This one says more about you and how you approach a discussion about proportions on a plastic space man than anything else.
It was hard to think of another term that was allowed for you when all you have basically added to the discussion is “I don’t like them” then been awkward and childish to any reasonable rebuttal. So all that word says about me is that I find your contribution to the discussion to be of no actual use.
Too bad this is not what happened. Anyone that reads the thread can read what has been posted about poses, proportions and use of tech. Which BTW have not been addressed beyond clumsy attempts to dismiss the validity of any criticism. Included your "haters" - hate is a very strong term dear boy, if one is childish for using it in this context it's you.
So it's one of these two:
1) You are trying to gaslight
2) You are unable to read simple passages of text
There are not other options.
You’ve said you don’t like the aesthetics but that’s all. That’s your taste. You are stating it as fact though which where any of your arguments fall down, the legs are messed up, you claim to be a fact. I like them, think they look great. That’s my opinion. It’s impossible to rebut your facts because they are just opinions presented as facts.
So it’s option 3 “dear boy”, your argument is flawed to the point of not being an argument at all. And when ever it is rebutted you apply smug sarcasm. Not gaslighting. And only used the term hater because you seem determined not to like primaris whatever they produce. And disliker isn’t a term.
So if you would like to come up with some facts to support your argument or just accept that you don’t like them and there is more to it than that then that’d great.
And robbinew, people on here saying primaris is a huge paradigm shift in design are present opinion as fact. So I apologise for lowering my self to your lots level.
No, what is really happening is that you are upset that people have specific tastes and expectations and you came here policing them. None ever told me here "is not true that the pose of the old Devastator is imperious and evokes a certain attitude, while the tacticool pose of the nu-marine appeals to the Infinity crowd". Such statements have been outright dismissed without any actual counterpoint. The only answer you brought on the table is NU-HU YOU ARE PRESENTING YOUR OPINIONS AS FACTS which is just a way to poison the well. All while being WAY too incensed for the topic discussed. "lower yourself" ahah. Get a grip.
Kaiyanwang wrote: No, what is really happening is that you are upset that people have specific tastes and expectations and you came here policing them.
None ever told me here "is not true that the pose of the old Devastator is imperious and evokes a certain attitude, while the tacticool pose of the nu-marine appeals to the Infinity crowd".
Such statements have been outright dismissed without any actual counterpoint.
The only answer you brought on the table is NU-HU YOU ARE PRESENTING YOUR OPINIONS AS FACTS which is just a way to poison the well. All while being WAY too incensed for the topic discussed.
"lower yourself" ahah. Get a grip.
But when you are presenting opinions as facts there isn’t much else to say. I don’t like infinity but do prefer the more realistic proportions and dynamic poses of the primaris marines. The devastator models look poorly proportioned and it’s legs are to far apart for my tastes. It doesn’t look imperious to me and the attitude seems to be that of a short man with a giant head. So I disagree with your opinions on the poses. But still no facts from you.
To the people saying primaris aren’t recognisable as marines then that argument has been picked apart quite rigorously. As have the ones about a change of ethos in the design, happy to discuss the pros and cons of the fluff of the primaris, I happen to think it doesn’t go against the grain of 40k.
But when you only say I think this one looks better than that and that’s a fact, I’m policing??? You are fine not to like them, no skin of my nose at all mate. But it isn’t fact.
And believe me “dear boy” I’m not incensed at all. Baffled by your attitude and why you are wasting everyone’s time. And most of all by how you think your argument is in any way better than everyone else who is trying to explain to you that you have only opinions that aren’t shared universally.
So.
Fact. Primaris share the key design features that makes them easily recognisable as marines.
Fact 2. The design team behind them deliberately used certain features to demonstrate how the armour developed from the existing variants.
Fact 3. They have tech based on existing in universe tech. (Will admit incursors are a bit too sci-fi but that is just my taste).
Fact 4. They have legs. You may not like them or you might. But the only leg fact is that they have them. Two as it happens. Each.
Fact 5. You not liking them is an opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Fact 6, forgot. They are marines and clearly not tau, they share no design features with the tau. And lots with marines.
And robbinew, people on here saying primaris is a huge paradigm shift in design are present opinion as fact. So I apologise for lowering my self to your lots level.
No. It’s obviously my own view, you shouldn't need me to qualify everything I say with ‘this is my opinion so andykp doesn’t get confused’
Said most people. It is actually also where the feelings of many Primaris haters stem from, even though they don't want to admit it, perhaps even to themselves.
TheCustomLime wrote: I like both but I recognize the shortcomings in the Primaris range without getting super salty about it. Real whacky, I know.
I suspect the silent majority do, sadly however some people double down hard on their anti-primaris hate, IMHO a lot of it is because of the inital response to primaris was "thats dumb" that they're having trouble admitting that they where wrong
Kaiyanwang wrote:No, what is really happening is that you are upset that people have specific tastes and expectations and you came here policing them.
Can't speak for everyone, but I'm certainly not policing opinions and taste. I am, on the other hand, calling out people if they make a particularly hyperbolic or hypocritical comment and pass it off as a factual reason why Primaris are bad (namely, things like 'they're not real Space Marines if they don't have special weapons' 'the aerials and tacticool stuff is a totally new thing' or 'there is a clear and obvious design shift away from what Jes Goodwin wanted'.)
Opinions = fine. Reasoning given to justify those opinions whic is hyperbolic, hypocritical or based on non-facts = not so much.
None ever told me here "is not true that the pose of the old Devastator is imperious and evokes a certain attitude, while the tacticool pose of the nu-marine appeals to the Infinity crowd".
Such statements have been outright dismissed without any actual counterpoint.
So the Phobos Captain model, who has the same pose as the Devastator Sergeant, is fine? Hell, he even has a servo skull which isn't even optionally attached to his base!
I also think that point is quite poor considering that in both poses, you're talking about a multipose model, who can be altered and tweaked by the owner, and that both poses themselves are present in the other type of Marine's respective army.
The only answer you brought on the table is NU-HU YOU ARE PRESENTING YOUR OPINIONS AS FACTS which is just a way to poison the well. All while being WAY too incensed for the topic discussed.
I've got a list of some comments made below. Can you honestly tell me that those comments don't read like someone claiming absolute facts? Seriously, if they don't sound like that to you, I'll retract that comment, but at the same time, I hope you understand how they might come across in that manner.
robbienw wrote:
And robbinew, people on here saying primaris is a huge paradigm shift in design are present opinion as fact. So I apologise for lowering my self to your lots level.
No. It’s obviously my own view, you shouldn't need me to qualify everything I say with ‘this is my opinion so andykp doesn’t get confused’
So you're admitting then that EVERY point you've made is entirely an opinion and therefore has no validity outside of your own sphere of influence? How about those made by other people - are they to be treated the same?
So comments like "Primaris look chunky and toylike, with ridculously large lower legs" or "the intercessor design is dressed up in generic sci-fi video game styling" or "30K Marines are plainly not Chapter Marines, and not "classic" marines" or "the core identification of "Space Marine" is elite generalists" have no factual basis, and are only meant as opinion pieces?
robbienw wrote:Said no one ever
I suppose you'll pretend that this is "just an opinion" too, eh?
Kaiyanwang wrote: "better act smug because I am running out of rebuttals", amrite guys?
I'm only smug because the "not real marines" argument was bad from the get-go based on us poking the argument even just surface wise.
If you have to willfully misinterpret your opponents argument to make your own, you're insecure about your argument.
Come on, I asked you outright to clarify your argument and beliefs of if a Tactical Squad without special weapons, or 30k Space Marines were still "Space Marines". You said they were not.
Sorry, but that's a hell of a take. As an opinion, it might be true, but the facts simply don't agree with that.
Fact 6, forgot. They are marines and clearly not tau, they share no design features with the tau. And lots with marines.
Nobody said they were actually Tau. However they're definitely more Tau-like than classic marines.
If I recall correctly, I think the words they used were not "that look more like a Tau". They were "that is a tau Gue'vesa" - an absolute statement.
And I believe we also debunked the whole "definitely more Tau-like" argument too (again, sure that wasn't supposed to be a fact? )
The bolter is still closer to an Astartes bolter than any Tau weapon. The sights are more like Deathwatch ones than any other faction.
The armour is still closer to Astartes armour than it is to Tau.
The backpack scanner thing is closer in design to a Devastator Sergeant's signum, or the scanning devices on Space Marine vehicles, than any Tau device.
The visor, while unique as far as I'm aware to the Space Marine line, is also unseen in the Tau design range.
Therefore, seeing as the visor seems to be the only actually unique thing about this model, it would actually be just as valid to claim something like "the Incursor is a genestealer cultist or tyranid" than a Tau. And that sounds like very shaky ground for an argument.
Kaiyanwang wrote: "better act smug because I am running out of rebuttals", amrite guys?
I'm only smug because the "not real marines" argument was bad from the get-go based on us poking the argument even just surface wise.
If you have to willfully misinterpret your opponents argument to make your own, you're insecure about your own position.
You still have yet to answer if a 10 man squad with just one bought weapon can be considered Marines. Based on the fact you haven't answered it I haven't had to misinterpret your argument at all.
Hell, under your logic, Devastators can't be Marines unless there are a minimum of two different weapons bought. Seems a bit silly don't you think?
Fact 6, forgot. They are marines and clearly not tau, they share no design features with the tau. And lots with marines.
Nobody said they were actually Tau. However they're definitely more Tau-like than classic marines.
Yup.
Let's see- heavy grav tanks that combine large thrusters on a grav tank design, mobile large(ish) jetpack infantry that carry heavy weapons, stealthy jetpack troops that are the "lone wolves" of their forces, heavy emphasis on shooting over melee and lots of gadgets and gizmos that aid in that.
Now, am I talking about Tau or the Primaris range?
Fact 6, forgot. They are marines and clearly not tau, they share no design features with the tau. And lots with marines.
Nobody said they were actually Tau. However they're definitely more Tau-like than classic marines.
Yup.
Let's see- heavy grav tanks that combine large thrusters on a grav tank design, mobile large(ish) jetpack infantry that carry heavy weapons, stealthy jetpack troops that are the "lone wolves" of their forces, heavy emphasis on shooting over melee and lots of gadgets and gizmos that aid in that.
Now, am I talking about Tau or the Primaris range?
So the repulsor and the tau tanks look alike??? No.
Jump pack vs jet pack? Same or not?
Shooting focussed army from troops that can deliver 4 attacks on the charge with out have close combat weapons or options.
Are grav vehicles a purely tau thing, let’s list those that have them. Marines (speeders and flyers etc), custodes, eldar, sisters of silence, ad mech, neceons. Dark eldar.
In fact dark eldar have thruster driven grav tanks and loner jump infantry with heavy weapon, maybe they are tau too, or are marines dark eldar??? Or maybe you are talking rubbish.
Fact 6, forgot. They are marines and clearly not tau, they share no design features with the tau. And lots with marines.
Nobody said they were actually Tau. However they're definitely more Tau-like than classic marines.
Yeah they did. And they did it again too. So a primaris is more tau like than an old marine? Let’s assume that that is true and not just opinion. So they could be more tau like but that doesn’t mean they are more like tau than they are like old marines. They are very clearly like old marines. Clearly are an evolution in design of them and have said to be thus by the designers. So I say you are more like a duck than me, doesn’t make you a duck. Just means you like breadcrumbs.
When an argument is based on trends, pointing out exceptions doesn't help you unless you can find a lot of them. 2 is not a lot, and one of them is merely an Assault Marine with two Plasma Pistols.
Fact 6, forgot. They are marines and clearly not tau, they share no design features with the tau. And lots with marines.
Nobody said they were actually Tau. However they're definitely more Tau-like than classic marines.
heavy emphasis on shooting over melee and lots of gadgets and gizmos that aid in that.
To be fair, people have been complaining and mocking the marines over that. You know what I mean, the whole "why do they have swords when there are guns", "why have melee at all in the future" thing Careful what you wish for I guess.
Ishagu wrote: The only thing that bothers me about Primaris is how ugly they make the old models look by comparison
I think it makes playing Adeptus Astartes in Kill Team quite hard because of that The best space marine kill teams are one that use of mixture of Primaris and non-Primaris. When you have so few models and they are so close to each other on the board it looks really off to me. If you go mostly Primaris it looks like the kill team they were forced by their mother to bring their little brother(s). If you go mostly non-Primaris, it looks like the kill team brought their big brother to beat up any bullies. Personally, I am fine with Scouts and Primaris in the same kill team visually, but I can't bring myself to include non-Primaris. Which is too bad too. Kill Team: Elites brought in a bunch of really good non-Primaris marine options.
When an argument is based on trends, pointing out exceptions doesn't help you unless you can find a lot of them. 2 is not a lot, and one of them is merely an Assault Marine with two Plasma Pistols.
That’s why I made a list. But you ignored that for some reason.
When an argument is based on trends, pointing out exceptions doesn't help you unless you can find a lot of them. 2 is not a lot, and one of them is merely an Assault Marine with two Plasma Pistols.
That’s why I made a list. But you ignored that for some reason.
I'd be more accepting an Inceptor if it looked more like that and less high-tech sleek. It's got the Imperial geiger-tech to it. Less "TauMarine". Besides, it doesn't have the snow-shoes of the Inceptors. It's just regular Power Armor, hence Assault Marine or Vanguard Vet with Dual Plasma Pistols.
Nobody said they were actually Tau. However they're definitely more Tau-like than classic marines.
Yeah they did. And they did it again too. So a primaris is more tau like than an old marine?
You read my statement wrong, which is fair I suppose as it's lingustically awkward description. Merely that if 0 = Classic Marines, and 10 is Tau, many Primaris are drifting in 3 territory. "They are more tau-like than Classic Marines."
Grimtuff wrote:Let's see- heavy grav tanks that combine large thrusters on a grav tank design, mobile large(ish) jetpack infantry that carry heavy weapons, stealthy jetpack troops that are the "lone wolves" of their forces, heavy emphasis on shooting over melee and lots of gadgets and gizmos that aid in that.
Now, am I talking about Tau or the Primaris range?
Well, I thought you may have been talking about the Custodes for a second, or the Eldar. I mean, clearly they fit just as many criteria as the Primaris do.
Heavy grav tanks - applicable to the Tau, the Primaris, the Custodes, and the Eldar. Mobile large jetpack infantry with heavy weapons - Tau, Primaris, Custodes (the Venetari carry quite strong kinetic destroyers), and Eldar Shadow Spectres all fill this. Stealthy jet pack unit - Tau, and the aforementioned Eldar Shadow Spectres fill this. Unfortunately, neither the Custodes or Primaris have stealthy jetpack units.* Regarding the focus of shooting over melee, only the Tau are extreme in this. The Eldar have many combat dedicated aspects, the Custodes nearly always carry relic melee weapons, and the Primaris Marines are even stronger in melee combat than their brothers by default, not to mention having several units with additional close combat prowess (Reivers, Incursors, Aggressors, Inceptors and the range of melee weapons available to Intercessor Sergeants and higher ranking leaders).
You are talking about the Tau range, then followed by the Eldar range, and Primaris and Custodes even further back. *If you're referring to Reivers, they don't have jetpacks, they have grav-chutes - which see use in the regular Imperial Guard. Hardly a technological innovation. If you're referring to Suppressors, the fluff books surrounding the war on Nemedghast make it clear that the Suppressors were not a stealthy unit, and were not deployed with the initial infiltration force, instead being held in reserve as a rapid moving and fast form of fire support.
Insectum7 wrote:Merely that if 0 = Classic Marines, and 10 is Tau, many Primaris are drifting in 3 territory. "They are more tau-like than Classic Marines."
And to me, Sternguard Veterans and Vanguard Veterans are so blinged-up, they look more like Custodes than "classic marines". Oh, the humanity.
Primaris Marines STILL look more like Space Marines than they do anything else. There is no mis-identifying them as Space Marines. The core Space Marine aesthetic is still strong in their design, and that's the point. The core aesthetic hasn't changed enough that you could look at a Primaris Marine and even question "is that a Space Marine, or is it a different Imperial faction?", let alone "is that a 40k character".
Yes, it is *different* from the "classic" Space Marine models, but so are the new Veteran Squads. So are the new Tactical Squads.
The whole notion of "aesthetics" tends to piss me off when it comes to 40k. People seem to act like there are set-in-stone rules on what a given faction should be "aesthetically". Which is complete bull
And anybody that claims that the Primaris Marines are not "aesthetically" 40k Space Marines really needs to go to VisionWorks and get their eyes checked.
You still have yet to answer if a 10 man squad with just one bought weapon can be considered Marines. Based on the fact you haven't answered it I haven't had to misinterpret your argument at all.
Hell, under your logic, Devastators can't be Marines unless there are a minimum of two different weapons bought. Seems a bit silly don't you think?
Options allowed and options taken are two different things. The "flexibility" I'm talking about is the flexibility of potential loadout, and the capability of that flexibility to engage a wide variety of targets.
The whole notion of "aesthetics" tends to piss me off when it comes to 40k. People seem to act like there are set-in-stone rules on what a given faction should be "aesthetically". Which is complete bull
Your 'trend' was so absurdly vague that with that sort of logic you can claim any two armies are similar.
Trend: Imperial vehicles are non Grav, with few exceptions. The historical trend is ground vehicles.
New Direction: Primaris Tanks are all flyers. As are Custodes.
Trend: Classic Marines are organized around ten man squads with few exceptions. The exceptions are usually five man squads.
New Direction: Many Primaris units are based around 3s.
Trend: Classic Marine units have a wide variety of specialist weapons to choose from, and form mixed squads.
New Direction: Primaris are very limited in their options, and very rigid in their unit makeup.
Trend: Classic Space Marines wear the same Power Armor to battle, with numerically few exceptions.
New Direction: Primaris have more armor types and field them more regularly. (this appears to be the "sihlouette" critique given by the OP.)
Trend: Classic Marine units tend not to feature sleek tech
New Direction: Primaris feature more refined-tech details/overall look.
Trend: Chainswords.
Primaris: I'm not sure I've seen one.
Trend: Classic Marines did not "out stat" the "core identity" units of other "elite" factions.
Primaris: 2W minimum is a big jump. I'm namely thinking the balance between Aspects and Marines here.
Therefore, seeing as the visor seems to be the only actually unique thing about this model, it would actually be just as valid to claim something like "the Incursor is a genestealer cultist or tyranid" than a Tau. And that sounds like very shaky ground for an argument.
Even under this arguement complaints fall apart because the Genestealer Cult uses repurposes Imperial equipment meaning that we have more ties to the Imperium even if someone wanted to make that "hot take".
I'd be more accepting an Inceptor if it looked more like that and less high-tech sleek. It's got the Imperial geiger-tech to it. Less "TauMarine". Besides, it doesn't have the snow-shoes of the Inceptors. It's just regular Power Armor, hence Assault Marine or Vanguard Vet with Dual Plasma Pistols.
Judt wanted to share this bit from the codex: those "snow shoes" are there to absorb the shock as the Inceptor hitd the ground and then help launch them off thr ground just as hard to give them more of a boost when they move.
It's not a counter point to anything, I just thought it was interesting.
^Huh. Kinda like the old moon shoes or pogo legs. I was trying to figure out if they were like anti-grav skids or something. I like that it's more of a hardware thing.
Hollow wrote: This entire thread is a showcase for how awful and toxic the 40k community can be. It's pathetic.
You should see threads about female space marines. That really shows off the problems in this “community”.
At the end of the day it’s a hobby people are passionate about. Nothing in this thread is really that bad, one group with very set opinions about something another who see it completely differently. No posts removed for being abusive, mods not had to involve themselves, although the conversation is getting a bit circular so maybe will be closed soon. But it’s no more than a heated debate around the table in the pub. I’ve cime away from this I’d still be happy to have a pint with anyone involved. There have been discussions where that wouldn’t happen, female marines for example.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Huh. Kinda like the old moon shoes or pogo legs. I was trying to figure out if they were like anti-grav skids or something. I like that it's more of a hardware thing.
Wait, since the vehicles also have the grav skies, does this mean the impulsor and the other tanks bounce forward?
Insectum7 wrote:Trend: Imperial vehicles are non Grav, with few exceptions. The historical trend is ground vehicles.
New Direction: Primaris Tanks are all flyers. As are Custodes.
Haven't Custodes had hover vehicles for AGES? Like, when the models finally got a more fleshed out army list, weren't we all expecting hover tanks?
Also, the defining feature of Imperial vehicles isn't that they're groundbound. The defining feature is the large flat surfaces, the rivets and overlapping plates, the exhaust ports and cupolas, the modular designs and vertical flanks and suchlike.
Give a Rhino the same kind of grav-plates that the Repulsor and new SM tanks have, and it'll still look like a distinctly Space Marine vehicle. Land Speeders, despite being grav-vehicles, still carry the hallmarks of Space Marine aesthetic.
Trend: Classic Marines are organized around ten man squads with few exceptions. The exceptions are usually five man squads.
New Direction: Many Primaris units are based around 3s.
Many? Let's do a quick count-up:
Eliminators
Inceptors
Aggressors
Suppressors
4 units, by my count.
Now onto the old Space Marine units:
Bikes
Scout Bikes
Devastator Centurions
Assault Centurions
Attack Bikes (bought in units of 1, and can only go up to a max of 3)
Both Company Veterans and Veterans on Bikes start at 2 men
About 7, if I count both Veterans units.
Maybe a higher proportion of Primaris units are organised in 3s, but there are more old units that are organised that way than Primaris.
Trend: Classic Marine units have a wide variety of specialist weapons to choose from, and form mixed squads.
New Direction: Primaris are very limited in their options, and very rigid in their unit makeup.
And this is no different to Legion Space Marines, who I haven't seen people complain at with nearly as much uproar about "not being marines".
Again, this is just to highlight that a lot of people's complaints about Primaris Marines are based on things that the Primaris Marines were never the first to do. It feels completely random, like people are grasping at excuses not to like them. It's fine, it's okay not to like them, but for there to be thread after thread and people trying to rationalise why Primaris are bad only for their reasons to be based on things that Primaris aren't even the first to do feels faulty.
Trend: Classic Space Marines wear the same Power Armor to battle, with numerically few exceptions.
New Direction: Primaris have more armor types and field them more regularly. (this appears to be the "sihlouette" critique given by the OP.)
Primaris have:
Tacticus
Phobos
Gravis (with a gravis variant with a jump pack - I will count this as separate, but do the same with standard jump pack units too)
Omnis
Regular Marines have:
Mark 2-8 power armour (still only counts as one!)
Scout armour
Terminator Armour (with 3 variants, Indomitus, Cataphractii, and Tartaros)
Centurion warsuits
Power armoured jump pack units
Bikers (including because of the same rules as jump pack units - the power armour looks the same, but the silhouette looks much different)
That's 5 Primaris armour types, versus 8 distinct normal Marine silhouette variants.
Trend: Classic Marine units tend not to feature sleek tech
New Direction: Primaris feature more refined-tech details/overall look.
I disagree. The Primaris look just as boxy with their tech as the classic marines in my eyes.
Trend: Chainswords.
Primaris: I'm not sure I've seen one.
The new store birthday model has a chainsword (embedded in a Ork), and at least three of the Primaris upgrade sprues have chainswords. However, I would have liked if they'd be actually in the Intercessor box and available to leaders.
So while they do the option for chainswords (which you seem to be all about, regarding your comments on Tactical Squads), they're not as accessible unless you have a good bitzbox.
Trend: Classic Marines did not "out stat" the "core identity" units of other "elite" factions.
Primaris: 2W minimum is a big jump. I'm namely thinking the balance between Aspects and Marines here.
This was a failing with the old Marines, I feel. They should have been stronger, but the elite units of other factions (such as the Aspects - who aren't the core of the Eldar army, might I add) should also have been stronger to match them. Right now, I think all Marines should be 2W, but Aspect Warriors should be made tougher too. Things like Genestealers and Tau Battlesuits feel like they're were they should be.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Huh. Kinda like the old moon shoes or pogo legs. I was trying to figure out if they were like anti-grav skids or something. I like that it's more of a hardware thing.
Wait, since the vehicles also have the grav skies, does this mean the impulsor and the other tanks bounce forward?
Not quite, though that would be funny. In fact, Primaris grav tanks actually function very differently to other factions' grav tech, even regular Space Marines and Custodes! Where those other factions have grav tech that's a lot less disruptive and faster, Primaris grav-tech is more like a constant punching the ground in order to stay afloat - less elegant, less refined, and not even as effective. Their vehicles literally turn the ground under the into glass with their grav-tech.
