't have a place to make new ones. Their fluff specifically states they are dying out.
HOW ARE THEY MAKING PRIMARIS BRs? Honestly, I think this is how GW plans on NOT mothballing the Oldboys. Because technically, their hot new toy can't be re-made into Primaris. They don't even know who their founder is.
But hay, maybe GW will just say feth the lore, and now we have Primaris BRs, GKs, and Custodes.
We know for a fact blood ravens can make new primaris, it's in their white dwarf stuff. Also they've been able to make marines this whole time even without knowing who their primarch is, I think they'll be fine.
Right, I think maybe you missed my point. Since they were "un-founded" and all records of them were wiped out, where are they getting NEW Gene-seed? Honestly asking.
vaults of mars. keep in mind,m the Blood ravens orgins aren't completely unknown, just unknown to them and under a inqusitional seal. the blood ravens where damned excited about this delivery and took to studying ti closely. what they've learned.. they've kept tight lipped about
I like cosmetic options but not everything needs rules. What I tried to tell with the example was that we have so many different detailed options vs how many different target statlines we have that in many cases it doesnt really matter. Most antitank wounds on a 4+ and then the knight gets his 4++ save and then we roll a d6 for damage. Most anti infantry kills an orc on a 3+ or a 4+ so we don't need 20 different weapons that do that. Especially in an edition where everything can wound everything. Load of dice means more than the actual stats anyway.
You can't assume that how this edition works is how the next edition works. Also many of the weapons had identical or overlapping stat-lines. This doesn't mean we should get rid of the Lasgun, Shuriken Catapults or the Ironhail Heavy Stubber and give everyone one of the two bolters.
I don't think the amount of data sheets and options helps GW in balancing units and making them feel different from each other. Especially when they are obviously gonna replace them slowly over time. Lets take Sanguinary Guard for example. Right now the powerfist is the best choice since the other choices are way overpriced. If I removed all the axes and swords on the unit for powerfist to make them good and GW then swaps the price for the 2 weapons and make the axe the best weapon instead and the fist overpriced I am forced to either retire my unit, play with a bad unit or change all the weapons again. If Sanguinary Guard instead just had 1 weapon profile and the axes and swords were just cosmetic I wouldnt have to change the load out and GW just have to balance 1 statline. As it is now I don't see them keeping all 3 choices as a viable option and there is no inclination that they will start either. Having fewer actual rules would benefit both me and GW in this case and I don't see what I would gain from having it like it is now. Would also make it easier to distinguish the different JP units if they all had fewer options and have them balanced around that. It's hard to balance lets say DC as anti horde/chaff/infantry if they have access to thunder hammers which is a better elite/tank weapon than what the Sanguinary Guard has. Now GW has to price DC around them having Thunderhammers that can kill knights and elite infantry which leaves them less options for how to make them good and cheap enough for infantry duty.
I don't think the number of options hurts them either. Figuring out the mathematical difference between minor variations in S, T, and Save isn't that hard. At least it shouldn't be. As for weapons changing from bad to good from one edition to the next... that's how GW works. Why do you think there are so many articles/videos about magnetizing models? My Termies are Magnetized to swap weapons - both CCW and Heavies. I still have more terminators than I'll ever field because I bought extras rather than magnetize the Cyclone Missile Launcher. I have a TON more Devastators than I need for my Second Company display because I've bought more Dev boxes when they added Grav Cannon With Amp, and when they changed the legs in the kit. And when they added the Cherub. And the Signum Sgt Backpack. I don't even need to magnetize the Devs. Again, we can make every army 2 Barebones Guard Commanders, and 3 Infantry Squads. There's zero variation, 100% balance in the armies. And it doesn't help us or GW stay interested in the hobby. I can play a couple hundred games of Stratego vs the computer on my phone for that kind of depth. Everyone keeps pointing to a symptom, or an example of the symptom, not the disease. There is no baseline for the balance. GW has not come out and said - "This is our starting point" and then balanced everything else in the game against that point. A bolter is 0 points. A Storm Bolter - two bolters - is 2 points. A Heavy Bolter 2.5 slightly bigger bolters with a drawback to boot - is 10 points. If the Bolter is the baseline at 0 points.. how can they adjust any other bolter off of it? That's not a problem of numbers of options, its a problem of setting their baseline. Maybe they baked a 1 point bolter in all the marines that can carry one. But that then throws off the comparison of scouts to normal marines, normal marines to Primaris, etc.
A common saying is indeed "Less is More" but less items for them to do the balancing work they already don't do isn't going to result in more balance. It's going to result in even fewer things they can balance wrong - in your favor for once - from edition to edition you can use to field an army you like.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: As for costing of Space Marines units being set with a Roboute bubble, I think that you are really reaching (never mind that the Azrael aura effect is what lets DA hang in there). Even if it were true, a few points does not make a difference. Space Marines have some structural issues when they face most non-Space Marine opponents (or when considered for inclusion in an Imperium army). Those issues need to be addressed (cost/effectiveness of AM infantry, plethora of Xenos weapons that make a mockery of Space Marines and Primaris, etc).
A few point? No. A few points over 60+ models? Absolutely.
If a basic Marine were 10 points and a basic Primaris were 13 we would be having a different discussion right now.
This only "proves" the basic Marine is overcosted, not that it's overcosted because of a single model that may or may not be taken in any given Marine army. Technically it doesn't even prove Marines are overcosted, but I think most of us will concede that point in the current paradigm. If CP Generation worked on the average model cost, we might also be having a different conversation right now as people run Double Wing, 20 Smash Captain Soup, Imperial Fist Lysander/First Company and Full Knight No Soup armies with specialist detachments and stratagems all over the place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I don't agree with the assertion that SM's are "over costed" because it's based off the assumption that Guard are "under costed". Without dredging up every tired argument here, you cannot make the fallacy that if X is true, then Y must be true, if you haven't demonstrated X to be true.
If anything, Intercessors do bring 17 ppm to the table. Oldboys don't bring their cost however. The extra wound essentially makes Primaris into termie light. If you want to argue to lower the cost of the oldboys now that the Primaris are being finally given options and updated, sure. But I think GW has pretty conclusively come out to put the argument to bed, that Oldboys are still being pushed. GW is done with them. And while not yet squatted, they aren't getting anymore focus/new toys.
Most of the time, I use that as one of the controls in a hypothesis. IF Guard are costed CORRECTLY - then 1.0 Marines and Primaris are overcosted. If 1.0 Marines and Primaris are costed correctly, then Guard are undercosted. If Guard are costed incorrectly and 1.0/Primaris are costed incorrectly, we're lost in the fog and we don't know what anything should cost.
If Guard are costed correctly - and can field 10CP (5+5) ~60 24" Rapid Fire 1 S3 attacks and ~60 6 inch moving T3 5+ Objective Securing wounds for 360 points and some fluffy commanders and infantry, then ANY fluffy army - Space Marine or otherwise - without upgrades should be able to field 10CP (And all the stratagems, Specialist Detachments, and rerolls that entails), and the equivalent of 60 24" Rapid Fire1 S3 attacks, and ~60 6" moving T3 5+ Objective Securing wounds for 360 points.
I don't play BA, but I want to see a BA army that's 50% Death From Above units. I don't play White Scars, but I want to see a White Scars army that's ~50% bikes, and ~50% outflanking troops in Transports I sort of play DA, and I want to see a 50% RavenWing 50% Death Wing and 33% Death 33% Raven 33% Green Wing armies. I don't play Space Wolves, and I don't know what I want to see from them. Maybe 6 Dread armies, maybe something different. I don't know. But I do know I don't want to see iteration after iteration of One Captain, One Lieutenant, 1 Scout, 1 Intercessor, 1 Infiltrator - or worse 3 min size Scout/Cheapest Troop Equivalent cookie cutter cores.
I dont see your point at all. Ofc we shouldnt have every army have the same name and exact stats on their weapons even if they are functionaly the same. That would be a loss of immersion.
And I dont see how articles for how to magnetize models is a good reason to keep so many options. I use magnets myself but I wouldnt mind if units had less options so I dont have to magnetize them all. If there is only a few extra options I would rather just build a few extra models with those weapons and swap the whole model as needed depending on what I wanted in my list. As I used to do with my tactical and devastator squads. Keeping more options purely cosmetical would allow me to field better looking units while still being wysiwyg. It wouldnt change how the units played in 99% of the cases anyway so what is this illusion of choice actually doing for us?
And I'm not really advocating for a reduction of bloat just due to balance issues. More from identity issues of the units and the hobby aspects of it. I just dont see how it could make the balance worse and in the best case it would make it easier to balance. Too much choice in individual units reduces your choice of what unit to bring.
If unit X can do the exact same thing as unit Y for cheaper why would I ever use unit Y? Take a 10 man assault marine squad for example in a BA list. They are fluffy and sadly thats the only reason you would really take them if you want a JP melee unit. You could take them just for having a cheap unit that can score objectives or secondaries(if playing ITC) but you would never take them for the assault aspect since you have other units that can do everything better. For the same points you get more str4 attacks from DC and same durability. Vanguard veterans can also take special pistols but they can take more while also be more durable and hit harder in CC. And if you want special weapons like melta or plasma guns the company veterans are just way better since they can have a combi weapon each and still keep their chainswords. And company veterans can be made even cheaper than the assault squad if that is what you are after. Too many options just relegated an iconic unit in a BA list to the bench. Even if they balanced each unit better the assault squad still wouldnt have a real place since each other unit can do the same and more.
Making a vanguard veteran be unable to use a plasma pistol for example wouldnt make that model unplayable since I could still use it as a assault marine or another unit. Not that I think they shouldnt be able to use plasma pistols, it was just an example. I have magnetized the arms of my JP veterans so I can put dual plasma pistols on them since it looks really nice.
Having primaris added to this mix will just make this even worse. Since the old units doesnt feel as iconic any more it will be even easier to shift to the new marines. Less variable but more identity is something I feel would make them stay for longer before getting completely replaced by a Primaris unit that also have 100 options that can do everything an old unit can do but better. Bloat will only lead to loss of identity and faster replacement.
aka_mythos wrote: I think on a game design level the system and mechanics are stressed in a specific way that isn't easily remedied.
I'd say there are two main problems. They want a world with a range of horde (a couple hundred little Nid bugs) to extremely powerful low model count (4 Knight models) armies which they service with a sliding scale of Points/Power Level, but their subsystems don't maintain that abstract sliding scale - CP Generation based on detachment filling instead of points spending, Securing Objectives is done by model count not points in range, volume of fire per point spent Give a knight T300, 700Wounds and a 2+ invuln even usable vs Mortal Wounds, but one 6" S3 Pistol that hits on 7's and it's not equivalent - (They're getting better here at least). If points are the unifying measurement mechanic for list building, points should be the unifying mechanic for victory point scoring and unit design.
And the D6. I think we're stuck with the D6. But they do need more room. In the long long run, I could see a free app that lets you input your army list - you get a a Game ID from the GW server, you tell your opponent the Game ID, they input theirs into their phone. The phones talk to each other over a GW server and do the rolling for you on the GW server then tell you the result. No more dice. Its even easier now that they got rid of Scatter. But I doubt they're moving off the D6 until they move onto an app.
And the D6. I think we're stuck with the D6. But they do need more room. In the long long run, I could see a free app that lets you input your army list - you get a a Game ID from the GW server, you tell your opponent the Game ID, they input theirs into their phone. The phones talk to each other over a GW server and do the rolling for you on the GW server then tell you the result. No more dice. Its even easier now that they got rid of Scatter. But I doubt they're moving off the D6 until they move onto an app.
I dont think they will move the die rolling to an app. Why not just play the game on the phone/computer then. I can see why people use it just because the ridiculous amount of die rolled but the problem isnt rolling the dice its the amount and the time it takes. Wasnt there a board game some years ago that used an app for playing but people felt they could just play a pure digital game at that point.
If unit X can do the exact same thing as unit Y for cheaper why would I ever use unit Y? Take a 10 man assault marine squad for example in a BA list. They are fluffy and sadly thats the only reason you would really take them if you want a JP melee unit. You could take them just for having a cheap unit that can score objectives or secondaries(if playing ITC) but you would never take them for the assault aspect since you have other units that can do everything better.
Let's - for the moment - talk about assault squads in general and not their current pitifulness, or their 2nd Edition prime. The Assault Squad does not do the exact same thing as a DC or VV squad. Except for 2E, the Assault Squad did not have nearly the same access to power Weapons as VV (which only sort of existed, and only for BA once the AOD Codex came out near the middle/end) For most of their history the Assault Squad is/was a Fight Oriented version of the Tactical Squad and probably would have been better served/described as a Troop Choice. If you assume the Assault Squad can fight every other turn - while the Tactical can doulbe tap 2 out of 3 turns - The Assault Marine with 1A, +1A for two weapons, +1A for charging with their mobility advantage gets 1.5 S4 -1 attacks per turn, while the tactical marine got 1.6667 S4 -1 shots per turn. The VV are closer to the SG Drop Pod Special Ammo - they're designed for more elite targets than the Tactical/Assault Squad.
Two units that have the similar mechanics, but don't perform the same, and cost differently don't have the same job. It's like saying a pocket pair of 5's does the same job as a pocket pair of K's in Texas Hold'Em.
I dont think they will move the die rolling to an app. Why not just play the game on the phone/computer then. I can see why people use it just because the ridiculous amount of die rolled but the problem isnt rolling the dice its the amount and the time it takes. Wasnt there a board game some years ago that used an app for playing but people felt they could just play a pure digital game at that point.
Like I said, I think it's years and years into the future. I don't mind the current dice rolling- individually deviating 10 jump infantry every time you moved them was far worse - but there's a lot of complaining about it. Maybe in a generation or two they can use other dice, or maybe the Dungeons and Dragons makes kids shoot up schools thing flares up again, who knows. I think they're not moving off the D6 while that's a possibility though. Using computer randomization also gives them far far more room than any dice would. At that point they can move to percentages of percentages for the difference between a Land Raider and a Land Raider Crusader's armor value and not have to worry about how much of a pip on a die that is. Your App will also update your datasheet for wounds lost on that Land Raider variant with what it's current BS and MV is.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To continue with more analogies until I find one that works for you - a CD-RW and a DVD-RW can do the same job, but they don't have the same job. A DVD-RW can do more, like the VV.
If I proritize my scouts into Snipers, I may take two Intercessor squads to go with them, and not take the Eliminators. If Eliminators get a full data sheet and can bump to 6, or even 10 models, I may take the Eliminators and switch from scouts to Infiltrators. Or switch them to Bolters because I spent the points on Eliminators and can't afford Infiltrators who overlap but don't have the same job because they do more things, and do the same things better.
The point of having 2+ options that perform similar functions to different ability levels is being able to shift the focus/theme/strength/whatever you want to call it of your army, and still cover all your bases.
Just because I don't want to pay - lets see.. 330 points or so for a kitted out 10 man VV squad doesn't mean I don't want to pay 180 for a 10 man Assault Squad to keep my opponent and his rear area honest (right now, its the dismal state of the fight phase in general that means I don't want to do that) - or vice versa, just because I don't get enough work out of a 180 point Assault Squad doesn't mean I never want to take a 330 point VV squad to smash face on a flank. Taking this Best Unit here means I have to take this less best unit there, or no model at all - especially in an army with a low model count. I much prefer taking a not-best unit to pay for a best unit than taking 2 best units and skipping four not best units.
I think you are using old rules and history to justify current units and choices existing. Like I know there were other reasons in other editions but right now we are playing 8th edition and I see no reason to believe we will ever get better designed rules for old marines than we have right now.
Yeah and when people started using DVD-RW they were much more expensive than CD-RW so you had different usages for them but right now no one is using either since a USB can do both for cheaper. Why continue using and even making the CD-RW when you have the DVD-RW for the same cost that can do the same thing and more and we also have access to something even better and cheaper.
I didn't compare 10 assault marines with 10 vanguard veterans, I compared 10 assault marines with the same points of VV or DC or CV. The other JP units are so much more efficient and durable (DC have FNP, VV and CV Stormshields etc) that for the same points they can just do more. If the other units could do less then you could balance/price/design AM for a different job and since there is no 100% overlap anymore they have a reason to exist even as a Fast attack choice instead of the troops they should have been. I'm just using assault marines as an example since I play BA and are most familiar with them. It is good to have some options but when too many units can do the exact same thing better than the assault marines why even have them? If company veterans couldnt take combi/special weapon then AM would be the only cheap unit able to drop in with 2 melta guns but right now its better to just drop company veterans that have about 50% higher output for the points and you can use them in a more flexible squad size too.
Your argument only works if we had fixed squad sizes but right now you have AM in 5-10. DC in 5-15 and Company Veterans in 2-10 so they are even outshone in that department since you can really tailor the other squads much better. There is no opportunity cost for NOT taking assault marines right now. In earlier editions you would be right but not now and I argue from how it is right now and will most likely go in the future.
You want both a use for units but no unit to have any real role since it can only be better if we have more choices for everything. From your perspective it would almost be better to have just 1 JP unit and have them have all the options. It is the exact same thing as having 4 different units with almost the same option in practice. We could go that way too. Just have 1 profile for JP infantry and 1 profile for 1w PA foot infantry and then have a huge weapons list. Then you can choose what ever you want and then depending on load out you just choose a different fluffy name from the background.
I want there to be differences between the units so i actually have to make a choice between options. Right now I can just use 2 veteran squads with different equipment, 1 close combat squad that can smash everything and then a small squad for harassing by using either DC or VV for the CC squad and then I could use company veterans for the harassing squad. No need to use one veteran squad and one assault squad. I can even get more CP from a vanguard detachment for having more elite units in my list. I haven't even mentioned using Sanguinary guard in this role or any of the new Gravis/JP primaris units that also enchroach on this design space.
Klickor wrote: I think you are using old rules and history to justify current units and choices existing. Like I know there were other reasons in other editions but right now we are playing 8th edition and I see no reason to believe we will ever get better designed rules for old marines than we have right now.
No I'm using the fact that There are times you want VV or whatever, and times you don't need full VV or whatever and don't want to pay for it.
Yeah and when people started using DVD-RW they were much more expensive than CD-RW so you had different usages for them but right now no one is using either since a USB can do both for cheaper. Why continue using and even making the CD-RW when you have the DVD-RW for the same cost that can do the same thing and more and we also have access to something even better and cheaper.
There are places that don't allow USB for security reasons. There are others using technology too old for USB. Optical storage still has a job, just less of one.
I didn't compare 10 assault marines with 10 vanguard veterans, I compared 10 assault marines with the same points of VV or DC or CV.
I did. I happen to like taking the full 10 member squads. I find it fluffy and enjoyable. Additionally 5TH/SSVV are more than 10 Barebones Assault Marines, and almost as much as the kitted out squad - they cannot absorb as many wounds, They can't engage as many models or units, or secure the objective as well.