Trend: Classic Space Marines wear the same Power Armor to battle, with numerically few exceptions.
New Direction: Primaris have more armor types and field them more regularly. (this appears to be the "sihlouette" critique given by the OP.)
Primaris have:
Tacticus
Phobos
Gravis (with a gravis variant with a jump pack - I will count this as separate, but do the same with standard jump pack units too)
Omnis
Regular Marines have:
Mark 2-8 power armour (still only counts as one!)
Scout armour
Terminator Armour (with 3 variants, Indomitus, Cataphractii, and Tartaros)
Centurion warsuits
Power armoured jump pack units
Bikers (including because of the same rules as jump pack units - the power armour looks the same, but the silhouette looks much different)
That's 5 Primaris armour types, versus 8 distinct normal Marine silhouette variants.
I'm not sure I agree. I think it's fairer to say traditional marines have power armour (mki-8 variants/hybrids), terminator armour (variants and hybrids - cataphractii, Tartarus, and the main one - can't think of its name), scout armour and characters artificer armour. I don't think it's fair to call bikes or assault marines their own armour types - bikes are bikes and the jump pack is attached to the backpack, though your point on silhouettes is correct.
On a point of order though, I do agree with you. I think a lot of this boils down to the fact that gw have simply presented, packaged and sold Primaris marines in a different way to how the traditional variants are presented, packaged and sold. We talk about gravis, Tacitus and Phobos armour as separate things, but tend to hybridise all of the traditional variants of sm power armour as just being 'power armour', when the reality isn't they are all quite different, were named and invented and are used in different areas. It's just in the rules that they are dressed up as slightly aesthetically different but functionally identical when the reality is different,
. if we present traditional power armour in the same manner as the primaris variants, Mkvi for example is the 'stealthy armour', while mkiii is the 'attrition armour', and mkv is the 'easy to maintain' armour. Heck. They're even named different, just like Primaris armour - mkii crusade armour, mkiii iron armour, mkiv maximus armour, mkv heresy armour, mkvi corvus armour and the current mkvii Aquila and mkviii errant armour and they're all functionally different too - mkiii for example was typically used in high intensity war zones like zone mortalis, while mkvi was typically for scout/recon work. As such, I don't think it's fair to say that Primaris using different variations of armour to accomplish different jobs/perform different mission roles is a different, and therefore bad thing, when Space Marines have always done this.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
In fact, Primaris grav tanks actually function very differently to other factions' grav tech, even regular Space Marines and Custodes! Where those other factions have grav tech that's a lot less disruptive and faster, Primaris grav-tech is more like a constant punching the ground in order to stay afloat - less elegant, less refined, and not even as effective. Their vehicles literally turn the ground under the into glass with their grav-tech.
When I first saw primaris sm anti grav tanks, I won't lie - my first reaction was a bit negative - this w always presented as rare tech (though 'how' rare was something that frequently changed) and I did not see it as in keeping with the themes of marines. Then again, I hadn't read the lore. when I did, and found out how it actually worked, not through fancy magic (eldar) , or advanced vtol (tau), but essentially by punching and pulverising the ground beneath it, I changed my mind - that sheer ignorance and contempt, and application of sheer brute force over high technology to get the job done is quite possibly the most space marine thing about the vehicles. I smiled when I read that. I Yeah, I love them now.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Regular Marines have:
Mark 2-8 power armour (still only counts as one!)
Scout armour
Terminator Armour (with 3 variants, Indomitus, Cataphractii, and Tartaros)
Centurion warsuits
Power armoured jump pack units
Bikers (including because of the same rules as jump pack units - the power armour looks the same, but the silhouette looks much different)
Far more marks actually, not only there are dozens of sub-marks (as this picture brilliantly shows), there are marks employed by particular chapters (say, SW runic armour is supposed to be mark XII, even thought it makes no sense). Ditto for termies, there are six variants, and there are even old models of Saturnine pattern terminators.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Huh. Kinda like the old moon shoes or pogo legs. I was trying to figure out if they were like anti-grav skids or something. I like that it's more of a hardware thing.
Wait, since the vehicles also have the grav skies, does this mean the impulsor and the other tanks bounce forward?
No, those are actual grav plates like on a Land Speeder. They likley double as landing pads when the vehicle powrs down though.
The moon shoes are servo controlled metal plates that help absorb momentum on impact so the Astartes scan drop in faster and then act as a boost assist so they can jump faster.
Good catch. I completely forgot about that.
So what you're saying is that there's absolutely nothing on that Incursor model which is completely new to the Space Marine aesthetic?
I'd agree with that point.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:That's 5 Primaris armour types, versus 8 distinct normal Marine silhouette variants.
I'm not sure I agree. I think it's fairer to say traditional marines have power armour (mki-8 variants/hybrids), terminator armour (variants and hybrids - cataphractii, Tartarus, and the main one - can't think of its name), scout armour and characters artificer armour. I don't think it's fair to call bikes or assault marines their own armour types - bikes are bikes and the jump pack is attached to the backpack, though your point on silhouettes is correct.
I would normally agree that bikes and assault marines don't wear any new kind of armour, but if some people are going to pretend that Aggressors and Inceptors should count as different units because of their silhouettes (even though they both wear Gravis Armour), then I think it's only fair to apply that to jump pack and bike units too.
Even if we counted Inceptors as Gravis, and then folded the Assault Marines and Bikers into the power armour category, there's still far more classic marine armour types than Primaris, which was my point.
On a point of order though, I do agree with you. I think a lot of this boils down to the fact that gw have simply presented, packaged and sold Primaris marines in a different way to how the traditional variants are presented, packaged and sold. We talk about gravis, Tacitus and Phobos armour as separate things, but tend to hybridise all of the traditional variants of sm power armour as just being 'power armour', when the reality isn't they are all quite different, were named and invented and are used in different areas. It's just in the rules that they are dressed up as slightly aesthetically different but functionally identical when the reality is different,
. if we present traditional power armour in the same manner as the primaris variants, Mkvi for example is the 'stealthy armour', while mkiii is the 'attrition armour', and mkv is the 'easy to maintain' armour. Heck. They're even named different, just like Primaris armour - mkii crusade armour, mkiii iron armour, mkiv maximus armour, mkv heresy armour, mkvi corvus armour and the current mkvii Aquila and mkviii errant armour and they're all functionally different too - mkiii for example was typically used in high intensity war zones like zone mortalis, while mkvi was typically for scout/recon work. As such, I don't think it's fair to say that Primaris using different variations of armour to accomplish different jobs/perform different mission roles is a different, and therefore bad thing, when Space Marines have always done this.
Agreed. Just because they have the same proportions doesn't really change that they *are* separate armour designs, and on many, they have just as much difference as the ones between Tacticus and Aquila.
For example, Maximus helmets are far closer to Tacticus than Aquila. Iron helmets are likewise not exactly similar to Aquila.
Then onto the chestplates - Aquila and Tacticus both feature chest eagles - none of the other designs do.
As for kneepads, some designs (Corvus) don't have any at all. Iron armour is also different to Aquila in it's use of banded plates around the legs and arms, and far more distinctive backpack than the difference between Aquila and Tacticus.
There's just as much differennce between "classic" power armour marks before Primaris were even on the scene.
I hadn't read the lore. when I did, and found out how it actually worked, not through fancy magic (eldar) , or advanced vtol (tau), but essentially by punching and pulverising the ground beneath it, I changed my mind - that sheer ignorance and contempt, and application of sheer brute force over high technology to get the job done is quite possibly the most space marine thing about the vehicles. I smiled when I read that. I Yeah, I love them now.
I must admit, that bit of lore really made me like that tanks a lot more than I had when I first saw them. For all the people saying "Primaris stuff completely changes the feeling of the setting", I have to wonder how many have actually read what the new stuff's like, or if they just looked at it and dismissed it.
You still have yet to answer if a 10 man squad with just one bought weapon can be considered Marines. Based on the fact you haven't answered it I haven't had to misinterpret your argument at all.
Hell, under your logic, Devastators can't be Marines unless there are a minimum of two different weapons bought. Seems a bit silly don't you think?
Options allowed and options taken are two different things. The "flexibility" I'm talking about is the flexibility of potential loadout, and the capability of that flexibility to engage a wide variety of targets.
The whole notion of "aesthetics" tends to piss me off when it comes to 40k. People seem to act like there are set-in-stone rules on what a given faction should be "aesthetically". Which is complete bull
Your 'trend' was so absurdly vague that with that sort of logic you can claim any two armies are similar.
Trend: Imperial vehicles are non Grav, with few exceptions. The historical trend is ground vehicles.
New Direction: Primaris Tanks are all flyers. As are Custodes.
Trend: Classic Marines are organized around ten man squads with few exceptions. The exceptions are usually five man squads.
New Direction: Many Primaris units are based around 3s.
Trend: Classic Marine units have a wide variety of specialist weapons to choose from, and form mixed squads.
New Direction: Primaris are very limited in their options, and very rigid in their unit makeup.
Trend: Classic Space Marines wear the same Power Armor to battle, with numerically few exceptions.
New Direction: Primaris have more armor types and field them more regularly. (this appears to be the "sihlouette" critique given by the OP.)
Trend: Classic Marine units tend not to feature sleek tech
New Direction: Primaris feature more refined-tech details/overall look.
Trend: Chainswords.
Primaris: I'm not sure I've seen one.
Trend: Classic Marines did not "out stat" the "core identity" units of other "elite" factions.
Primaris: 2W minimum is a big jump. I'm namely thinking the balance between Aspects and Marines here.
Well Intercessors have the option of the flexible Aux Grenade Launcher, so that automatically proves you wrong.
Utter nonsense. Period. It's a sign that you don't have a counter argument to what I said. Because just as my OPINION is, yours too is completely subjective.
The Imperium of Man is a galaxy spanning empire made up of a million-plus star systems.. A million star systems with varying technological levels, culture, societies, and industrial levels. Many of these planets are capable of producing their own military equipment, since not all manufacturing in the Imperium is done on Forge Worlds.
Just look at the Imperial Guard, and the wide variety of wargear used by the various corps from various worlds. And each one has a different style and different quality of equipment. That is just the easiest example. Even the Space Marines are going to have variation in style,doctrine, armor, and equipment. Take the Raptors Chapter (the original tacticool marines, and spiritual forefathers of the Primaris in a sense). No relic wargear, works well with the Imperial Guard and PDFs, and act like super soldiers rather than warrior monks (much like the Primaris Marines). While a few things are standardized by policy and tradition, the sheer size of the Imperium's armed forces makes true standardization impossible.
So, you could very easily have a technologically advanced planet in the Imperium supplying wargear to it's tithed regiments that wouldn't look too out of place in modern Iraq or Afghanistan. You could have a Chapter that could have a higher percentage of sleeker looking war engines from the Great Crusade-era. You could build an Inquisitorial force using sleek, high-tech models. Nothing is set in stone, because ultimately, the game is about YOUR DUDES. And 40k's level of grimdark (approcahing levels that equate GRIMDERP and MEHTAL at times) has nothing to do with the skull motifs or gothic architecture. It's more to do with the craptastic situation in the galaxy over the last 10,000 years of Imperial history.
I uderstand that the Primaris Marines are not to everyone's tastes. And that is fine. But arguing from a subjective position of "aesthetics" as if it were somehow fact is dishonest and doesn't hold much water.
Kaiyanwang wrote: "better act smug because I am running out of rebuttals", amrite guys?
I'm only smug because the "not real marines" argument was bad from the get-go based on us poking the argument even just surface wise.
"Not real marines" is an appropriate criticism if the models don't evoke the same staples and setting the old ones used to evoke. It's not really that difficult to grasp. One can disagree, but what happened here is that such thing was dismissed as if was some sort of blasphemy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hollow wrote: This entire thread is a showcase for how awful and toxic the 40k community can be. It's pathetic.
I suppose is extremely convenient to label any opposition as "toxic". Every criticism is easily smothered.
Hollow wrote: This entire thread is a showcase for how awful and toxic the 40k community can be. It's pathetic.
You should see threads about female space marines. That really shows off the problems in this “community”.
At the end of the day it’s a hobby people are passionate about. Nothing in this thread is really that bad, one group with very set opinions about something another who see it completely differently. No posts removed for being abusive, mods not had to involve themselves, although the conversation is getting a bit circular so maybe will be closed soon. But it’s no more than a heated debate around the table in the pub. I’ve cime away from this I’d still be happy to have a pint with anyone involved. There have been discussions where that wouldn’t happen, female marines for example.
I concur. We are hardly debating the aestetics of plastic space men, the heat remains within well defined boundaries for what concerns me.
But when you are presenting opinions as facts there isn’t much else to say. I don’t like infinity but do prefer the more realistic proportions and dynamic poses of the primaris marines. The devastator models look poorly proportioned and it’s legs are to far apart for my tastes. It doesn’t look imperious to me and the attitude seems to be that of a short man with a giant head. So I disagree with your opinions on the poses. But still no facts from you.
I think you should give up on this specific thing. "It's too high tech/not gothic enough" and "nope, there is a continuity with the older models" are both opinions. People percevie little but significant details in a different way. I am ok with you thinking that, I am less ok with the fact that the opposite point of view is not even considered.
To the people saying primaris aren’t recognisable as marines then that argument has been picked apart quite rigorously. As have the ones about a change of ethos in the design, happy to discuss the pros and cons of the fluff of the primaris, I happen to think it doesn’t go against the grain of 40k.
Depends from what makes a 40k marine for you. For me the retrograde context it belongs to is a vital part, and the new aesthetics follows the new fluff, new fluff that I find going against what made the Imperium interesting.
And believe me “dear boy” I’m not incensed at all. Baffled by your attitude and why you are wasting everyone’s time. And most of all by how you think your argument is in any way better than everyone else who is trying to explain to you that you have only opinions that aren’t shared universally.
Again, you are the one that is apparently baffled by the fact that someone can consider the new imperium models non imperium enough, regardless of the fact that has been told you why over and over. We can say that the new fluff and its consequences on the models is here to stay and we should get over it, but this does not mean "I prefer the old fluff and the rest" is an automatically invalid opinion.
Fact. Primaris share the key design features that makes them easily recognisable as marines. Fact 2. The design team behind them deliberately used certain features to demonstrate how the armour developed from the existing variants. Fact 3. They have tech based on existing in universe tech. (Will admit incursors are a bit too sci-fi but that is just my taste). Fact 4. They have legs. You may not like them or you might. But the only leg fact is that they have them. Two as it happens. Each. Fact 5. You not liking them is an opinion. Fact 6, forgot. They are marines and clearly not tau, they share no design features with the tau. And lots with marines.
Answers to the "Facts" Fact 1 only superficially. Fact 2 is irrelevant, because the WAY it was developped says all. Fact 3 shows that you have a "tolerance" higher than mine, not that mine is automatically wrong. Fact 4 is a joke and ignores again what said about the CSM. Again, someone can think that the new CSM should have had amore primaris like legs, someone thinks the opposite. Don't consider one of the two opinions automatically invalid. Fact 5: You liking them is an opinion as well. I have still to understand how this is even remotely related to what has been said about poses, background ect. Fact 6: The Tau hyperbole is still valid because they are the sign of a Tau-like approach to tech from the imperium. You may like it, I don't.
Insectum7 wrote:Trend: Imperial vehicles are non Grav, with few exceptions. The historical trend is ground vehicles.
New Direction: Primaris Tanks are all flyers. As are Custodes.
Haven't Custodes had hover vehicles for AGES?
No idea. They didn't have an army until very recently. And up until very recently the Land Speeder was the only anti-grav vehicle available. Everything else was on the ground. And it's not like illustrations were full of flying cars, either. Army wise? Imperial factions got tanks, Tau and Eldar got Skimmers. With few exceptions, for decades.
Trend: Classic Marines are organized around ten man squads with few exceptions. The exceptions are usually five man squads.
New Direction: Many Primaris units are based around 3s.
Many? Let's do a quick count-up:
Eliminators
Inceptors
Aggressors
Suppressors
4 units, by my count.
Now onto the old Space Marine units:
Bikes
Scout Bikes
Devastator Centurions
Assault Centurions
Attack Bikes (bought in units of 1, and can only go up to a max of 3)
Both Company Veterans and Veterans on Bikes start at 2 men
About 7, if I count both Veterans units.
Maybe a higher proportion of Primaris units are organised in 3s, but there are more old units that are organised that way than Primaris.
Bikes are the one notable exception, but even most Bike units max at 5-10iirc. This is the first edition where Company Vets/Command Squads didn't minimum at 5. Centurions are a degradation of the Marine line, and I toss them out for this discussion. Controversial, maybe, but they're obviously controversial themselves.
But the key is in your last statement. Proportionality counts. The mainline units, Veteran, Terminator, Tactical, Devastator, Assault, (Even Bikes maxed at 10), Scouts. Were all organized 5-10.
Primaris Eliminators, Inceptors, Aggressors, Suppressors all seem to be billed as mainline units, and they're not 5-10.
Trend: Classic Marine units have a wide variety of specialist weapons to choose from, and form mixed squads.
New Direction: Primaris are very limited in their options, and very rigid in their unit makeup.
And this is no different to Legion Space Marines, who I haven't seen people complain at with nearly as much uproar about "not being marines".
The number of people familiar with 30K is small. Even fewer people actually play it. Doctrinally Legions are completely different, built for a different scale of conflict. Plus, when Games Workshop made Horus Hersey Box sets, guess what was in them. . . 10 Man Tactical Squads with Heavy Weapon and Special Weapon.
Again, this is just to highlight that a lot of people's complaints about Primaris Marines are based on things that the Primaris Marines were never the first to do. It feels completely random, like people are grasping at excuses not to like them. It's fine, it's okay not to like them, but for there to be thread after thread and people trying to rationalise why Primaris are bad only for their reasons to be based on things that Primaris aren't even the first to do feels faulty.
It's enough of a trend that it's obviously not simply random. That's what the thread is about. The OP is trying to describe where the dislike comes from, because it's hard to pin down. Impressions can be based on subtle things.
Trend: Classic Space Marines wear the same Power Armor to battle, with numerically few exceptions.
New Direction: Primaris have more armor types and field them more regularly. (this appears to be the "sihlouette" critique given by the OP.)
Primaris have:
Tacticus
Phobos
Gravis (with a gravis variant with a jump pack - I will count this as separate, but do the same with standard jump pack units too)
Omnis
Regular Marines have:
Mark 2-8 power armour (still only counts as one!)
Scout armour
Terminator Armour (with 3 variants, Indomitus, Cataphractii, and Tartaros)
Centurion warsuits
Power armoured jump pack units
Bikers (including because of the same rules as jump pack units - the power armour looks the same, but the silhouette looks much different)
That's 5 Primaris armour types, versus 8 distinct normal Marine silhouette variants.
Like above, counting out a list does nothing to serve proportionality. Like I said before, 90ish (85ish, whatever) percent of a Chapter was a marine in some mark of Power Armor, and Power Armor is all interchangeable.
Trend: Classic Marine units tend not to feature sleek tech
New Direction: Primaris feature more refined-tech details/overall look.
I disagree. The Primaris look just as boxy with their tech as the classic marines in my eyes.
At a distance, yes, in the details, no.
Trend: Classic Marines did not "out stat" the "core identity" units of other "elite" factions.
Primaris: 2W minimum is a big jump. I'm namely thinking the balance between Aspects and Marines here.
This was a failing with the old Marines, I feel. They should have been stronger, but the elite units of other factions (such as the Aspects - who aren't the core of the Eldar army, might I add) should also have been stronger to match them. Right now, I think all Marines should be 2W, but Aspect Warriors should be made tougher too. Things like Genestealers and Tau Battlesuits feel like they're were they should be.
I think this is a failing of Black Library, and a failing of "special weapons creep". I'd also note that I hardly ever saw Guardsmen on the table during 4th - 7th, because Marines (the most popular army) could just butcher them. Flamers, Whirlwinds, etc did horrific things to light troops, as did the Sweeping Advance rules. Marines become "not marine-like" when they're surrounded by tanks and super weapons. Which is fine, imo. I played Epic. Dudes got killed by the bundle. On a good table under controlled settings, I find Marines perform acceptably vs. light and average troops.
The whole notion of "aesthetics" tends to piss me off when it comes to 40k. People seem to act like there are set-in-stone rules on what a given faction should be "aesthetically". Which is complete bull
That doesn't stand up to the barest scrutiny..
Utter nonsense. Period. It's a sign that you don't have a counter argument to what I said.
. . .
But arguing from a subjective position of "aesthetics" as if it were somehow fact is dishonest and doesn't hold much water.
There are established "looks" for various factions and the way they are presented by the company, in lore, illustrations and model products,. This is a fact.
You can make up your own stuff, and you should! But the product lines are in fact quite consistent. There are no rules for your personal collection, there ARE rules for established imagery. These rules can be bent and broken, but they are not "purely subjective." They are guidelines which you can choose to adhere to or not.
And I am not here to police your interpretation of those rules, either. Far from it. What I am doing is comparing (sub?)lines of product put forth by the company, and that can be done with relative objectivity.
You still have yet to answer if a 10 man squad with just one bought weapon can be considered Marines. Based on the fact you haven't answered it I haven't had to misinterpret your argument at all.
Hell, under your logic, Devastators can't be Marines unless there are a minimum of two different weapons bought. Seems a bit silly don't you think?
Options allowed and options taken are two different things. The "flexibility" I'm talking about is the flexibility of potential loadout, and the capability of that flexibility to engage a wide variety of targets.
Well Intercessors have the option of the flexible Aux Grenade Launcher, so that automatically proves you wrong.
A: Your inability to address the argument is not surprising. You are essentially redefining "datasheet/unit flexibility" into, "a gun that fires two types of projectiles".
B: A Grenade Launcher is probably worse than a Heavy Bolter against both Armor AND Infantry, and a Heavy Bolter is the bare minimum Heavy Weapon for a Tactical Squad. Against most armor, arguably simply Rapid-Firing with a Bolt Rifle might be better. Against most Infantry, Rapid Firing with the Bolter is ALSO probably better. The efficacy of the unit as a whole barely increases with a Grenade Launcher, and the Grenade Launcher is their only "special" option, while Tacs get 10 options to choose from. On top of that, they only get one (per 5?), while a five man Tac Squad can get a Heavy/Special and a Combi. This "Special Weapon" that you're touting, all it does is increase the range of weapons that the Tactical squad also already has.
In what way does the new fluff go against the “lore” anymore than all of the other new marine things you have praised as pure old school marines. Every edition the range has expanded with new unheard of units and equipment. Primaris is just that.
The fluff on the vehicles states how brutal a solution they are. Huge inefficient things using brute force to even move. Classic imperial solution to problems. And based on existing stc. Tanks, grab plates and thrusters. Bingo. The guns are all based on existing tech. The armour too. Why is mk10 so wrong when 1-8 were ok changed for you? And as for the marines them selves. Two new organs added. Two? Not game breaking is it. Do they have new super powers? No. Do they do anything the old ones don’t? They are just a bit better.
You say they superficially are recognisable, I don’t get that. It has been shown here that they are to old marines what they were to rtb01 marines. The poses you love about old marines are doable in primaris. And more besides. Posing being more suited to your taste isn’t fact. You claim it is? Fact that one pose is better than an other.
Marines are many things to many people, and primaris are still all those things. It is just rolling the clock back to clean simple miantures.
You have failed to give any reasons why they aren’t imperial enough for you. You have made ludicrous comparisons to tau and just said that they aren’t imperium enough because they aren’t. Everyone else has given examples time and time again of how all of the design elements are based in the existing universe and faction. Now you claim the fluff is the problem.
You don’t like them. I get it. But it isn’t because they are wrong in any way. And that is my only point in all of this. They haven’t done anything that any other major release has done to the game or setting. They are as 40k and grimdark and imperium of man as any of it. You might not like them but don’t make them out to be this big game ruining evil.
Insectum7 wrote: No idea. They didn't have an army until very recently. And up until very recently the Land Speeder was the only anti-grav vehicle available. Everything else was on the ground. And it's not like illustrations were full of flying cars, either. Army wise? Imperial factions got tanks, Tau and Eldar got Skimmers. With few exceptions, for decades.
In the artwork we've had for Custodes, which was around long before they had a model line, they were depicted as having anti-grav tanks.
Bikes are the one notable exception, but even most Bike units max at 5-10iirc.
In my book, it's telling me 9 for Scouts, 8 for regulars. And if you buy the units with power levels, you move up in increments of 3 as well - 3 Bikes, to 6 Bikes, to 8/9 Bikes.
This is the first edition where Company Vets/Command Squads didn't minimum at 5.
And now they are.
Centurions are a degradation of the Marine line, and I toss them out for this discussion. Controversial, maybe, but they're obviously controversial themselves.
Not exactly lending your argument much faith when you're moving those goalposts.
You claimed that there were more Primaris units with awkward unit sizes. This is not true.
But the key is in your last statement. Proportionality counts. The mainline units, Veteran, Terminator, Tactical, Devastator, Assault, (Even Bikes maxed at 10), Scouts. Were all organized 5-10.
Primaris Eliminators, Inceptors, Aggressors, Suppressors all seem to be billed as mainline units, and they're not 5-10.
When I meant proportion, I meant that there are simply more non-Primaris units than Primaris ones, so with Primaris having a smaller product line, they stick out more. Eliminators and Suppressors don't seem to be billed as mainline. The Aggressors and Inceptors, yes, because they're the nearest to the Terminator equivalent, but they're also able to be fielded in 5s. So again, that's what, two "mainline" Primaris units against the Bikers (who are a mainline unit in an awkward size) - cool, that's one more Primaris unit than the regular ones. Not exactly enough to build a solid argument on, in my eyes.
The number of people familiar with 30K is small.
Is it? In my experience, most people are familiar enough to know that the Legions are organised differently (but still keep that Space Marine flavour enough that I've never seen anyone complain 'HOW DARE GW MAKE THESE IMPOSTER MARINES".
Even fewer people actually play it. Doctrinally Legions are completely different, built for a different scale of conflict.
As are the Primaris in 40k lore. They've been designed for a Great Crusade V2, as it were, with more Space Marines to play with fighting on a larger scale on conflict - but the key part is that they're STILL Space Marines. They still function like Astartes in how they act, how they fight, how they look - I really don't think that the embedding of special weapons in a unit is the cornerstone of what it is to be a Space Marine. In my eyes, that's NEVER been the important part - too many other armies do the same thing for it to be the "Marine thing".
Plus, when Games Workshop made Horus Hersey Box sets, guess what was in them. . . 10 Man Tactical Squads with Heavy Weapon and Special Weapon.
Aka Legion Veteran Squads. I mean, it's literally in how they built the cover models for Betrayal at Calth - 20 bolter Tacticals for the Word Bearers, and 10 mixed weapon Veterans for the Ultramarines.
It's enough of a trend that it's obviously not simply random. That's what the thread is about. The OP is trying to describe where the dislike comes from, because it's hard to pin down. Impressions can be based on subtle things.
Subtle, yes. So when people make claims like "they're CLEARLY totally different from normal Marines!", does that sound like a subtle disliking?
Again, I'm not saying that there is no reason to not like them at all, but I am saying whatever that difference is doesn't seem to be the silhouette of the models, because normal Marines do the same thing. It's not in their lack of embedded weaponry, because no-one complained about the Legion Marines "not being Marine-y". It's not in their aesthetic, because their armour designs are incredibly alike, and any new design features are usually ones already present on Marines.
It's not a case of "you aren't allowed to dislike them" - it's more "this reason has holes in it, maybe there another reason why you don't like it".
Like above, counting out a list does nothing to serve proportionality. Like I said before, 90ish (85ish, whatever) percent of a Chapter was a marine in some mark of Power Armor, and Power Armor is all interchangeable.
As is Primaris armour. As per the design notes, Primaris Marines all wear the same core aesthetic to their armour.
At a distance, yes, in the details, no.
Which details?
I think this is a failing of Black Library, and a failing of "special weapons creep". I'd also note that I hardly ever saw Guardsmen on the table during 4th - 7th, because Marines (the most popular army) could just butcher them. Flamers, Whirlwinds, etc did horrific things to light troops, as did the Sweeping Advance rules. Marines become "not marine-like" when they're surrounded by tanks and super weapons. Which is fine, imo. I played Epic. Dudes got killed by the bundle. On a good table under controlled settings, I find Marines perform acceptably vs. light and average troops.
Whereas I find that the lack of almost that safety blanket of the extra wound makes Marines feel a lot less durable than they should. I think Kill Team gets it very right with the Transhuman Physiology rules. It makes Astartes feel a lot more, well, Astartes-y, without necessarily needing that extra wound. Of course, this couldn't work for 40k, so I think the extra wound is a nice stopgap.
List all purchaseable, non Walker, Imperial vehicles prior to 3 years ago. Then compare how many of them were skimmers, next to how many of them were not.
Do the same for Tau and Eldar.
You will find a marked difference in the ratios involved.
Bring into the discussion the Custodes is weird. They were supposed to be extremely rare and elite, something unique to the throne. The use of the anti-grav tech for them is more to bring home this point, and contrast with the rest of the imperium.
When everyone is special, none is.
Insectum7 wrote:Trend: Imperial vehicles are non Grav, with few exceptions. The historical trend is ground vehicles.
New Direction: Primaris Tanks are all flyers. As are Custodes.
Haven't Custodes had hover vehicles for AGES?
No idea. They didn't have an army until very recently. And up until very recently the Land Speeder was the only anti-grav vehicle available. Everything else was on the ground. And it's not like illustrations were full of flying cars, either. Army wise? Imperial factions got tanks, Tau and Eldar got Skimmers. With few exceptions, for decades.
Trend: Classic Marines are organized around ten man squads with few exceptions. The exceptions are usually five man squads.
New Direction: Many Primaris units are based around 3s.
Many? Let's do a quick count-up:
Eliminators
Inceptors
Aggressors
Suppressors
4 units, by my count.
Now onto the old Space Marine units:
Bikes
Scout Bikes
Devastator Centurions
Assault Centurions
Attack Bikes (bought in units of 1, and can only go up to a max of 3)
Both Company Veterans and Veterans on Bikes start at 2 men
About 7, if I count both Veterans units.
Maybe a higher proportion of Primaris units are organised in 3s, but there are more old units that are organised that way than Primaris.
Bikes are the one notable exception, but even most Bike units max at 5-10iirc. This is the first edition where Company Vets/Command Squads didn't minimum at 5. Centurions are a degradation of the Marine line, and I toss them out for this discussion. Controversial, maybe, but they're obviously controversial themselves.
But the key is in your last statement. Proportionality counts. The mainline units, Veteran, Terminator, Tactical, Devastator, Assault, (Even Bikes maxed at 10), Scouts. Were all organized 5-10.
Primaris Eliminators, Inceptors, Aggressors, Suppressors all seem to be billed as mainline units, and they're not 5-10.
Trend: Classic Marine units have a wide variety of specialist weapons to choose from, and form mixed squads.
New Direction: Primaris are very limited in their options, and very rigid in their unit makeup.
And this is no different to Legion Space Marines, who I haven't seen people complain at with nearly as much uproar about "not being marines".
The number of people familiar with 30K is small. Even fewer people actually play it. Doctrinally Legions are completely different, built for a different scale of conflict. Plus, when Games Workshop made Horus Hersey Box sets, guess what was in them. . . 10 Man Tactical Squads with Heavy Weapon and Special Weapon.
Again, this is just to highlight that a lot of people's complaints about Primaris Marines are based on things that the Primaris Marines were never the first to do. It feels completely random, like people are grasping at excuses not to like them. It's fine, it's okay not to like them, but for there to be thread after thread and people trying to rationalise why Primaris are bad only for their reasons to be based on things that Primaris aren't even the first to do feels faulty.
It's enough of a trend that it's obviously not simply random. That's what the thread is about. The OP is trying to describe where the dislike comes from, because it's hard to pin down. Impressions can be based on subtle things.
Trend: Classic Space Marines wear the same Power Armor to battle, with numerically few exceptions.
New Direction: Primaris have more armor types and field them more regularly. (this appears to be the "sihlouette" critique given by the OP.)
Primaris have:
Tacticus
Phobos
Gravis (with a gravis variant with a jump pack - I will count this as separate, but do the same with standard jump pack units too)
Omnis
Regular Marines have:
Mark 2-8 power armour (still only counts as one!)
Scout armour
Terminator Armour (with 3 variants, Indomitus, Cataphractii, and Tartaros)
Centurion warsuits
Power armoured jump pack units
Bikers (including because of the same rules as jump pack units - the power armour looks the same, but the silhouette looks much different)
That's 5 Primaris armour types, versus 8 distinct normal Marine silhouette variants.
Like above, counting out a list does nothing to serve proportionality. Like I said before, 90ish (85ish, whatever) percent of a Chapter was a marine in some mark of Power Armor, and Power Armor is all interchangeable.
Trend: Classic Marine units tend not to feature sleek tech
New Direction: Primaris feature more refined-tech details/overall look.
I disagree. The Primaris look just as boxy with their tech as the classic marines in my eyes.
At a distance, yes, in the details, no.
Trend: Classic Marines did not "out stat" the "core identity" units of other "elite" factions.
Primaris: 2W minimum is a big jump. I'm namely thinking the balance between Aspects and Marines here.
This was a failing with the old Marines, I feel. They should have been stronger, but the elite units of other factions (such as the Aspects - who aren't the core of the Eldar army, might I add) should also have been stronger to match them. Right now, I think all Marines should be 2W, but Aspect Warriors should be made tougher too. Things like Genestealers and Tau Battlesuits feel like they're were they should be.
I think this is a failing of Black Library, and a failing of "special weapons creep". I'd also note that I hardly ever saw Guardsmen on the table during 4th - 7th, because Marines (the most popular army) could just butcher them. Flamers, Whirlwinds, etc did horrific things to light troops, as did the Sweeping Advance rules. Marines become "not marine-like" when they're surrounded by tanks and super weapons. Which is fine, imo. I played Epic. Dudes got killed by the bundle. On a good table under controlled settings, I find Marines perform acceptably vs. light and average troops.
The whole notion of "aesthetics" tends to piss me off when it comes to 40k. People seem to act like there are set-in-stone rules on what a given faction should be "aesthetically". Which is complete bull
That doesn't stand up to the barest scrutiny..
Utter nonsense. Period. It's a sign that you don't have a counter argument to what I said.
. . .
But arguing from a subjective position of "aesthetics" as if it were somehow fact is dishonest and doesn't hold much water.
There are established "looks" for various factions and the way they are presented by the company, in lore, illustrations and model products,. This is a fact.
You can make up your own stuff, and you should! But the product lines are in fact quite consistent. There are no rules for your personal collection, there ARE rules for established imagery. These rules can be bent and broken, but they are not "purely subjective." They are guidelines which you can choose to adhere to or not.
And I am not here to police your interpretation of those rules, either. Far from it. What I am doing is comparing (sub?)lines of product put forth by the company, and that can be done with relative objectivity.
You still have yet to answer if a 10 man squad with just one bought weapon can be considered Marines. Based on the fact you haven't answered it I haven't had to misinterpret your argument at all.
Hell, under your logic, Devastators can't be Marines unless there are a minimum of two different weapons bought. Seems a bit silly don't you think?
Options allowed and options taken are two different things. The "flexibility" I'm talking about is the flexibility of potential loadout, and the capability of that flexibility to engage a wide variety of targets.
Well Intercessors have the option of the flexible Aux Grenade Launcher, so that automatically proves you wrong.
A: Your inability to address the argument is not surprising. You are essentially redefining "datasheet/unit flexibility" into, "a gun that fires two types of projectiles".
B: A Grenade Launcher is probably worse than a Heavy Bolter against both Armor AND Infantry, and a Heavy Bolter is the bare minimum Heavy Weapon for a Tactical Squad. Against most armor, arguably simply Rapid-Firing with a Bolt Rifle might be better. Against most Infantry, Rapid Firing with the Bolter is ALSO probably better. The efficacy of the unit as a whole barely increases with a Grenade Launcher, and the Grenade Launcher is their only "special" option, while Tacs get 10 options to choose from. On top of that, they only get one (per 5?), while a five man Tac Squad can get a Heavy/Special and a Combi. This "Special Weapon" that you're touting, all it does is increase the range of weapons that the Tactical squad also already has.
Except, in your own argument, you said that what makes Marines "Marines" is the ability to be outfitted for the situation, which already can't happen on the tabletop unless you got two weapons able to handle all situations (seeing as you can't buy a weapon after hitting the table). After all, a squad with a Flamer + ML is still at a disadvantage vs tanks because they only ever get the one weapon effective.
So, theoretically, only a squad with two ML can be this "TAC" squad you imagined them to be. While the Grenade Launcher is clearly a worse weapon, a squad with two of those, fluff wise, would be able to handle more targets with more flexibility.
Ergo, is your "flexible" squad with a Flamer and ML actually any more flexible than an Intercessor squad with two Aux grenade launchers? No.
Kaiyanwang wrote: Bring into the discussion the Custodes is weird. They were supposed to be extremely rare and elite, something unique to the throne. The use of the anti-grav tech for them is more to bring home this point, and contrast with the rest of the imperium.
When everyone is special, none is.
They have more refined anti-grav that doesn't turn sand into glass from the pressure.
Honestly i am surprised we don't have a unit of primaris marines with jump packs, chainswords, and options for power swords. Most primaris at this point should just be straight upgrades for marines not separate units.
Reivers really don't offer the option for good close combat.
As I said, my major complaint is not much variety in helmet design, shoulder design, or torso design.
The kits themselves are very restrictive because of how most if not all are monopose when it comes to feet and torso placement. There is also the overall design of their dreadnoughts where they feel very whats the term... bendy? Most space marine tanks are by their design boxy, plus the lack of options you can have on the new dreadnought and invictius really leaves littles to be desired when assembling those kits. Another major part is the current space marine vehicles feel very too high tech, not even skulls or gothic markings for them to fit the 40k era. But again that is personal opinion.
But on the kits themselves they are all really basic and lead very little poses to happen because of how inorganic they feel in comparision to the marine kits, even terminators have far more wide range of poses than Aggressors or Inceptors.
My other issue is that the design overall (sleekness) has long been gone from the space marine range when it came to the architecture of marine armor and less of the crusader knight aspect that marines used to have.
@Slayer, Bolters and Frag grenades againt hordes, any number of anti-tank weapons for anti vehicle.
Hiding behind your Grenade Launcher argument is like hiding behind paper.
It goes like this:
10 'special' choices > 1 'special' choice.
2 'special' slots > 1 'special' slot
Individual effectivness of multiple choices > grenade launcher.
And Tacs already come with those grenades.
Anyone could play this arbitrary game of good or bad, but a weapon with a long range, ability to engage a wide number of targets is never a bad tool for giving a unit the ability to engage a wide range of threats.
Insectum7 wrote:List all purchaseable, non Walker, Imperial vehicles prior to 3 years ago. Then compare how many of them were skimmers, next to how many of them were not.
Do the same for Tau and Eldar.
You will find a marked difference in the ratios involved.
What point does this prove, exactly? Was it the fact that Space Marine vehicles used to be tracked that made them special and identifiable? I don't think so, because Orks and Guardsman vehicles did the same, and yet they still had different aesthetic designs. The important part about the Space Marine vehicle designs were the look of the cupolas, the style of doors, the sloped front going onto a flat top and sides, the overlapping layered look of the armour. That was their aesthetic, their core look.
Space Marines had skimmers. Now they just have another type. And it's ever MORE crude than their old one!
Kaiyanwang wrote:Bring into the discussion the Custodes is weird. They were supposed to be extremely rare and elite, something unique to the throne. The use of the anti-grav tech for them is more to bring home this point, and contrast with the rest of the imperium.
When everyone is special, none is.
Remind me, didn't Space Marines have skimmers already?
And as I've said, the Custodes have 'clean' gravity tech. Their stuff doesn't turn the literal ground to glass under it.
Asherian Command wrote:Honestly i am surprised we don't have a unit of primaris marines with jump packs, chainswords, and options for power swords.
Agreed. I really want to see a full close combat unit.
As I said, my major complaint is not much variety in helmet design, shoulder design, or torso design.
I think I might have missed this - explain? What do these guys lack that normal Marines don't?
Another major part is the current space marine vehicles feel very too high tech, not even skulls or gothic markings for them to fit the 40k era.
I've actually got a Repulsor and a Rhino on hand with me right now. They both have an aquila on the front, but aside from that - they have the same amount of ornamentation.
Asherian Command wrote: Honestly i am surprised we don't have a unit of primaris marines with jump packs, chainswords, and options for power swords. Most primaris at this point should just be straight upgrades for marines not separate units.
Reivers really don't offer the option for good close combat.
As I said, my major complaint is not much variety in helmet design, shoulder design, or torso design.
The kits themselves are very restrictive because of how most if not all are monopose when it comes to feet and torso placement. There is also the overall design of their dreadnoughts where they feel very whats the term... bendy? Most space marine tanks are by their design boxy, plus the lack of options you can have on the new dreadnought and invictius really leaves littles to be desired when assembling those kits. Another major part is the current space marine vehicles feel very too high tech, not even skulls or gothic markings for them to fit the 40k era. But again that is personal opinion.
But on the kits themselves they are all really basic and lead very little poses to happen because of how inorganic they feel in comparision to the marine kits, even terminators have far more wide range of poses than Aggressors or Inceptors.
My other issue is that the design overall (sleekness) has long been gone from the space marine range when it came to the architecture of marine armor and less of the crusader knight aspect that marines used to have.
Games Workshop has seemingly gone out of their way to prevent Primaris from being a direct replacement to non-Primaris. As a player with a Primaris only army this certainly can be frustrating, but it really does manage to keep non-Primaris marines quite viable.
Reivers are okay. They certainly would be better with more melee options, but so long as you mostly keep them on non-melee focused infantry they usually chew through them with a thousand cuts. I still contend they would be pretty decent as Troop options.
Well the shoulders are the same as all space marines so you can customize to suit as far as you want to go getting pauldron upgrades/aftermarket/etc. I personally have no issue with the helmets as pretty much each unit type has a slight variation that would just be a random tactical helmet in their model kit. I like the uniformity of it, and I have to say I really like the helmeted heads with Primaris kits. It is really too bad I have a model rule of only sergeants and some HQ's don't were helmets as I really do want to have more unhelmeted heads on my models. If that isn't enough, most kits allow for any previous helmet. You pretty much got me with chest pieces. Again, I don't mind the uniformity of them, but I could definitely see someone wanting more that winged skull or skull and crossed swords. Ultimately customizing is little more work, but that does give you a more unique model since less people are going to bother.
I personally think there is enough differing in the poses that they look better than previous marine kits which at arm's length mostly just look like a combat crouch right or left to me. At the same time I don't think the Primaris poses are so unique, for the most part, that they stand out when doubled up provided you pose the head and arms a little different. I definitely appreciate the more natural flow of Primaris model bodies compared to previous marine kits which look pretty much like what they are which is a ball and socket mid-section which become more apparent the more twist or angle you put on that ball and socket. Horses for courses I guess.
I have never been much for dreadnoughts, but I find my easy-to-build redemptor pretty okay. It is a country mile better looking than my Battle for Calth contemptor. I also much prefer it over any other dreadnought I have seen which are far too boxy for my taste. I do think here there was a decent distance between Primaris and non-Primaris in design.
I really like the repulsor line of models. I have never been much of a fan of side sponsons as even if someone managed to remove all the mechanical issues with them, there is still the problem of them being largely useless in a hull down configuration. But that is a personal minor hang up have coming from historical tanks. I don't own any loyalist space marine vehicles, but my repulsors have half the number of skulls that my CSM land raider has (2). And that is more two more than my CSM rhinos if you don't count the CSM vehicle upgrade bits. The repulsor model kit comes with a little gothic shrine that (instructions suggest the right side, lower right quadrant). I honestly don't know where this Primaris vehicles don't look gothic enough comes from. Repulsors are basically grav land raiders with a turret on top instead of side sponsons. If anything, I think it would be far more fair to accuse GW designers of being rather lazy in making a couple of alterations to the land raider and passing it off as a new model. I wouldn't go that far, but I do think repulsors have more in common things in common with each other than they do differences. There are a few big differences, but many of the panel details are pretty much the same. I figure if someone really wants a more gothic looking repulsor they can just get their hands on some aftermarket bits to a fix to it.
The only real reason space marine Terminators have more poses than aggressors or inceptors is the fact they come in a box of 5 vs. 3. Those terminators still basically have the combat crouch slight to right or left which is basically what aggressors have going just a little more subtlety. Honestly, I don't think either of the kits have very good posing.
I personally find Primaris to look far more sleek since they are better proportioned and do have a more modern look to them. I plain don't see any crusader knight aesthetics in the basic tactical marine kit except for maybe the banners. Nor do I in the basic assault marine kit, the devastator kit or even the terminator kit except again with the banners. I think the crusader knight aspects only really appears within the veteran kits. Which I think is an unfair standard to hold Primaris to at this point since they don't have a true veteran style model kit which could very easily incorporate those elements making the argument largely moot. Non-Primaris space marines do have more model options many of which do sell the crusader knight/warrior monk much better than the current Primaris model line though.
I appreciate your opinions on the matter just like most everyone. If we didn't have different tastes we would all be playing Matt Ward's Ultramarines, and I don't think anyone wants that. However, as someone that has a Primaris only army it really does feel like most detractors are dumping on them because they didn't exist during their glory days of playing Warhammer 40k and they are looking for any little mole hill to make into a mountain why army is bad and I should feel bad for buying, building, painting and playing them. I have only been actively playing 40k for a few years but have been exposed to it through more than a few disgruntled ex-players that fled to the war games I also played. I never experienced the same volume of vitriol over a (sub) faction on every aspect of them as I have with Primaris marines. There have been gripes about this and that OP faction or snickers over this and that particular model, but I have never seen as many people straight up say Orks are a worthless comedy faction where Ork Nobs are alright but the rest of the model line is bunch of terrible looking ramshackles that look like a 3 year old rolled a D&D miniature in plasti-card and gave it a gun and have no business in 40k. While I encountered a couple of these people, they were the sort that seemed to have an axe to grind about everything and not really someone I wanted to spend much time around. I am okay with people not liking the Primaris line. Fortunately, 40k has a like a dozen different factions to pick from if they aren't their thing including non-Primaris space marines which are a very extensive model line. I am getting weary of the constant barrage of things that seem like nitpicks to me of stuff that often times doesn't seem all that different yet is sold as practically a different IP. And that just comes across a little intellectually dishonest to me.
Sorry, that went on way too long. Truly thank you if you bothered to read all of that.
Anyone could play this arbitrary game of good or bad, but a weapon with a long range, ability to engage a wide number of targets is never a bad tool for giving a unit the ability to engage a wide range of threats.
I think I might have missed this - explain? What do these guys lack that normal Marines don't?
The big part that i am talking about here is the loss of different helmet looks and feel all of the primaris helmets are exactly the same for primaris kit, they have very few if any distinguishing features, an example of this is take a bog standard tactical squad kit, you get several different options for helmets, corvus, mk8s with some pipes, some without pipes, some with a tactical eye / bionic eye, others have a smoother ridge etc.
And torsos are self explanatory there are so many different types and looks for the torsos on the front, some have aquillias some don't, and some have no aquillia but a lightning bolt or just a single skull with studs in their armor.
Unforunately most primaris kits do not offer this and we are stuck with very samey minitatures. Though that was my complaint of the deathwatch release where most if not all the helmets were exactly the same. Individuality is a common in all space marine kits, from helmet, torso, legs, and weapons, each has a completely different feel, and these kits do not offer the chance other than through conversion. They are essentially TOO blank. Its like when someone offers you so many myraids of choices that the person freezes because they have no idea which choose to go with. There are so many things to decide to on it becomes overwhelming to the assembler, if the offered more differintation and got rid of the uniformality in these kits they would excel.
Yes they are proportioned correctly but the kits by themselves lack the variety that is offered by other sets like tacticals, sternguard, or assault marines. (While also lacking on options for heavy / special / melee weapons as well!) Their kits are also not able to give you the full functioning torso and legs you can place the legs anyway you want compared to a primaris marine, as the primaris marine torso is apart of the legs. They are all monoposed limiting the creativity and kitbashing that can happen.
I know its very minor as complaints go but i am big builder and kitbasher and I love combining kits as i find that a big part of the hobby.
Sorry, that went on way too long. Truly thank you if you bothered to read all of that.