The other JP units are so much more efficient and durable (DC have FNP, VV and CV Stormshields etc) that for the same points they can just do more.
OK. Show me 5 VV absorbing 6 Mortal Wounds.
If the other units could do less then you could balance/price/design AM for a different job and since there is no 100% overlap anymore they have a reason to exist even as a Fast attack choice instead of the troops they should have been. I'm just using assault marines as an example since I play BA and are most familiar with them. It is good to have some options but when too many units can do the exact same thing better than the assault marines why even have them?
Because they're cheaper. It the Assault Marines can do what I want them to, why pay more for more than I'm looking to get from them?
If company veterans couldnt take combi/special weapon then AM would be the only cheap unit able to drop in with 2 melta guns but right now its better to just drop company veterans that have about 50% higher output for the points and you can use them in a more flexible squad size too.
Now move the non-JP Company Veterans from their Deep Struck Drop Pod to the other side of the board to score the objective- 26 inches away- card you just drew in 2 turns or less. I don't always need VV. Sometimes I want Assault Marines for their lower cost. I rarely want to take even fewer models at an even higher price point - especially in an edition you've already pointed out is more about the numbers than the gear. 170 points of Assault Marines will secure an objective from 170 points of Vanguard Vets.
Your argument only works if we had fixed squad sizes but right now you have AM in 5-10. DC in 5-15 and Company Veterans in 2-10 so they are even outshone in that department since you can really tailor the other squads much better. There is no opportunity cost for NOT taking assault marines right now. In earlier editions you would be right but not now and I argue from how it is right now and will most likely go in the future.
No my argument works pretty well as stated. If I want to take Best Unit A, I'm going to have to scrimp and save with less best Unit B or forego Unit B entirely. At no point in the normal rules do I get 150 bonus points for taking fully kitted out Vanguard Vets to use to offset the fact that I took fully kitted out Vanguard Vets. At no point do I want to take all the best units and end up with half the models I should at 2,000 points. At no point do I want to be forced into taking 15 scouts instead of 30 Intercessors and Infiltrators because I took some VV and you say there's no reason to take 10 AM for 180 points when you can take 5 VV for 180 points.
You want both a use for units but no unit to have any real role since it can only be better if we have more choices for everything. From your perspective it would almost be better to have just 1 JP unit and have them have all the options. It is the exact same thing as having 4 different units with almost the same option in practice. We could go that way too. Just have 1 profile for JP infantry and 1 profile for 1w PA foot infantry and then have a huge weapons list. Then you can choose what ever you want and then depending on load out you just choose a different fluffy name from the background.
Citation needed. If you're going to tell me what I want, could you maybe know what I want first? I want low tier AM, I want higher tier VV, and I want highest tier Smash HQ's. And I want that pattern to repeat for most roles. I want to be able to mix and match Tier 1 troops, with Tier 2 Close Support, and Tier 3 Heavy Support, or Tier 3 troops with Tier 1 Close Support, and Tier 2 Heavy Support or whatever combo I can come up with, that fits in the points.
I want there to be differences between the units so i actually have to make a choice between options. Right now I can just use 2 veteran squads with different equipment, 1 close combat squad that can smash everything and then a small squad for harassing by using either DC or VV for the CC squad and then I could use company veterans for the harassing squad. No need to use one veteran squad and one assault squad. I can even get more CP from a vanguard detachment for having more elite units in my list. I haven't even mentioned using Sanguinary guard in this role or any of the new Gravis/JP primaris units that also enchroach on this design space.
You want there to be a difference between the units, that forces you to make a choice, yet you want to get rid of the cheaper Tier 1 units that would/could be part of paying for that choice? The tax you pay for changing 20 of your 30 Intercessors to Infiltrators is more than paid for by changing your 10 Vanguard Vets to 10 Assault Marines. If you can't find a use for all these datasheets, this isn't a good reason to remove them from the people who can. I am perfectly satisfied to use Assault Marines this time, Vanguard Vets the next as I change stuff up and slide Sniper Scouts, Eliminators, Infiltrators, Intercessors, Terminators, Aggressors, Flyers, Dreadnaughts, Repulsors, Predators, Razorbacks, Rhinos, Drop Pods, Land Speeders, Devastators, Hellblasters and so on, and so on in and out of my lists. The difference between 10 kitted AM's and 10 kitted VV's is about 150 points. That's roughly two Rhinos or Razorbacks, or half a Repulsor. Its two Drop Pods and some change left over. Outside of HQ's the average SM Unit is 150-350 points. You're not paying for that swing with wargear. You're paying for that swing with Model quality. 150 point difference from AM to VV. The Difference between a box art Dreadnaught and a box art Redemptor is about 40-45 points.
I can even get more CP from a vanguard detachment for having more elite units in my list.
Is this a Blood Angel only rule I'm not familiar with? Using the specialist detachments for CP Generation is abysmally bad, and seriously hamstrings most Fluffy but non-traditional (not 2HQ, 3 Troop) armies.
Company veterans can take JP in a BA list so no need for drop pods. That is why I have used them as an example all the time.
But why would I have to kit out the veteran squad fully? I could just take a barebone squad with a relic blade on the leader and then 1-2 storm shields. Or just go pistol and chainsword like the normal assault marines. You only use examples with very narrow load out as an argument for having lots of choices to justify units having different uses. If VV only had to take expensive weapons I would agree with you but you dont have to. You say all the tiny difference is worth having their separate datasheets then why not move them all in to 1 sheet and have each rule just be 1pt and you can build them as you want. We are basically there already with all the JP units for BA.
If units had less choices we would be exactly where you want to be with VV costing 150pts more than AM. Right now its 20pts and you get 10 extra attacks and 1 LD for that and way better weapon options. That is almost 50% increase in offensive output for 13% increase in price and with a 10man unit morale actually matters so that 1LD make it so they are almost as durable as 11 AM.
I think the mortal wounds example is just bad. Sure in just that case having 10%more bodies would be better but the output of the veterans is closer to 50% higher so not enough to really make a difference. If we want that tiny difference from each choice of unit that we want overall much worse options for umits that are a tiny amount better in very narrow places. Would bloat the hell out of the game. And with VV having higher LD you have a higher chance of a 10 man squad not losing the last models due to morale anyway.
And 170pts assault marines wont take an objective from anything else that costs 170pts since they will have to slug it out in combat and die hard.
Im building a list right now with 2 battalions and a vanguard detachment. Not that uncommon to see BA using 1-2 battalions(ba or soup) and then a vanguard as third since most good units are HQs and Elite for BA.
Im not saying that GW should squat Assault Marines. But unless they narrow what each unit can do then they have practicaly already done that but in name. Just use the assault marines with your choice of veteran rules and call them assault marines if you want. Best use of that unit right now. Or do you think we need a tier0, 5 assault marines. We could have a unit that is a bit cheaper but with 8"move and fly and the veteran weapon options. More choice is always better for the game right.
You would in fact not suffer ay all from doing what I propose since you want full squads with fluffy outfits. So do I. But an unfluffy veteran squad is right now better than a fluffy assault marine squad at its job rules wise. Both you and me want to use fluffy assault marine squads for one thing and then a fluffy vanguard squad for something else. You enforce fluffy rules for your self to make it like that the units do different things. Why not make that the actual rules?
Would probably be easier to balance too boot. Right now both DC and VV can take Thunder hammers and chainswords. Both weapons are used for completly different targets but since you can use both at the same time in a unit you have to balance the unit from their bedt performance in each category which makes certain combinations of weapons quite bad. Why not have VV gets the hammers and stormshields for the hardest targets. DC bolter and chainsword and perhaps an axe or 2 for horde duty and then remove JP from company veterans and let AM be the cheap unit with only access to JP and melta guns. Cleaner by far and easier to GW to balance to make all viable.
And Sanguinary Guard can be kept mostly as it is. Just fix their melee weapons and reroll interaction with dante. They have their special usage without overlap from the other JP units.
To be honest I'll be so glad to see some consolidation.
GW clearly failed to make each basic power weapon unique, like oh, you glued a sword on your sarge? Nice, you just handicapped yourself.
Could we back to power weapon be, well, a power weapon please? Sword, axe, lance, mace, pick what is cool. It's not that matter, because, you know, we have freaking titans on the table, is it matter if there is sword or axe on the tiny marine out there?
The same with powerfist and hammer, just make one hard-hitting option, like combat blade/chainsword single anti infantry option, only a matter of look.
Some units could be merged too, there is no reason to have company squad and veteran squad the different entity, just give all veterans this look out seer and keep less pages, repeat with several others weapons and units.
Klickor wrote: Company veterans can take JP in a BA list so no need for drop pods. That is why I have used them as an example all the time.
Not everyone plays BA, I don't and don't feel like having my codex shrunk for it.
But why would I have to kit out the veteran squad fully? I could just take a barebone squad with a relic blade on the leader and then 1-2 storm shields. Or just go pistol and chainsword like the normal assault marines. You only use examples with very narrow load out as an argument for having lots of choices to justify units having different uses. If VV only had to take expensive weapons I would agree with you but you dont have to. You say all the tiny difference is worth having their separate datasheets then why not move them all in to 1 sheet and have each rule just be 1pt and you can build them as you want. We are basically there already with all the JP units for BA.
Because they work pretty hard and not modifying the core Stats on a datasheet like the T4 Primaris Captain and the T5 Gravis Captain or the M6 T4 Captain, and the M12 T5 Bike Captain. or the M5 and M4 Terminator captains. They also work hard at avoiding 4 page data sheets with a thousand options.
If units had less choices we would be exactly where you want to be with VV costing 150pts more than AM. Right now its 20pts and you get 10 extra attacks and 1 LD for that and way better weapon options. That is almost 50% increase in offensive output for 13% increase in price and with a 10man unit morale actually matters so that 1LD make it so they are almost as durable as 11 AM.
And 5 fewer wounds. You keep ignoring the 5 Fewer wounds. If we had fewer unit choices to be where you want us to be, we'd be playing with 18 model count armies instead of 40.
I think the mortal wounds example is just bad. Sure in just that case having 10%more bodies would be better but the output of the veterans is closer to 50% higher so not enough to really make a difference. If we want that tiny difference from each choice of unit that we want overall much worse options for umits that are a tiny amount better in very narrow places. Would bloat the hell out of the game. And with VV having higher LD you have a higher chance of a 10 man squad not losing the last models due to morale anyway.
I too think examples that expose a flaw I want to ignore are bad.
Im building a list right now with 2 battalions and a vanguard detachment. Not that uncommon to see BA using 1-2 battalions(ba or soup) and then a vanguard as third since most good units are HQs and Elite for BA.
At how many points? And Soup is not a Marine Army, Soup is a Soup army. One fluffy battalion of just a Space Marine "Loyal 32" (call it one Scout, One intercessor, One Tactical to cover all bases) is going to run about 566 points before upgrades. Run two of those and you're at 1132 - again before upgrades - After upgrades just to Box Art - that's 660 and 1320 - or about 90% of a 1500 point list. It's 2/3 of a 2000 point list.
Im not saying that GW should squat Assault Marines. But unless they narrow what each unit can do then they have practicaly already done that but in name. Just use the assault marines with your choice of veteran rules and call them assault marines if you want. Best use of that unit right now. Or do you think we need a tier0, 5 assault marines. We could have a unit that is a bit cheaper but with 8"move and fly and the veteran weapon options. More choice is always better for the game right
Again, your inability to see their niche doesn't make for a good reason to remove them from people who can. There's more than one way to play almost any given unit. For example you want to kit out the Company Veterans. I'd rather leave them bare bones, or a power sword at best. Their LOOKOUT SIR! doesn't take their equipment into account. It triggers after saves, for a Mortal Wound so I'm definitely not buying them storm shields. They're 14 point ablative wounds for your characters. Take 10 of them around Lysander with his Stormshield and watch people try and shoot off 16 2+/3++ wounds that can return fire with 20 Rapid Fire Bolter Drill Seige Master shots. It even works in close combat if you want to stick with the chain/power swords over the bolter fire. The downside is figuring out how that works with multi-wound hits. The Command Squad triggers on a wound dealt, then intecepts the hit.. does that mean a 6 wound lascannon hit all 6 cause one mortal wound on a Command Vet, or 6 mortal wounds? Does that mean after the save is failed the entire hit is transferred to the Vet before Damage is even rolled/determined? I suspect so, but It'll be a fun argument to watch. I'm already playing with the idea of Guilliman, and 3 Company Vet squads running around in his 6" bubble.
Well. Why not just have vanguard veterans get the same rule as company veterans and then choose how to use the unit? I am clearly talking about BA in my posts and in my latest I just suggested that they at least should remove the JP option from then to make so there is a difference between the units since right now company veterans far out perform assault marines for cheap and small unit with special weapons.
And I was comparing 10 man VV squad to 10 man AM squad. For the same points you get just 1,5 extra assault marines so no 5 extra wounds there. Naked VV costs just 2 extra points per model 17 vs 15.
I use 2 BA battalions and a vanguard in 1500pts. Im not gonna use tacticals or intercessors in a 1500pts list sadly since they are not worth it. 6x scouts for me. I would rather have tacticals or intercessors but then I dont have the points left for any of the good units. The same list at 1750 have 2x5 intercessors and 3x5 intercessors at 2000pts.
Do lysander take hits from the company veterans? If not why not just kill them first? They arent much of a threat anyway with that week firepower for that point cost.
If you are playing Guilliman you have access to Victrix Guard that are superior to Company Veterans. Cheaper per wound and they come with 2+/3++ and power swords.
And since both Lysander and Guilliman are characters they cant be shot first anyway. Spending hundreds of points on company veterans is a really bad idea. They are just more expensive tactical marines that protect your character from snipers. Company vetetans naked must be one of the worst unit choices in the whole codex. They have the best selection of weapons of any non captain unit in the book and should be taken for that. And that is what makes them a bad unit to have. No problem with a bodyguard unit. I like that. But they are just too flexible if used outside as honorguard/bodyguard that they fulfill other units roles too. And with that huge weapon access they cant be worth it to protect characters too since they would be too good compared to the other marine choices. With less weapon options they could be cheaper or have a 5+++ or something to make them good for what you want them for without making them superior to any other marine unit.
A lascannon can kill 6 company vetetans with 1 shot sadly. Gw writes poorly worded rules again but its after you roll for damage so its a 2+ for each wound meaning up to 6 mortal wounds. As BA I can at least get FNP on that but still isnt worth it in most cases. Helps the character not be one shot by a lucky vindicare but thats about it.
BaconCatBug wrote: Intercessors: Get 4 Stratagems
Tactical Squads: Get 0 Stratagems
Totally not squatting oldmarines guys!
Honestly, it's hilariously obvious GW are moving hard to squat oldmarines as soon as they feel they can get away with it.
Well at least they got the new rules added on so that counts for something. I just think thr strategems are a way to push the sales for their new models, no biggie.
BaconCatBug wrote: Intercessors: Get 4 Stratagems
Tactical Squads: Get 0 Stratagems
Totally not squatting oldmarines guys!
Honestly, it's hilariously obvious GW are moving hard to squat oldmarines as soon as they feel they can get away with it.
How many of the Strats suck? And are just reworks/reprints of what they already had in Vigilus? Plus their AuxGL's are a point again, while Tacs went down. Probably not enough, going from 10W to 20W for 30ish points isn't a tough call to make.
BaconCatBug wrote: Intercessors: Get 4 Stratagems
Tactical Squads: Get 0 Stratagems
Totally not squatting oldmarines guys!
Honestly, it's hilariously obvious GW are moving hard to squat oldmarines as soon as they feel they can get away with it.
Grav Cannons only on Classic Marines got a great Stratagem. As did Terminators. Sternguard have a Strat. Scout Bikes have a Strat. Whirlwind and Thunderfire have a Strat. Thunderfire has a second Strat. Bikers and Land Speeders got a Strat. Flakk and Hellfire can only be used by infantry with Missile Launchers or Heavy Bolters which Primaris don't get, etc.
Intercessors need Strats because they can't get good guns.
BaconCatBug wrote: Intercessors: Get 4 Stratagems
Tactical Squads: Get 0 Stratagems
Totally not squatting oldmarines guys!
Honestly, it's hilariously obvious GW are moving hard to squat oldmarines as soon as they feel they can get away with it.
So you had to raise from the dead a month old thread to try and troll old marine lovers ? A very good use of time.
That said, lets ignore the bonuses old marines got, and lets further ignore strats for old marine units, yeah they got nothing.
Why are some people so eager to see things fail or be destroyed ? Is someones annoyance or upset that fulfilling ? Now let me add, I'm not sure if thats why you brought this thread back or you are trying to warn people, so if I have your intentions wrong let me know. However, I say again, there are strats for old marine units, and those new strats mostly are re tooled vigilus starts yes ? So really they didn't gain anything new they didn't already have access to for awhile with them which you could say is less effort than the old marines strats which are new to my knowledge.
My Astartes got significantly better along with my Primaris, so I dont understand your joke? I'm actually looking forward to see how it works out on thursday.
Kinda lame at this point...wait what do I mean this point, more like any of the previous 500.
Lance845 wrote: I get that you want to hang onto the old stuff. I do. But Primaris is the future and they are squatting the old marines. Enjoy it while it lasts. It won't last for long. You have basically until the named characters have been primarisized. By that point you will get a closer to Terminator equivalent, a few more vehicles and some dedicated melee units and then it's over. Old marines will be gone.
Having read all of this thread, I must say I have a fairly Sweeney Todd attitude about their impending demise. "The lives of the wicked should be made brief / For the rest of us, death will be a relief." Clearly, if the arguments posited over the past few pages are anything to go by, the game is an unplayable mess anyway so having my oldest army invalidated will be a wonderful thing.
Ice_can wrote: Intercessors finally after 2 rounds of points reductions are just about starting to see some play at competitive levels.
So, that would seem to indicate that Intercessors are now top-tier, optimal units, right? Tournament players don't regularly bring sub-optimal units to competitive play.
Tacticals might still be fine for general play, even if they're not the flavor-of-the-month meta.
Edit: My apologies, I just realized these posts were made before the new SM codex dropped.
BaconCatBug wrote: Intercessors: Get 4 Stratagems
Tactical Squads: Get 0 Stratagems
Totally not squatting oldmarines guys!
Honestly, it's hilariously obvious GW are moving hard to squat oldmarines as soon as they feel they can get away with it.
So you had to raise from the dead a month old thread to try and troll old marine lovers ? A very good use of time.
That said, lets ignore the bonuses old marines got, and lets further ignore strats for old marine units, yeah they got nothing.
Why are some people so eager to see things fail or be destroyed ? Is someones annoyance or upset that fulfilling ? Now let me add, I'm not sure if thats why you brought this thread back or you are trying to warn people, so if I have your intentions wrong let me know. However, I say again, there are strats for old marine units, and those new strats mostly are re tooled vigilus starts yes ? So really they didn't gain anything new they didn't already have access to for awhile with them which you could say is less effort than the old marines strats which are new to my knowledge.
"Some men just want to watch the world burn."
Also, something something Grampa Nurgle something something. There's a certain fascination with watching things collapse built into the human psyche, it's just how we're wired. Paying attention to how things break had to have been a survival trait at some point in our evolution, and it's not like that ever stopped being useful.
For "not nice" you mean "pointed out blatant things GW is doing and/or showing how badly the rules are written"? Because even if he can be troll-ish sometimes, his points are always solid when he writes over here.
They are not going away just because you call him the bad guy. Hes the hero GW's repulsive rule writing needs. The cat that we deserve.
Stux wrote: Well I think you are in a minority there. I'm glad you're getting enjoyment from it still though!
I would accept that I might be in the minority. . . but I would say that it's probably in GW's best interest to keep the army supported. I know a LOT of people who have old armies lying around, but just haven't played in years. If they could take that old army to the club and start gaming with it, that's a gateway to more purchases, imo.
I expect it to be fully supported for something like a decade. And eventually they'll be like "it's legal to use Tacticals as Intercessors" and then another few years and they'll quietly drop that. Though in casual games people won't care if you're using your 20 year old sculpts, it'll be a nice novelty to play against even!
I anticipate it being VERY slow.
I dont think the GW buissness model will make them last another 10 years. So if I can use my tacticals for that time then fine by me. And if they happen to ditch marines (wich they wont, its their strongest concept ever created) then I'll just proxy them as the new jazz, if im even still playing the game by then.
Gw are gakking over their fans so bad right now I'm sure they are digging their grave buissness wise.
I use regular astartes for Khorne Berzerkers. Sue me.
Ultimately as long as it's clear what something is who cares.
I also use the Mhara Gal dread for a Hellforged Leviathan and the Gal Vorbak for Greater Possessed simply cuz the models look so neat.
I plan to get years of enjoyment out of watching people who scour every release for some hint of a classic marine.
Eventually, one will show up in Nexcromunda version 8, and they will get all excited GW is bring back Classic Marines! You can proxy use the Necromunda one as a Tac squad guy if you use the 8.5 7 year old index options! Until even that was just the one mini years past.. And then a picture of a classic marine in some game product, just a picture of a old land raider in the back ground all busted up.. And the true believers are back, hope up again!
For "not nice" you mean "pointed out blatant things GW is doing and/or showing how badly the rules are written"? Because even if he can be troll-ish sometimes, his points are always solid when he writes over here.
They are not going away just because you call him the bad guy. Hes the hero GW's repulsive rule writing needs. The cat that we deserve.
Pointing out GW ineptitude is shooting fish in a barrel, it's so pathetically easy that I'm not going to give anyone credit for engaging in it. The rule set is beyond salvation in any case, playing 40k these days is like eating a pint of broken glass.
Reemule wrote: I plan to get years of enjoyment out of watching people who scour every release for some hint of a classic marine.
Eventually, one will show up in Nexcromunda version 8, and they will get all excited GW is bring back Classic Marines! You can proxy use the Necromunda one as a Tac squad guy if you use the 8.5 7 year old index options! Until even that was just the one mini years past.. And then a picture of a classic marine in some game product, just a picture of a old land raider in the back ground all busted up.. And the true believers are back, hope up again!
Reemule wrote: I plan to get years of enjoyment out of watching people who scour every release for some hint of a classic marine.
Eventually, one will show up in Nexcromunda version 8, and they will get all excited GW is bring back Classic Marines! You can proxy use the Necromunda one as a Tac squad guy if you use the 8.5 7 year old index options! Until even that was just the one mini years past.. And then a picture of a classic marine in some game product, just a picture of a old land raider in the back ground all busted up.. And the true believers are back, hope up again!
Glorious.
Err. . . What?
Sigh.
Classic marines are gone and I'm going to laugh for years watching people want to deny that.
For "not nice" you mean "pointed out blatant things GW is doing and/or showing how badly the rules are written"? Because even if he can be troll-ish sometimes, his points are always solid when he writes over here.
They are not going away just because you call him the bad guy. Hes the hero GW's repulsive rule writing needs. The cat that we deserve.
Pointing out GW ineptitude is shooting fish in a barrel, it's so pathetically easy that I'm not going to give anyone credit for engaging in it. The rule set is beyond salvation in any case, playing 40k these days is like eating a pint of broken glass.
Classic marines are gone and I'm going to laugh for years watching people want to deny that.
That seems like a very unkind way to spend one's limited time on this planet. All too soon, the show's over and I for one would be heartbroken if I went to my grave feeling like I wasted my time on cheap schadenfreude.
Classic marines are gone and I'm going to laugh for years watching people want to deny that.
That seems like a very unkind way to spend one's limited time on this planet. All too soon, the show's over and I for one would be heartbroken if I went to my grave feeling like I wasted my time on cheap schadenfreude.
Naw. Unkind is not realizing basic patterns and business models. Those bowling balll dreadnoughts became Casterum patern dreads, became Contemptor dreas, became redemptor dreads.
Want to buy a new Bowling ball dread? Tough. At some point in the future the Redemptor dread... also not for sale anymore. Go buy the new Teletubbie dread. Hot pink, has a coat hanger on its head, new release, very retro, all the rage.
Naw. Unkind is not realizing basic patterns and business models.
It really isn't, friend. That's not what that word means. Your attempt to score points with a rhetorical flourish is as feeble as it is misdirected.
I don't dispute that old marines are going away. They are, and rapidly, too. What I take umbrage to is pulling a Nelson and ha-ha'ing people who have any kind of negative reaction, whether rational or emotional, to this reality. You're being dicks about it because you yourselves don't care for the old models.
Intercessors have 4 strats... that were introduced before the codex.
Intercessors are still the golden boys, but the Codex treats RealMarines much better than the old one did. They got a lot more out of the update than Intercessors.
Reemule wrote: I plan to get years of enjoyment out of watching people who scour every release for some hint of a classic marine.
Eventually, one will show up in Nexcromunda version 8, and they will get all excited GW is bring back Classic Marines! You can proxy use the Necromunda one as a Tac squad guy if you use the 8.5 7 year old index options! Until even that was just the one mini years past.. And then a picture of a classic marine in some game product, just a picture of a old land raider in the back ground all busted up.. And the true believers are back, hope up again!
Glorious.
Err. . . What?
Sigh.
Classic marines are gone and I'm going to laugh for years watching people want to deny that.
And I'll laugh at those who are rebuying all their models because of some feelings about size inadequacy.
Reemule wrote: I plan to get years of enjoyment out of watching people who scour every release for some hint of a classic marine.
Eventually, one will show up in Nexcromunda version 8, and they will get all excited GW is bring back Classic Marines! You can proxy use the Necromunda one as a Tac squad guy if you use the 8.5 7 year old index options! Until even that was just the one mini years past.. And then a picture of a classic marine in some game product, just a picture of a old land raider in the back ground all busted up.. And the true believers are back, hope up again!
Glorious.
Err. . . What?
Sigh.
Classic marines are gone and I'm going to laugh for years watching people want to deny that.
And I'll laugh at those who are rebuying all their models because of some feelings about size inadequacy.
Manlet Marines look bad though. The only passable ones are the Mk3 and 4 ones, and that's really stretching it.
Classic marines are gone and are done and I’m going to laugh at you. Even thought they have rules in the new codex, you can still buy all of them, and they are still even getting some new models. But yeah they are gone and I’m still going to laugh at you because I have a massive inferiority complex, and the only way I can get pleasure is to point and laugh at people in various realms of fandom who are slightly disappointed about something.
I think that’s basically what he is saying amongst the utter wibble
Mr Morden wrote: Classic marines have their range complete - what are people actually wating for thats not already produced???????????
Only foccussing on new stuff for 2 already massive marine lines (Primaris and HH) is at least better than 3.
I’d like a Lord-of-War marine tank that’s plastic (I.e., not Forgeworld, though the Fellblade is gorgeous). New bike designs would be nice too, maybe return the repulsor style bikes of Rogue Trader. And a plastic Thunderfire cannon. Maybe some beast non-Space Wolf cavalry, and a marine beast master with some vicious creature on a leash.
Mr Morden wrote: Classic marines have their range complete - what are people actually wating for thats not already produced???????????
Only foccussing on new stuff for 2 already massive marine lines (Primaris and HH) is at least better than 3.
Updated standard Terminator kit
Updated standard Bikes kit
Updated Scouts
Plastic Techmarine
Plastic Thunderfire cannon
Plastic servitors
Plastic Honour Guard
Plastic Tactical kit with Breaching Shields
Updated means its already there - Jesus How Many different Terminator Squads do we need....I mean there is "only" 4 basic currently on sale now PLUS the Angels and Wolves versions
Also Resin means its already there.
AGAIN what units are NOT represented with models.....
Aren't marines supposed to be rapid deploy? Why do they need a LoW TANK?
Smae reason we go Centurions crap, Wolves on Wolves and silly looking aircraft and eventually Primaris because they need to sell new things and the Space Marine range is complete - even if they are not all in plastic - compare them with ANy other sub-faction
Mr Morden wrote: Classic marines have their range complete - what are people actually wating for thats not already produced???????????
Only foccussing on new stuff for 2 already massive marine lines (Primaris and HH) is at least better than 3.
Updated standard Terminator kit
Updated standard Bikes kit
Updated Scouts
Plastic Techmarine
Plastic Thunderfire cannon
Plastic servitors
Plastic Honour Guard
Plastic Tactical kit with Breaching Shields
Updated means its already there - Jesus How Many different Terminator Squads do we need....I mean there is "only" 4 basic currently on sale now PLUS the Angels and Wolves versions
Also Resin means its already there.
AGAIN what units are NOT represented with models.....
But it’s not just about what units haven’t been produced. Some of us want key iconic units updated to the modern standard. All those terminator units you mention are great and fairly recent models up to current standards. But the standard terminators, the standard version of the unit for all marines, is not. Thus I would like it updated. The recent Heroes terminators have gone some way to alleviating the need, but still.
Same goes for the other update units I listed.
The bottom two, honour guard and breachers, would be all new kits.
I’d also like to add large amounts of 30k units, which could also be used in 30k, to that, such as:
Plastic mk2 marines
Plastic Deimos rhino and variants
Plastic Sicarans
Plastic fellblade and variants
Plastic legion specific units
Cents are awful, everything SW is pretty much awful in my book (esp the wolf head flyer..UGH), and I don't think marines need their own airforce. The models are ... meh
Cents are awful, everything SW is pretty much awful in my book (esp the wolf head flyer..UGH), and I don't think marines need their own airforce. The models are ... meh
I have mixed feeling about Primaris - I like most of them but some not so much but they do look much less like toys than the end of the line Small Marine stuff
HATE centurions and won't buy Wolves on Wolves - but bizarely actually like and own the Wolf head flyer
Reemule wrote: You can split hairs about when the end of the line is for Classic Marines. When the last model was producted? Released? Rules yanked?
Its not my intention to be mean to the people who feel sad about the sunset on the Classics.
It is my intentions to laugh at those who seem to think new releases and ongoing production of Classic marines is around the corner.
I'm assuming you mean produced? We don't know they are all still in production including the failcast model's.
Released they have shown a new terminator charictor that hasn't been released yet so some point in the future.
At the end of the day GW will produce what is profitable if that's old marines which to be fair they have to be into the pure profit phase for all those kits for a while now.
Why primaris, it was to try and make people with 3-4K plus of the army buy more kits, is it working maybe though not as well as GW hoped, hence the new direction in codex 2.0 instead of 1.0
Everything will eventually be replaced by new models or if it wasn't popular enough allowed to slowly slip out of production.
But right now GW is selling both sizes of marines and making money doing so, untill that changes or they think of something more profitable they will keep doing what's making them money.
But keep telling people you know better and can determine GW's grand 5 year plan, because even people in GW head office dont even know if GW has a 1 year plan let alone a 5 year one.
What is the difference? They are not making new rules or models for non primaris, and non primaris practicaly do not exist in art or lore of new books. I read the WS supplment only, and a bit of the sm codex, if I didn't knew that non primaris are a thing, I would probably never notice they exist. Everything from art to who does what, is done with primaris.
Martel732 wrote: Is there a compelling reason to cancel them, when they can just soft squat them?There will always be some who still buy them.
GW is very aware of exactly what ratio various kits sell at compaired to other kits, it's actually interesting that they can have so much data but actually haven't been able to get to there in terms of predicting the units that will shift and won't based on rules.
I suspect that's because they can't seperate the "cool models" vrs "good rules" sales and the doesn't sell vrs don't have any available to sell. But the amount of profit they arn't maximising is scary, when you look at their current results.
Manlet Marines look bad though. The only passable ones are the Mk3 and 4 ones, and that's really stretching it.
Mine don't. Git gud.
If you actually bought and put together anything else compared to the Manlet ones you might actually realize it. Even the Deathwatch guys have at least have a small amount more height.
Karol wrote: What is the difference? They are not making new rules or models for non primaris, and non primaris practicaly do not exist in art or lore of new books. I read the WS supplment only, and a bit of the sm codex, if I didn't knew that non primaris are a thing, I would probably never notice they exist. Everything from art to who does what, is done with primaris.
Have the WS supplement in front of me:
So are all those bikers Primaris? Cos there sure are alot of images with Marine bikers in the White Scars Supplement .....
Martel732 wrote: Is there a compelling reason to cancel them, when they can just soft squat them?There will always be some who still buy them.
Soft squat seems the worst of all options cause at some point in the future you can buy devestators, but not tac squads, Razor backs, but not Redeemers, Captains, but not librarians, and some one will complain about that.
Karol wrote: What is the difference? They are not making new rules or models for non primaris, and non primaris practicaly do not exist in art or lore of new books
That is demonstrably false, there is plenty of normal marine art, fluff and actual models in the new codices. The White Scars one features plenty of bikes, how could you not notice?!
Manlet Marines look bad though. The only passable ones are the Mk3 and 4 ones, and that's really stretching it.
Mine don't. Git gud.
If you actually bought and put together anything else compared to the Manlet ones you might actually realize it. Even the Deathwatch guys have at least have a small amount more height.
Are you actually going for a variation of the Ishagu ‘argument’ whereby you are only allowed to comment on Primaris vs Classic aethsetics if you own Primaris models? Ignoring the fact you can easily see and inspect the full range at GWs, Independants, gaming clubs and friends armies. That’s hilarious
Manlet Marines look bad though. The only passable ones are the Mk3 and 4 ones, and that's really stretching it.
Mine don't. Git gud.
If you actually bought and put together anything else compared to the Manlet ones you might actually realize it. Even the Deathwatch guys have at least have a small amount more height.
Manlet Marines look bad though. The only passable ones are the Mk3 and 4 ones, and that's really stretching it.
Mine don't. Git gud.
If you actually bought and put together anything else compared to the Manlet ones you might actually realize it. Even the Deathwatch guys have at least have a small amount more height.
So you've reduced good looks to size. Ok.
Better proportioned is a better word to use, but that's partly why the Deathwatch look a lot better.
Karol wrote: What is the difference? They are not making new rules or models for non primaris, and non primaris practicaly do not exist in art or lore of new books
That is demonstrably false, there is plenty of normal marine art, fluff and actual models in the new codices. The White Scars one features plenty of bikes, how could you not notice?!
Karol wrote: What is the difference? They are not making new rules or models for non primaris, and non primaris practicaly do not exist in art or lore of new books
That is demonstrably false, there is plenty of normal marine art, fluff and actual models in the new codices. The White Scars one features plenty of bikes, how could you not notice?!
Manlet Marines look bad though. The only passable ones are the Mk3 and 4 ones, and that's really stretching it.
Mine don't. Git gud.
If you actually bought and put together anything else compared to the Manlet ones you might actually realize it. Even the Deathwatch guys have at least have a small amount more height.
Are you actually going for a variation of the Ishagu ‘argument’ whereby you are only allowed to comment on Primaris vs Classic aethsetics if you own Primaris models? Ignoring the fact you can easily see and inspect the full range at GWs, Independants, gaming clubs and friends armies. That’s hilarious
If you actually owned and worked with the models, it'd be easier to say if they weren't customizable or anything, right?
Karol wrote: What is the difference? They are not making new rules or models for non primaris, and non primaris practicaly do not exist in art or lore of new books
That is demonstrably false, there is plenty of normal marine art, fluff and actual models in the new codices. The White Scars one features plenty of bikes, how could you not notice?!
[
I have it in front of me, because a friend bought it. They mention bikes in passing. the whole make a marine thing, is from a primaris point of view. the whole chapter gets wrecked by huron, and when counter attacks are mentioned, it is never said it is not done by primaris, so someone new is not going to know it. The whole successor chapter page has primaris art as representation of marine. The brotherhood hoping is a thing now, it is not explained how a brother can both learn to pilot a speeder/predator and a repulsor, when old marines and new marines don't mix. the hvy support company mentions that a space marine can learn to be an eliminator or hellblaster there, no mention of devastators. 9th is done with a single sentance, and says they learn how to ride bikes there and that is all there is to say about the biker chapter, whose brotherhoods were often all bikes. all the stories and the focus is on primaris and not the normal marines. The khan changes in to a primaris without even being dead injured, on the other hand the great khan who gets tortured to almost death and turned in to a total cripple , just lays on a bad and slowly dies, and everyone wonders why doesn't someone off him.
I don't see a new direction in codex 2.0. codex 1.0 likewise had a lot of old marine strats etc. (in fact I'd argue the new codex is more primaris friendly what with several relics that are primaris only. strats for primaris etc) but over all my impression is GW intends to double dip. there's no reason not to
Manlet Marines look bad though. The only passable ones are the Mk3 and 4 ones, and that's really stretching it.
Mine don't. Git gud.
If you actually bought and put together anything else compared to the Manlet ones you might actually realize it. Even the Deathwatch guys have at least have a small amount more height.
So you've reduced good looks to size. Ok.
Better proportioned is a better word to use, but that's partly why the Deathwatch look a lot better.
You're welcome to your opinion. I just don't share it.
Manlet Marines look bad though. The only passable ones are the Mk3 and 4 ones, and that's really stretching it.
Mine don't. Git gud.
If you actually bought and put together anything else compared to the Manlet ones you might actually realize it. Even the Deathwatch guys have at least have a small amount more height.
So you've reduced good looks to size. Ok.
Better proportioned is a better word to use, but that's partly why the Deathwatch look a lot better.
You're welcome to your opinion. I just don't share it.
Imma take a stab at it and say you hadn't bought the Deathwatch kit
I haven't. Because I don't like it. I've played against them a number of times though, and seen them in person. I like their commander model, but mostly because I want to use it as an Inquisitor Lord in 2nd. Ed.