The beauty of the old space marine kits is that you can get a variety of different poses and equipment on your marines, for example, you can take a bog standard tactical marine kit, combine it with an assault marine kit and make him into a vanguard or a special character. Relatively easily. You can also give them a running pose or any of that without any greenstuff. Which unforunately you cannot do with the new kits. They are very limiting in what they do, which is my primary issue with primaris is how limiting all the kits are to poses, or just overall feel. Goodluck try to find a good running poses for a primaris intercessor with anything but greenstuff.
I have experimented quite a bit and I know they can use other helmets from other space marine kits but they come off as awkward, even the corvus helmet has a bit of trouble fiting into the primaris torsos that i had to cut away with my exacto knife, which is another issue. Their helmets are specifically designed only for the primaris kits.
I think my biggest issue and many others is the lack of personalization.
I've actually got a Repulsor and a Rhino on hand with me right now. They both have an aquila on the front, but aside from that - they have the same amount of ornamentation.
But the repulsor lacks something very basic, feel, and tone. Its really sleek compared to most marine stuff that has recently come out. We do have a few oddities here and there but some of the porportions are just not right. (namely the turret should be twice the size on the executioner like an abrams tank) and the repulsor seems to be more like a razorback than the executioner. Repulsor also has so many guns tied to it is ridicilious.
And the fact its primaris only is really really stupid. This is how it plays out in my head:
Intercessor Sarge : "Chapter Master, sorry you can't ride in this with us, can't you read the rules on page 162? It says Primaris only brother!"
CM : "I am the chapter master I can ride in whatever I want!"
IS : "Sorry there is height requirements!"
CM: "I am wearing terminator armor!"
IS : "SORRY LOOK AT THE TIME!"
CM : "How about you join us in this land raider then so we all can go together."
IS : "No the codex astartes does not allow this action.."
CM : "What a bloody primarch could fit in here."
IS : "Well we aren't primarchs and its too short for us."
CM : "Oh well then lets board a mastodon then."
IS : "Sorry its not primaris."
CM : *sighs deeply* "Okay what can you embark with us with?"
Insectum7 wrote: @Slayer, Bolters and Frag grenades againt hordes, any number of anti-tank weapons for anti vehicle.
Hiding behind your Grenade Launcher argument is like hiding behind paper.
It goes like this:
10 'special' choices > 1 'special' choice.
2 'special' slots > 1 'special' slot
Individual effectivness of multiple choices > grenade launcher.
And Tacs already come with those grenades.
Except, in the classic setup, there isn't any number of anti-tank weapons. You get ONE. Just the ML and that's it. Now you COULD attempt to specialize (maybe you buy the Melta Gun and Multi-Melta), but that's not exactly a flexible squad as it lost some portion of its anti-infantry power. Against pure hordes, you lost out. So this squad can't be doing what you're saying. It CAN'T be TAC because of the weapon swap out, ergo the only way you can make that happen is two ML. Simple as that.
Compare that to two Aux Grenade launchers, you have the range on your grenade to effectively target those units, with a complimentary range for the rest of the weapons to boot (and for free). Is the single Aux Grenade Launcher worse than a single ML? Yeah sure I can't deny that. HOWEVER your precious Tactical Squad can't double up on an ML unless you're doing 5 man squads, and the range isn't complimenting the rest of the Tactical Bolters.
Number of choices doesn't actually matter when the choices are mostly bad. Yeah we could make it so that we have Power Weapon Boots or Power Weapon Bats with Nails In Them, but if they have worse stats and cost the same as the Power Axe, is there REALLY a choice? The answer is no. Simple as that.
But the repulsor lacks something very basic, feel, and tone. Its really sleek compared to most marine stuff that has recently come out. We do have a few oddities here and there but some of the porportions are just not right. (namely the turret should be twice the size on the executioner like an abrams tank) and the repulsor seems to be more like a razorback than the executioner. Repulsor also has so many guns tied to it is ridicilious.
And the fact its primaris only is really really stupid.
Honestly, the repulsor doesn't feel sleek at all to me coming from real WWII tanks. The thing is way too tall probably because it is still a transport. It also has way to flat sides and rear that even if the thing had the same armor thickness on all sides it might as well suffer toughness penalties to the sides and read since shots are probably land directly perpendicular. But those things make it a space marine vehicle. In some ways I agree with you that the even the executioner turret is too small, but at the same time it doesn't fire a shell like modern tanks. Instead it has a big laser or plasma shot. Why it needs a big cannon to fire a laser is kinda beyond me. I guess the optics to need some distance to focus the light or something. Still doesn't explain why the twin lasers in the hull is the most power weapon available on the repulsor when they thing has a turret to make better use of that firepower.
As for the guns, it does seem like a lot. But I think that is only because they are all considered full weapons systems that can all fire in game. Modern-ish (WWII to now) have had a hull mounted forward machine guns, they often had a co-axial machine along with the main gun and they have had a pintle mounted one as well. All of those were very common with WWII tanks, but they weren't all used at the same time. I would have actually preferred that the player had to chose between firing the main gun or co-axial-ish gun. Problem is the repulsor with the mini-gun option would make the stubber worthless while equipped. As for the over the doors weapons and turret munition packs, I personally would have preferred them to be an anti-assault weapons used during overwatch and/or during the assault by the tank to make CQC a very risky move that doesn't really pay off anyways since it can fly away, but even trying to do a little close combat damage is going to sting the would be attacker(s). The rear weapon I will agree is kinda a waste since the tank already has a pintle weapon, or supporting infantry that should be filling in for anything it is doing. When it comes to the Repulsor Executioner, all I really want is the main gun anyways and don't like all the extras baked into the cost of the vehicle.
I completely agree that the primaris/non-primaris transport separation is stupid. I would honestly like if the vocal (read: players that discuss things on forums, reddit, facebook, etc.) player base simply told GW no, that isn't how those rules going work so they might as well errata/FAQ/publish them right. Non-Primaris space marines should be capable of use the repulsor line and Impulsor and the Primaris should be able to make use of non-Primaris transports. I think it would awesome if ITC, NOVA and any other tournament organizer straight up said they think GW only put this separation in to try to make more money and they refuse to follow those rules. Probably not going to happen, so the best I can go for is playing with like minded people that also decide to not follow that particular rule so I can have Reivers jumping out of Storm Ravens both saving me 6 points and costing me like 300 points because I think the idea of skull masked dudes with chainswords (my Reivers have chainswords) fast roping out of a gun ship would be awesome.
B: If you want to talk about quality of choices, A single quality AT weapon is better than two Grenade Launchers. A single Lascannon is nearly 3x as effective against T7 3+ over two Krak Grenades. A Single Lascannon is more effective than the entirety of a 5 man Intercessor squad with Bolt Rifles and Launcher against T7 3+. And the Tac Bolters will be free to engage other targets in that case, while the Intercessors aren't. That might have changed a bit with the new book, but the point is made. Grenade Launchers do not compare. You could take a Grenade Launcher on every one of those 5 Intercessors, and still not average the same amount of damage as a single Lascannon. Grenade Launchers are not adequate anti armor, and the frag is barely better than the Bolt Rifle against almost any light infantry. A Storm Bolter is better, and a 5 man Tac Squad can have both the Las and the Storm Bolter. Or just a GravCannon, which is even better against both vehicles and infantry.
BrianDavion wrote: how many distinct poses for vanilla tac marines where there? almost all tac marines where some varient of "squatting with my rifle across my chest"
Heres the thing there are several thousand different poses because you can move the torso around and move the legs. Primaris Intercessors YOU CANNOT move their torso without using greenstuff!
Thus their pose is different. They have running, they have jumping, they can have anything relatively easily because you have more freedom with their torso than any OTHER primaris model!
You talk aboit flexibility to handle a number of targets and then brush off weapons can do that in favor for weapons specialized to single types of targets.
At this point I'm wondering what country the goal posts will be in when they stop moving.
ClockworkZion wrote: You talk aboit flexibility to handle a number of targets and then brush off weapons can do that in favor for weapons specialized to single types of targets.
At this point I'm wondering what country the goal posts will be in when they stop moving.
Tactical squads are extremely flexible and the primaris interestingly are inflexible in their abilities, they cannot handle heavy tanks or have equipment for walkers or horde clearing. Primaris are infact too specialized as they are. Which is the huge problem most people have with the current primaris line. Hellblasters are anti-infantry but they are solely heavy support, aggressors are only for close quarters and do not have anything for heavy tank. Because this there is a huge disparity in each unit that you need to buy each primaris unit in order to have a good army. This is why i would say that the primaris as an entire line does not make sense in their current form because of their tactical inflexibility. When you send a squad of marines out in real life, you want someone to at least carry a rocket launcher, you don't want your mainline troops running up against a tank and saying "oh well we are only meant for this role!"
Even in the annuals of history military forces want to be tactically flexible and the current primaris are tactically inflexible and only work as a force if they have each and every unit on the battlefield to work. Which really ruins the whole "specialists generalist" theme marines have been having for decades.
Now I do agree it is nice to have some specialized units, but we have so many.... Incursors, Infilitrators all occupy a similar role and should just upgrades to one another like intercessors.
of course that is just my opinion and could be entirely wrong
I am of the opinion we should just have primaris as a straight upgrade for normal marines in general, and we need primaris to have more tactical abilities than they currently have, as they are relatively boring because of their specialization.
ClockworkZion wrote: You talk aboit flexibility to handle a number of targets and then brush off weapons can do that in favor for weapons specialized to single types of targets.
At this point I'm wondering what country the goal posts will be in when they stop moving.
Did you not take in the part where the Tac Squad can engage both infantry and a tank at the same time, while an entire Intercessor Squad struggles to have comparable anti armor firepower?
What do you think the original goal posts were, exactly? They don't move with a Lascannon because the rest of the squad has guns, too. Marines come equipped to deal with light infantry as standard equipment. The big differentiator is the anti armor/anti elite potential, imo. Intercessors have better stock AP, but Tac marines can close the gap in a number of ways.
Lol some of the Primaris criticism in this topic is so comical and subjective.
I'm very happy that GW are breaking records year after year. The haters are free to vote with their wallets, but it's a vote they'll lose.
Like I keep saying - you've all had two years to accept Primaris. Either do so or move on. Right now some of you are acting like some guy who was jilted by an ex can't move on lol - always bringing up the topic, complaining about stuff.
Ishagu wrote: Lol some of the Primaris criticism in this topic is so comical and subjective.
I'm very happy that GW are breaking records year after year. The haters are free to vote with their wallets, but it's a vote they'll lose.
Like I keep saying - you've all had two years to accept Primaris. Either do so or move on. Right now some of you are acting like some guy who was jilted by an ex can't move on lol - always bringing up the topic, complaining about stuff.
Not a toxic opinion there is there?
Honestly I think I've been rather fair. pointing out Minor issues that could be easily fixed.
Ishagu's not wrong. Space Marines get a new codex and some new Primaris stuff and we get 5 thread of "Primaris are the devil who ate my baby" level exaggeration. Primaris are here and wel, theyr';e not going anywhere nor presumably are old school space marines for the immediate future. you just gotta learn to deal with them (not nesscarily like em, but deal with the fact that they're in the game now) or, if it's really THAT big a deal maker for you, quit 40k.
The issue with old marine posing was the waists could only rotate. Not bend. So you got lots of very similar and unrealistic poses. Having the single pose torso means really you have the same number of poses really but they look more organic and natural. My opinion only. Built hundreds of old marines and new ones.
ClockworkZion wrote: I think people forget that, outside of after market kits like FW doors all heraldry is a function of paint and/or transfers.
Not quite, the main chapters have plastic bits for this purpose also.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: how many distinct poses for vanilla tac marines where there? almost all tac marines where some varient of "squatting with my rifle across my chest"
There are 10 different legs in the tac squad box. But you can easily interchange legs between marine sets so in reality, the choice is much larger. The variety of bits in the tac squad kit also add to the variation and stops models being samey - stuff like the different chestplates and variant helmets.
Almost all Intercessors and Helblasters are some variant of squatting with the rifle across the chest as well. The 'squatting' knees braced firing/ready to fire stance is actually quite realistic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: Ishagu's not wrong. Space Marines get a new codex and some new Primaris stuff and we get 5 thread of "Primaris are the devil who ate my baby" level exaggeration. Primaris are here and wel, theyr';e not going anywhere nor presumably are old school space marines for the immediate future. you just gotta learn to deal with them (not nesscarily like em, but deal with the fact that they're in the game now) or, if it's really THAT big a deal maker for you, quit 40k.
Everyone has accepted they are part of 40k now. That doesn't exempt them from being criticised if people find flaws with the models or fluff. Especially when new models come out. There is obviously going to be an extensively long furore when GW makes changes to their most prominent faction Primaris fans need to accept some people don't like the models and are going to express a negative opinion. This is life and part of discussion and debate. If you are secure in your love of them, you shouldn't be so bothered by critcism
ClockworkZion wrote: I should had been clearer: when I was talking heraldry on models I meant vehicles.
Yeah I know. The main chapters have plastic bits to stick on vehicles as well (and or specific kits with molded on heraldry). Some more than others, but they are there.
There are icons for the big 4 chapters in the Land Speeder kits, and in the drop pod kit the big 4 + Black Templars and Imperial Fists.
The dark angels have loads of bits on the Ravenwing sprue (for the DA as a whole, not just ravenwing), probably the most out of anyone.
BA have some bits in the Baal Predator, Storm Raven and Furioso
Space Wolves have bits in their dreadnaught and gunship.
Grey Knights have some bits on the Storm Raven.
Black Templars have their vehicle sprue with the doors and dreadnaught bits, plus a couple of icons on their main sprue.
You get some generic bits like eagles and scrolls and sheilds in some SM vehicle kits as well
The big part that i am talking about here is the loss of different helmet looks and feel all of the primaris helmets are exactly the same for primaris kit, they have very few if any distinguishing features, an example of this is take a bog standard tactical squad kit, you get several different options for helmets, corvus, mk8s with some pipes, some without pipes, some with a tactical eye / bionic eye, others have a smoother ridge etc.
And torsos are self explanatory there are so many different types and looks for the torsos on the front, some have aquillias some don't, and some have no aquillia but a lightning bolt or just a single skull with studs in their armor.
Unforunately most primaris kits do not offer this and we are stuck with very samey minitatures. Though that was my complaint of the deathwatch release where most if not all the helmets were exactly the same. Individuality is a common in all space marine kits, from helmet, torso, legs, and weapons, each has a completely different feel, and these kits do not offer the chance other than through conversion. They are essentially TOO blank. Its like when someone offers you so many myraids of choices that the person freezes because they have no idea which choose to go with. There are so many things to decide to on it becomes overwhelming to the assembler, if the offered more differintation and got rid of the uniformality in these kits they would excel.
Yes they are proportioned correctly but the kits by themselves lack the variety that is offered by other sets like tacticals, sternguard, or assault marines. (While also lacking on options for heavy / special / melee weapons as well!) Their kits are also not able to give you the full functioning torso and legs you can place the legs anyway you want compared to a primaris marine, as the primaris marine torso is apart of the legs. They are all monoposed limiting the creativity and kitbashing that can happen.
I know its very minor as complaints go but i am big builder and kitbasher and I love combining kits as i find that a big part of the hobby.
I agree, except that the primaris are easy to customise if you have a decent collection of old marine bits like most long time hobbyists do. I haven't literally had this much fun building marines since the third edition. It wouldn't of course hurt if the basic boxes offered more variety already, but it is a trivial problem.
Though this makes me think what Jes said about upgraded marines on the podcast. How they keep bits of their old armour etc. I think one thing GW should do and which might help to win some classic marine fans over if they did an dedicated 'Primaris Veterans' or Primaris Ascended' kit which had models which had more eclectic look, bits of old armour and equipment mixed with the Primaris stuff.
and according to the codex, vetern primaris tend to just deploy as normal primaris units. I imagine that'll change in a few years once they start giving us prtimaris veteran units. but right now if you where building a Primaris 1st company it'd be no differant from a battle company
BrianDavion wrote: Ishagu's not wrong. Space Marines get a new codex and some new Primaris stuff and we get 5 thread of "Primaris are the devil who ate my baby" level exaggeration.
Some people don't like Primaris. There are legitimate reasons to not like the addition of Primaris armies to 40K. Here is an OP attempting to define what he/she doesn't like about them. Cue responses "There's no difference!", when there plainly are. We could have an adult discussion about it, I find it pretty interesting, personally. But no, we're all 'haters' apparently.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: In what way does the new fluff go against the “lore” anymore than all of the other new marine things you have praised as pure old school marines. Every edition the range has expanded with new unheard of units and equipment. Primaris is just that.
The fluff on the vehicles states how brutal a solution they are. Huge inefficient things using brute force to even move. Classic imperial solution to problems. And based on existing stc. Tanks, grab plates and thrusters. Bingo. The guns are all based on existing tech. The armour too. Why is mk10 so wrong when 1-8 were ok changed for you? And as for the marines them selves. Two new organs added. Two? Not game breaking is it. Do they have new super powers? No. Do they do anything the old ones don’t? They are just a bit better.
You say they superficially are recognisable, I don’t get that. It has been shown here that they are to old marines what they were to rtb01 marines. The poses you love about old marines are doable in primaris. And more besides. Posing being more suited to your taste isn’t fact. You claim it is? Fact that one pose is better than an other.
Marines are many things to many people, and primaris are still all those things. It is just rolling the clock back to clean simple miantures.
You have failed to give any reasons why they aren’t imperial enough for you. You have made ludicrous comparisons to tau and just said that they aren’t imperium enough because they aren’t. Everyone else has given examples time and time again of how all of the design elements are based in the existing universe and faction. Now you claim the fluff is the problem.
You don’t like them. I get it. But it isn’t because they are wrong in any way. And that is my only point in all of this. They haven’t done anything that any other major release has done to the game or setting. They are as 40k and grimdark and imperium of man as any of it. You might not like them but don’t make them out to be this big game ruining evil.
You must me mixing me up with someone else because you are asserting that I've made claims that I haven't. You're also breezing past points that have been made which you've shown no answer to.
"Why is mk10 so wrong when 1-8 were ok changed for you."
I didn't say Mk10 looked bad, or was even wrong. Point to where I have.
"It has been shown here that they are to old marines what they were to rtb01 marines." I've shown that the difference between RTB01 marines and 2nd-8th edition Tacs is entirely superficial. (same squad makeup, same equipment, etc.)
"You have failed to give any reasons why they aren’t imperial enough for you."
Imperial = land vehicles, few exceptions. Primaris = all skimmers (like Eldar and Tau) For starters. Non-mix squad options is another.
"They haven’t done anything that any other major release has done to the game or setting." No other faction release has threatened to replace the army collections and lore of an existing faction. Squats were written out, but Squats were not replaced. Classic Space Marines, according to some in this thread, are being actively replaced in the lore. There is a threat that my primary army will die. This isn't an odd-build army like a White Scars all-biker army that only lasts for 2 editions, or like a Kroot List army available for a short time during 4th. This is an army that has been playable since Rogue Trader, and has seen immense stability for that entire time. Tactical Squads, Devastator Squads, Terminator Squads etc. are virtually unchanged since that time. And there is a real threat that they will go away. That IS a difference. THAT is why this is a hot topic.
Insectum7 wrote: No idea. They didn't have an army until very recently. And up until very recently the Land Speeder was the only anti-grav vehicle available. Everything else was on the ground. And it's not like illustrations were full of flying cars, either. Army wise? Imperial factions got tanks, Tau and Eldar got Skimmers. With few exceptions, for decades.
In the artwork we've had for Custodes, which was around long before they had a model line, they were depicted as having anti-grav tanks.
Not enough of a counter. Occasional drawing (can you find it/them?) is no match for fieldable units for ascertaining army/faction identity.
Bikes are the one notable exception, but even most Bike units max at 5-10iirc.
In my book, it's telling me 9 for Scouts, 8 for regulars. And if you buy the units with power levels, you move up in increments of 3 as well - 3 Bikes, to 6 Bikes, to 8/9 Bikes.
Bikes max at 10. 8 Bikers and 1 Attack Bike, which is two marines. They Combat Squad from there into two units each containing 5 marines. Fair point of Scout Bikers. Power levels have no bearing on organization. Max is still 10 Biker marines.
Centurions are a degradation of the Marine line, and I toss them out for this discussion. Controversial, maybe, but they're obviously controversial themselves.
Not exactly lending your argument much faith when you're moving those goalposts.
You claimed that there were more Primaris units with awkward unit sizes. This is not true.
I don't believe I did. My claim was about proportion. My claim remains about common army appearance, organization and expectations. My claim is about trends. You not understanding an argument doesn't mean goalposts have moved. It means you didn't understand the argument.
As for Centurions, if you don't accept that they are A: controversial, and B: against the classic trends, I'll just point out that exceptions to a trend do not mean the lack of a trend.
But the key is in your last statement. Proportionality counts. The mainline units, Veteran, Terminator, Tactical, Devastator, Assault, (Even Bikes maxed at 10), Scouts. Were all organized 5-10.
Primaris Eliminators, Inceptors, Aggressors, Suppressors all seem to be billed as mainline units, and they're not 5-10.
When I meant proportion, I meant that there are simply more non-Primaris units than Primaris ones, so with Primaris having a smaller product line, they stick out more.
Eliminators and Suppressors don't seem to be billed as mainline. The Aggressors and Inceptors, yes, because they're the nearest to the Terminator equivalent, but they're also able to be fielded in 5s.
So again, that's what, two "mainline" Primaris units against the Bikers (who are a mainline unit in an awkward size) - cool, that's one more Primaris unit than the regular ones. Not exactly enough to build a solid argument on, in my eyes.
As pointed out above, Bikers are actually 10. Suppressors seem to me to be mainline units, which would make this 0 - 3, not 1-2.
"When I meant proportion, I meant that there are simply more non-Primaris units than Primaris ones, so with Primaris having a smaller product line, they stick out more." Which is also my point about proportion. Primaris have a higer proportion of odd-sized units.
Is it? In my experience, most people are familiar enough to know that the Legions are organised differently (but still keep that Space Marine flavour enough that I've never seen anyone complain 'HOW DARE GW MAKE THESE IMPOSTER MARINES".
Even fewer people actually play it. Doctrinally Legions are completely different, built for a different scale of conflict.
As are the Primaris in 40k lore. They've been designed for a Great Crusade V2, as it were, with more Space Marines to play with fighting on a larger scale on conflict - but the key part is that they're STILL Space Marines. They still function like Astartes in how they act, how they fight, how they look - I really don't think that the embedding of special weapons in a unit is the cornerstone of what it is to be a Space Marine. In my eyes, that's NEVER been the important part - too many other armies do the same thing for it to be the "Marine thing".
Marines have been billed as flexible generalists since. . . at least since when I started 40K. Not being able to get decent anti-armor weapons in your squad makes a unit much less capable at being a "flexible generalist." Other factions being able to do it (many of them Imperial Factions) doesn't matter so much as marines having basically always followed that format.
Plus, when Games Workshop made Horus Hersey Box sets, guess what was in them. . . 10 Man Tactical Squads with Heavy Weapon and Special Weapon.
Aka Legion Veteran Squads. I mean, it's literally in how they built the cover models for Betrayal at Calth - 20 bolter Tacticals for the Word Bearers, and 10 mixed weapon Veterans for the Ultramarines.
And you know what? Even though I understand the Legion format having read about it on the forums. I never noticed that the Word Bearers forces were pictured as a 20 man bolter blob. I'm pretty sure they weren't pictured as that online. Certainly as the kit was advertised, they advertised the options in the kit. The optics of 20-man bolter-blob are just not common to the franchise. Chaos Marines can take squads of 20 but even they get specialists in there. And again, the kits were sold as 10 with Sergeant, Special and Heavy.
It's enough of a trend that it's obviously not simply random. That's what the thread is about. The OP is trying to describe where the dislike comes from, because it's hard to pin down. Impressions can be based on subtle things.
Subtle, yes. So when people make claims like "they're CLEARLY totally different from normal Marines!", does that sound like a subtle disliking?
A bunch of subtle things can add up to a not-subtle thing. Multiple minor deviations add up to a much larger deviation.
Again, I'm not saying that there is no reason to not like them at all, but I am saying whatever that difference is doesn't seem to be the silhouette of the models, because normal Marines do the same thing. It's not in their lack of embedded weaponry, because no-one complained about the Legion Marines "not being Marine-y". It's not in their aesthetic, because their armour designs are incredibly alike, and any new design features are usually ones already present on Marines.
It's not a case of "you aren't allowed to dislike them" - it's more "this reason has holes in it, maybe there another reason why you don't like it".