Karol wrote: What is the difference? They are not making new rules or models for non primaris, and non primaris practicaly do not exist in art or lore of new books
That is demonstrably false, there is plenty of normal marine art, fluff and actual models in the new codices. The White Scars one features plenty of bikes, how could you not notice?!
Manlet Marines look bad though. The only passable ones are the Mk3 and 4 ones, and that's really stretching it.
Mine don't. Git gud.
If you actually bought and put together anything else compared to the Manlet ones you might actually realize it. Even the Deathwatch guys have at least have a small amount more height.
Are you actually going for a variation of the Ishagu ‘argument’ whereby you are only allowed to comment on Primaris vs Classic aethsetics if you own Primaris models? Ignoring the fact you can easily see and inspect the full range at GWs, Independants, gaming clubs and friends armies. That’s hilarious
If you actually owned and worked with the models, it'd be easier to say if they weren't customizable or anything, right?
Not really, this tends to be fairly obvious when looking at the part layout on the sprues.
Karol wrote: What is the difference? They are not making new rules or models for non primaris, and non primaris practicaly do not exist in art or lore of new books
That is demonstrably false, there is plenty of normal marine art, fluff and actual models in the new codices. The White Scars one features plenty of bikes, how could you not notice?!
[
I have it in front of me, because a friend bought it. They mention bikes in passing. the whole make a marine thing, is from a primaris point of view. the whole chapter gets wrecked by huron, and when counter attacks are mentioned, it is never said it is not done by primaris, so someone new is not going to know it. The whole successor chapter page has primaris art as representation of marine. The brotherhood hoping is a thing now, it is not explained how a brother can both learn to pilot a speeder/predator and a repulsor, when old marines and new marines don't mix. the hvy support company mentions that a space marine can learn to be an eliminator or hellblaster there, no mention of devastators. 9th is done with a single sentance, and says they learn how to ride bikes there and that is all there is to say about the biker chapter, whose brotherhoods were often all bikes. all the stories and the focus is on primaris and not the normal marines. The khan changes in to a primaris without even being dead injured, on the other hand the great khan who gets tortured to almost death and turned in to a total cripple , just lays on a bad and slowly dies, and everyone wonders why doesn't someone off him.
I think you must be reading a different publication from me.
Mr Morden wrote: Yeah the bikes are almost non -existant - what with the pics of them in artwork or models on pages:
Inside front cover
pages 3, 4,5,7,14,30, 39,44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50,54, 55
Inside back cover
Back cover
Both the featured "how to make a Scars force are nearly 50% bikers...the various mentions in text linking into the images.
Even the Tac Marines get their own models page as well call outs in the lore.
yes, because no where in the text does it say the bikers are not primaris. A new players is not going to know that the primaris are the oddity in the codex, that is wrong. They will buy in to the models, and GW will make more of them, and not support non primaris. Which means factions like my that do not get primaris will get screwed.
Again look at the company descriptions. Every time they mention marines from brotherhoods they focus on the primaris, the name them, that marine can be X or Y, as if a primaris was a marine at all and not an tech heresy abomination. What is in the part about being a WS? a primaris space marine not a normal marine.
And again you know that primaris are wrong, and I know they are wrong. But a new player is going to read the supplement and if no one tells them that there is something wrong about primaris, theya re going to assume that it is the primaris that are the natural thing. And then they are going to buy in to them, and in a few years, you may not even have people who think there is anything wrong with primaris. And then GW is really not going to fix factions who do not have access to them.
Mr Morden wrote: Yeah the bikes are almost non -existant - what with the pics of them in artwork or models on pages:
Inside front cover
pages 3, 4,5,7,14,30, 39,44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50,54, 55
Inside back cover
Back cover
Both the featured "how to make a Scars force are nearly 50% bikers...the various mentions in text linking into the images.
Even the Tac Marines get their own models page as well call outs in the lore.
yes, because no where in the text does it say the bikers are not primaris. A new players is not going to know that the primaris are the oddity in the codex, that is wrong. They will buy in to the models, and GW will make more of them, and not support non primaris. Which means factions like my that do not get primaris will get screwed.
Again look at the company descriptions. Every time they mention marines from brotherhoods they focus on the primaris, the name them, that marine can be X or Y, as if a primaris was a marine at all and not an tech heresy abomination. What is in the part about being a WS? a primaris space marine not a normal marine.
And again you know that primaris are wrong, and I know they are wrong. But a new player is going to read the supplement and if no one tells them that there is something wrong about primaris, theya re going to assume that it is the primaris that are the natural thing. And then they are going to buy in to them, and in a few years, you may not even have people who think there is anything wrong with primaris. And then GW is really not going to fix factions who do not have access to them.
yes GW doesn't specify the bikers are Primaris or not because it's not relevant. they're BIKERS. Old school Marines aren't going anywhere. not in the immediate future.
Insectum7 wrote: I haven't. Because I don't like it. I've played against them a number of times though, and seen them in person. I like their commander model, but mostly because I want to use it as an Inquisitor Lord in 2nd. Ed.
I'd rather (and have) buy more Tacticals.
Which honestly demonstrates your inability to let go of the past. They're a dated kit and dated model. Even look at something as simple as the newer Rubric Marines.
Karol wrote: What is the difference? They are not making new rules or models for non primaris, and non primaris practicaly do not exist in art or lore of new books
That is demonstrably false, there is plenty of normal marine art, fluff and actual models in the new codices. The White Scars one features plenty of bikes, how could you not notice?!
Manlet Marines look bad though. The only passable ones are the Mk3 and 4 ones, and that's really stretching it.
Mine don't. Git gud.
If you actually bought and put together anything else compared to the Manlet ones you might actually realize it. Even the Deathwatch guys have at least have a small amount more height.
Are you actually going for a variation of the Ishagu ‘argument’ whereby you are only allowed to comment on Primaris vs Classic aethsetics if you own Primaris models? Ignoring the fact you can easily see and inspect the full range at GWs, Independants, gaming clubs and friends armies. That’s hilarious
If you actually owned and worked with the models, it'd be easier to say if they weren't customizable or anything, right?
Not really, this tends to be fairly obvious when looking at the part layout on the sprues.
Karol wrote: What is the difference? They are not making new rules or models for non primaris, and non primaris practicaly do not exist in art or lore of new books
That is demonstrably false, there is plenty of normal marine art, fluff and actual models in the new codices. The White Scars one features plenty of bikes, how could you not notice?!
[
I have it in front of me, because a friend bought it. They mention bikes in passing. the whole make a marine thing, is from a primaris point of view. the whole chapter gets wrecked by huron, and when counter attacks are mentioned, it is never said it is not done by primaris, so someone new is not going to know it. The whole successor chapter page has primaris art as representation of marine. The brotherhood hoping is a thing now, it is not explained how a brother can both learn to pilot a speeder/predator and a repulsor, when old marines and new marines don't mix. the hvy support company mentions that a space marine can learn to be an eliminator or hellblaster there, no mention of devastators. 9th is done with a single sentance, and says they learn how to ride bikes there and that is all there is to say about the biker chapter, whose brotherhoods were often all bikes. all the stories and the focus is on primaris and not the normal marines. The khan changes in to a primaris without even being dead injured, on the other hand the great khan who gets tortured to almost death and turned in to a total cripple , just lays on a bad and slowly dies, and everyone wonders why doesn't someone off him.
I think you must be reading a different publication from me.
You're right, it IS obvious that they're easy to work with and customize.
Having both regular marines and primaris in my deathwatch I can say I still love my old marines but yes the nu marines look good too at least the core models. I'm not a huge fan of the gravis units as of yet. Though I don't mine the phobos types.
I do have and play deathwatch, and I can say I enjoy both the model lines just fine. If someone can't ever touch or look at an old marine again, I look forward to making them have to look at all of mine, forever, even if I lose even if the rules are so bad it's almost an auto loss when I deploy.
Why ? Because I love them, and I will as long as I play the game and if you lose to old marines, you must be awful as they will one day be sooooo bad.
Jokes aside, for those saying old marines are dead. Newsflash, everything is dead, being born increases your chance of death 100%. Everything dies, everything breaks down and falls to nothing. This game won't even last forever and for all we know it'll die before old marines will as a model line or with rules support. We just don't know, the people cheering on their death could be dead before they see it happen, life is chaotic.
If your life is so lacking you have to be happy at someone elses sadness, I think you should fix your priorities and learn to enjoy life before its over. Everything dies, everything fades away, finding joy in that and in peoples loss is really rejecting your own gifts, and your own time can be spent better. Just my opinion on the matter.
yes, because no where in the text does it say the bikers are not primaris. A new players is not going to know that the primaris are the oddity in the codex, that is wrong. They will buy in to the models, and GW will make more of them, and not support non primaris. Which means factions like my that do not get primaris will get screwed.
Again look at the company descriptions. Every time they mention marines from brotherhoods they focus on the primaris, the name them, that marine can be X or Y, as if a primaris was a marine at all and not an tech heresy abomination. What is in the part about being a WS? a primaris space marine not a normal marine.
And again you know that primaris are wrong, and I know they are wrong. But a new player is going to read the supplement and if no one tells them that there is something wrong about primaris, theya re going to assume that it is the primaris that are the natural thing. And then they are going to buy in to them, and in a few years, you may not even have people who think there is anything wrong with primaris. And then GW is really not going to fix factions who do not have access to them.
What the feth are you going on about? The normal marines are now primaris, yes, the new players will get them because they're not blinded by their nostalgia goggles and can clearly see that the models are much better. Grey Knight will most likely get the primaris when GW gets around making dedicated models to them, as the standard primaris models do not for their style. Notice now no chapter has gotten any dedicated primaris models aside some characters?
Insectum7 wrote: I haven't. Because I don't like it. I've played against them a number of times though, and seen them in person. I like their commander model, but mostly because I want to use it as an Inquisitor Lord in 2nd. Ed.
I'd rather (and have) buy more Tacticals.
Which honestly demonstrates your inability to let go of the past. They're a dated kit and dated model. Even look at something as simple as the newer Rubric Marines.
My army is drawn from 25 years of consistent styling and scaling, and I don't require that they scale "accurately" to anything other than themselves. They are playable for the time being, they look great, the model line offers anything I could possibly want and their army list allows me to field any battlefield role I could need. If GW does retire classics from the game, I'd sooner collect a different faction, and already have. I've got a 5000+ point collection of Tyranids ready to go. I'd get serious about my Eldar collection than start a new marine army, or add models to it that look out of place.
I'll be happy to slaughter Primaris with filthy xenos at my FLGS, and keep my marines for old school games with friends, if that's what it comes to.
And again you know that primaris are wrong, and I know they are wrong. But a new player is going to read the supplement and if no one tells them that there is something wrong about primaris, theya re going to assume that it is the primaris that are the natural thing. And then they are going to buy in to them, and in a few years, you may not even have people who think there is anything wrong with primaris. And then GW is really not going to fix factions who do not have access to them.
I really don’t think there is anything to worry about in that regard. Just like most of use when we started, new players/collectors will learn the background of the factions and distinctions between marines quite quickly, at least the ones who will stick around long term. I’m sure their aethsetic tastes will move on as well.
Some people aren't going to just rebuild armies made over decades just because GW want to super size me.
As well I'll add loving the old marines isn't nostalgia, they are still around, I as one person see nothing wrong with them. If someone finds them awful, that is on them entirely and not on me or any other supporter of the line. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and no one can say what is more or less ugly to anyone they can only say their opinions.
Trying to devalue someones opinion by nostalgia is simply a weak statement. I can like the way a model looks..and..AND also feel good about it from history with them. You can do both, even if someone can't understand why anyone would like them.
Hell, I think Necrons as models are awful dumb, ugly trash, yet I can get why people like them aside from just being a bit daft, it's all about the person.
Insectum7 wrote: I haven't. Because I don't like it. I've played against them a number of times though, and seen them in person. I like their commander model, but mostly because I want to use it as an Inquisitor Lord in 2nd. Ed.
I'd rather (and have) buy more Tacticals.
Which honestly demonstrates your inability to let go of the past. They're a dated kit and dated model. Even look at something as simple as the newer Rubric Marines.
This is utter nonsense, they are a relatively recent kit from the modern era with very sharp surface detailing. The Tactical kit only came out 3 years before the rubric marines kit you are talking about, in 2013. Hardly dated by any stretch of the imagination.
Insectum7 wrote: I haven't. Because I don't like it. I've played against them a number of times though, and seen them in person. I like their commander model, but mostly because I want to use it as an Inquisitor Lord in 2nd. Ed.
I'd rather (and have) buy more Tacticals.
Which honestly demonstrates your inability to let go of the past. They're a dated kit and dated model. Even look at something as simple as the newer Rubric Marines.
My army is drawn from 25 years of consistent styling and scaling, and I don't require that they scale "accurately" to anything other than themselves. They are playable for the time being, they look great, the model line offers anything I could possibly want and their army list allows me to field any battlefield role I could need. If GW does retire classics from the game, I'd sooner collect a different faction, and already have. I've got a 5000+ point collection of Tyranids ready to go. I'd get serious about my Eldar collection than start a new marine army, or add models to it that look out of place.
I'll be happy to slaughter Primaris with filthy xenos at my FLGS, and keep my marines for old school games with friends, if that's what it comes to.
Same here, I’m not going to move to Primaris if classics ever went away, I also collect other factions I would focus on more. I have Custodes for the more elite than marines requirement, there is no need for Primaris
I don't think it's wrong to say though that rose coloured glasses are impacting a lot of the judgements here. to say a new tank looks silly and poorly planned out, while the LAND RAIDER has a sensable design is definatly a case of it
As well I'll add loving the old marines isn't nostalgia, they are still around, I as one person see nothing wrong with them. If someone finds them awful, that is on them entirely and not on me or any other supporter of the line. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and no one can say what is more or less ugly to anyone they can only say their opinions.
Trying to devalue someones opinion by nostalgia is simply a weak statement. I can like the way a model looks..and..AND also feel good about it from history with them. You can do both, even if someone can't understand why anyone would like them.
Hell, I think Necrons as models are awful dumb, ugly trash, yet I can get why people like them aside from just being a bit daft, it's all about the person.
As a professionally trained artist, I really hate this 'it is just an opinion, man' bs. There is a bit more to evaluating art than that. To say that is just a matter of opinion whether Leonardo Da Vinci's The Last Supper is a better painting than the the portrait of Vladimir Putin by George W. Bush would be missing quite a bit of nuance.
And anyone who thinks that the new players will not overwhelmingly prefer the look of the primaris is just deluding themselves in a colossal degree.
You can't honesty ascertain that from just a post online though. Just because you can't see why someone see's beauty in something and you don't doesn't mean they are blinded by the light of the past.
Some have said many of these vehicles are silly and impractical. I'm not going to go into a huge list but it's there.
GW isn't very creative and most of these kits have design elements inspired by real life counterparts. However, you can like say a land raider over a repulsor without wearing them goggles.
Arguing which is more viable, is a fools errand I feel. If you were going down that path I'd pick the rhino, razorback, predators as the most viable actual designs.
BrianDavion wrote: I don't think it's wrong to say though that rose coloured glasses are impacting a lot of the judgements here. to say a new tank looks silly and poorly planned out, while the LAND RAIDER has a sensable design is definatly a case of it
The Land Raider is a work of art. I never said it's sensible.
You're right, it IS obvious that they're easy to work with and customize.
I’m not sure what you are on about, I was commenting on the fact one is able to comment on the aethsetics of models they don’t own.
Not really. For example, FW does terrible paint jobs and their models look bad until they're seen in person and actually worked with. The best direct example was that lizard monster thing they previewed with the absolutely ghastly paintjob, and then we kinda got a better idea when it wasn't painted.
As well I'll add loving the old marines isn't nostalgia, they are still around, I as one person see nothing wrong with them. If someone finds them awful, that is on them entirely and not on me or any other supporter of the line. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and no one can say what is more or less ugly to anyone they can only say their opinions.
Trying to devalue someones opinion by nostalgia is simply a weak statement. I can like the way a model looks..and..AND also feel good about it from history with them. You can do both, even if someone can't understand why anyone would like them.
Hell, I think Necrons as models are awful dumb, ugly trash, yet I can get why people like them aside from just being a bit daft, it's all about the person.
As a professionally trained artist, I really hate this 'it is just an opinion, man' bs. There is a bit more to evaluating art than that. To say that is just a matter of opinion whether Leonardo Da Vinci's The Last Supper is a better painting than the the portrait of Vladimir Putin by George W. Bush would be missing quite a bit of nuance.
And anyone who thinks that the new players will not overwhelmingly prefer the look of the primaris is just deluding themselves in a colossal degree.
If you need to teach someone why something is beautiful, that sounds like an issue in and of itself. We can go round and round on this if you want to. You're free to not like something or like something more, you're even free to tell me I'm wrong, I'm free to say the same to you and will, forever if need be, just let people like what they like and we can end it there.
Yes I agree, my response is over simple and I'm sure you're an amazing judge of art, but we're talking about models, not art. None of these designs are Da Vinci I think we can agree on that. However, being told over and over how I can't find something good looking when I do is making me recreate the scream, but in real life.
You want to love Primaris designs, go ahead, they look good, I and others think old marines look good and that is something I'm able to live with and not once tell any one of you you're wrong. Let new players like what they like, I think though the view of others may surprise you with what looks better. Now, if you ever can't get the old stuff, that will of course skew the results as people will pick up what they can find and have access to regardless of personal thoughts, as well rules will factor in here too.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, regardless if you like it or not.
Insectum7 wrote: I haven't. Because I don't like it. I've played against them a number of times though, and seen them in person. I like their commander model, but mostly because I want to use it as an Inquisitor Lord in 2nd. Ed.
I'd rather (and have) buy more Tacticals.
Which honestly demonstrates your inability to let go of the past. They're a dated kit and dated model. Even look at something as simple as the newer Rubric Marines.
My army is drawn from 25 years of consistent styling and scaling
...demonstrating EXACTLY what I just said. You won't let go of your whole "true marine" army idea you got going on in your head, which was demonstratingly wrong, by the way.
As well I'll add loving the old marines isn't nostalgia, they are still around, I as one person see nothing wrong with them. If someone finds them awful, that is on them entirely and not on me or any other supporter of the line. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and no one can say what is more or less ugly to anyone they can only say their opinions.
Trying to devalue someones opinion by nostalgia is simply a weak statement. I can like the way a model looks..and..AND also feel good about it from history with them. You can do both, even if someone can't understand why anyone would like them.
Hell, I think Necrons as models are awful dumb, ugly trash, yet I can get why people like them aside from just being a bit daft, it's all about the person.
And anyone who thinks that the new players will not overwhelmingly prefer the look of the primaris is just deluding themselves in a colossal degree.
Do you have any form of evidence to back up your claim? It’s a pretty bold assertion. I’m talking verifiable data here, like a survey of thousands of new players. Things along the lines of ‘but muh proportions’ and my opinion is fact cause reasons don’t count.