You not understanding the argument doesn't make the argument wrong. I believe the "silhouette argument" is essentially "Classic Marine units are primarily arranged around an identical core silhouette, that of Power Armor." The primary deviations are simply a variety of additions on top of that core silhouette. A bike is still, marine-in-power-armor, just on a bike. An Assault marine is marine-in-power-armor, with a Jump Pack. A Devastator is marine-in-power-armor, with a Heavy Weapon. The armor itself doesn't change. Yes, there are marks of armor that differ superficially in terms of decoration, but the silhouette of those marks is virtually identical, and more importantly, it doesn't change from unit to unit. Make a Mk4 army and you'll have identical Mk4 guys with different extras.
Like above, counting out a list does nothing to serve proportionality. Like I said before, 90ish (85ish, whatever) percent of a Chapter was a marine in some mark of Power Armor, and Power Armor is all interchangeable.
As is Primaris armour. As per the design notes, Primaris Marines all wear the same core aesthetic to their armour.
On the tabletop there are more deviations in armor silhouette.
You really want to attempt to discuss even more aesthetic differences between models with a stranger on the internet? Do you see how well this is going?
Honestly I'll just lean on the statistics of the model. A Repulsor has an . . . "extensive" array of various weapons on it. It's got a ton of bits and baubles on it, many of them with their own stats and minor deviations. Classic Marine vehicles are pretty straight forward with their form and armament. Box-with-turret. Box-with-sponsons-and-turret. Primaris vehicles have a bunch more bits and form-breakages and the details are less integrated, etc. You've probably seen the memes that poke fun of this. It's clear that there are others who observe the same differences.
I think this is a failing of Black Library, and a failing of "special weapons creep". I'd also note that I hardly ever saw Guardsmen on the table during 4th - 7th, because Marines (the most popular army) could just butcher them. Flamers, Whirlwinds, etc did horrific things to light troops, as did the Sweeping Advance rules. Marines become "not marine-like" when they're surrounded by tanks and super weapons. Which is fine, imo. I played Epic. Dudes got killed by the bundle. On a good table under controlled settings, I find Marines perform acceptably vs. light and average troops.
Whereas I find that the lack of almost that safety blanket of the extra wound makes Marines feel a lot less durable than they should. I think Kill Team gets it very right with the Transhuman Physiology rules. It makes Astartes feel a lot more, well, Astartes-y, without necessarily needing that extra wound. Of course, this couldn't work for 40k, so I think the extra wound is a nice stopgap.
Inability for individual units to be armed against a variety of targets makes them less Astartes-ey, to me.
Some people don't like Primaris. There are legitimate reasons to not like the addition of Primaris armies to 40K.
Absolutely, but it gets tiresome to hear it over and over and over again. especially when many of the reasons given are based along poor logic at best.
don't get me wrong, losing the paradime of the classic marine trio of tac, assault and devestator is something I 100% agree would be a shame and thematicly I like that lay out, but running around saying "PRIMARIS MARINES HAVE X THEY'VE NEVER HAD X" when they've had X for 25 years.. etc it comes off as simply intellctually dishonest. A lot of the resistance to Primaris Marines is, to be brutally honest, just resistance to change. Even before Primaris Marines came out I'd noticed that regarding Space Marines a lot of players are inheriantly pretty conservitive. And I'm not talking their politics but rather they're resistant to new additions to the line. you saw it with the stormhawk, with centurions, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not enough of a counter. Occasional drawing (can you find it/them?) is no match for fieldable units for ascertaining army/faction identity.
Since you asked
they where also described as using grav land raiders back in the day.
Personally I think people who claim Primaris are more Tau like while ignoring the custodes vehicle range are a bit odd. Primaris tanks may be grav it's true but they maintain the Imperial Aestetic, Bulky, somewhat crude looking etc. Custodes stuff is all smooth lines etc. Mix a custodes grav tank in with a buncha Tau units and tell someone whose never seen them ebfore it's a new tau tank and they might belive it
Some people don't like Primaris. There are legitimate reasons to not like the addition of Primaris armies to 40K.
Absolutely, but it gets tiresome to hear it over and over and over again. especially when many of the reasons given are based along poor logic at best.
don't get me wrong, losing the paradime of the classic marine trio of tac, assault and devestator is something I 100% agree would be a shame and thematicly I like that lay out, but running around saying "PRIMARIS MARINES HAVE X THEY'VE NEVER HAD X" when they've had X for 25 years.. etc it comes off as simply intellctually dishonest. A lot of the resistance to Primaris Marines is, to be brutally honest, just resistance to change. Even before Primaris Marines came out I'd noticed that regarding Space Marines a lot of players are inheriantly pretty conservitive. And I'm not talking their politics but rather they're resistant to new additions to the line. you saw it with the stormhawk, with centurions, etc.
Personally that's because a lot of changes are in some way silly/stupid or just added for the sake of adding things. For example the new Invictor is something I find stupid because the pilot is easily hit by anything so rather than being a good heavy lifter unit it just seems like something that makes infiltration harder for no gain.
Another example is Centurions, they were just added in as "Oh look Marines have had these all along except some of them don't have them." It comes across as just adding a unit to sell things with almost no effort. It wouldn't have been hard to write some lore about how Centurion suits were made as an attempt to get around Terminator suits being hard to make and they ended up with what's a discount terminator suit for younger Chapters.
Then are things like Stormwolves which just look awful and confuse me. Why not just use a Stormraven for transport like everyone else? It actually fits with their aesthetic.
every new unit added to codex space marines has been "ohh look space marines have ahd these all along, except some don't get them" the thudnerfire canon? had all along but for some reason DAs, BAs and SWs don't have. when they where introduced DAs, BAs and SWs couldn't use tarantos or cataphracti terminators, despite visual evidance that those terminators where indeed owned by the chapters etc
Some people don't like Primaris. There are legitimate reasons to not like the addition of Primaris armies to 40K.
Absolutely, but it gets tiresome to hear it over and over and over again. especially when many of the reasons given are based along poor logic at best.
don't get me wrong, losing the paradime of the classic marine trio of tac, assault and devestator is something I 100% agree would be a shame and thematicly I like that lay out, but running around saying "PRIMARIS MARINES HAVE X THEY'VE NEVER HAD X" when they've had X for 25 years.. etc it comes off as simply intellctually dishonest. A lot of the resistance to Primaris Marines is, to be brutally honest, just resistance to change. Even before Primaris Marines came out I'd noticed that regarding Space Marines a lot of players are inheriantly pretty conservitive. And I'm not talking their politics but rather they're resistant to new additions to the line. you saw it with the stormhawk, with centurions, etc.
I'd argue half of that is in response to the fact that they're ugly AF. Add salt but they're more "toylike". Like, the Vindicator was added and it's a rhino variant, no biggie. The Land Raider additions are Land Raider variants, no biggie. I'm okay with the Storm Raven in concept but I feel the need to build my own because I just can't stand the model. I get that Space Marines themselves are somewhat inherently goofy, but it's a well established level of goofy. Centurions, like Dreadknights, go to far with it. Forge World makes a ton of new Space Marine units, but they're more "serious" in tone and execution, even if the setting itself is inherently goofy.
Personally at least, half of my resistance to new marine units is because I'd rather see new Necron Units, or Eldar Aspect Warriors in plastic, or just something not marines, marines, marines all the time. But I get it, it's a business. I just wonder if the setting doesn't suffer because marines get soooo much attention. Like, as a marine player I feel marines are suffering because they get too much attention. First world problems, I know, but I hope you get my drift.
"especially when many of the reasons given are based along poor logic at best. " It's a difficult thing to explain. Made waaay more difficult by the ease in which disingenuous "gotcha" arguments can be made. But it is interesting from a design standpoint. But I don't know specifically which arguments you are referring to, so maybe I shouldn't presume. I'm sure dumb things have been said, too.
Edit: @ the Custodes picture. LOL, I guess I do remember that from. . . somewhere. The literal flying Rhino.
About Custodes in general. . . I dunno. I'm not particularly fond of them either, but at least I could sorta ignore them. It's very hard to Ignore Primaris when my Chapter Master* has become one, and they're billed as replacements for my army.
Like, as a marine player I feel marines are suffering because they get too much attention. First world problems, I know, but I hope you get my drift.
I get it very much. I rememebr when Primaris Marines first came out there being discussions about the need for them. And I'm very much of the opinion that we've got Primaris not because they wanna discard the old line, but because the old line is done, finished, complete. GW's ran out of places to go with old marines without going with hyper specialized stuff that began to be a bit.. off. things like well. centurions. So Primaris are the solution
Like, as a marine player I feel marines are suffering because they get too much attention. First world problems, I know, but I hope you get my drift.
I get it very much. I rememebr when Primaris Marines first came out there being discussions about the need for them. And I'm very much of the opinion that we've got Primaris not because they wanna discard the old line, but because the old line is done, finished, complete. GW's ran out of places to go with old marines without going with hyper specialized stuff that began to be a bit.. off. things like well. centurions. So Primaris are the solution
Totally agree. And if it becomes clear that Primaris are not replacing classics, I will stop complaining.
Totally agree. And if it becomes clear that Primaris are not replacing classics, I will stop complaining.
Is the old marines staying on life support via some sort of legacy rule support PDFs like the discontinued Fantasy armies and models good enough for you? Because that's what's probably going to happen in the long run. The new codex is pretty clear that in the lore the old marines are being phased away and I'm sure the game will follow with that eventually.
old marines being phasd out is a long term thing, I imagine we've got ten years minimum before that happens. Maybe longer. The "core" marine unit kits are actually still pretty new. (about 5 years old) so GW's got lots of life left in them. The things that to my mind should be the biggest worry are units unique to space marines with old kits. I expect the rhino, vindicator predator and base land raider are gonna be fine, given CSMs still use them, and SOBs use rhinos (we know a new sisters rhino is in development, expect to see the base new rhino used to give chaos rhinos, predators etc a face lift) what could be phased out of production is the razorback, whirlwind and other ancient SM kits that no one else uses.
IMHO it'd be in the best intreasts of loyalist marine players to call, loudly, for whirlwinds, razorbacks and the Land raider varients, to be given to chaos
Personally I think people who claim Primaris are more Tau like while ignoring the custodes vehicle range are a bit odd. Primaris tanks may be grav it's true but they maintain the Imperial Aestetic, Bulky, somewhat crude looking etc. Custodes stuff is all smooth lines etc. Mix a custodes grav tank in with a buncha Tau units and tell someone whose never seen them ebfore it's a new tau tank and they might belive it
Again, Custodes having all that a-grav was supposed to show how exceptional they are.
Kaiyanwang wrote: Bring into the discussion the Custodes is weird. They were supposed to be extremely rare and elite, something unique to the throne. The use of the anti-grav tech for them is more to bring home this point, and contrast with the rest of the imperium. When everyone is special, none is.
They have more refined anti-grav that doesn't turn sand into glass from the pressure.
That's cool, and cool to know, too, but it's not really that huge or visible of a difference.
Asherian Command wrote: I mean technically we had a veteran unit of primaris intercessors.... as a stratagem! Hurrah?
That certainly was somewhat unsatisfying way to handle it. I hope that we get dedicated veteran units and kits later.
I agree, it's a bit like Skarboyz and Ardboyz for the orks, especially in execution rule-wise for the latter. But I agree this will improve over time at least for the marines.
BrianDavion wrote: old marines being phasd out is a long term thing, I imagine we've got ten years minimum before that happens. Maybe longer. The "core" marine unit kits are actually still pretty new. (about 5 years old) so GW's got lots of life left in them.
If we're talking the lifespan of Warp Spiders, we're talking 15 more years.
When will the complaining stop? Next year? Maybe the one after that?
Oceans of tears and enough whinging to birth a new Chaos God. That's what most of this topic has been.
You'll all be glad to hear I've accumulated over 4k points of Primaris. Doing my part to support GW.
I don't like every model of course, and I don't buy the ones I don't care for. I just don't feel the need to complain about them in every topic, or whinge about the lore as though 40k was some biblical text mired in unchangeable Dogma.
Of course it should be said that not everyone is this way. There are some valid criticisms. Shame there's an even greater number of unreasonable, biased and repetitive complaining.
Ishagu wrote: When will the complaining stop? Next year? Maybe the one after that? Oceans of tears and enough whinging to birth a new Chaos God. That's what most of this topic has been.
You'll all be glad to hear I've accumulated over 4k points of Primaris. Doing my part to support GW. I don't like every model of course, and I don't buy the ones I don't care for. I just don't feel the need to complain about them in every topic, or whinge about the lore as though 40k was some biblical text mired in unchangeable Dogma.
Of course it should be said that not everyone is this way. There are some valid criticisms. Shame there's an even greater number of unreasonable, biased and repetitive complaining.
Did you see me or other post in the "I love primaris" thread? Nope. This is a thread that asked what people feel is wrong in the line. The rest of the answers and the long discussion happened because for some unexplained reason, criticize the line is nothing short of blasphemous. People express their opinion on the new models and lore. Myself I find most of the new lines of the recent years outright excellent (Mechanicus, Genestealers) or good with few observations (Death Guard, they went too far with the horns and some model is too cartoony). It would be inopportune to spam a primaris appreciation thread with criticism, but your inability to accept that other people can have a different opinion on the line is baffling. I recommend you to grow a thicker skin. Also FYI - in the moment you accept other's opinion and stop with dismissive tone, snide comments, and outright refusal of even acknowledge other's point, you see people will not feel the need of repeating their point after being defined "haters". Cosi, consiglio per quando sarai piú grande.
Ishagu wrote: When will the complaining stop? Next year? Maybe the one after that?
Oceans of tears and enough whinging to birth a new Chaos God. That's what most of this topic has been.
You'll all be glad to hear I've accumulated over 4k points of Primaris. Doing my part to support GW.
I don't like every model of course, and I don't buy the ones I don't care for. I just don't feel the need to complain about them in every topic, or whinge about the lore as though 40k was some biblical text mired in unchangeable Dogma.
Of course it should be said that not everyone is this way. There are some valid criticisms. Shame there's an even greater number of unreasonable, biased and repetitive complaining.
I'm wondering when the last time was that you got to sit at the adult table.
Ishagu wrote: When will the complaining stop? Next year? Maybe the one after that?
Oceans of tears and enough whinging to birth a new Chaos God. That's what most of this topic has been.
You'll all be glad to hear I've accumulated over 4k points of Primaris. Doing my part to support GW.
I don't like every model of course, and I don't buy the ones I don't care for. I just don't feel the need to complain about them in every topic, or whinge about the lore as though 40k was some biblical text mired in unchangeable Dogma.
Of course it should be said that not everyone is this way. There are some valid criticisms. Shame there's an even greater number of unreasonable, biased and repetitive complaining.
I'm wondering when the last time was that you got to sit at the adult table.
Probably the last time someone cried about Primaris replacing their Manlet Marines and when people created dumb arguments regarding customization as though torsos being rotated was the be-all-end-all for that. Oh and the weapons options that aren't used for your Tactical Marinea because everyone used the more specialized squads. Hard to imagine, huh?
I think anyone that comes into this thread with the idea that "Oh primaris is completely fine and all of you are toxic! and its all your fault for not liking them!"
Is just a toxic opinion ignore them, they are adding nothing to the discussion but unneeded discourse.
Overall most people agree : Primaris are too new and have varied of issues that face them. IE their kits are bland and boring, their models are all monoposed, they are too specailized, lack variety in their gear from their kits, and etc. There are so many different problems facing primaris.
Again this is an opinion thread people voicing their concerns with Primaris, and telling people "No your completely wrong, and your toxic cause you don't like it! While I HAAVE ALLL THESE THINGS MAKES YOU WRONG!" Is horribly toxic behavior for a poster, do not confront ignore them or this thread will meet an early grave.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: but but but being able to rotate the torso a half degree is vital to customization!
Making fun of an opinion isn't winning you any brownie points.
Yes cause primaris kits totally let you have customization from the base model that does not require additional skills like conversion or green stuff mastery
Primaris are harder to convert because they are so bland and because their ktis are all monoposed. Saying "Oh well they have more poses on base!" Is false cause marine kits are all universal, you can combine any space marine power armored kit with itself and you have a myraid of options, you do not have any of those options with primaris with torso or leg swaps because they are all monoposed.
Also I should note that the varity of marine stuff is only due to the varity of kits, give it time for people to cobble together elements of other kits and I bet we'll see some impressive conversions for Primaris.
BrianDavion wrote: but but but being able to rotate the torso a half degree is vital to customization!
No, it's convenient.
I wish also to add that this is exactly the type of answer that makes you come out as immature in a thread concerning plastic space soldiers.
BrianDavion wrote: Also I should note that the varity of marine stuff is only due to the varity of kits, give it time for people to cobble together elements of other kits and I bet we'll see some impressive conversions for Primaris.
Yet we don't. Its been what two years now? Primaris Captains only have two real kits and those are all monoposed... Then we have the primaris gravis captain which still has the same equipment from the dark imperium box. The Intercessors all still have the same equipment and their kits are eriely similar to the dark imperium kit. Instead we have twenty kits of Primaris LTs.
Spoiler:
Primaris intercessors bodies are all connected at the pelvis leaving a lot of issues for people who want to kit bash, yeah you can swap heads, but that isn't really the depth that current marine kits offer, even the first tactical marine kits of 3rd edition had a ton of options and their legs can be placed at any angle along with the torso being twisted to follow the movement. Unforunately without greenstuff you can't do that with primaris.
Especially if create dioramas it is crucial to have control of the torso to follow the motion, especially for special characters.
If your like me I take the challenge of combining multiple kits and spare parts to create special characters. Primaris do not offer that option as of current as their characters are not unique enough and do not have custom kits that allow for customization. Along with the primaris kits not having a variety of gear to choose from. And so each and every single primaris army comes out looking exactly the same and uniform across chapter lines. Even with upgrades they will still come out bland because of the lack of torso movement and lack of leg movement.
(you can see me trying to do that in this : https://imgur.com/gallery/olqgI4T where I try to make the poses far more dynamic as they currently lack a flow to their character) most if not all current primaris kits are relatively passive in their design and pose. Compared to the more active kits that you can do with the older kits because of torso, legs, and arm placement.
ohh yeah I agree the character rules are garbage, but that's a "40k as a whole" trend rather then primaris specificly sadly. I've said it before and I'll say it again, EVERY HQ needs a box like the space marine commander
Whilst I agree that the lack of options for Primaris characters suck, and that there could be more variety in the bits, the torso and legs being in one piece is a good move. Yes, you could twist the torso of the old models, but they looked like gak. The abdomen was always completely fethed, if you turned the torso. The belt buckle wandered into strange places and the cables on the stomach remained straight even though the torso was turned. It just looked like crap, sorry. The Primaris models actually have abdomen and waist detail that looks good.
BrianDavion wrote: ohh yeah I agree the character rules are garbage, but that's a "40k as a whole" trend rather then primaris specificly sadly. I've said it before and I'll say it again, EVERY HQ needs a box like the space marine commander
I mean farseers lack options cause they are stupidly powerful already and have a variety of rules they can take to be fluffy : either witch blades, a jetbike, or singing spear. While autarchs have a ton of choices probably more than the entire primas range of characters. I think most frontline commands and the 'face' of the codex as I call them should have the most options. Specialists like Libarians, Chaplains, Farseers, Warlocks, Spirit Seers, Mek Boys, Chaos Sorcerers should have less equipment to pick as they are for certain tasks.
BrianDavion wrote: ohh yeah I agree the character rules are garbage, but that's a "40k as a whole" trend rather then primaris specificly sadly. I've said it before and I'll say it again, EVERY HQ needs a box like the space marine commander
I mean farseers lack options cause they are stupidly powerful already and have a variety of rules they can take to be fluffy : either witch blades, a jetbike, or singing spear. While autarchs have a ton of choices probably more than the entire primas range of characters. I think most frontline commands and the 'face' of the codex as I call them should have the most options. Specialists like Libarians, Chaplains, Farseers, Warlocks, Spirit Seers, Mek Boys, Chaos Sorcerers should have less equipment to pick as they are for certain tasks.
Probably the last time someone cried about Primaris replacing their Manlet Marines and when people created dumb arguments regarding customization as though torsos being rotated was the be-all-end-all for that. Oh and the weapons options that aren't used for your Tactical Marinea because everyone used the more specialized squads. Hard to imagine, huh?
I still love my little man marines, and I always will. for the salty haters, may your models ever break and paint always be found dry upon opening them. I curse you.
robbienw wrote: The 'squatting' knees braced firing/ready to fire stance is actually quite realistic.
Wot?
Primaris criticism went so far into complete bias it's not even comical, it's wrong. Here, have actual Navy Seal firing machine gun:
Spoiler:
You might notice that despite firing something with significantly bigger kick than a standard infantry gun, he somehow doesn't use "methinks I will take dump soon" squatters have, it's "standing at ease" Primaris do. In fact, I have NEVER seen any actual, qualified soldier do comical 'legs squatting, gun extended to side' SM used to do. You extend the gun to the front, like the guy above, or Primaris, but fine, feel free to contradict reality by providing ONE picture of oldmarine pose done by someone actually competent.
Insectum7 wrote: There are legitimate reasons to not like the addition of Primaris armies to 40K.
Name one. No, 'not knowing how anatomy works' is not one. Ditto for 'I actually don't know any real fluff, but my imaginary fanon trumps both it and common sense'.
Insectum7 wrote: There is a threat that my primary army will die.
Yup, and that's why squatmarines got massive buffs in the new Codex, while Primaris got almost nothing, not even melee weapons on reivers everyone asked for last 3 years-- Oh, wait I forgot, common sense doesn't exist anymore, it's all FUD and flat earth grade conspiracy theories these days
Name one. No, 'not knowing how anatomy works' is not one. Ditto for 'I actually don't know any real fluff, but my imaginary fanon trumps both it and common sense'.
Name one. No, 'not knowing how anatomy works' is not one. Ditto for 'I actually don't know any real fluff, but my imaginary fanon trumps both it and common sense'.
What does that mean?
it means if you claim Old Marines are more anatomicly correct well you obviously don't know how anatomy works or claiming that Primaris are bad because of some assumption you have about the setting that... isn't actually true conflicts with them theyr'e bad arguments
Name one. No, 'not knowing how anatomy works' is not one. Ditto for 'I actually don't know any real fluff, but my imaginary fanon trumps both it and common sense'.
What does that mean?
it means if you claim Old Marines are more anatomicly correct well you obviously don't know how anatomy works or claiming that Primaris are bad because of some assumption you have about the setting that... isn't actually true conflicts with them theyr'e bad arguments
Someone made that claim thats crazy, Primaris are better proptioned yes but their kit is limiting.
Insectum7 wrote: There are legitimate reasons to not like the addition of Primaris armies to 40K.
Name one. No, 'not knowing how anatomy works' is not one. Ditto for 'I actually don't know any real fluff, but my imaginary fanon trumps both it and common sense'.
Point out where I've made either of those arguments.
Crimson wrote: Whilst I agree that the lack of options for Primaris characters suck, and that there could be more variety in the bits, the torso and legs being in one piece is a good move. Yes, you could twist the torso of the old models, but they looked like gak. The abdomen was always completely fethed, if you turned the torso. The belt buckle wandered into strange places and the cables on the stomach remained straight even though the torso was turned. It just looked like crap, sorry. The Primaris models actually have abdomen and waist detail that looks good.
Yeah the tyre tread stomach armour does not look good. The flexi waist armour on the new CSM models is far better, if you want to do flexible stomach armour that way.
Turning the torso on classic marines doesn’t look bad, as long as you don’t twist it out of a reasonable range in the style of a newb. The belt buckle doesn’t have to be fixed at the fixed at the waist, it’s not there to cinch the power armoured trousers of a space marine so they don’t fall down I assume it can be attached to the stomach armour itself and the whole torso can turn, like it is the hem of a shirt.
The new codex is pretty clear that in the lore the old marines are being phased away and I'm sure the game will follow with that eventually.
It’s really not. The codex is very clear (in fluff terms) that classic units are essential. At this point it seems like they will not phase them out or will produce direct Primaris versions of classic units in the longer term future.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: I think anyone that comes into this thread with the idea that "Oh primaris is completely fine and all of you are toxic! and its all your fault for not liking them!"
Is just a toxic opinion ignore them, they are adding nothing to the discussion but unneeded discourse.