Insectum7 wrote: I haven't. Because I don't like it. I've played against them a number of times though, and seen them in person. I like their commander model, but mostly because I want to use it as an Inquisitor Lord in 2nd. Ed.
I'd rather (and have) buy more Tacticals.
Which honestly demonstrates your inability to let go of the past. They're a dated kit and dated model. Even look at something as simple as the newer Rubric Marines.
This is utter nonsense, they are a relatively recent kit from the modern era with very sharp surface detailing. The Tactical kit only came out 3 years before the rubric marines kit you are talking about, in 2013. Hardly dated by any stretch of the imagination.
Insectum7 wrote: I haven't. Because I don't like it. I've played against them a number of times though, and seen them in person. I like their commander model, but mostly because I want to use it as an Inquisitor Lord in 2nd. Ed.
I'd rather (and have) buy more Tacticals.
Which honestly demonstrates your inability to let go of the past. They're a dated kit and dated model. Even look at something as simple as the newer Rubric Marines.
My army is drawn from 25 years of consistent styling and scaling, and I don't require that they scale "accurately" to anything other than themselves. They are playable for the time being, they look great, the model line offers anything I could possibly want and their army list allows me to field any battlefield role I could need. If GW does retire classics from the game, I'd sooner collect a different faction, and already have. I've got a 5000+ point collection of Tyranids ready to go. I'd get serious about my Eldar collection than start a new marine army, or add models to it that look out of place.
I'll be happy to slaughter Primaris with filthy xenos at my FLGS, and keep my marines for old school games with friends, if that's what it comes to.
Same here, I’m not going to move to Primaris if classics ever went away, I also collect other factions I would focus on more. I have Custodes for the more elite than marines requirement, there is no need for Primaris
And the kit is amazingly bad for being only 2013. Look at the Deathwatch and Rubric Marine kits. Even the Grey Knight one is just above it, and not by much based on the scaling.
As well I'll add loving the old marines isn't nostalgia, they are still around, I as one person see nothing wrong with them. If someone finds them awful, that is on them entirely and not on me or any other supporter of the line. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and no one can say what is more or less ugly to anyone they can only say their opinions.
Trying to devalue someones opinion by nostalgia is simply a weak statement. I can like the way a model looks..and..AND also feel good about it from history with them. You can do both, even if someone can't understand why anyone would like them.
Hell, I think Necrons as models are awful dumb, ugly trash, yet I can get why people like them aside from just being a bit daft, it's all about the person.
And anyone who thinks that the new players will not overwhelmingly prefer the look of the primaris is just deluding themselves in a colossal degree.
Do you have any form of evidence to back up your claim? It’s a pretty bold assertion. I’m talking verifiable data here, like a survey of thousands of new players. Things along the lines of ‘but muh proportions’ and my opinion is fact cause reasons don’t count.
Do the "Primaris are failing" baby-boomer-equivalents have evidence? No.
You're right, it IS obvious that they're easy to work with and customize.
I’m not sure what you are on about, I was commenting on the fact one is able to comment on the aethsetics of models they don’t own.
Not really. For example, FW does terrible paint jobs and their models look bad until they're seen in person and actually worked with. The best direct example was that lizard monster thing they previewed with the absolutely ghastly paintjob, and then we kinda got a better idea when it wasn't painted.
No really, I’m not sure what you are on about. As I’ve already explained one has ample chances to see models they don’t own in the flesh. I don’t need to own a model before I can say if I like it or not, that would be absurd.
Also, quality of FW painting debates aside, they always show the bare resin models unpainted as well, so your example is terrible.
You're right, it IS obvious that they're easy to work with and customize.
I’m not sure what you are on about, I was commenting on the fact one is able to comment on the aethsetics of models they don’t own.
Not really. For example, FW does terrible paint jobs and their models look bad until they're seen in person and actually worked with. The best direct example was that lizard monster thing they previewed with the absolutely ghastly paintjob, and then we kinda got a better idea when it wasn't painted.
No really, I’m not sure what you are on about. As I’ve already explained one has ample chances to see models they don’t own in the flesh. I don’t need to own a model before I can say if I like it or not, that would be absurd.
Also, quality of FW painting debates aside, they always show the bare resin models unpainted as well, so your example is terrible.
Boy did you miss some of those FW previews.
Also it did take some people seeing them in person to confirm the models weren't bad.
Insectum7 wrote: I haven't. Because I don't like it. I've played against them a number of times though, and seen them in person. I like their commander model, but mostly because I want to use it as an Inquisitor Lord in 2nd. Ed.
I'd rather (and have) buy more Tacticals.
Which honestly demonstrates your inability to let go of the past. They're a dated kit and dated model. Even look at something as simple as the newer Rubric Marines.
This is utter nonsense, they are a relatively recent kit from the modern era with very sharp surface detailing. The Tactical kit only came out 3 years before the rubric marines kit you are talking about, in 2013. Hardly dated by any stretch of the imagination.
Insectum7 wrote: I haven't. Because I don't like it. I've played against them a number of times though, and seen them in person. I like their commander model, but mostly because I want to use it as an Inquisitor Lord in 2nd. Ed.
I'd rather (and have) buy more Tacticals.
Which honestly demonstrates your inability to let go of the past. They're a dated kit and dated model. Even look at something as simple as the newer Rubric Marines.
My army is drawn from 25 years of consistent styling and scaling, and I don't require that they scale "accurately" to anything other than themselves. They are playable for the time being, they look great, the model line offers anything I could possibly want and their army list allows me to field any battlefield role I could need. If GW does retire classics from the game, I'd sooner collect a different faction, and already have. I've got a 5000+ point collection of Tyranids ready to go. I'd get serious about my Eldar collection than start a new marine army, or add models to it that look out of place.
I'll be happy to slaughter Primaris with filthy xenos at my FLGS, and keep my marines for old school games with friends, if that's what it comes to.
Same here, I’m not going to move to Primaris if classics ever went away, I also collect other factions I would focus on more. I have Custodes for the more elite than marines requirement, there is no need for Primaris
And the kit is amazingly bad for being only 2013. Look at the Deathwatch and Rubric Marine kits. Even the Grey Knight one is just above it, and not by much based on the scaling.
I think you must be looking at the 1998 version of tactical marines or something, the one with only 3 leg poses . The 2013 tactical kit is superb. The detail is very crisp and sharp, the same quality as the deathwatch and rubric kits. They are only a few years apart in release terms, all 3 kits were digital and cast in laser cut molds. I think you prefer the deathwatch and rubrics because they are a couple of mm taller on average? That doesn’t make the tactical kit ‘amazingly bad’. That is just hyperbolic nonsense.
For what it's wort (which is $0 USD), I'm middle-aged but I love the Primaris stuff. I haven't played much 40k but have followed it for decades and I think the Primaris Marines make the old marines look silly in comparison. Honestly, it was one of the main reasons I started building a 40k army again and I'll be glad when Old Marines are gone. Primaris look how Marines were always supposed to look....cool. Not cartoon caricatures. I may be in the minority but I'm so glad GW did this.
Insectum7 wrote: I haven't. Because I don't like it. I've played against them a number of times though, and seen them in person. I like their commander model, but mostly because I want to use it as an Inquisitor Lord in 2nd. Ed.
I'd rather (and have) buy more Tacticals.
Which honestly demonstrates your inability to let go of the past. They're a dated kit and dated model. Even look at something as simple as the newer Rubric Marines.
This is utter nonsense, they are a relatively recent kit from the modern era with very sharp surface detailing. The Tactical kit only came out 3 years before the rubric marines kit you are talking about, in 2013. Hardly dated by any stretch of the imagination.
Insectum7 wrote: I haven't. Because I don't like it. I've played against them a number of times though, and seen them in person. I like their commander model, but mostly because I want to use it as an Inquisitor Lord in 2nd. Ed.
I'd rather (and have) buy more Tacticals.
Which honestly demonstrates your inability to let go of the past. They're a dated kit and dated model. Even look at something as simple as the newer Rubric Marines.
My army is drawn from 25 years of consistent styling and scaling, and I don't require that they scale "accurately" to anything other than themselves. They are playable for the time being, they look great, the model line offers anything I could possibly want and their army list allows me to field any battlefield role I could need. If GW does retire classics from the game, I'd sooner collect a different faction, and already have. I've got a 5000+ point collection of Tyranids ready to go. I'd get serious about my Eldar collection than start a new marine army, or add models to it that look out of place.
I'll be happy to slaughter Primaris with filthy xenos at my FLGS, and keep my marines for old school games with friends, if that's what it comes to.
Same here, I’m not going to move to Primaris if classics ever went away, I also collect other factions I would focus on more. I have Custodes for the more elite than marines requirement, there is no need for Primaris
And the kit is amazingly bad for being only 2013. Look at the Deathwatch and Rubric Marine kits. Even the Grey Knight one is just above it, and not by much based on the scaling.
As well I'll add loving the old marines isn't nostalgia, they are still around, I as one person see nothing wrong with them. If someone finds them awful, that is on them entirely and not on me or any other supporter of the line. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and no one can say what is more or less ugly to anyone they can only say their opinions.
Trying to devalue someones opinion by nostalgia is simply a weak statement. I can like the way a model looks..and..AND also feel good about it from history with them. You can do both, even if someone can't understand why anyone would like them.
Hell, I think Necrons as models are awful dumb, ugly trash, yet I can get why people like them aside from just being a bit daft, it's all about the person.
And anyone who thinks that the new players will not overwhelmingly prefer the look of the primaris is just deluding themselves in a colossal degree.
Do you have any form of evidence to back up your claim? It’s a pretty bold assertion. I’m talking verifiable data here, like a survey of thousands of new players. Things along the lines of ‘but muh proportions’ and my opinion is fact cause reasons don’t count.
Do the "Primaris are failing" baby-boomer-equivalents have evidence? No.
Please do not quote entire walls, at the very least use spoiler tags.
I'm sorry which side revived a months old antagonistic thread to start an argument about this same old same old again.
I'm not seeing anyone saying primaris are failing in the new posts that's something in your head you obviously feel defensive about.
IMHO both old and new marines are here to stay, old marines don't cost GW money to make, each kit sold is pure profit.
Primaris cost GW money but the money they cost was spent years ago.
They will release the models and make as much money as they can from both ranges, aslong as players have money GW will sell you plastic crack.
That's all very cool, glad you enjoy it. I just can't get why people are so hell bent on seeing models some do love tossed away so. Does the fact the old marines yet remain somehow bring you down ? I find that so funny a concept. That someone can't be happy with what they have, until what came before is gone.
Though it's also a foolish concept as by the time the old guard all fade away, will most of us even still be around or playing this game ? People act like even if GW completely toss the old kits they'll never be seen again, they will be around for decades on decades yet especially with how slow the primaris release is going in terms of filling in all the blanks.
I do shed a small tear for all those who can't stand the visual of the old marines though, must be a tough thing to see them still.
puzzledust wrote: For what it's wort (which is $0 USD), I'm middle-aged but I love the Primaris stuff. I haven't played much 40k but have followed it for decades and I think the Primaris Marines make the old marines look silly in comparison. Honestly, it was one of the main reasons I started building a 40k army again and I'll be glad when Old Marines are gone. Primaris look how Marines were always supposed to look....cool. Not cartoon caricatures. I may be in the minority but I'm so glad GW did this.
You are not in the minority. This is how anyone who aren't looking the marines through nostalgia goggles so thinck that they could be used to measure unit coherency feel. The primaris design is clearly superior.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AngryAngel80 wrote: That's all very cool, glad you enjoy it. I just can't get why people are so hell bent on seeing models some do love tossed away so. Does the fact the old marines yet remain somehow bring you down ? I find that so funny a concept. That someone can't be happy with what they have, until what came before is gone.
I do not particularly want them gone, but they will be. And I just feel that Dakka denial brigade fosters a bit unhealthy attitude.
puzzledust wrote: For what it's wort (which is $0 USD), I'm middle-aged but I love the Primaris stuff. I haven't played much 40k but have followed it for decades and I think the Primaris Marines make the old marines look silly in comparison. Honestly, it was one of the main reasons I started building a 40k army again and I'll be glad when Old Marines are gone. Primaris look how Marines were always supposed to look....cool. Not cartoon caricatures. I may be in the minority but I'm so glad GW did this.
You are not in the minority. This is how anyone who aren't looking the marines through nostalgia goggles so thinck that they could be used to measure unit coherency feel. The primaris design is clearly superior.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AngryAngel80 wrote: That's all very cool, glad you enjoy it. I just can't get why people are so hell bent on seeing models some do love tossed away so. Does the fact the old marines yet remain somehow bring you down ? I find that so funny a concept. That someone can't be happy with what they have, until what came before is gone.
I do not particularly want them gone, but they will be. And I just feel that Dakka denial brigade fosters a bit unhealthy attitude.
Except why is a primaris marine still way too short compaired to guardsmen?
Also why is your tac marine on a 25 mm base it should be on a 32mm.
By the time all the old marines are gone I really doubt anyone fighting this fight is going to give two craps and may not even be playing the game still if the game exists at all at that time.
You can like the old stuff without nostalgia but please do keep expressing your casual disdain for anyone who likes the old marines it really shows more about you than it does anyone else.
Keep loving the primaris too, they are both good looking lines.
Hi all, i am a long time lurker here (well, like a year or two) and this is my first post. I am a space wolf player, have a large collection, and have been in the hobby now for around 2 years.
I have seen variations on this topic since 8th landed and will give my views for what they are worth.
I don't like primaris and won't buy them, ever. If oldmarines are squatted i will just leave the hobby, there's plenty of competing options for my time and money.
I dislike the design aesthetic, i disagree with the notion that there is any such thing as objectively better aesthetics, and even if it were conceded that intercessors look superior to tacticals, i've noted with interest that this is very often as far as primaris supporters are prepared to take the comparision - why not show a terminator next to an aggressor?
Or an assault marine next to an inceptor? Or an old dreadnought next to a redemptor?
My opinion, for what it's worth, of the design of the primaris and why i won't spend money on them is how many of the models are fat. And that's not hyperbole or even a judgement call, some people might like fat. I don't, the gravis captain is literally rocking a beer gut and looks fat. The aggressors are chunky and look overweight and top heavy.
The redemptor has skinny legs and is fat and weirdly proportioned. I just don't like this aesthetic direction.
I've kept my views on the lore out of it for the sake of brevity, but those are my views and i hope they are taken and considered in the open minded spirit they were given
Hecube wrote: Hi all, i am a long time lurker here (well, like a year or two) and this is my first post. I am a space wolf player, have a large collection, and have been in the hobby now for around 2 years.
I have seen variations on this topic since 8th landed and will give my views for what they are worth.
I don't like primaris and won't buy them, ever. If oldmarines are squatted i will just leave the hobby, there's plenty of competing options for my time and money.
I dislike the design aesthetic, i disagree with the notion that there is any such thing as objectively better aesthetics, and even if it were conceded that intercessors look superior to tacticals, i've noted with interest that this is very often as far as primaris supporters are prepared to take the comparision - why not show a terminator next to an aggressor?
Or an assault marine next to an inceptor? Or an old dreadnought next to a redemptor?
My opinion, for what it's worth, of the design of the primaris and why i won't spend money on them is how many of the models are fat. And that's not hyperbole or even a judgement call, some people might like fat. I don't, the gravis captain is literally rocking a beer gut and looks fat. The aggressors are chunky and look overweight and top heavy.
The redemptor has skinny legs and is fat and weirdly proportioned. I just don't like this aesthetic direction.
I've kept my views on the lore out of it for the sake of brevity, but those are my views and i hope they are taken and considered in the open minded spirit they were given
Welcome to the party, but get ready for the incoming fire. Keep your head down and it'll pass, welcome to the forum.
Hecube wrote: Hi all, i am a long time lurker here (well, like a year or two) and this is my first post. I am a space wolf player, have a large collection, and have been in the hobby now for around 2 years.
I have seen variations on this topic since 8th landed and will give my views for what they are worth.
I don't like primaris and won't buy them, ever. If oldmarines are squatted i will just leave the hobby, there's plenty of competing options for my time and money.
I dislike the design aesthetic, i disagree with the notion that there is any such thing as objectively better aesthetics, and even if it were conceded that intercessors look superior to tacticals, i've noted with interest that this is very often as far as primaris supporters are prepared to take the comparision - why not show a terminator next to an aggressor?
Or an assault marine next to an inceptor? Or an old dreadnought next to a redemptor?
My opinion, for what it's worth, of the design of the primaris and why i won't spend money on them is how many of the models are fat. And that's not hyperbole or even a judgement call, some people might like fat. I don't, the gravis captain is literally rocking a beer gut and looks fat. The aggressors are chunky and look overweight and top heavy.
The redemptor has skinny legs and is fat and weirdly proportioned. I just don't like this aesthetic direction.
I've kept my views on the lore out of it for the sake of brevity, but those are my views and i hope they are taken and considered in the open minded spirit they were given
I think you actually make some fair points. The main thing which makes the Primaris better looking is the improved proportions, and that doesn't apply to vehicles. It also gets less impactful when we get to heavier armour types which obscure the body shape. Though I still think that Gravis has clearly better proportions than Terminators, They're quite different designs though, so in many ways they're not directly comparable. The plastic Custodes Terminators have really nice proportions, I really wish that we will eventually get Primaris Terminators with similar proportions, incorporating some classic Marine Terminator elements. But yeah, whilst I would definitely argue that the Primaris basic infantry is by any reasonably standard a superior design to comparable old Marine units, I would not make that same argument about vehicles. I like the Repulsor, but I will not claim it is any way objectively better design than a Land Raider, merely different.
Yea @ Crimson you're right they're not directly comparable aesthetically, but i guess i meant from a unit role kind of perspective they are clearly (i think) designed to be the terminator equivalent.
Yea the vehicles thing is just being different for the sake of being different, and i think this is where GW are falling into error and having problems.
The starkest example of that is the supressor unit - what is it meant to be? It's just a jumble of different competing roles and aesthetic choices that seem off to me. So i kind of just wish they would go back and just say - here's the new tactical model, upsized. We're doing new terminators etc and upsizing the whole range but not messing around with the general aesthetic or basically creating whole new lines to replace what we already have.
I feel like they have made bad choices, poorly thought through, and now we are here with a discussion that is pretty much insoluble at this point. People just like different things.
I kind of feel going forward the only option for GW is to basically let the space marine faction split into two
I think GW made their design choices well, for them. They did this exactly so they could double dip. If it was just a rescale, people would still use the old models. They wanted to give people a reason to buy all new whole armies with new units.
It was a choice made to drain money, not one to please the fans or even give a clear direction. That is why in some aspects it fails to garner the kind of universal praise and love they perhaps wish it did. While also being utterly vague on their full intentions and leading to all the debates and arguing.
Which breaks down into arguing everything about them, including which looks better.
people I think generally display the interceptor next to a tac marine as they're the real obvious equivilants. agressors are not terminators, inceptors are not assault marines. Intercessors ARE "generic space marine troop with a bolter"
as for the dreadnought comparison, honestly thats a pretty poor comparison for the old stuff, people like to mock the p[ot belly, but by and large the redemptor dreadnought has a much better design.
I generally like that they're not just redoing the old units but are trying new things instead, but even I have to agree that it hasn't quite worked every time. Suppressors in particular are a pretty damn bizarre design. Granted, they improve a lot with some reposing. Still, I would have probably preferred just walking autocannon guys.
puzzledust wrote: For what it's wort (which is $0 USD), I'm middle-aged but I love the Primaris stuff. I haven't played much 40k but have followed it for decades and I think the Primaris Marines make the old marines look silly in comparison. Honestly, it was one of the main reasons I started building a 40k army again and I'll be glad when Old Marines are gone. Primaris look how Marines were always supposed to look....cool. Not cartoon caricatures. I may be in the minority but I'm so glad GW did this.
You are not in the minority. This is how anyone who aren't looking the marines through nostalgia goggles so thinck that they could be used to measure unit coherency feel. The primaris design is clearly superior.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AngryAngel80 wrote: That's all very cool, glad you enjoy it. I just can't get why people are so hell bent on seeing models some do love tossed away so. Does the fact the old marines yet remain somehow bring you down ? I find that so funny a concept. That someone can't be happy with what they have, until what came before is gone.
I do not particularly want them gone, but they will be. And I just feel that Dakka denial brigade fosters a bit unhealthy attitude.
Except why is a primaris marine still way too short compaired to guardsmen?
Also why is your tac marine on a 25 mm base it should be on a 32mm.
Untrue their height in comparison to a scion is correct. If the scion is 6' the marine is roughly 7'4"
Crimson wrote: I generally like that they're not just redoing the old units but are trying new things instead, but even I have to agree that it hasn't quite worked every time. Suppressors in particular are a pretty damn bizarre design. Granted, they improve a lot with some reposing. Still, I would have probably preferred just walking autocannon guys.
maybe we'll see that type in the future, I actually think it's pretty neat that they're thinking a bit outside the box with some primaris stuff, supressors being the most obvious example. I can't think of any other army that has a Jump heavy weapons team
Maybe, but as said I think its by design there is really only one point for direct comparison, as they don't want to make it easy for you to simply use old models as new units. It's the double dip and was done with a clear point in mind. At the end of the day, they would love nothing more than all marine players to buy whole new armies at the new prices.
Though I want to believe they just want to sell both side by side which would be the great middle ground for most concerned.
Crimson wrote: I generally like that they're not just redoing the old units but are trying new things instead, but even I have to agree that it hasn't quite worked every time. Suppressors in particular are a pretty damn bizarre design. Granted, they improve a lot with some reposing. Still, I would have probably preferred just walking autocannon guys.
maybe we'll see that type in the future, I actually think it's pretty neat that they're thinking a bit outside the box with some primaris stuff, supressors being the most obvious example. I can't think of any other army that has a Jump heavy weapons team
Crimson wrote: I generally like that they're not just redoing the old units but are trying new things instead, but even I have to agree that it hasn't quite worked every time. Suppressors in particular are a pretty damn bizarre design. Granted, they improve a lot with some reposing. Still, I would have probably preferred just walking autocannon guys.
maybe we'll see that type in the future, I actually think it's pretty neat that they're thinking a bit outside the box with some primaris stuff, supressors being the most obvious example. I can't think of any other army that has a Jump heavy weapons team
I feel like the models would've been more successful if the Autocannon on them weren't so over the top.
Oh and if they could be taken in groups outside three I'd appreciate that.
I kinda feel like there's two conversations going on and they're both missing each other, hence some of the aggro that happens. I'm not at all aggro so i hope my perspective is helpful and productive.
A lot of the pro primaris arguments i see are to do with their proportions and how their design is just 'better'. Now, i hope i'm not making assumptions about peoples backgrounds (although i kind of am) but i sort of feel this position implies a technical interest in the design, in the sense that this is a critical assessment of the primaris range. As in, they are better designed models from a technical standpoint.
Which is fair enough, but here's my perspective though - I don't care about their proportions. At all. Has no interest to me and to be honest i sometimes don't even really know what you guys are referring to.
I am here not from a critical standpoint at all, i make no critical assessment from a technical standpoint at all. I'm a consumer, and my judgement on what i like influences what i spend my money on.
To give an example (which will possibly make some peoples heads explode) my favourite model in my SW army and indeed the entire game is my TWC. I have two full packs of them, i run them all the time even though they suck, i don't care.
When i look at them on my shelf, i don't care about their proportions, or how silly they are, or how massively blinged up they are, or how realistic a representation of a power armored space viking riding a giant bionic wolf they are.
I care about them because looking at them gives me pleasure, because to my eyes they are an evocative and thrilling work of art
puzzledust wrote: For what it's wort (which is $0 USD), I'm middle-aged but I love the Primaris stuff. I haven't played much 40k but have followed it for decades and I think the Primaris Marines make the old marines look silly in comparison. Honestly, it was one of the main reasons I started building a 40k army again and I'll be glad when Old Marines are gone. Primaris look how Marines were always supposed to look....cool. Not cartoon caricatures. I may be in the minority but I'm so glad GW did this.
You are not in the minority. This is how anyone who aren't looking the marines through nostalgia goggles so thinck that they could be used to measure unit coherency feel. The primaris design is clearly superior.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AngryAngel80 wrote: That's all very cool, glad you enjoy it. I just can't get why people are so hell bent on seeing models some do love tossed away so. Does the fact the old marines yet remain somehow bring you down ? I find that so funny a concept. That someone can't be happy with what they have, until what came before is gone.
I do not particularly want them gone, but they will be. And I just feel that Dakka denial brigade fosters a bit unhealthy attitude.
Except why is a primaris marine still way too short compaired to guardsmen?
Also why is your tac marine on a 25 mm base it should be on a 32mm.
Untrue their height in comparison to a scion is correct. If the scion is 6' the marine is roughly 7'4"
puzzledust wrote: For what it's wort (which is $0 USD), I'm middle-aged but I love the Primaris stuff. I haven't played much 40k but have followed it for decades and I think the Primaris Marines make the old marines look silly in comparison. Honestly, it was one of the main reasons I started building a 40k army again and I'll be glad when Old Marines are gone. Primaris look how Marines were always supposed to look....cool. Not cartoon caricatures. I may be in the minority but I'm so glad GW did this.
You are not in the minority. This is how anyone who aren't looking the marines through nostalgia goggles so thinck that they could be used to measure unit coherency feel. The primaris design is clearly superior.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AngryAngel80 wrote: That's all very cool, glad you enjoy it. I just can't get why people are so hell bent on seeing models some do love tossed away so. Does the fact the old marines yet remain somehow bring you down ? I find that so funny a concept. That someone can't be happy with what they have, until what came before is gone.
I do not particularly want them gone, but they will be. And I just feel that Dakka denial brigade fosters a bit unhealthy attitude.
Except why is a primaris marine still way too short compaired to guardsmen?
Also why is your tac marine on a 25 mm base it should be on a 32mm.
Untrue their height in comparison to a scion is correct. If the scion is 6' the marine is roughly 7'4"
Marines are 8'+ Armoured.
They should be around 7ft. From the iconic drawing by Jes Goodwin.
The top may say 8 but the bottom says 1. 8-1=7. Count the squares. The picture is 7 squares high. This misreading I believe has caused so many internet misinterpretations.
Personally I prefer if they were only 7ft. IRL 7ft is huge. Size doesn't need to be overdone.
Insectum7 wrote: I haven't. Because I don't like it. I've played against them a number of times though, and seen them in person. I like their commander model, but mostly because I want to use it as an Inquisitor Lord in 2nd. Ed.
I'd rather (and have) buy more Tacticals.
Which honestly demonstrates your inability to let go of the past. They're a dated kit and dated model. Even look at something as simple as the newer Rubric Marines.
My army is drawn from 25 years of consistent styling and scaling
...demonstrating EXACTLY what I just said. You won't let go of your whole "true marine" army idea you got going on in your head, which was demonstratingly wrong, by the way.
Or perhaps I prefer Real Marines who can take anti-tank weapons to tank battles, rather than Starcraft Marines who'se solution is to shoot more anti-personnel rifles at armor, alongside their Firebats, I mean Agressors.
Imperial Guard Infantry Squads have more anti tank firepower than Intercessors. It's shameful.
puzzledust wrote: For what it's wort (which is $0 USD), I'm middle-aged but I love the Primaris stuff. I haven't played much 40k but have followed it for decades and I think the Primaris Marines make the old marines look silly in comparison. Honestly, it was one of the main reasons I started building a 40k army again and I'll be glad when Old Marines are gone. Primaris look how Marines were always supposed to look....cool. Not cartoon caricatures. I may be in the minority but I'm so glad GW did this.
You are not in the minority. This is how anyone who aren't looking the marines through nostalgia goggles so thinck that they could be used to measure unit coherency feel. The primaris design is clearly superior.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AngryAngel80 wrote: That's all very cool, glad you enjoy it. I just can't get why people are so hell bent on seeing models some do love tossed away so. Does the fact the old marines yet remain somehow bring you down ? I find that so funny a concept. That someone can't be happy with what they have, until what came before is gone.
I do not particularly want them gone, but they will be. And I just feel that Dakka denial brigade fosters a bit unhealthy attitude.
Except why is a primaris marine still way too short compaired to guardsmen?
Also why is your tac marine on a 25 mm base it should be on a 32mm.
Untrue their height in comparison to a scion is correct. If the scion is 6' the marine is roughly 7'4"
Marines are 8'+ Armoured.
They should be around 7ft. From the iconic drawing by Jes Goodwin.
The top may say 8 but the bottom says 1. 8-1=7. Count the squares. The picture is 7 squares high. This misreading I believe has caused so many internet misinterpretations.
Personally I prefer if they were only 7ft. IRL 7ft is huge. Size doesn't need to be overdone.
Except primaris are supposed to be bigger than normal marine's, at 7.4ft they arn't they are just the size they should be compaired to oversized guardsmen if they where old marines, their still not truescale primaris marines.
And one half expressing just how much they loathe and despise the other for existing. It's a pattern as old as time, and I've seen it repeat here countless times over the past 14 years.
Yes, just like I said, same o same o, SSDD, I predict we'll see a similar topic at least a bakers dozen more times while new flavor of the month issues spring up now and then to break up the tedium.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Yes, just like I said, same o same o, SSDD, I predict we'll see a similar topic at least a bakers dozen more times while new flavor of the month issues spring up now and then to break up the tedium.
I dunno, sueally the hate threads limit themselves to one thread. Primaris Marines are unique in that they've inspired like 6 threads in 3 days. the hate train is strong
I prefer the style of Old Marines. I don't, and won't purchase any new Primaris Models [Vote with your Wallet and all] and if Old marines get phased out I will continue playing other non space marine armies instead.
You're all welcome to like Primaris more - I do wish the more spiteful admist you would stop wishing for Old Marines to be squatted, that's just rather petty. As most posters have noticed GW can continue to support both ranges as long as their are sales to be made, and frankly I'd rather see less imperial Releases at all, and more Xenos ones, rather than the current
'Look we're re-doing our 100+ Kit old marine range! That's 100 new Primaris Kits before you'll see Plastic Aspect Warriors! Enjoy!'
AngryAngel80 wrote: That's all very cool, glad you enjoy it. I just can't get why people are so hell bent on seeing models some do love tossed away so. Does the fact the old marines yet remain somehow bring you down ? I find that so funny a concept. That someone can't be happy with what they have, until what came before is gone.
I do not particularly want them gone, but they will be. And I just feel that Dakka denial brigade fosters a bit unhealthy attitude.
Except why is a primaris marine still way too short compaired to guardsmen?
Also why is your tac marine on a 25 mm base it should be on a 32mm.
And why is it a crappy 2 part paint starter set marine and not a multi-part tactical? I’ve noticed the classic marine hating Primaris fans often do this with pictorial comparisons of Intercessors and Tactical marines, use a poorly painted two part paint set or black reach marine in a failed attempt to add weight to their argument
AngryAngel80 wrote: Yes, just like I said, same o same o, SSDD, I predict we'll see a similar topic at least a bakers dozen more times while new flavor of the month issues spring up now and then to break up the tedium.
Yeah. The repetition is gone past the point of tedium. At this stage, I may actually have to stop visiting Dakka while I'm at work and do some actual work instead!
Hecube wrote: I kinda feel like there's two conversations going on and they're both missing each other, hence some of the aggro that happens. I'm not at all aggro so i hope my perspective is helpful and productive.
A lot of the pro primaris arguments i see are to do with their proportions and how their design is just 'better'. Now, i hope i'm not making assumptions about peoples backgrounds (although i kind of am) but i sort of feel this position implies a technical interest in the design, in the sense that this is a critical assessment of the primaris range. As in, they are better designed models from a technical standpoint.
Which is fair enough, but here's my perspective though - I don't care about their proportions. At all. Has no interest to me and to be honest i sometimes don't even really know what you guys are referring to.
This is exactly how I feel as well. People keep talking about proportions like it is some sort of trump card, but the proportions are meaningless when you don’t like the aesthetic. Totally meaningless.
No amount of claims about proportions and nostalgia are going to change aesthetic dislike.
This is exactly how I feel as well. People keep talking about proportions like it is some sort of trump card, but the proportions are meaningless when you don’t like the aesthetic. Totally meaningless.
No amount of claims about proportions and nostalgia are going to change aesthetic dislike.
Indeed. After all, if proportions were all that mattered, disgruntled Marine players could have made the jump to Eldar ages ago They were always much less bowlegged and big-headed, after all.
As an aside, I think I finally realized one major thing that annoys me about the Repulsor, and it's not the obvious things. It's the lack of fire arcs. Its weapons are perfectly sensibly spaced around the thing for the most part, but since there's no vehicle facing rules or fire arcs anymore, it can fire all of them at once at any target, which highlights the abstraction of the ruleset in a way that I find unsatisfying aesthetically, if that makes sense applied to incorporeal game rules. I'd feel just as peeved if they released the Malcador Defender today (as it is, I've owned one of those for around a decade now so it gets "grandfathered" in my esteem). Plus I think I just prefer it when vehicles only have 1-2 different weapon profiles on them, maybe a pintle mounted MG thrown on top of that. I have a similar quibble with the Onager's anti-air Swiss army knife array.
AngryAngel80 wrote: That's all very cool, glad you enjoy it. I just can't get why people are so hell bent on seeing models some do love tossed away so. Does the fact the old marines yet remain somehow bring you down ? I find that so funny a concept. That someone can't be happy with what they have, until what came before is gone.
I do not particularly want them gone, but they will be. And I just feel that Dakka denial brigade fosters a bit unhealthy attitude.
Except why is a primaris marine still way too short compaired to guardsmen?
Also why is your tac marine on a 25 mm base it should be on a 32mm.
And why is it a crappy 2 part paint starter set marine and not a multi-part tactical? I’ve noticed the classic marine hating Primaris fans often do this with pictorial comparisons of Intercessors and Tactical marines, use a poorly painted two part paint set or black reach marine in a failed attempt to add weight to their argument
In fairness mind you the ETB comparison is pretty stark, still the comparison isn't MUCH better when you compare even the latest model of old marine to a primaris. I've got some MK3 marines painted up as space wolves, and it just so happens they've been placed beside some of my newest painted primaris and even an ETB has a lot more solid detail. part of that mind you is just the larger surface area to work with
AngryAngel80 wrote: Yes, just like I said, same o same o, SSDD, I predict we'll see a similar topic at least a bakers dozen more times while new flavor of the month issues spring up now and then to break up the tedium.
Yeah. The repetition is gone past the point of tedium. At this stage, I may actually have to stop visiting Dakka while I'm at work and do some actual work instead!
Woah, lets not take drastic measures here, I'd hate to imagine you didn't waste work time with us.
The latest classic marine models are far superior to that paint set DA model. Its a very basic mini for paint practice.
Primaris have more detail in general yes (compared to say a tactical marine), but they are bigger models and the design studio may have felt they needed it. That isn't necessarily a good thing. The actual quality of the surface detail on primaris is no better than any GW kit released in the last 8 years or so.
robbienw wrote: You appear to be confusing your opinion with fact again Crimson.
I'd much rather have the tactical marine than fat legs to the left
Have to say actually from that picture, the surface detailing on the tac marine actually looks sharper than the Intercessor.
To me one just looks like a needlessly bigger version of the other.
I certainly can't see any vast improvements in mould technology or anything here.
I also don't want my models to be different sizes and get bigger. That just means I need even more carry cases as slots that hold Imperial Guard will hold "Oldmarines" but won't hold Primaris, meaning I need whole need transportation items for larger models. The perportions are never going to be correct - Realism is silly in 40k. I want my wargame to be functional, thanks.
Can we at least acknowledge that if Oldmarines do get their rules removed, hypothetically, it would create an awkward situation in which player will want to use their Minimarine as Intercessors/Hellblasters.
There are heaps of OOP models that are WAY smaller than their current Plastic counterparts and GW stance has always been that those OOP models are still legal for use. Greater Daemons, Necron Wraiths, etc In fact, it isn't even unprecedented for an OOP model whose unti type no longer exists to be fair game as something new. Necron Pariahs are no longer a valid unit, yet their models are generally acceptable as either Lychguard or Crypteks.
Giving this long established premise, if Oldmarines rules are on the chopping block, that does not mean Minimarine models are going to stop existing and players WILL find way to use them. As much as I would normally enjoy and encourage this kind of ingenuity, I feel it would create a few instances of aggravated butt-hurt from players on either side.
As a side note, I'm actually starting to think it might be cool if MOST Oldmarines stayed around, like Devs, AMs, Vets, etc, but units like Tacticals got phased out. Basically the non-Primaris Marines eventually occupy Specialist roles, while the rank-n-file Marines all get upgraded to Primaris.
Insectum7 wrote: I haven't. Because I don't like it. I've played against them a number of times though, and seen them in person. I like their commander model, but mostly because I want to use it as an Inquisitor Lord in 2nd. Ed.
I'd rather (and have) buy more Tacticals.
Which honestly demonstrates your inability to let go of the past. They're a dated kit and dated model. Even look at something as simple as the newer Rubric Marines.
My army is drawn from 25 years of consistent styling and scaling
...demonstrating EXACTLY what I just said. You won't let go of your whole "true marine" army idea you got going on in your head, which was demonstratingly wrong, by the way.
Or perhaps I prefer Real Marines who can take anti-tank weapons to tank battles, rather than Starcraft Marines who'se solution is to shoot more anti-personnel rifles at armor, alongside their Firebats, I mean Agressors.