Overall most people agree : Primaris are too new and have varied of issues that face them. IE their kits are bland and boring, their models are all monoposed, they are too specailized, lack variety in their gear from their kits, and etc. There are so many different problems facing primaris.
Again this is an opinion thread people voicing their concerns with Primaris, and telling people "No your completely wrong, and your toxic cause you don't like it! While I HAAVE ALLL THESE THINGS MAKES YOU WRONG!" Is horribly toxic behavior for a poster, do not confront ignore them or this thread will meet an early grave.
Quite right on all points.
One thing I find odd about this section of Primaris fans (it’s only a very small minority of course, most are fine with or still like classics) is their desire to see the classic marine line shutdown. Why would anyone want this? If you don’t want to collect them fine, you don’t have to. But hoping for them to be discontinued is spiteful, you are basically taking pleasure in the thought of other people armies being invalidated. That’s a bit weird.
BrianDavion wrote: but but but being able to rotate the torso a half degree is vital to customization!
No, it's convenient.
I wish also to add that this is exactly the type of answer that makes you come out as immature in a thread concerning plastic space soldiers.
No it isn’t. It’s a common sense answer. Twisty but not bendy = infinitely customisable. Fixed waist in realistic pose = monopose. It’s a Nonsense. You don’t respond to logic so sarcasm is the only way to get it across to you.
Insectum7. I wasn’t responding to you sorry didn’t make it clear. It was this character is receding to.
Insectum7 wrote:Some people don't like Primaris. There are legitimate reasons to not like the addition of Primaris armies to 40K. Here is an OP attempting to define what he/she doesn't like about them.
Can't speak for everyone, but this is fine. It's absolutely fine to not like Primaris. And I certainly approve of saying "attempting to define" - because that's what I believe is happening. It's not a case of saying "no, you're not allowed to dislike Primaris!!", it's a "you give this reason for disliking them, but this is incongruent with XYZ"
It's more a case of "you're cool to not like Primaris, but your logic for it is confusing".
Cue responses "There's no difference!", when there plainly are.
This I disagree with. There cannot "plainly" be a difference if about 50% of people in this thread are saying that there isn't one.
Maybe it's plain to you, but clearly not to everyone - which, in the general sense, means it's not plain overall.
We could have an adult discussion about it, I find it pretty interesting, personally. But no, we're all 'haters' apparently.
Whichever side of this you fall on, calling people haters is a bad call. Disagree by all means, point out flaws in arguments, but reducing people to just "haters" isn't exactly fair.
"You have failed to give any reasons why they aren’t imperial enough for you."
Imperial = land vehicles, few exceptions. Primaris = all skimmers (like Eldar and Tau) For starters. Non-mix squad options is another.
But Orks also have land vehicles! Are Orks Imperial?
Also, Custodes have flying vehicles. Sisters of Silence have skimmers. Admech have skimmers.
What the Imperium don't have is widespread skimmers, but they do have them, and always have. But adding another three is breaking the identity of the Imperium? Or is it just because they're Primaris?
"They haven’t done anything that any other major release has done to the game or setting." No other faction release has threatened to replace the army collections and lore of an existing faction. Squats were written out, but Squats were not replaced. Classic Space Marines, according to some in this thread, are being actively replaced in the lore. There is a threat that my primary army will die. This isn't an odd-build army like a White Scars all-biker army that only lasts for 2 editions, or like a Kroot List army available for a short time during 4th. This is an army that has been playable since Rogue Trader, and has seen immense stability for that entire time. Tactical Squads, Devastator Squads, Terminator Squads etc. are virtually unchanged since that time. And there is a real threat that they will go away. That IS a difference. THAT is why this is a hot topic.
So far, GW have made no attempt to remove classic Marines. They still sell them, still have rules for them, still give them stratagems. Sure, Primaris Marines are on the front covers, but so are Ultramarines. GW aren't replacing everything with Ultramarines.
Insectum7 wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In the artwork we've had for Custodes, which was around long before they had a model line, they were depicted as having anti-grav tanks.
Not enough of a counter. Occasional drawing (can you find it/them?) is no match for fieldable units for ascertaining army/faction identity.
Why is this not a sufficient counter? Custodes have had flying units for ages. Space Marines have had playable flying units for ages (which tells me that, while they're rare, the core aesthetic of Space Marine vehicles doesn't revolve around their altitude above ground).
I think this is a case of us simply not agreeing what the core identity of the Space Marines even is, which is fine - it just means that we can't really claim things like "core aesthetic" when neither of us can actually agree on it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In my book, it's telling me 9 for Scouts, 8 for regulars. And if you buy the units with power levels, you move up in increments of 3 as well - 3 Bikes, to 6 Bikes, to 8/9 Bikes.
Bikes max at 10. 8 Bikers and 1 Attack Bike, which is two marines.
If we're counting Attack Bikes then, the Attack Bikes entry is even more weird - unit starts at 1 Bike (2 men) and can only go up to 3 (6 men)!
This is the first edition where Company Vets/Command Squads didn't minimum at 5.
And now they are.
Moot, the trend remains set, and the max remains 5.
Sorry, it's changed. The max might be 5, but I can take Aggressors in a unit of 5 too. However, they still start at a weird size *now*, and so comparing them to modern units, I should be fair and use modern datasheets.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You claimed that there were more Primaris units with awkward unit sizes. This is not true.
I don't believe I did. My claim was about proportion. My claim remains about common army appearance, organization and expectations. My claim is about trends. You not understanding an argument doesn't mean goalposts have moved. It means you didn't understand the argument.
Okay, there's a higher *proportion* of Primaris units who are unusually sized, but there's just as many (if not more) unusually sized normal units - the only thing offsetting that is the fact that Marines have an incredibly large unit pool to pick from.
Therefore, because these units exist at all, I don't think that Space Marines being in regular 5/10 man units is a key part of their identity.
As for Centurions, if you don't accept that they are A: controversial, and B: against the classic trends, I'll just point out that exceptions to a trend do not mean the lack of a trend.
In which case, couldn't I just claim "well, clearly XYZ Primaris units are against classic trends, so actually, you'll find that excluding these inconvenient units, Primaris actually have a 5/10 man unit trend!!"
This is my whole point. It's fine not to like Primaris, but you can't just say things you don't like about Primaris when those same things are present in the models you're defending. That's just hypocritical.
Trying to hide Centurions and pretend they don't exist for the purpose of your argument is in poor faith.
As pointed out above, Bikers are actually 10.
And as I've pointed out, Attack Bikes are 6.
Suppressors seem to me to be mainline units, which would make this 0 - 3, not 1-2.
I disagree. They don't seem to be mainline units to me.
Marines have been billed as flexible generalists since. . . at least since when I started 40K.
They have for me too - but that wasn't ever true on tabletop, at least, not accurately. Guardsmen, Orks, and Sisters of Battle all embodied the same kind of mixed weapon squads, and so because of that, that was not settled as the USP of Space Marines for me. And then when 30k came out, and I still thought of the 30k Legionnaires as "Space Marines", I knew that it wasn't their mixed weaponry or anything like that that made them "Space Marines".
Not being able to get decent anti-armor weapons in your squad makes a unit much less capable at being a "flexible generalist." Other factions being able to do it (many of them Imperial Factions) doesn't matter so much as marines having basically always followed that format.
Except for Legions.
And again, the fact that other Imperial factions were doing it too just tells me that the whole "mixed weapons" thing wasn't a selling point that made Space Marines special, it was just how GW made squads at the time.
The optics of 20-man bolter-blob are just not common to the franchise.
Exactly - to the whole franchise, because it wasn't just Space Marines who had mixed weapon squads. Hell, the Imperium wasn't even the only faction who could.
Mixed weapons were a franchise feature, not a "Space Marines" feature, and as a result, I don't think it's key to the Space Marine identity.
And again, the kits were sold as 10 with Sergeant, Special and Heavy.
Because those kits could *also* be used to make Legion Veteran Tactical Squads, or 40k Tactical Squads, or just to add some bits.
A bunch of subtle things can add up to a not-subtle thing. Multiple minor deviations add up to a much larger deviation.
Which is fine, but when a majority of those subtle things are also present in the Marine range (which really brings into question the idea of deviation), can't you see how that's a little bit illogical?
You not understanding the argument doesn't make the argument wrong. I believe the "silhouette argument" is essentially "Classic Marine units are primarily arranged around an identical core silhouette, that of Power Armor." The primary deviations are simply a variety of additions on top of that core silhouette. A bike is still, marine-in-power-armor, just on a bike. An Assault marine is marine-in-power-armor, with a Jump Pack. A Devastator is marine-in-power-armor, with a Heavy Weapon. The armor itself doesn't change. Yes, there are marks of armor that differ superficially in terms of decoration, but the silhouette of those marks is virtually identical, and more importantly, it doesn't change from unit to unit. Make a Mk4 army and you'll have identical Mk4 guys with different extras.
Which is fine - but as far as I see, Primaris do this too. So why the double standard?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As is Primaris armour. As per the design notes, Primaris Marines all wear the same core aesthetic to their armour.
On the tabletop there are more deviations in armor silhouette.
Not to me. In fact, old Marines have a larger degree of differentiation to me.
Honestly I'll just lean on the statistics of the model. A Repulsor has an . . . "extensive" array of various weapons on it. It's got a ton of bits and baubles on it, many of them with their own stats and minor deviations. Classic Marine vehicles are pretty straight forward with their form and armament. Box-with-turret. Box-with-sponsons-and-turret. Primaris vehicles have a bunch more bits and form-breakages and the details are less integrated, etc. You've probably seen the memes that poke fun of this. It's clear that there are others who observe the same differences.
But the core Repulsor (and Repulsor Executioner) is still "box with turret". The auto-launchers and various storm bolters and such are either built into the box itself, or are no more intrusive than smoke launchers and hunter-killer missiles on older vehicles.
Maybe that's because I don't stick any of the baggage and stuff on the flanks, but they're optional bits, but like how the classic marine vehicles also have various tow cables and crates which can be glued on.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Inability for individual units to be armed against a variety of targets makes them less Astartes-ey, to me.
Whereas I feel that the ability to engage multiple targets to varying degree of effectiveness is not important to the Astartes identity.
Kaiyanwang
Spoiler:
Kaiyanwang wrote:Did you see me or other post in the "I love primaris" thread? Nope.
This is a thread that asked what people feel is wrong in the line. The rest of the answers and the long discussion happened because for some unexplained reason, criticize the line is nothing short of blasphemous.
If people have said that, I disagree with them. What I *have* said is "give your reasons for why you don't like them, and you're welcome to it, but I will point out that your arguments may also apply to classic marines too".
It would be inopportune to spam a primaris appreciation thread with criticism, but your inability to accept that other people can have a different opinion on the line is baffling.
Again, there's nothing wrong with a different opinion. But when people invent facts to support those opinions, what's wrong with calling out and discussing those points?
Asherian Command
Spoiler:
Asherian Command wrote:I think anyone that comes into this thread with the idea that "Oh primaris is completely fine and all of you are toxic! and its all your fault for not liking them!"
Is just a toxic opinion ignore them, they are adding nothing to the discussion but unneeded discourse.
Overall most people agree : Primaris are too new and have varied of issues that face them. IE their kits are bland and boring, their models are all monoposed, they are too specailized, lack variety in their gear from their kits, and etc. There are so many different problems facing primaris.
Again this is an opinion thread people voicing their concerns with Primaris, and telling people "No your completely wrong, and your toxic cause you don't like it! While I HAAVE ALLL THESE THINGS MAKES YOU WRONG!" Is horribly toxic behavior for a poster, do not confront ignore them or this thread will meet an early grave.
Agreed. No need to say someone's opinion is wrong. Maybe their reasoning is faulty, but if that's what they believe, who has the right to say they're not allowed that.
Discuss it, debate it, but move on from actually attacking an opinion.
Primaris are harder to convert because they are so bland and because their ktis are all monoposed. Saying "Oh well they have more poses on base!" Is false cause marine kits are all universal, you can combine any space marine power armored kit with itself and you have a myraid of options, you do not have any of those options with primaris with torso or leg swaps because they are all monoposed.
I wouldn't call them bland. I'm not fussed about the lack of torso swaps, because most would be covered by a bolter anyways, and the various leg/torso poses can be made incredibly versatile simply by choice of arm positioning and head direction - so while you might have a fixed position on the body, the arms and head can really bring all that same flavour a rotated torso can. And again, there were still limits on where you could angle a torso with old Marines.
Asherian Command wrote:Primaris intercessors bodies are all connected at the pelvis leaving a lot of issues for people who want to kit bash, yeah you can swap heads, but that isn't really the depth that current marine kits offer, even the first tactical marine kits of 3rd edition had a ton of options and their legs can be placed at any angle along with the torso being twisted to follow the movement. Unforunately without greenstuff you can't do that with primaris.
Especially if create dioramas it is crucial to have control of the torso to follow the motion, especially for special characters.
If your like me I take the challenge of combining multiple kits and spare parts to create special characters. Primaris do not offer that option as of current as their characters are not unique enough and do not have custom kits that allow for customization. Along with the primaris kits not having a variety of gear to choose from. And so each and every single primaris army comes out looking exactly the same and uniform across chapter lines. Even with upgrades they will still come out bland because of the lack of torso movement and lack of leg movement.
(you can see me trying to do that in this : https://imgur.com/gallery/olqgI4T where I try to make the poses far more dynamic as they currently lack a flow to their character) most if not all current primaris kits are relatively passive in their design and pose. Compared to the more active kits that you can do with the older kits because of torso, legs, and arm placement.
Whereas I don't have the same experience. The Primaris designs are very well done in my eyes, as head placement and arm positioning can drastically change nearly any posing of the models.
And I'd also like to add, this isn't just a Primaris issue. This is an *every new HQ* issue. In fact, Primaris actually have some of the best "monopose" sculpts out there in terms of conversion potential.
So yes, while they are less customisable, they're no worse than any modern HQ kit.
Also, I like what you've done with your guys.
robbienw
Spoiler:
robbienw wrote:One thing I find odd about this section of Primaris fans (it’s only a very small minority of course, most are fine with or still like classics) is their desire to see the classic marine line shutdown. Why would anyone want this? If you don’t want to collect them fine, you don’t have to. But hoping for them to be discontinued is spiteful, you are basically taking pleasure in the thought of other people armies being invalidated. That’s a bit weird.
Agreed. I wouldn't want old marines shut down unless there were immediate and unit accurate replacements (ie, you can get rid of the Tactical Squad models when they run dry, but at least hold on to the unit entry).
Ishagu wrote: When will the complaining stop? Next year? Maybe the one after that?
Oceans of tears and enough whinging to birth a new Chaos God. That's what most of this topic has been.
You'll all be glad to hear I've accumulated over 4k points of Primaris. Doing my part to support GW.
I don't like every model of course, and I don't buy the ones I don't care for. I just don't feel the need to complain about them in every topic, or whinge about the lore as though 40k was some biblical text mired in unchangeable Dogma.
Of course it should be said that not everyone is this way. There are some valid criticisms. Shame there's an even greater number of unreasonable, biased and repetitive complaining.
?? I don't fault anyone the love of their models or army, but you need to stop faulting people who don't love the idea of rebuying thousands of dollars worth of numarines. I have done my part to support GW over decades with many armies and many thousands of dollars worth of product I don't even know how much but I don't see why anyone should bend over backwards to support a company that won't support you.
I really don't think many care if you or anyone love or hate primaris people just want their investment of money and time respected and appreciated and support for the old marines continued, even if just in actually thought out rule support. Thats all it takes to respect the vets and give them reason to dip into the primaris pool or just re divert buys into other armies in the system. I don't mind feeling like my marine armies are done and aside from rules I don't need to buy more models for them.
Some do like the old marines though, and without the fluff this game would have been sunk long ago, it's system is shallow and I for one was turned on to it by the fluff. People have legitimate complaints you may not like them but they are there. If you are objective you can see their complaints and see the good aspect of the primaris at the end of the day GW are being a bit vague when they should be more clear as to what is going to happen. As I know if they intend to support old marines with rules support from now on, I'd be totally fine with the nu marines aside from the dumb fluff. I just don't like the idea of being lied to, fed a line and slowly pushed off the cliff while they tell me how much better for me spending double or more of the money I already gave them to support them through harder times.
robbienw wrote: One thing I find odd about this section of Primaris fans (it’s only a very small minority of course, most are fine with or still like classics) is their desire to see the classic marine line shutdown. Why would anyone want this? If you don’t want to collect them fine, you don’t have to. But hoping for them to be discontinued is spiteful, you are basically taking pleasure in the thought of other people armies being invalidated. That’s a bit weird.
It is rarely actually wanting it to happen, but merely recognising that it is going to happen.
That being said, in some point in the future when the Primaris line is more complete and there are analogues to most classic models just squatting the old marines might clear things up. Then all marines (chaos ones included) would just get the Primaris statline and most old models would be usable as counts as.
BrianDavion wrote: but but but being able to rotate the torso a half degree is vital to customization!
No, it's convenient. I wish also to add that this is exactly the type of answer that makes you come out as immature in a thread concerning plastic space soldiers.
No it isn’t. It’s a common sense answer. Twisty but not bendy = infinitely customisable. Fixed waist in realistic pose = monopose. It’s a Nonsense. You don’t respond to logic so sarcasm is the only way to get it across to you.
I think people above reported the issues with kitbash, so anything you wrote here is wrong and obsolete.
I wish just to add (not answering to Andy directly) that I find baffling the fact that it's assumed that if one criticizes the proportions of Primaris, it means that automatically considers the old marines better proportioned. I stated again and again that the "gold standard" should be the new CSMs. It's really not that difficult to understand.
Also, concerning what others said, in light of the fact that that the proportions of (say) the legs of the old marines are less good than the ones of the primaris (albeit these still have "wrong" legs in my opinion), people converting models could still find more convenient to use for a conversion older model that has yes less than optimal proportions/style but will end up with a better pose, better aligned limbs and body parts, and overall more elegant result. The fact that probably just because of the Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder we have to see these kits doing everything to kill creativity is not a good thing, and you should feel bad for defending them.
Kaiyanwang wrote:Did you see me or other post in the "I love primaris" thread? Nope. This is a thread that asked what people feel is wrong in the line. The rest of the answers and the long discussion happened because for some unexplained reason, criticize the line is nothing short of blasphemous.
If people have said that, I disagree with them. What I *have* said is "give your reasons for why you don't like them, and you're welcome to it, but I will point out that your arguments may also apply to classic marines too".
It would be inopportune to spam a primaris appreciation thread with criticism, but your inability to accept that other people can have a different opinion on the line is baffling.
Again, there's nothing wrong with a different opinion. But when people invent facts to support those opinions, what's wrong with calling out and discussing those points?
You have been given reasons. You saying essentially "NU-HUUU" closing your eyes and your ears will never be an argument.
Probably the last time someone cried about Primaris replacing their Manlet Marines and when people created dumb arguments regarding customization as though torsos being rotated was the be-all-end-all for that. Oh and the weapons options that aren't used for your Tactical Marinea because everyone used the more specialized squads. Hard to imagine, huh?
FYI - calling an argument dumb with no arguments given is not going to make you seem smarter, or right. You brought nothing on the table other than low-level and unfunny sarcasm.
Kaiyanwang wrote:Did you see me or other post in the "I love primaris" thread? Nope. This is a thread that asked what people feel is wrong in the line. The rest of the answers and the long discussion happened because for some unexplained reason, criticize the line is nothing short of blasphemous.
If people have said that, I disagree with them. What I *have* said is "give your reasons for why you don't like them, and you're welcome to it, but I will point out that your arguments may also apply to classic marines too".
It would be inopportune to spam a primaris appreciation thread with criticism, but your inability to accept that other people can have a different opinion on the line is baffling.
Again, there's nothing wrong with a different opinion. But when people invent facts to support those opinions, what's wrong with calling out and discussing those points?
You have been given reasons. You saying essentially "NU-HUUU" closing your eyes and your ears will never be an argument.
If that's all you're getting from the points being made, then I'd suggest reading them a little more closely.
Many of the reasons (not all) are based on information and reasons that simply are illogical. Disliking Repulsors is fine. Disliking Repulsors because they're 'not the Space Marine aesthetic because they float"? Doesn't make sense compared to the Land Speeders, and grav-Rhinos and such of the Custodes. Disliking Primaris because they don't have nice round 5/10 unit sizes? Fine. Ignoring that classic marines also have units that do this, and actively admitting that you're moving the goalposts to not include a certain unit? Not fine.
If someone's reasoning was actually flawlessly logical, or they admitted "hey, I don't really have a logical rational reason why I like one and not the other", that would be fine. Even simply saying "this is why I think I don't like them" at least is open to discussion. But when false equivalence is being made and we can't even all agree on what the Space Marine aesthetic and design is, how can any reason given be treated as universally accepted?
Insectum7 wrote: ^Rhino, Predator, Vindicator, Land Raider etc. counts-as?
Whilst I really like the Repulsor chassis, there really isn't a reason why the Primaris couldn't use the old vehicles. Granted, the fact that the rules are written so that they can't might imply that those vehicles will be removed from the Space Marine arsenal eventually.
Many of the reasons (not all) are based on information and reasons that simply are illogical. Disliking Repulsors is fine. Disliking Repulsors because they're 'not the Space Marine aesthetic because they float"? Doesn't make sense compared to the Land Speeders, and grav-Rhinos and such of the Custodes. Disliking Primaris because they don't have nice round 5/10 unit sizes? Fine. Ignoring that classic marines also have units that do this, and actively admitting that you're moving the goalposts to not include a certain unit? Not fine.
That's because at this point I have to suspect you are not actually reading what people write. As stated above, the a-grav tech was supposed to be rare among the Imperium, less so among xenos. The Land Speeder is supposed to be an exception. So are the custodes, the elites of the elites of the elites, albeit nowadays we see them battle some random Ork on the tabletop for whatever reason. The fact that Custodes had the a-grav rhino was supposed to be exceptional. "wow, these guys are so special that their rhino flies!". Now everyone is special, therefore none is. Of course, you can answer saying that you prefer this new tech paradigm and that's perfectly fine. But you are not limiting your answer to this. What you are trying to do is to depict the other opinion (a-grav tech was supposed to be special for the imperium) as inherently wrong, even if it's something that was considered the norm in editions 3rd-7th.
I find the Repulsor really jarring for an Imperial vehicle. Literally all of their tanks are on tracks or wheels. The idea of tanks just rolling over and through things while more scientific races devlop skimmers seemed fitting. Then they have a weird floating tank that just looks odd. Both because it seems out of place and I think it looks like it's about to drop like a cartoon vehicle that lost its wheels.
Primaris should be able to get into certain vehicles likkkeee : land raiders, mastodons, and storm ravens for transport.. Especially Land Raiders and Mastodons. If a primarch can enter a land raider, a Primaris can enter one.
Primaris should have termies....
Primaris were rushed into the lore a bit too quickly and should've been introduced over time....
The current codex while mending some of the issues does not address the firstborn vs primaris struggle that has been going on.
All the books seem to be doing this.
Primaris should be different chapter by chapter, and how they were implemented into the space wolves, dark angels, and black templars especially is very VERY rushed. As I don't think we would see Space wolves really caring at all about what Guilliman brought other than warriors and would induct them into the wolves as blood claws then grey hunters. They and most melee oriented chapters would want to fight in close combat.
Plus no melee combat is common at all among the primaris and they are towing the gunline a bit too much.
Chain weapons now are rare? For what reason?
The primaris lists themselves are very wierdly placed : Reivers being elites? Really? Aggressors not being heavy support? Etc.
Some are just oversights, others are just stupid mistakes.
Models wise I do like them, some issues here and there but overall its a great range of models.
Or. . . maybe there's no reason to get rid of the old line at all. It's withstood the addition of:
Special Blood Angels units,
Special Space Wolves units
Special Dark Angel Units
Grey Knights getting their own entire codex
Deathwatch getting their own entire codex
Custodes
And an entire expanded line of FW Horus Heresy products AND Forge World plastics.
Primaris might just be another marines up/side/down-grade in a loooong line of doods in power armor.
I mean we could keep old marines but get rid of the units no one uses....
Like... Vindicators, Centurions, Attack Bikes, Scout Bikers, Stalkers, Hunters, etc are just horribly underpowered and boring units. (plus their kits are just bleh)
I wouldnt mind them scrapping down on all the units in the codex.
I wouldn't mind if they upgraded the old rhino kits and just give us new repulsor stuff, I would be fine with that as it would round out the kits.