Imperial Guard Infantry Squads have more anti tank firepower than Intercessors. It's shameful.
Just because the anti tank gun exists ss a choice doesn't mean it's close to good as a choice. You'd need to be able to double down on the flexible weapons like the Grav Cannon and ML (as bad as it is). TECHNICALLY, in your definition from earlier, the only units that can be real Marines then are Sterngaurd and Devastators. Neat, huh?
Thanks for playing.
Also Starcraft? They look literally nothing like the Starcraft units, REALLY showing your ignorance in design (ironic since you say you work in design) and the inability to accept a minor change. That's actually kinda fascinating.
Galef wrote: Can we at least acknowledge that if Oldmarines do get their rules removed, hypothetically, it would create an awkward situation in which player will want to use their Minimarine as Intercessors/Hellblasters.
How would that be awkward? That's what usually happens with the model updates. The awkward thing is the unusual way this is handled where both new and old versions exist as separate fluff and rule entities. The only problem with using old marines with the primaris rules would be that not all models have clear equivalents, though that issue is lessened when new primaris units get released.
Galef wrote: Can we at least acknowledge that if Oldmarines do get their rules removed, hypothetically, it would create an awkward situation in which player will want to use their Minimarine as Intercessors/Hellblasters.
There are heaps of OOP models that are WAY smaller than their current Plastic counterparts and GW stance has always been that those OOP models are still legal for use. Greater Daemons, Necron Wraiths, etc
In fact, it isn't even unprecedented for an OOP model whose unti type no longer exists to be fair game as something new. Necron Pariahs are no longer a valid unit, yet their models are generally acceptable as either Lychguard or Crypteks.
Giving this long established premise, if Oldmarines rules are on the chopping block, that does not mean Minimarine models are going to stop existing and players WILL find way to use them.
As much as I would normally enjoy and encourage this kind of ingenuity, I feel it would create a few instances of aggravated butt-hurt from players on either side.
As a side note, I'm actually starting to think it might be cool if MOST Oldmarines stayed around, like Devs, AMs, Vets, etc, but units like Tacticals got phased out. Basically the non-Primaris Marines eventually occupy Specialist roles, while the rank-n-file Marines all get upgraded to Primaris.
-
I mean, I've got a hard-on for Mk3, so I'm using Boarding Shields to give them that second wound basically. Everyone seems good with it as long as they're slightly raised more on their base.
Galef wrote: Can we at least acknowledge that if Oldmarines do get their rules removed, hypothetically, it would create an awkward situation in which player will want to use their Minimarine as Intercessors/Hellblasters.
How would that be awkward? That's what usually happens with the model updates. The awkward thing is the unusual way this is handled where both new and old versions exist as separate fluff and rule entities. The only problem with using old marines with the primaris rules would be that not all models have clear equivalents, though that issue is lessened when new primaris units get released.
That's fair. I certainly agree it would have been "cleaner" if units like Intercessors were just the replacement for Tacticals and all basic marines started 8E with 2W. I was just saying that GW now has a situation in which if they did drop units like Tacticals outright, it may cause arguments if players want to use their old Tacticals as Intercessors. You can argue that, unlike using OOP versions on some models, Tacticals were never Intercessors. But I suspect that's what GW wants: the players to be force to buy new kits
I don't want to see classic Marines disappear anytime soon, but I definitely don't want to see any new kits for them.
Thy don't need anything at all, and any new re-makes of old models are not necessary.
If people really want Terminators get a box of the SM Heroes series 2.
Crimson wrote: Frankly, people who would have a problem with old marines being used as primaris in such a situation would be dicks.
40k is a visual game, it's why we don't play with paper tokens. I make the effort to have a painted army and use the correct models so my opponent and myself get the pleasure of playing with and against them.
I expect the same in return from my opponent. I love a good conversion but I don't appreciate lazy proxies.
I don't know. My recently purchased "mini" tigarius just got squatted without so much as a kiss goodnight by GW. The same is going to happen to a swath of characters as the space marine splat books come out.
I enjoy the look of the new marines better. I like painting the new marines better but I have thousands of points and lots of hours in the little guys and would be in my feelings if they were removed from the game.
I could see in a few years the little dudes being moved into 30k or GW advancing the story of 40k into 50k where 50k is only primaris and you get a specialist 40k game to use your old toys (and have a little pity party). Great excuse to release/sell new models for the other armies and squat all of their existing metal/resin models (mo' money, mo' money, mo' money...)
Crimson wrote: Frankly, people who would have a problem with old marines being used as primaris in such a situation would be dicks.
I don't disagree with you, but as Ishagu notes, this is a visual game and even I would expect some kind of alteration to the model to make them fit in. Rebasing Tacticals on taller 32mm bases would be enough for me, but I'm known for being quite liberal with conversions
Ishagu wrote: If people really want Terminators get a box of the SM Heroes series 2
This is actually good advice. I purchased a box last week from firestorm games, they are great models. The only new marine kit i will be buying during this codex release window for sure
Crimson wrote: Frankly, people who would have a problem with old marines being used as primaris in such a situation would be dicks.
40k is a visual game, it's why we don't play with paper tokens. I make the effort to have a painted army and use the correct models so my opponent and myself get the pleasure of playing with and against them.
I expect the same in return from my opponent. I love a good conversion but I don't appreciate lazy proxies.
I stand by my assessment. We are not talking about tokens or unpainted models or other barbarism like that. We are talking about lovingly painted older models. If RT beakies can be be modern tacticals then in the future those tacticals can be intercessors.
At the moment I'm not going to agree. I should also point out that the classic Marines have pretty great rules in the new codex and are completely viable by themselves.
If, in the future, they literally have no rule support I might re-visit my stance.
Crimson wrote: Frankly, people who would have a problem with old marines being used as primaris in such a situation would be dicks.
40k is a visual game, it's why we don't play with paper tokens. I make the effort to have a painted army and use the correct models so my opponent and myself get the pleasure of playing with and against them.
I expect the same in return from my opponent. I love a good conversion but I don't appreciate lazy proxies.
I stand by my assessment. We are not talking about tokens or unpainted models or other barbarism like that. We are talking about lovingly painted older models. If RT beakies can be be modern tacticals then in the future those tacticals can be intercessors.
Eh, that's kind of like saying you can use old Dreadnoughts as Terminators.
Crimson wrote: Frankly, people who would have a problem with old marines being used as primaris in such a situation would be dicks.
40k is a visual game, it's why we don't play with paper tokens. I make the effort to have a painted army and use the correct models so my opponent and myself get the pleasure of playing with and against them.
I expect the same in return from my opponent. I love a good conversion but I don't appreciate lazy proxies.
I stand by my assessment. We are not talking about tokens or unpainted models or other barbarism like that. We are talking about lovingly painted older models. If RT beakies can be be modern tacticals then in the future those tacticals can be intercessors.
Eh, that's kind of like saying you can use old Dreadnoughts as Terminators.
That's not even close. That's like saying you can't use the Devastators box for anything but Devastators. They're all PA Marines...
Ishagu wrote: Not everyone has to agree to proxies. As I pointed out at this current moment the classic Astarts are fully supported with great rules.
IF they no longer had rules, then we can look at this issue again in the future.
I agree with him actually. Not a common thing for me, but for the moment and the near future it's not an issue. Someday it might, in which case we can look at it then, but right now Mini marines have good rules.
If people had read what was actually said, they would know that the whole thing was about such a hypothetical future where the minimarine rules no longer exist.
Just because the anti tank gun exists ss a choice doesn't mean it's close to good as a choice. You'd need to be able to double down on the flexible weapons like the Grav Cannon and ML (as bad as it is). TECHNICALLY, in your definition from earlier, the only units that can be real Marines then are Sterngaurd and Devastators. Neat, huh?
Thanks for playing.
You mean "Thanks for playing the Slayer-Fan-has-to-make-up-definitions-in-order-to-feel-like-he's-scoring-a-point" game? That's an old and tired game.
It's also telling that you had to resort to other Classic units to try and make that point. Amusingly, it makes mine.
Also Starcraft? They look literally nothing like the Starcraft units, REALLY showing your ignorance in design (ironic since you say you work in design) and the inability to accept a minor change. That's actually kinda fascinating.
Agressors are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethower on each. Firebats are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethrower on each. Good enough for our purposes here.
Also, good luck trying to insult me on a proffessional basis. You don't have a chance in hell of actually landing one.
Just because the anti tank gun exists ss a choice doesn't mean it's close to good as a choice. You'd need to be able to double down on the flexible weapons like the Grav Cannon and ML (as bad as it is). TECHNICALLY, in your definition from earlier, the only units that can be real Marines then are Sterngaurd and Devastators. Neat, huh?
Thanks for playing.
You mean "Thanks for playing the Slayer-Fan-has-to-make-up-definitions-in-order-to-feel-like-he's-scoring-a-point" game? That's an old and tired game.
It's also telling that you had to resort to other Classic units to try and make that point. Amusingly, it makes mine.
Also Starcraft? They look literally nothing like the Starcraft units, REALLY showing your ignorance in design (ironic since you say you work in design) and the inability to accept a minor change. That's actually kinda fascinating.
Agressors are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethower on each. Firebats are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethrower on each. Good enough for our purposes here.
Also, good luck trying to insult me on a proffessional basis. You don't have a chance in hell of actually landing one.
No, YOU made up the definition for what a "real" Space Marine was. I proved that the only units that can fit your definition are the ones that can take multiple Grav Cannons or MLs, meaning your Tactical Marines aren't real Marines because they can't actually handle different kinds of threats due to how weapons are selected on them.
Also no they don't look like Firebats just because they're big and have Flamethrowers. Also I have no idea what you're talking about with "landing one" but if you legit actually worked in design you wouldn't be making comments that were completely incorrect like the Firebat = Flamegressor one. So either you don't work in design or you're blinded by your nostalgia because you're hung up on what "real" Space Marines are.
Just because the anti tank gun exists ss a choice doesn't mean it's close to good as a choice. You'd need to be able to double down on the flexible weapons like the Grav Cannon and ML (as bad as it is). TECHNICALLY, in your definition from earlier, the only units that can be real Marines then are Sterngaurd and Devastators. Neat, huh?
Thanks for playing.
You mean "Thanks for playing the Slayer-Fan-has-to-make-up-definitions-in-order-to-feel-like-he's-scoring-a-point" game? That's an old and tired game.
It's also telling that you had to resort to other Classic units to try and make that point. Amusingly, it makes mine.
Also Starcraft? They look literally nothing like the Starcraft units, REALLY showing your ignorance in design (ironic since you say you work in design) and the inability to accept a minor change. That's actually kinda fascinating.
Agressors are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethower on each. Firebats are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethrower on each. Good enough for our purposes here.
Also, good luck trying to insult me on a proffessional basis. You don't have a chance in hell of actually landing one.
No, YOU made up the definition for what a "real" Space Marine was. I proved that the only units that can fit your definition are the ones that can take multiple Grav Cannons or MLs, meaning your Tactical Marines aren't real Marines because they can't actually handle different kinds of threats due to how weapons are selected on them.
Also no they don't look like Firebats just because they're big and have Flamethrowers. Also I have no idea what you're talking about with "landing one" but if you legit actually worked in design you wouldn't be making comments that were completely incorrect like the Firebat = Flamegressor one. So either you don't work in design or you're blinded by your nostalgia because you're hung up on what "real" Space Marines are.
Pick one.
Go on. Find my definition and quote it. Understand the holistic argument being made. Then you can try this line of attack again.
None of that changes the fact that Intercessors can't bring anti-tank weapons to what is often a tank battle.
@"professional design blah blah blah" don't care. Others have drawn the parallel and will get the point. That you're trying to actually make something of it is a "you thing".
Just because the anti tank gun exists ss a choice doesn't mean it's close to good as a choice. You'd need to be able to double down on the flexible weapons like the Grav Cannon and ML (as bad as it is). TECHNICALLY, in your definition from earlier, the only units that can be real Marines then are Sterngaurd and Devastators. Neat, huh?
Thanks for playing.
You mean "Thanks for playing the Slayer-Fan-has-to-make-up-definitions-in-order-to-feel-like-he's-scoring-a-point" game? That's an old and tired game.
It's also telling that you had to resort to other Classic units to try and make that point. Amusingly, it makes mine.
Also Starcraft? They look literally nothing like the Starcraft units, REALLY showing your ignorance in design (ironic since you say you work in design) and the inability to accept a minor change. That's actually kinda fascinating.
Agressors are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethower on each. Firebats are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethrower on each. Good enough for our purposes here.
Also, good luck trying to insult me on a proffessional basis. You don't have a chance in hell of actually landing one.
No, YOU made up the definition for what a "real" Space Marine was. I proved that the only units that can fit your definition are the ones that can take multiple Grav Cannons or MLs, meaning your Tactical Marines aren't real Marines because they can't actually handle different kinds of threats due to how weapons are selected on them.
Also no they don't look like Firebats just because they're big and have Flamethrowers. Also I have no idea what you're talking about with "landing one" but if you legit actually worked in design you wouldn't be making comments that were completely incorrect like the Firebat = Flamegressor one. So either you don't work in design or you're blinded by your nostalgia because you're hung up on what "real" Space Marines are.
Pick one.
Go on. Find my definition and quote it. Understand the holistic argument being made. Then you can try this line of attack again.
None of that changes the fact that Intercessors can't bring anti-tank weapons to what is often a tank battle.
@"professional design blah blah blah" don't care. Others have drawn the parallel and will get the point. That you're trying to actually make something of it is a "you thing".
Mr Morden wrote:I still use RT era marines and Primaris in the same army.
Marines are not all the same size.
Same here, last time I checked humans are not the same height.
Very true, although the different styles/proportions don't mesh very well, imo.
It's in the "Primaris bother me" thread where you said real Space Marines carry different weapons to handle different threats, which, when limited to one of each type of weapon and often being mixed amounts of effectiveness, simply doesn't work. Ergo I don't care about your "holistic" views. The Marines simply can't accomplish what you want, ergo they're not flexible, ergo they're not real Marines.
Hence why, based on that conclusion, only the units that are able to buy multiple TAC weapons are the only true Marines. That means Sternguard and Devastators, who can buy multiple Grav Cannons and MLs.
Also two grenade launchers is fine for Anti-Tank if you're utterly convinced bringing one ML suffices for the same task, or one Flamer suffices for anti-infantry. Surprise, neither one does!
honestly it;'s generally accepted that anyone who accuses 40k of ripping off starcraft is just trolling. given where star craft got the majority of thier "inspiration" from.
BrianDavion wrote: honestly it;'s generally accepted that anyone who accuses 40k of ripping off starcraft is just trolling. given where star craft got the majority of thier "inspiration" from.
And in reality Flamegressors don't actually look like Firebats. Anyone who knows design would know that.
BrianDavion wrote: honestly it;'s generally accepted that anyone who accuses 40k of ripping off starcraft is just trolling. given where star craft got the majority of thier "inspiration" from.
And in reality Flamegressors don't actually look like Firebats. Anyone who knows design would know that.
I mean sure they're both suits of power armor with a flamer underslung each hand but I suspect someone who knew various types of sci-fi could find other sources of it as well.
It's in the "Primaris bother me" thread where you said real Space Marines carry different weapons to handle different threats, which, when limited to one of each type of weapon and often being mixed amounts of effectiveness, simply doesn't work. Ergo I don't care about your "holistic" views. The Marines simply can't accomplish what you want, ergo they're not flexible, ergo they're not real Marines.
Hence why, based on that conclusion, only the units that are able to buy multiple TAC weapons are the only true Marines. That means Sternguard and Devastators, who can buy multiple Grav Cannons and MLs.
Marines come in a unit. The unit has Bolters and some other weapons. Bolters are already anti-personnel firepower, so a Lascannon, though itself a specialised weapon, makes the unit more capable of handling multiple types of targets. You not wanting to accept the whole picture does not make it not exist.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also two grenade launchers is fine for Anti-Tank if you're utterly convinced bringing one ML suffices for the same task, or one Flamer suffices for anti-infantry. Surprise, neither one does!
Missile Launcher vs. T7 3+ .666x.666x.666x3.5 = 1.03
2 Krak Grenades vs T7 3+ .666x.333x.5x2x2 = .44
Plus, unless there's a FAQ I'm not aware of, you can't even do it. All the Aux Grenade Launcher does is increase the range of a grenade being used, and a unit can only use one grenade.
BrianDavion wrote: honestly it;'s generally accepted that anyone who accuses 40k of ripping off starcraft is just trolling. given where star craft got the majority of thier "inspiration" from.
Cross pollination can happen, especially as both companies are decades old. The 'modern' Tyranid Warriors are more Zerg-ey, and Raveners in particular sure have an eerie resemblance to Hydralisks.
Just because the anti tank gun exists ss a choice doesn't mean it's close to good as a choice. You'd need to be able to double down on the flexible weapons like the Grav Cannon and ML (as bad as it is). TECHNICALLY, in your definition from earlier, the only units that can be real Marines then are Sterngaurd and Devastators. Neat, huh?
Thanks for playing.
You mean "Thanks for playing the Slayer-Fan-has-to-make-up-definitions-in-order-to-feel-like-he's-scoring-a-point" game? That's an old and tired game.
It's also telling that you had to resort to other Classic units to try and make that point. Amusingly, it makes mine.
Also Starcraft? They look literally nothing like the Starcraft units, REALLY showing your ignorance in design (ironic since you say you work in design) and the inability to accept a minor change. That's actually kinda fascinating.
Agressors are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethower on each. Firebats are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethrower on each. Good enough for our purposes here.
Also, good luck trying to insult me on a proffessional basis. You don't have a chance in hell of actually landing one.
No, YOU made up the definition for what a "real" Space Marine was. I proved that the only units that can fit your definition are the ones that can take multiple Grav Cannons or MLs, meaning your Tactical Marines aren't real Marines because they can't actually handle different kinds of threats due to how weapons are selected on them.
Also no they don't look like Firebats just because they're big and have Flamethrowers. Also I have no idea what you're talking about with "landing one" but if you legit actually worked in design you wouldn't be making comments that were completely incorrect like the Firebat = Flamegressor one. So either you don't work in design or you're blinded by your nostalgia because you're hung up on what "real" Space Marines are.
Pick one.
Go on. Find my definition and quote it. Understand the holistic argument being made. Then you can try this line of attack again.
None of that changes the fact that Intercessors can't bring anti-tank weapons to what is often a tank battle.
@"professional design blah blah blah" don't care. Others have drawn the parallel and will get the point. That you're trying to actually make something of it is a "you thing".
Mr Morden wrote:I still use RT era marines and Primaris in the same army.
Marines are not all the same size.
Same here, last time I checked humans are not the same height.
Very true, although the different styles/proportions don't mesh very well, imo.
It's in the "Primaris bother me" thread where you said real Space Marines carry different weapons to handle different threats, which, when limited to one of each type of weapon and often being mixed amounts of effectiveness, simply doesn't work.