But they need to fix the stupid rule of Primaris not being able to board stuff and old marines not being able to use impulsors, repulsors, or exterminator.
err no not everyone agrees with that GW designed intercessors so that they could exist alongside Tac Marines giving them special weapons would just make them tac marines +1
err no not everyone agrees with that GW designed intercessors so that they could exist alongside Tac Marines giving them special weapons would just make them tac marines +1
Well giving them access to only special weapons and not heavy weapons. I can see that though.
Like my argument has been to give them access to old legion weapons like volkite weaponry. where the old marines still have tactical flexibility or moving tactical marines to be more 'neophytes' than what they are right now.
Insectum7 wrote: Or. . . maybe there's no reason to get rid of the old line at all.
Irrespective of how either of us feel how this should be done, I am pretty convinced that GW is planning to get rid of them sooner or later. The fluff in the new codex makes it crystal clear that this is what's happening in the setting, and I'm sure the rules will catch up eventually. They axed the entire Fantasy game* several armies and many units in armies that got ported into AOS. This is not necessarily what I want to happen, but it is what I believe will happen, and no one really should be surprised when it does. The writing is on the wall.
Primaris might just be another marines up/side/down-grade in a loooong line of doods in power armor.
I believe it is more like when they changed the marine fluff a bit before the second edition, giving them extra organs and making them more super with better stats. New, bigger and better models soon followed. Some of the old gear choices such as shuriken catapults and webbers vanished, many new ones along with new unit types were added. This time they just tried to write this as a progression in the setting instead of just retconning things like then, leading to this awkward state of affairs where both types of marines exist simultaneously.
20+ years of marines+<blank>
Marines are not going anywhere. They're bigger and better than ever. You're just refusing to accept the primaris as marines. It is like someone would cling to their RT beakies, saying that real marines are penal legionaries that have Toughness 3, can use shuriken catapults and wear no stinking Darth Vader helmets!
* (Granted, like with old FB armies, some legacy rule support is likely to remain to foreseeable future.)
Well giving them access to only special weapons and not heavy weapons. I can see that though.
I think instead of special weapons Intercessors could get new types of auxiliary weapons for their bolters. Auxiliary flamer would be an obvious choice, and there could be some more exotic variants.
The fluff in the new codex really doesn’t make it crystal clear. If anything it reinforces how vital classic units are, and how effectively things like Intercessors and Tacticals work together for example.
I suspect we will see new updated classic units further in the future when most of the classic kits are around 15 years old or so. Upscaled a bit, but not as big as a Primaris, with some fluff explaining they have all the Primaris organs now, but their Magnificat is tuned so they don’t grow so big, so they can still use the traditional gear whilst having Primaris stats. Something like that.
Afterall it would be a bad decision really to get rid of your most iconic and popular units.
Kaiyanwang wrote:Did you see me or other post in the "I love primaris" thread? Nope.
This is a thread that asked what people feel is wrong in the line. The rest of the answers and the long discussion happened because for some unexplained reason, criticize the line is nothing short of blasphemous.
If people have said that, I disagree with them. What I *have* said is "give your reasons for why you don't like them, and you're welcome to it, but I will point out that your arguments may also apply to classic marines too".
It would be inopportune to spam a primaris appreciation thread with criticism, but your inability to accept that other people can have a different opinion on the line is baffling.
Again, there's nothing wrong with a different opinion. But when people invent facts to support those opinions, what's wrong with calling out and discussing those points?
You have been given reasons. You saying essentially "NU-HUUU" closing your eyes and your ears will never be an argument.
If that's all you're getting from the points being made, then I'd suggest reading them a little more closely.
Many of the reasons (not all) are based on information and reasons that simply are illogical. Disliking Repulsors is fine. Disliking Repulsors because they're 'not the Space Marine aesthetic because they float"? Doesn't make sense compared to the Land Speeders, and grav-Rhinos and such of the Custodes.
Disliking Primaris because they don't have nice round 5/10 unit sizes? Fine. Ignoring that classic marines also have units that do this, and actively admitting that you're moving the goalposts to not include a certain unit? Not fine.
Not understanding what "historical trends/precedent" and "proportion" mean, and/or just not admitting they have any bearing? Not worth discussing things with. I moved no goalposts, my argument has always been about historical precedent and macro-level faction design. I believe this is clear to anybody who isn't disingenuously reading my arguments.
And if this is an attempt at an argument:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But Orks also have land vehicles! Are Orks Imperial?
You are plainly not worth taking seriously.
Up until 2016 ish, to my knowledge the only skimmers available to the Imperial armies were Land Speeders, there was one Dark Angel guy on a skimmer-bike. Everything else was a tank, wheeled or tracked. As opposed to Tau and Eldar, which to my knowledge have never had a non-skimmer vehicle. Trend and historical precedent is obvious. Now all of a sudden, Imperial skimmers everywhere. It is a clear and demonstrable change in faction optics.
This I disagree with. There cannot "plainly" be a difference if about 50% of people in this thread are saying that there isn't one.
Maybe it's plain to you, but clearly not to everyone - which, in the general sense, means it's not plain overall.
If 50% say there is a difference, enough to have a lively debate about it, that's evidence that there's a difference. 15 pages of this thread would not exist otherwise. However, I'd put it at least 80% of people can tell there is a difference. Many Pro-Primaris build Primaris only armies. Few people mix them in armies. People can clearly discern a difference, or they would not do these things.
Some people are really good at wine tasting. I am not. I can taste any wine, and my palette will tell me "Yup, that's wine!" and nothing further. Perhaps this is what you are with Space Marines. You see boxy tank and a power armored guy with a bolter, and you think "Yup, that's a Space Marine." Fine. That does not mean there are no differences, it means you are simply not qualified to see them, but more likely just don't care to admit to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: It is like someone would cling to their RT beakies, saying that real marines are penal legionaries that have Toughness 3, can use shuriken catapults and wear no stinking Darth Vader helmets!
RT Marines did not have 25 years of relative stability behind them.
Kaiyanwang wrote:That's because at this point I have to suspect you are not actually reading what people write.
As stated above, the a-grav tech was supposed to be rare among the Imperium, less so among xenos. The Land Speeder is supposed to be an exception. So are the custodes, the elites of the elites of the elites, albeit nowadays we see them battle some random Ork on the tabletop for whatever reason.
The fact that Custodes had the a-grav rhino was supposed to be exceptional. "wow, these guys are so special that their rhino flies!".
Now everyone is special, therefore none is.
When Chapters seemed to have as many Land Speeders as they had Land Raiders, I don't know if I'd call them *that* rare.
Like, yes, they're rare, but so are Land Raiders.
Custodes grav-tech to me was to showcase their general access to good tech and prioritisation in the Imperium. With Guilliman coming back and the armoury of the Space Marines being improved via direct support from the Lord Regent of the Imperium, I think Marines getting some grav is perfectly fine. It's not like the Imperium as a whole had no grav-tech. Not to mention that general look of the Repulsor's hull has all the trappings of a Space Marine vehicle. I'm sure if you put treads on it, there would be far less complaints.
Plus, how about the Sisters of Silence? Or the Admech skimmers? I've not been seeing anywhere near as much vitriol directed at them as I have seen against Primaris tanks.
Of course, you can answer saying that you prefer this new tech paradigm and that's perfectly fine. But you are not limiting your answer to this. What you are trying to do is to depict the other opinion (a-grav tech was supposed to be special for the imperium) as inherently wrong, even if it's something that was considered the norm in editions 3rd-7th.
And at the same time, you're advocating that grav-tech WAS supposed to be special, and showing that as a fact. I'm okay with admitting that it's my opinion that the current stuff is fine, that there is no issue with the grav-tech, and I'm not saying it's a fact. However, at the same time, saying that it goes against the Imperial design philosophy and it's out-of-character for Marines to have it is also an opinion.
That's my point - you're just backing up opinions with opinions, but a lot of the time, they sound like (so perhaps I'm just reading wrongly into it) they're meant as facts.
robbienw wrote: The fluff in the new codex really doesn’t make it crystal clear. If anything it reinforces how vital classic units are, and how effectively things like Intercessors and Tacticals work together for example.
Now that Rubicon Primaris exist, the only minimarines that remain are those who are too scared to take the upgrade, end there will be less and less of them every day.
I suspect we will see new updated classic units further in the future when most of the classic kits are around 15 years old or so. Upscaled a bit, but not as big as a Primaris, with some fluff explaining they have all the Primaris organs now, but their Magnificat is tuned so they don’t grow so big, so they can still use the traditional gear whilst having Primaris stats. Something like that.
Not going to happen.
Afterall it would be a bad decision really to get rid of your most iconic and popular units.
Please understand that to vast majority of people the primaris are just better looking space marines. New fans really will not care that their kneepads are slightly different shape or other nonsense like that. They're recognisably space marines.
The new Star Trek Discovery show is still on a ship with a big saucer and some warp nacelles. It's obviously Star Trek, never mind what it might mean for the Star Trek brand as a whole.
Insectum7 wrote:Not understanding what "historical trends/precedent" and "proportion" mean, and/or just not admitting they have any bearing? Not worth discussing things with. I moved no goalposts, my argument has always been about historical precedent and macro-level faction design. I believe this is clear to anybody who isn't disingenuously reading my arguments.
You literally admitted that you were ignoring Centurions because they didn't fit your narrative. Not to mention that if we're discussing macro-level faction design, it would be helpful if we actually could agree of discuss what the design of Space Marines even is.
And if this is an attempt at an argument:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But Orks also have land vehicles! Are Orks Imperial?
You are plainly not worth taking seriously.
When you make arguments like "Primaris have skimmers*, they're stepping on the toes of the Eldar!", I felt this was a suitable point.
*skimmers which were already present in the Space Marine range, and hell, if we're including Forge World, had 4 separate chassis variants.
Up until 2016 ish, to my knowledge the only skimmers available to the Imperial armies were Land Speeders, there was one Dark Angel guy on a skimmer-bike. Everything else was a tank, wheeled or tracked. As opposed to Tau and Eldar, which to my knowledge have never had a non-skimmer vehicle. Trend and historical precedent is obvious. Now all of a sudden, Imperial skimmers everywhere. It is a clear and demonstrable change in faction optics.
And up to my knowledge, there were more skimmer variants than there were Land Raider variants, and they were present across the Imperium (from the Land Speeders, to the Custodes, to mag-levs and air-cars and such from various fiction works, mostly Eisenhorn and Ravenor). The only faction I can say hasn't had anti-grav displayed is the Imperial Guard, and with how simply large and non-standardised their organisation is, there easily could be a regiment with access to rare hover barges.
However, I'd put it at least 80% of people can tell there is a difference.
Got a source? Or really anything beyond the number?
Many Pro-Primaris build Primaris only armies. Few people mix them in armies. People can clearly discern a difference, or they would not do these things.
Most people's reason for not mixing is height difference. It's not an aesthetic difference and more so than if I took a scaled up version of one of my models to a game. Sure, they're aesthetically identical, but it's taller, and I'd prefer my guys to be at the same height.
Some people are really good at wine tasting. I am not. I can taste any wine, and my palette will tell me "Yup, that's wine!" and nothing further. Perhaps this is what you are with Space Marines. You see boxy tank and a power armored guy with a bolter, and you think "Yup, that's a Space Marine." Fine. That does not mean there are no differences, it means you are simply not qualified to see them, but more likely just don't care to admit to them.
'Not qualified' by what metric - yours? And does that make my perception of it any less valuable than yours? Am I not allowed to make an opinion because I'm 'not qualified'?
What your example would be better as would be: A - This wine tastes like oak wood. (I don't know, I don't drink wine ) B - This wine tastes like wine. A - Can't you taste that oak wood flavour? B - No. It's still wine though. A - It's an oaky wine. B - It's a wine.
Both A and B are correct. If A started saying "but clearly it has an oaky flavour", that's still not a fact. It's their perception of it. If B cannot taste an oaky flavour, then it cannot "clearly" have an oaky flavour for everyone. Neither is 'not qualified', and both can enjoy/dislike the wine however they like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: The new Star Trek Discovery show is still on a ship with a big saucer and some warp nacelles. It's obviously Star Trek, never mind what it might mean for the Star Trek brand as a whole.
So the discussion then should be "is what makes Star Trek the fact it takes place on a big saucer ship with warp nacelles".
Insectum7 wrote: The new Star Trek Discovery show is still on a ship with a big saucer and some warp nacelles. It's obviously Star Trek, never mind what it might mean for the Star Trek brand as a whole.
Yes. And whilst I have my share of nitpicks about that show (the cast is amazing though) to overwhelming majority of people it is just Star Trek and they certainly do not care if the ships or uniforms look different than before. I'm a long time Star Trek nerd, so I do care about the minutiae somewhat, but most people really don't. And of course with that show the props looking a bit different is a pretty minor issue compared to the fact that they cannot write a seasonal arch that would make even a modicum of sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The antigrav tech being somehow rare didn't really ever make much sense. If they can casually produce land speeders and servo-skulls are buzzing everywhere then it means they have the tech and they know how to use it.
There's a lot about 40k that doesn't make sense. That's a major aspect of its branding. Aka, in the future, the elite human armies drive around in tanks that aren't too dissimilar from WW1 designs and carry chainsaw swords.
Insectum7 wrote: There's a lot about 40k that doesn't make sense. That's a major aspect of its branding. Aka, in the future, the elite human armies drive around in tanks that aren't too dissimilar from WW1 designs and carry chainsaw swords.
Sure that is cool. But I think brutal boxy grav tanks are cool too, so I'm fine with them. 40K is a chaotic collection of contradictions and nonsense, thus I find it a bit weird to be super dogmatic about what can and cannot exist in it.
Personally, I find Primaris 'sterile'.
I did too, a bit. That's why I personalised them. Lots of fun was had.
Insectum7 wrote: There's a lot about 40k that doesn't make sense. That's a major aspect of its branding. Aka, in the future, the elite human armies drive around in tanks that aren't too dissimilar from WW1 designs and carry chainsaw swords.
Sure that is cool. But I think brutal boxy grav tanks are cool too, so I'm fine with them. 40K is a chaotic collection of contradictions and nonsense, thus I find it a bit weird to be super dogmatic about what can and cannot exist in it.
It's much less about "what can exist", and far more about "what is the norm/what is expected or presented." If you nixxed classic marines at the moment, marines would have no tracked vehicles and no chainswords, apparently. That's far less anachronistic, aesthetically, and imo a degradation of the setting.
Insectum7 wrote:Not understanding what "historical trends/precedent" and "proportion" mean, and/or just not admitting they have any bearing? Not worth discussing things with. I moved no goalposts, my argument has always been about historical precedent and macro-level faction design. I believe this is clear to anybody who isn't disingenuously reading my arguments.
You literally admitted that you were ignoring Centurions because they didn't fit your narrative. Not to mention that if we're discussing macro-level faction design, it would be helpful if we actually could agree of discuss what the design of Space Marines even is.
And if this is an attempt at an argument:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But Orks also have land vehicles! Are Orks Imperial?
You are plainly not worth taking seriously.
When you make arguments like "Primaris have skimmers*, they're stepping on the toes of the Eldar!", I felt this was a suitable point.
*skimmers which were already present in the Space Marine range, and hell, if we're including Forge World, had 4 separate chassis variants.
Up until 2016 ish, to my knowledge the only skimmers available to the Imperial armies were Land Speeders, there was one Dark Angel guy on a skimmer-bike. Everything else was a tank, wheeled or tracked. As opposed to Tau and Eldar, which to my knowledge have never had a non-skimmer vehicle. Trend and historical precedent is obvious. Now all of a sudden, Imperial skimmers everywhere. It is a clear and demonstrable change in faction optics.
And up to my knowledge, there were more skimmer variants than there were Land Raider variants, and they were present across the Imperium (from the Land Speeders, to the Custodes, to mag-levs and air-cars and such from various fiction works, mostly Eisenhorn and Ravenor). The only faction I can say hasn't had anti-grav displayed is the Imperial Guard, and with how simply large and non-standardised their organisation is, there easily could be a regiment with access to rare hover barges.
However, I'd put it at least 80% of people can tell there is a difference.
Got a source? Or really anything beyond the number?
Many Pro-Primaris build Primaris only armies. Few people mix them in armies. People can clearly discern a difference, or they would not do these things.
Most people's reason for not mixing is height difference. It's not an aesthetic difference and more so than if I took a scaled up version of one of my models to a game. Sure, they're aesthetically identical, but it's taller, and I'd prefer my guys to be at the same height.
Some people are really good at wine tasting. I am not. I can taste any wine, and my palette will tell me "Yup, that's wine!" and nothing further. Perhaps this is what you are with Space Marines. You see boxy tank and a power armored guy with a bolter, and you think "Yup, that's a Space Marine." Fine. That does not mean there are no differences, it means you are simply not qualified to see them, but more likely just don't care to admit to them.
'Not qualified' by what metric - yours? And does that make my perception of it any less valuable than yours? Am I not allowed to make an opinion because I'm 'not qualified'?
What your example would be better as would be:
A - This wine tastes like oak wood. (I don't know, I don't drink wine )
B - This wine tastes like wine.
A - Can't you taste that oak wood flavour?
B - No. It's still wine though.
A - It's an oaky wine.
B - It's a wine.
Both A and B are correct. If A started saying "but clearly it has an oaky flavour", that's still not a fact. It's their perception of it. If B cannot taste an oaky flavour, then it cannot "clearly" have an oaky flavour for everyone. Neither is 'not qualified', and both can enjoy/dislike the wine however they like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: The new Star Trek Discovery show is still on a ship with a big saucer and some warp nacelles. It's obviously Star Trek, never mind what it might mean for the Star Trek brand as a whole.
So the discussion then should be "is what makes Star Trek the fact it takes place on a big saucer ship with warp nacelles".
No acknowledgement of trends or proportion for like the 5th post in a row. No reply warranted.
It's much less about "what can exist", and far more about "what is the norm/what is expected or presented." If you nixxed classic marines at the moment, marines would have no tracked vehicles and no chainswords, apparently. That's far less anachronistic, aesthetically, and imo a degradation of the setting.
They have chainswords. And I think feral genetically enhanced killer driving around in grav tank so that they can punch robo-skeletons with their flamer-fists (and chainswords!) is anachronistic enough. Besides, marine having the grav stuff while IG has the tracked tanks creates a nice distinction between them.
Whilst I really don't like how they have advanced the time line, the design space was getting too constrained by adhering to the dogma. The designers were restricted by what was written decades ago when the game was completely different. Codifying the space marine chapter in such detail such an early stage and then adhering to that for decades was super limiting. I am really glad that that straitjacket has been demolished, and the developers are free to make any new stuff that they think is cool. And sure, some of it will be dumb, but some of it will be awesome too!
It's much less about "what can exist", and far more about "what is the norm/what is expected or presented." If you nixxed classic marines at the moment, marines would have no tracked vehicles and no chainswords, apparently. That's far less anachronistic, aesthetically, and imo a degradation of the setting.
They have chainswords. And I think feral genetically enhanced killer driving around in grav tank so that they can punch robo-skeletons with their flamer-fists (and chainswords!) is anachronistic enough. Besides, marine having the grav stuff while IG has the tracked tanks creates a nice distinction between them.
Whilst I really don't like how they have advanced the time line, the design space was getting too constrained by adhering to the dogma. The designers were restricted by what was written decades ago when the game was completely different. Codifying the space marine chapter ins such detail such an early stage and then adhering to that for decades was super limiting. I am really glad that that straitjacket has been demolished, and the developers are free to make any new stuff that they think is cool. And sure, some of it will be dumb, but some of it will be awesome too!
Can't really say I disagree with anything here.
They have chainswords. The grav-tanks are suitably brutal and "space marine-y", and aren't the more elegant kinds of skimmers like Land Speeders and Eldar types.
The fact that we're seeing the Primaris get fleshed out in real-time is also quite fresh for new ideas, and they've still kept the old stuff around.
The fluff in the new codex really doesn’t make it crystal clear. If anything it reinforces how vital classic units are, and how effectively things like Intercessors and Tacticals work together for example.
Now that Rubicon Primaris exist, the only minimarines that remain are those who are too scared to take the upgrade, end there will be less and less of them every day.
Come on, such a flippant remark is just silly. Space Marines know no fear, none of them are going to be scared of a surgical procedure. But whilst chapters still require vital classic units and make both types of marine, added to the current fact the rubicon has a high casualty rate, you are still going to see large amounts of classics around.
I suspect we will see new updated classic units further in the future when most of the classic kits are around 15 years old or so. Upscaled a bit, but not as big as a Primaris, with some fluff explaining they have all the Primaris organs now, but their Magnificat is tuned so they don’t grow so big, so they can still use the traditional gear whilst having Primaris stats. Something like that.
Not going to happen.
It could happen. GW has long and successful history of going back to old armies and concepts that haven’t been touched for a long time.
I mean what do you think they are going to do in 10 to 15 years time when they have released loads of Primaris units and have run out of ideas for them, and the designers are fed up of them? Continue producing ever more chunky marines with even larger greaves, more armour plates on armour plates, and tacticool accessories on top of tacticool accessories? Jes will have retired by then, so someone else with possibly different ideas will be in charge of marines.
Afterall it would be a bad decision really to get rid of your most iconic and popular units.
Please understand that to vast majority of people
Please understand you have no idea what the ‘vast majority’ of people think
It's much less about "what can exist", and far more about "what is the norm/what is expected or presented." If you nixxed classic marines at the moment, marines would have no tracked vehicles and no chainswords, apparently. That's far less anachronistic, aesthetically, and imo a degradation of the setting.
They have chainswords. And I think feral genetically enhanced killer driving around in grav tank so that they can punch robo-skeletons with their flamer-fists (and chainswords!) is anachronistic enough. Besides, marine having the grav stuff while IG has the tracked tanks creates a nice distinction between them.
Whilst I really don't like how they have advanced the time line, the design space was getting too constrained by adhering to the dogma. The designers were restricted by what was written decades ago when the game was completely different. Codifying the space marine chapter ins such detail such an early stage and then adhering to that for decades was super limiting. I am really glad that that straitjacket has been demolished, and the developers are free to make any new stuff that they think is cool. And sure, some of it will be dumb, but some of it will be awesome too!
Can't really say I disagree with anything here.
They have chainswords. The grav-tanks are suitably brutal and "space marine-y", and aren't the more elegant kinds of skimmers like Land Speeders and Eldar types.
The fact that we're seeing the Primaris get fleshed out in real-time is also quite fresh for new ideas, and they've still kept the old stuff around.
Space marines did not have grav tanks. Now they do. That is a change in the overall aesthetic of space marines.
The fact that other parts of the imperium may have had grav tanks all along does not alter the fact that this is a change in the space marine aesthetic.
It's a change I don't like and don't feel should have been done. I think insectum7 would agree with me. As has been pointed out, this change moves space marines one step away from their existing identity and very slightly blurs the line between marines and other armies such as Eldar and tau.
Similarly, all marines prior to Phobos, including scouts, had mirrored shoulder pads. Phobos marines have smaller shoulder pads on one side. All marines had flared greaves, Phobos have a gap that breaks up the line of the flare. These two changes alter the silhouette in a way that bothers me. If I ever get any, I'll be looking for a way to resolve these two problems.
Other things that came up in thread that need to be addressed:
Flexibility in the way a unit can be set up before the battle and flexibility on the tabletop itself are two unrelated things. Tactical marines have many more the options than intercessors, they are more flexible at army selection time.
The auxiliary grenade launcher is bad at nearly everything, especially anti tank. While I grant that having two ammo types is more flexible than a meltagun, the missile launcher has the same number of options. This invalidates the grenade launcher as a consideration of unit flexibility on the tabletop. It is equal to the missile launcher in number of ammo types but inferior at both roles.
Prior to the introduction of centurions, squad size did indeed follow a common theme of the max squad size being 10 marines. Most started at 5 with bikes as a notable exception. Attack bikes and land speeders being bigger exceptions to that common theme. Note that for a time land speeders could be up to 5 in one unit. i.e. 10 marines.
I personally would be happier if all that design time on centurions, stalker, hunters and primaris had instead been spent on refreshing other parts of the range. Eldar, Orks, sisters and so on. Think where those armies would be now with that many kits updated. No more resin!
Space marines did not have grav tanks. Now they do. That is a change in the overall aesthetic of space marines.
a statement that can be applied to literally any new addition to any line.
people act like there is a major aestetic change from one to the other, but it's not. if you look at a repulsor or a impulsor you can definatly that not only is it an Imperium design, but it's got design elements in common with space Marine tanks.