It may not work well enough in-game currently for Marines, but it certainly does work. In the real world, diverse teams with mixed capabilities/roles/kit are usually more productive than homogenous teams. Both in military application and elsewhere. In warfare, large teams of identical members (typically heavy infantry) haven't really been effective for hundreds of years.
Ergo I don't care about your "holistic" views.
That's fine. Play a homogenous force. Silver Tide. Gaunt swarms. IG infantry. Primaris.
The Marines simply can't accomplish what you want, ergo they're not flexible, ergo they're not real Marines.
So if the rules are bad, then the fluff is wrong! I guess this means that Eldar are the most numerous faction in the galaxy! And there are as many Roboute Gillimans in the galaxy as there are UltraMarine captains!
Hence why, based on that conclusion, only the units that are able to buy multiple TAC weapons are the only true Marines. That means Sternguard and Devastators, who can buy multiple Grav Cannons and MLs.
So being able to buy 4 LCs in a 5-10man unit, where the squad could go with a 10-man with a pair of HB, a GC, and a LC if it really wanted to, means that the unit cannot buy multiple TAC weapons? Really?
Also two grenade launchers is fine for Anti-Tank if you're utterly convinced bringing one ML suffices for the same task, or one Flamer suffices for anti-infantry. Surprise, neither one does!
I missed the rule that said you weren't allowed to use a Lascannon-toting Tac squad to supplement other AT. Didn't realize using multiple units cohesively was banned.
BrianDavion wrote: honestly it;'s generally accepted that anyone who accuses 40k of ripping off starcraft is just trolling. given where star craft got the majority of thier "inspiration" from.
That's a very disingenuous argument. Influence can go back and forth. Not entering in the merit of the specific comparison, but as it stands, generally speaking, your claim is baseless.
Just because the anti tank gun exists ss a choice doesn't mean it's close to good as a choice. You'd need to be able to double down on the flexible weapons like the Grav Cannon and ML (as bad as it is). TECHNICALLY, in your definition from earlier, the only units that can be real Marines then are Sterngaurd and Devastators. Neat, huh?
Thanks for playing.
You mean "Thanks for playing the Slayer-Fan-has-to-make-up-definitions-in-order-to-feel-like-he's-scoring-a-point" game? That's an old and tired game.
It's also telling that you had to resort to other Classic units to try and make that point. Amusingly, it makes mine.
Also Starcraft? They look literally nothing like the Starcraft units, REALLY showing your ignorance in design (ironic since you say you work in design) and the inability to accept a minor change. That's actually kinda fascinating.
Agressors are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethower on each. Firebats are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethrower on each. Good enough for our purposes here.
Also, good luck trying to insult me on a proffessional basis. You don't have a chance in hell of actually landing one.
No, YOU made up the definition for what a "real" Space Marine was. I proved that the only units that can fit your definition are the ones that can take multiple Grav Cannons or MLs, meaning your Tactical Marines aren't real Marines because they can't actually handle different kinds of threats due to how weapons are selected on them.
Also no they don't look like Firebats just because they're big and have Flamethrowers. Also I have no idea what you're talking about with "landing one" but if you legit actually worked in design you wouldn't be making comments that were completely incorrect like the Firebat = Flamegressor one. So either you don't work in design or you're blinded by your nostalgia because you're hung up on what "real" Space Marines are.
Pick one.
Go on. Find my definition and quote it. Understand the holistic argument being made. Then you can try this line of attack again.
None of that changes the fact that Intercessors can't bring anti-tank weapons to what is often a tank battle.
@"professional design blah blah blah" don't care. Others have drawn the parallel and will get the point. That you're trying to actually make something of it is a "you thing".
Mr Morden wrote:I still use RT era marines and Primaris in the same army.
Marines are not all the same size.
Same here, last time I checked humans are not the same height.
Very true, although the different styles/proportions don't mesh very well, imo.
It's in the "Primaris bother me" thread where you said real Space Marines carry different weapons to handle different threats, which, when limited to one of each type of weapon and often being mixed amounts of effectiveness, simply doesn't work.
It may not work well enough in-game currently for Marines, but it certainly does work. In the real world, diverse teams with mixed capabilities/roles/kit are usually more productive than homogenous teams. Both in military application and elsewhere. In warfare, large teams of identical members (typically heavy infantry) haven't really been effective for hundreds of years.
Ergo I don't care about your "holistic" views.
That's fine. Play a homogenous force. Silver Tide. Gaunt swarms. IG infantry. Primaris.
The Marines simply can't accomplish what you want, ergo they're not flexible, ergo they're not real Marines.
So if the rules are bad, then the fluff is wrong! I guess this means that Eldar are the most numerous faction in the galaxy! And there are as many Roboute Gillimans in the galaxy as there are UltraMarine captains!
Hence why, based on that conclusion, only the units that are able to buy multiple TAC weapons are the only true Marines. That means Sternguard and Devastators, who can buy multiple Grav Cannons and MLs.
So being able to buy 4 LCs in a 5-10man unit, where the squad could go with a 10-man with a pair of HB, a GC, and a LC if it really wanted to, means that the unit cannot buy multiple TAC weapons? Really?
Also two grenade launchers is fine for Anti-Tank if you're utterly convinced bringing one ML suffices for the same task, or one Flamer suffices for anti-infantry. Surprise, neither one does!
I missed the rule that said you weren't allowed to use a Lascannon-toting Tac squad to supplement other AT. Didn't realize using multiple units cohesively was banned.
1. We aren't talking about real life so why does that matter. It's bad in the game and doesn't fit his definition of flexible.
2. What does those armies have anything to do with what I said?
3. Once again you forgot about Insectum's absolutely hilarious definition of what makes a "real" Space Marine. It doesn't even have to do with the fluff but rather some concept he created in his head that he refuses to let go of.
4. Actually per his definition the 4 Lascannon squad can't be Space Marines because they aren't well equipped to handle infantry as they only have 6 Bolters, and that's clearly not enough. They'd have to strictly be Grav Cannons and MLs.
5. Yeah you forgot about Devastators for that. Thanks for playing!
It's in the "Primaris bother me" thread where you said real Space Marines carry different weapons to handle different threats, which, when limited to one of each type of weapon and often being mixed amounts of effectiveness, simply doesn't work. Ergo I don't care about your "holistic" views. The Marines simply can't accomplish what you want, ergo they're not flexible, ergo they're not real Marines.
Hence why, based on that conclusion, only the units that are able to buy multiple TAC weapons are the only true Marines. That means Sternguard and Devastators, who can buy multiple Grav Cannons and MLs.
Marines come in a unit. The unit has Bolters and some other weapons. Bolters are already anti-personnel firepower, so a Lascannon, though itself a specialised weapon, makes the unit more capable of handling multiple types of targets. You not wanting to accept the whole picture does not make it not exist.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also two grenade launchers is fine for Anti-Tank if you're utterly convinced bringing one ML suffices for the same task, or one Flamer suffices for anti-infantry. Surprise, neither one does!
Missile Launcher vs. T7 3+ .666x.666x.666x3.5 = 1.03
2 Krak Grenades vs T7 3+ .666x.333x.5x2x2 = .44
Plus, unless there's a FAQ I'm not aware of, you can't even do it. All the Aux Grenade Launcher does is increase the range of a grenade being used, and a unit can only use one grenade.
BrianDavion wrote: honestly it;'s generally accepted that anyone who accuses 40k of ripping off starcraft is just trolling. given where star craft got the majority of thier "inspiration" from.
Cross pollination can happen, especially as both companies are decades old. The 'modern' Tyranid Warriors are more Zerg-ey, and Raveners in particular sure have an eerie resemblance to Hydralisks.
1. And once that unit grabs a Flamer instead of the ML, they're no longer the flexible unit you keep toting they are! Wowzers! Sounds like you would need more AT to go in the squad instead, which is too bad because you can't double up on that same AT weapon unless you're SUPER unfluffy and only fielding 5 man squads!
2. I'm of course fielding 5 man squads so that's not an issue, and that's just one target, against free weapons on top of that. You PAID for that ML. How does that make you feel?
Crimson wrote: Frankly, people who would have a problem with old marines being used as primaris in such a situation would be dicks.
I don't disagree with you, but as Ishagu notes, this is a visual game and even I would expect some kind of alteration to the model to make them fit in. Rebasing Tacticals on taller 32mm bases would be enough for me, but I'm known for being quite liberal with conversions
-
I think the strongest argument against this is that old marines still have rules and they are different from one another. Anyone playing WYSWYG should have a problem with this. Whether you accept your opponent doing this or not, its undeniable that they cross that line into proxying and should expect the skepticism and uncertainties that comes with it.
Just because the anti tank gun exists ss a choice doesn't mean it's close to good as a choice. You'd need to be able to double down on the flexible weapons like the Grav Cannon and ML (as bad as it is). TECHNICALLY, in your definition from earlier, the only units that can be real Marines then are Sterngaurd and Devastators. Neat, huh?
Thanks for playing.
You mean "Thanks for playing the Slayer-Fan-has-to-make-up-definitions-in-order-to-feel-like-he's-scoring-a-point" game? That's an old and tired game.
It's also telling that you had to resort to other Classic units to try and make that point. Amusingly, it makes mine.
Also Starcraft? They look literally nothing like the Starcraft units, REALLY showing your ignorance in design (ironic since you say you work in design) and the inability to accept a minor change. That's actually kinda fascinating.
Agressors are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethower on each. Firebats are a fat power armored unit with big hands and a flamethrower on each. Good enough for our purposes here.
Also, good luck trying to insult me on a proffessional basis. You don't have a chance in hell of actually landing one.
No, YOU made up the definition for what a "real" Space Marine was. I proved that the only units that can fit your definition are the ones that can take multiple Grav Cannons or MLs, meaning your Tactical Marines aren't real Marines because they can't actually handle different kinds of threats due to how weapons are selected on them.
Also no they don't look like Firebats just because they're big and have Flamethrowers. Also I have no idea what you're talking about with "landing one" but if you legit actually worked in design you wouldn't be making comments that were completely incorrect like the Firebat = Flamegressor one. So either you don't work in design or you're blinded by your nostalgia because you're hung up on what "real" Space Marines are.
Pick one.
Go on. Find my definition and quote it. Understand the holistic argument being made. Then you can try this line of attack again.
None of that changes the fact that Intercessors can't bring anti-tank weapons to what is often a tank battle.
@"professional design blah blah blah" don't care. Others have drawn the parallel and will get the point. That you're trying to actually make something of it is a "you thing".
Mr Morden wrote:I still use RT era marines and Primaris in the same army.
Marines are not all the same size.
Same here, last time I checked humans are not the same height.
Very true, although the different styles/proportions don't mesh very well, imo.
It's in the "Primaris bother me" thread where you said real Space Marines carry different weapons to handle different threats, which, when limited to one of each type of weapon and often being mixed amounts of effectiveness, simply doesn't work.
It may not work well enough in-game currently for Marines, but it certainly does work. In the real world, diverse teams with mixed capabilities/roles/kit are usually more productive than homogenous teams. Both in military application and elsewhere. In warfare, large teams of identical members (typically heavy infantry) haven't really been effective for hundreds of years.
Ergo I don't care about your "holistic" views.
That's fine. Play a homogenous force. Silver Tide. Gaunt swarms. IG infantry. Primaris.
The Marines simply can't accomplish what you want, ergo they're not flexible, ergo they're not real Marines.
So if the rules are bad, then the fluff is wrong! I guess this means that Eldar are the most numerous faction in the galaxy! And there are as many Roboute Gillimans in the galaxy as there are UltraMarine captains!
Hence why, based on that conclusion, only the units that are able to buy multiple TAC weapons are the only true Marines. That means Sternguard and Devastators, who can buy multiple Grav Cannons and MLs.
So being able to buy 4 LCs in a 5-10man unit, where the squad could go with a 10-man with a pair of HB, a GC, and a LC if it really wanted to, means that the unit cannot buy multiple TAC weapons? Really?
Also two grenade launchers is fine for Anti-Tank if you're utterly convinced bringing one ML suffices for the same task, or one Flamer suffices for anti-infantry. Surprise, neither one does!
I missed the rule that said you weren't allowed to use a Lascannon-toting Tac squad to supplement other AT. Didn't realize using multiple units cohesively was banned.
1. We aren't talking about real life so why does that matter.
So if it's not how the game currently works, it's not how the game should work? That's remarkably reductive, even for very well written systems
It's bad in the game and doesn't fit his definition of flexible.
It doesn't fit *your* definition of flexible. It's bad for how *you* think the game should be. So those of us who want to play that way should shove off and our toys should be mothballed?
2. What does those armies have anything to do with what I said?
Those are armies that can play the way you're saying we should play - with lots of the same unit, mostly armed with the same kit. So, if you don't *want* to play units that have flexible loadouts, our units having flexible loadouts don't stop you.
3. Once again you forgot about Insectum's absolutely hilarious definition of what makes a "real" Space Marine.
You may find that his view is more in line with others' views than you seem to think.
It doesn't even have to do with the fluff but rather some concept he created in his head that he refuses to let go of.
When did they retcon it? Primaris are "Marines too. And bigger and better!". But Primaris didn't *invalidate* "RealMarines" (from a fluff perspective).
4. Actually per his definition the 4 Lascannon squad can't be Space Marines because they aren't well equipped to handle infantry as they only have 6 Bolters, and that's clearly not enough.
That's remarkably shortsighted. Those 4 Lascannons, 6 Boltguns, and 10 fists are going to do a lot more against infantry than a LasPred.
They'd have to strictly be Grav Cannons and MLs.
You're pigeonholing "flexible" into "Uses a tool good against everything". It can also be "Has different tools for different jobs". Which is more flexible? A guy with a swiss army knife or a guy with a fully stocked toolchest? Sure, that swiss army knife is more flexible than any tool in the toolbox. But that toolbox is certainly more flexible than the single knife.
5. Yeah you forgot about Devastators for that. Thanks for playing!
If I have 5 squads that are each only 25% as good at AT and 25% as good anti-infantry as each of your 4 super-specialist squads, it's still a net win. The individual generalist squad doesn't *need* to be as good at AT as a specialist squad, because there's more of them. Even per point, as they pull double-duty.
1. And once that unit grabs a Flamer instead of the ML, they're no longer the flexible unit you keep toting they are! Wowzers! Sounds like you would need more AT to go in the squad instead, which is too bad because you can't double up on that same AT weapon unless you're SUPER unfluffy and only fielding 5 man squads!
Is there even an argument there? No.
2. I'm of course fielding 5 man squads so that's not an issue, and that's just one target, against free weapons on top of that. You PAID for that ML. How does that make you feel?
Well. It seems like many of the questions in this thread have just been answered. Apparently, the answer is something called Warhammer Legends. So absolutely everything that's been left behind in the indices is going to be given a one off points value which won't be reviewed. Two things I take from this are:
When Games-Workshop say "forever," they probably mean, "this edition," because a datasheet can't possibly maintain validity if there are major core rule changes, and
not being subject to points reviews, there is the distinct possibility that these models are going to go slowly out of balance as other models are re-balanced while these remain the same. Hence the "we won’t be recommending Legends units for competitive tournaments," get out of jail free clause.
The only question now is, how long will it take for the entire oldmarine range to become "Legends?" How do you feel about Games-Workshop abandoning balance reviews for these units, and effectively disqualifying them from future tournaments?
Ginjitzu wrote: Well. It seems like many of the questions in this thread have just been answered. Apparently, the answer is something called Warhammer Legends. So absolutely everything that's been left behind in the indices is going to be given a one off points value which won't be reviewed. Two things I take from this are:
When Games-Workshop say "forever," they probably mean, "this edition," because a datasheet can't possibly maintain validity if there are major core rule changes,
No, they were stressing the FOREVER quite strongly. It will be to foreseeable future. If a new edition changes the rules sufficiently that they need to adjust them they will.
and
not being subject to points reviews, there is the distinct possibility that these models are going to go slowly out of balance as other models are re-balanced while these remain the same. Hence the "we won’t be recommending Legends units for competitive tournaments," get out of jail free clause.
The only question now is, how long will it take for the entire oldmarine range to become "Legends?" How do you feel about Games-Workshop abandoning balance reviews for these units, and effectively disqualifying them from future tournaments?
Well, I think old marines will end up in this Legends category sooner or later. The points not being reviewed is a bit crap. I hope they at least review them with the edition changes, if not annually. The wannabe competitive tryhards absolutely will try get this stuff banned not only from tournaments, but from casual pick up games as well. I will personally be glad to play against any legends stuff, and will advocate for them being allowed as widely as possible.
I still don't think this means anything to most old marines at least not yet. Sounds more like a stop gap as people don't all have access to indexs anymore and some of the units were in them.
In all honesty unless the points are done so awfully that they are unworkable I don't see any issue with the one stop placement. Unless you're playing in the most hardcore of engagements you can afford a little poor point balancing on some loved units for style or fun.
All in all sounds a bit lazy of them, but then why would you expect from the one of the most mailed it in companies in the world eh ?
Hey, bright side though, they did confirm once more sisters first drop in November, I'm fired up. Ready to have a very small sisters force just to do my part and support their rebirth. Hope most of us will do so after so long. Haven't been this fired up since the Dark Eldar actually got models that didn't make me gag.
Get fired up sisters players.
Saying it again, I don't think old marines will end up in legends at least no time in the close to near future, I think that is basically a place for index options because not everyone got them or still has them. If anything it may be an update to them points wise then placed up there for those no longer in the codex options which is fine.
I don't think its at all a taste of things to come so lets simmer down now haters.
Oh and that second pic of an old marine and nu marine looks great. Honestly the old marine looks great ! Just a smaller version of mr mc meaty thigh to his left. Lovely pic, great models.
You do know, anyone can make wild guesses and when they don't turn out to be correct, well no one remembers anyways, so a win win I guess.
Even if you get called out on being wrong, you could not even be here or take credit for being totally wrong. I get you want to poke the bear as it were but unless you can see the future you have no real clue as to what will be there or if its in fact more of a place for index options as I surmise as that was the units mentioned exactly int he article.
If you need logic, heres some logic, why get rid of units that serve different purposes ? Why not keep pressing double lines of marines, keep both on track and get double the units sold. The old models are all profit aside from storage and pumping them out.
Keep up both, and take in money in both hands, sounds good to most companies. Until they actually stop producing the models which hasn't happened yet you can't say what their full plan is, you can only guess and at the pace of their releases so far, it'd be at least another 4 or 5 years before the primaris will be as exhaustive as old marines for them to legend them.
You can also get them from the Commander/Command Squad/Company/Vanguard Veterans Boxes. The new players are supposed to get them the same way we did. Save them from other boxes and kit bash. Get the Upgrade sprue blister I'd love it to get 5 of everything in a 5 man box. But that's never been 