Let's take a look at it.
you have the same boxy front with a slope and view visor so common among space Marine tanks. the same headlights seen across rhinos, land raiders etc the hover plates are reminiscant of a land speeder. honestly if you saw that picture without knowing what it was and someone told you it was a special heresy era land raider varient cobbled together by Arkham land? you'd belive it. (BTW Arkham Land HAD a custom hover Land Raider, wanna bet thats what Cawl started with?)
I'm not saying it's not differant and something new, cause it is, but claiming that it has no aestetic ties to the space marine line is... inaccurate. you can tell just looking at the thing it's a space marine tank
Not Online!!! wrote: Yeah, instead of treads you now have stupid looking antigrav plates.
And stubbers all over the shop
opinions on the changes aside (the tank BTW looks better in person.) my point is that you can see it's very much related to space marine tanks.
it's not say a case of primaris tanks suddenly being smooth and rounded eldarish looking things.
That for sure, but the overburdening with Dakka of the non bolter variation really takes it's toll though, doesn't it?
actually thats the funny thing, once you look at the model you realize that the number of guns on it isn't as excessive as you'll think looking at the model closely. it looks like a lot of firepower because they removed firing arcs from the game, but basicly the tank has a left right and rear mounted weapon. placed right above the doors so it's clearly intended to provide covering fire as the squad disembarks. a hull mounted heavy bolter or Lascanon to provide some forward firepower. the turret mounted main gun, and a pintal mounted gun. the turrent then has some smoke launchers attached on it that yeah can be configured to throw grenades instead (which I suspect is more something that's done by the various "we're space marines and have no fear! we don't need to hide in smoke" chapters)not saying it's a totally sensable tank design (those don't exist in 40k) but when you look at the weapon placement on the model? you can make sense of the reasoning behind the masses of guns. and if they ever brought back fire arcs and kept the splitting fire rules... the guns on the repulsor would start to make a LOT of sense (more so then the guns and gun placement on a Land Raider)
Zustiur wrote:Space marines did not have grav tanks. Now they do. That is a change in the overall aesthetic of space marines.
But they had grav tech: Land Speeders (of 4 different chassis types!).
The existence of Land Speeders tells me that the core to the Space Marine aesthetic was not in their lack of skimmer units. Land Speeders still look "Space Marine-y", as do the Repulsors, because the core of the Space Marine vehicle aesthetic isn't that they have tracks.
The fact that other parts of the imperium may have had grav tanks all along does not alter the fact that this is a change in the space marine aesthetic.
But it is an argument against "the Imperium's never had skimmers!"
And again, the very fact that Land Speeders exist (and actually skim higher than Repulsors) shows that tracks are not the key to Space Marine aesthetic.
It's a change I don't like and don't feel should have been done. I think insectum7 would agree with me. As has been pointed out, this change moves space marines one step away from their existing identity and very slightly blurs the line between marines and other armies such as Eldar and tau.
More than Land Speeders did?
Similarly, all marines prior to Phobos, including scouts, had mirrored shoulder pads. Phobos marines have smaller shoulder pads on one side. All marines had flared greaves, Phobos have a gap that breaks up the line of the flare. These two changes alter the silhouette in a way that bothers me. If I ever get any, I'll be looking for a way to resolve these two problems.
And Marines prior to Mark VII plate had beaks for helmets. But they're still identifiable as Marines.
Flexibility in the way a unit can be set up before the battle and flexibility on the tabletop itself are two unrelated things. Tactical marines have many more the options than intercessors, they are more flexible at army selection time.
I don't see how Tacticals are regarded as more "flexible" when only 1/5 of the squad can have a different weapon than the Intercessors who can swap out everyone's main weapon for a different one that changes the unit's playstyle.
They might be flexible in different ways (ie, one is flexible in how it functions on the battlefield, and the other is flexible in it's potential for being slightly better against other targets), bu they *are* both flexible.
The auxiliary grenade launcher is bad at nearly everything, especially anti tank.
And the current missile launcher isn't? It's not exactly a stellar weapon, is it?
Personally, I find the grenade launcher to be surprisingly effective, at least, in my experience.
While I grant that having two ammo types is more flexible than a meltagun, the missile launcher has the same number of options. This invalidates the grenade launcher as a consideration of unit flexibility on the tabletop. It is equal to the missile launcher in number of ammo types but inferior at both roles.
And the missile launcher requires the squad to stay still to fire at full capacity. The grenade launcher does not. Flexibility - the squad isn't forced to babysit their heavy weapon guy, but can move at their normal rate in battle.
Prior to the introduction of centurions, squad size did indeed follow a common theme of the max squad size being 10 marines. Most started at 5 with bikes as a notable exception. Attack bikes and land speeders being bigger exceptions to that common theme. Note that for a time land speeders could be up to 5 in one unit. i.e. 10 marines.
If you're needing to ignore units to argue that your faction had a cohesive pattern, then that pattern clearly wasn't that clear.
I'm not arguing that the 5/10 pattern wasn't predominant in most Marine units, but that's also the same with Primaris. Select specialist units (Aggressors, Centurions, Bikers, Inceptors, etc etc) buck that trend - and that's fine to admit that.
I personally would be happier if all that design time on centurions, stalker, hunters and primaris had instead been spent on refreshing other parts of the range. Eldar, Orks, sisters and so on. Think where those armies would be now with that many kits updated. No more resin!
Agreed. I don't think the whole Space Marine model reboot in 2017 (was it 2017) needed to be done. The kits were fine as they were. However, I think out of the two revamps to the line, the Primaris one is better than the 2017 range, generally speaking.
Not Online!!! wrote:Yeah, instead of treads you now have stupid looking antigrav plates.
And stubbers all over the shop
And yet they are still identifiably Space Marine, and not Guard, or Admech, or Tau, or Eldar, or any other faction. Their armour design and plating and even their fluff is distinctly Space Marine.
Regarding the whole "Space Marines didn't have hover tanks" thing, this is where actually giving the lore a chance and reading it would help: the grav tech for those tanks is the same grav tech used for the Land Speeder. It is literally the STC Arkhan Land dug up slapped onto a tank (something Land himself did when he mashed a Land Raider with the hover tech of a Land Speeder). So it's not even new tech, it's just a different way of using existing tech. The only reason so many of them are rolling out is Guilliman's authority is ensuring that the Mechanicus is working its cogs off right now making stuff.
Guilliman even tasked the Mechanicus with studying the anti-grav STC further, so we could see a return of Imperial Jetbikes in the Imperium. And they'll be as subtle as a brick to the face.
So the fabricator general of Mars is on board with building the new stuff?
All those shouts of tech Heresy seem so hollow now. Maybe the complainers should read the new lore?
So here's the thing. Everyone agrees that the range of models can and should be expanded even more, and that Primaris HQs should have more options. The codex books haven't expanded the lore as well as they could have, but the recent BL novels have all told compelling stories in the new setting.
The fact that this topic is still going does indicate a bit of an irrational dislike for the Primaris. Kudos to everyone who isn't a raging hater and is pointing out the many substantial positives.
Ishagu wrote: So the fabricator general of Mars is on board with building the new stuff?
All those shouts of tech Heresy seem so hollow now. Maybe the complainers should read the new lore?
It's not even "new" since the STC for gravic tech is from M30 and mixing STCs together is how the Imperium gets anything done. Heck Power Armour is made of dozens of STCs thst govern different parts of the armour used together.
The lower leg/foot armor design on Phobos armor looks a lot like Gundam. Phobos generally looks very sporty and high-tech instead of medieval and anachronistic. It overlaps with Tau a bit.
Scouts didn't look particularly medieval either but they were certainly a lot less high tech than Phobos. I suppose you might say scouts looked modern for their time kinda like the way Phobos looks modern for the present. And at present the high tech aesthetic is more the norm.
Dreadnoughts moved away from clunky, mechanical reliquary to vaguely sporty, combat robot. The reliquary and purity seals are still there, they're just a little less prominent. But there are definitely some examples of old dreadnoughts that veered into the high tech look too, like ironclad dreadnoughts with that trapezoid pattern of segmented plating.
Intercessors definitely retain knight-like elements though it remains to be seen whether or not we'll ever see intercessors with the really medieval stuff like storm shields and thunder hammers. Or even the weirdly anachronistic stuff like chainswords.
Is it possible for a chainsword to be tacticool or is that an oxymoron?
I think it’s more of cawl tampering with the emperors genentic work on space marines that people are calling heresy.
The fabricator is going to be onboard with anything if it is STC derived. They seem to have dialled back a bit from earlier fluff saying cawl did this stuff all through his own innovation and modifications, and are now saying a lot of what he did was developed from STCs.
robbienw wrote: I think it’s more of cawl tampering with the emperors genentic work on space marines that people are calling heresy.
The fabricator is going to be onboard with anything if it is STC derived. They seem to have dialled back a bit from earlier fluff saying cawl did this stuff all through his own innovation and modifications, and are now saying a lot of what he did was developed from STCs.
We're in the midst of a reboot of 32 years of background, of course it's going to be rough in places and need to be continually be fleshed out and the rough edges smoothed out. Some of the details were likely not thought out completely, much like when they wrote Rogue Trader the details weren't really nailed down at the time, even with the expansions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: They already can take chainswords and thunder hammers...
Ishagu wrote: So the fabricator general of Mars is on board with building the new stuff?
All those shouts of tech Heresy seem so hollow now. Maybe the complainers should read the new lore?
It's not even "new" since the STC for gravic tech is from M30 and mixing STCs together is how the Imperium gets anything done. Heck Power Armour is made of dozens of STCs thst govern different parts of the armour used together.
It's not even about whether the tech is available or not. It's just a "Oh, I guess all Space Marine tanks are gping to fly now, where they once almost exclusively ran ground vehicles." For Primaris, skimmers are moved from being the exception to the norm.
Which might seem small in itself, but there are a bunch of other changes occuring at the same time, like the Stubber thing. Weapons are starting to look less like 40k guns and more like modern guns.
But maybe most importantly, when I saw the Repulsor my reaction was "floating Bradley", which is dissapointing. It's not unique imagery. I've probably seen hundreds of concept pieces that amount to the same thing.
Ishagu wrote: So the fabricator general of Mars is on board with building the new stuff?
All those shouts of tech Heresy seem so hollow now. Maybe the complainers should read the new lore?
It's not even "new" since the STC for gravic tech is from M30 and mixing STCs together is how the Imperium gets anything done. Heck Power Armour is made of dozens of STCs thst govern different parts of the armour used together.
It's not even about whether the tech is available or not. It's just a "Oh, I guess all Space Marine tanks are gping to fly now, where they once almost exclusively ran ground vehicles." For Primaris, skimmers are moved from being the exception to the norm.
Which might seem small in itself, but there are a bunch of other changes occuring at the same time, like the Stubber thing. Weapons are starting to look less like 40k guns and more like modern guns.
But maybe most importantly, when I saw the Repulsor my reaction was "floating Bradley", which is dissapointing. It's not unique imagery. I've probably seen hundreds of concept pieces that amount to the same thing.
I assume that crunch wise the stubber thing is to balance rules that work with bolters, while lore wise it's because the Mechanicus is so overloaded gearing up a warmachine like it was M30 that they can't make enough bolters and the heavy stubbers are being used as a means to cover the gap.
Segersgia wrote: I just wished they kept the mark 7/8 helmets for the new primaris line. I never liked the mark 4 design.
Fair point. If you have any spares, they do seem to fit on very well all the same, as do shoulder pads. This criticism makes far more sense than some of the other opinions put forward. Admitting that, yes, Primaris do feature old designs, but not old designs that they like.
If the people complaining about skimmer tanks also said that they didn't like the Land Speeders, or that the Land Speeders didn't fit the Space Marine aesthetic, then that's a logical argument. But claiming that they had no problem with one kind of Space Marine skimmer, but having a problem with another purely because "skimmers aren't supposed to be Space Marine vehicles" would be strange.
robbienw wrote: I think it’s more of cawl tampering with the emperors genentic work on space marines that people are calling heresy.
The fabricator is going to be onboard with anything if it is STC derived. They seem to have dialled back a bit from earlier fluff saying cawl did this stuff all through his own innovation and modifications, and are now saying a lot of what he did was developed from STCs.
We're in the midst of a reboot of 32 years of background, of course it's going to be rough in places and need to be continually be fleshed out and the rough edges smoothed out. Some of the details were likely not thought out completely, much like when they wrote Rogue Trader the details weren't really nailed down at the time, even with the expansions.
Reboot is such an overused word these days. It’s no more of a reboot than any new edition of 40k is, or the retconning the studio do to the fluff all the time.
Segersgia wrote: I just wished they kept the mark 7/8 helmets for the new primaris line. I never liked the mark 4 design.
Literally nothing is stopping you from using those helmets with the primaris though.
I know you can just basically kitbash them with the older helmets, and I will once I get around to collecting an army of them. It is just a gripe I have with their current design, since mark 4 just happened to be the one pattern that I didn't like. This is why I was pleasantly surprised with the Infiltrators. If those helmets were the default, I would've accepted the primaris way sooner.
robbienw wrote: I think it’s more of cawl tampering with the emperors genentic work on space marines that people are calling heresy.
The fabricator is going to be onboard with anything if it is STC derived. They seem to have dialled back a bit from earlier fluff saying cawl did this stuff all through his own innovation and modifications, and are now saying a lot of what he did was developed from STCs.
We're in the midst of a reboot of 32 years of background, of course it's going to be rough in places and need to be continually be fleshed out and the rough edges smoothed out. Some of the details were likely not thought out completely, much like when they wrote Rogue Trader the details weren't really nailed down at the time, even with the expansions.
Reboot is such an overused word these days. It’s no more of a reboot than any new edition of 40k is, or the retconning the studio do to the fluff all the time.
What old fluff has it changed? What fluff was removed? Yes it changed the result of that summer campaign decades ago but nothing else. I don’t think reboot is the right word either. It’s a development of the fluff. The designers didn’t sit down and design the back ground of 40k as it was Pre 8th. It grew. And changed as it matured and developed. This is the next bit. Contradiction is as much the grimdark as anything else. New marines being hated when old marines, which were new once is classic 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for Phobos looking to modern the skull faced helmets were a bit of a 40k staple.
I'm not saying it's not differant and something new, cause it is, but claiming that it has no aestetic ties to the space marine line is... inaccurate. you can tell just looking at the thing it's a space marine tank
I didn't say it had no aesthetic ties. I said it was a change in what the space marine aesthetic was.
If it was a new land raider variant with tracks I wouldn't be commenting on it.
I have no problem with new elements being introduced to space marines so long as: 1 they fit the existing theme, 2 they aren't at the cost of keeping other parts of the product line up to date.
Kaiyanwang wrote:That's because at this point I have to suspect you are not actually reading what people write. As stated above, the a-grav tech was supposed to be rare among the Imperium, less so among xenos. The Land Speeder is supposed to be an exception. So are the custodes, the elites of the elites of the elites, albeit nowadays we see them battle some random Ork on the tabletop for whatever reason. The fact that Custodes had the a-grav rhino was supposed to be exceptional. "wow, these guys are so special that their rhino flies!". Now everyone is special, therefore none is.
When Chapters seemed to have as many Land Speeders as they had Land Raiders, I don't know if I'd call them *that* rare. Like, yes, they're rare, but so are Land Raiders.
Custodes grav-tech to me was to showcase their general access to good tech and prioritisation in the Imperium. With Guilliman coming back and the armoury of the Space Marines being improved via direct support from the Lord Regent of the Imperium, I think Marines getting some grav is perfectly fine. It's not like the Imperium as a whole had no grav-tech. Not to mention that general look of the Repulsor's hull has all the trappings of a Space Marine vehicle. I'm sure if you put treads on it, there would be far less complaints. Plus, how about the Sisters of Silence? Or the Admech skimmers? I've not been seeing anywhere near as much vitriol directed at them as I have seen against Primaris tanks.
Of course, you can answer saying that you prefer this new tech paradigm and that's perfectly fine. But you are not limiting your answer to this. What you are trying to do is to depict the other opinion (a-grav tech was supposed to be special for the imperium) as inherently wrong, even if it's something that was considered the norm in editions 3rd-7th.
And at the same time, you're advocating that grav-tech WAS supposed to be special, and showing that as a fact. I'm okay with admitting that it's my opinion that the current stuff is fine, that there is no issue with the grav-tech, and I'm not saying it's a fact. However, at the same time, saying that it goes against the Imperial design philosophy and it's out-of-character for Marines to have it is also an opinion. That's my point - you're just backing up opinions with opinions, but a lot of the time, they sound like (so perhaps I'm just reading wrongly into it) they're meant as facts.
Again, Guilliman pushing for advancements is made to give fluff to these new models, but IMHO makes the setting less interesting. Land speeders were just 1-2 models, the way they were spammed on the table is not a valid point. For the rest.. what can I say? What I can get from here is that you don't like how I write my posts. And now you are writing some confusing statement about the fact that people have opinions. Thank you we knew it. Until now, it seems that some of these opinions are forbidden here and dismissed outright. But I am optimistic, little step by little step we are getting there.
When you make arguments like "Primaris have skimmers*, they're stepping on the toes of the Eldar!", I felt this was a suitable point.
This cannot be possibly taken seriously because you are using it as a validation for your point while the a-grav rich factions are the ones supposed to have an ancient and elegant tech (necron, eldar) or are the true innovators (tau). Your ork statement is not only illogical (you draw a conclusion while there is no connection) but spins on his head Insectum's point. It's nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But it is an argument against "the Imperium's never had skimmers!"
And here is where I think you just don't read other people's posts. Existence alone is just one factor. You completely ignore rarity. Same here:
If the people complaining about skimmer tanks also said that they didn't like the Land Speeders, or that the Land Speeders didn't fit the Space Marine aesthetic, then that's a logical argument. But claiming that they had no problem with one kind of Space Marine skimmer, but having a problem with another purely because "skimmers aren't supposed to be Space Marine vehicles" would be strange.
It's not a difficult concept. One thing it's saying an element of an army shown as a rarity, another is it being the norm. Not many ork infantry units have a good armor save. Just meganobz (I think) have a 2+. Orks are supposed to have scrappy armor. In the moment they start to produce the new Prim-Ork (say) models all with a 2+, the way we perceive the faction changes. One could like the new aesthetics (if they look like the old black orcs I probably would!) but for sure the way we perceive Ork infantry would at least slightly change. It's not that difficult to grasp. I don't want to persuade you that my pov is necessarily right, but you could at least admit that someone thinking differently could have a legitimate opinion - thing you outright refuse to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Regarding the whole "Space Marines didn't have hover tanks" thing, this is where actually giving the lore a chance and reading it would help: the grav tech for those tanks is the same grav tech used for the Land Speeder. It is literally the STC Arkhan Land dug up slapped onto a tank (something Land himself did when he mashed a Land Raider with the hover tech of a Land Speeder). So it's not even new tech, it's just a different way of using existing tech. The only reason so many of them are rolling out is Guilliman's authority is ensuring that the Mechanicus is working its cogs off right now making stuff.
Guilliman even tasked the Mechanicus with studying the anti-grav STC further, so we could see a return of Imperial Jetbikes in the Imperium. And they'll be as subtle as a brick to the face.
EDIT: let me back up my claims with evidence:
Spoiler:
Thank you for the lore info. I am not questioning the fact that they made up lore in order to justify the models (GW is generally attentive to this, regardless of what can one think about the specific lore). Nonetheless, I find the lore change itself bad because makes the differences between imperium and other factions less special.
The fact that this topic is still going does indicate a bit of an irrational dislike for the Primaris. Kudos to everyone who isn't a raging hater and is pointing out the many substantial positives.
That's quite bold from the only person not actually contributing significantly.
Dreadnoughts moved away from clunky, mechanical reliquary to vaguely sporty, combat robot. The reliquary and purity seals are still there, they're just a little less prominent.
The issue is that sadly the purity seal in the changed contexts look like, if you allow me, relics. In the sense that they are vestigial, remnants of an older aesthetics. In the new context, it feels schizophrenic.
Zustiur wrote:Space marines did not have grav tanks. Now they do. That is a change in the overall aesthetic of space marines.
But they had grav tech: Land Speeders (of 4 different chassis types!).
The existence of Land Speeders tells me that the core to the Space Marine aesthetic was not in their lack of skimmer units. Land Speeders still look "Space Marine-y", as do the Repulsors, because the core of the Space Marine vehicle aesthetic isn't that they have tracks.
I clearly said tank. Is a land speeder a tank?
The fact that other parts of the imperium may have had grav tanks all along does not alter the fact that this is a change in the space marine aesthetic.
But it is an argument against "the Imperium's never had skimmers!"
And again, the very fact that Land Speeders exist (and actually skim higher than Repulsors) shows that tracks are not the key to Space Marine aesthetic.
It's a change I don't like and don't feel should have been done. I think insectum7 would agree with me. As has been pointed out, this change moves space marines one step away from their existing identity and very slightly blurs the line between marines and other armies such as Eldar and tau.
More than Land Speeders did?
Yes. If I'm not mistaken, space marines now have more anti grav than Eldar!
Eldar tanks had grav. Space marines tanks had tracks. It was one of the things that separated them. Note careful, I said 'one of.' I did not say 'the only.'
Similarly, all marines prior to Phobos, including scouts, had mirrored shoulder pads. Phobos marines have smaller shoulder pads on one side. All marines had flared greaves, Phobos have a gap that breaks up the line of the flare. These two changes alter the silhouette in a way that bothers me. If I ever get any, I'll be looking for a way to resolve these two problems.
And Marines prior to Mark VII plate had beaks for helmets. But they're still identifiable as Marines.
I'm not sure you know what a silhouette is... But if you want to include helmet changes, Phobos helmets are different too. I don't see how that helps your argument.
Flexibility in the way a unit can be set up before the battle and flexibility on the tabletop itself are two unrelated things. Tactical marines have many more the options than intercessors, they are more flexible at army selection time.
I don't see how Tacticals are regarded as more "flexible" when only 1/5 of the squad can have a different weapon than the Intercessors who can swap out everyone's main weapon for a different one that changes the unit's playstyle.
They might be flexible in different ways (ie, one is flexible in how it functions on the battlefield, and the other is flexible in it's potential for being slightly better against other targets), bu they *are* both flexible.
Yes, they are, in different ways. I raised this point because you seem to keep conflating one form of flexibility with another as though they amount to the same thing.
The auxiliary grenade launcher is bad at nearly everything, especially anti tank.
And the current missile launcher isn't? It's not exactly a stellar weapon, is it?
Personally, I find the grenade launcher to be surprisingly effective, at least, in my experience.
Your experience must be vastly different to mine. The recent changes to auto bolt rifles and stalker bolt rifles make the auxiliary grenade launcher even more superfluous. Why roll 1d6 and hope for 3+ S3 shots when you can get a flat 3 shots at a higher strength? Not to mention that the old stalker profile had a greater chance to hurt most tanks than the Krak grenade due to both needing 5+ to wound T7.
While I grant that having two ammo types is more flexible than a meltagun, the missile launcher has the same number of options. This invalidates the grenade launcher as a consideration of unit flexibility on the tabletop. It is equal to the missile launcher in number of ammo types but inferior at both roles.
And the missile launcher requires the squad to stay still to fire at full capacity. The grenade launcher does not.
Full capacity, yes. However, bolters also benefit from staying still now. And the -1 to hit is often balanced out against the lower wound chance you'd have from that grenade. 4+ to hit and 3+ to wound functions the same as 3+ to hit and 4+ to wound as you'd have when comparing the frag options against T3. I'm struggling to think of any situation where the missile launcher isn't equal or better.
Flexibility - the squad isn't forced to babysit their heavy weapon guy, but can move at their normal rate in battle.
Again, the tactical squad has options for that too. The grenade launcher isn't doing anything a tactical squad's weapon options can't do better. And as noted above, moving with a heavy weapon doesn't necessarily mean that the heavy weapon is inferior to the grenade launcher.
Prior to the introduction of centurions, squad size did indeed follow a common theme of the max squad size being 10 marines. Most started at 5 with bikes as a notable exception. Attack bikes and land speeders being bigger exceptions to that common theme. Note that for a time land speeders could be up to 5 in one unit. i.e. 10 marines.
If you're needing to ignore units to argue that your faction had a cohesive pattern, then that pattern clearly wasn't that clear.
I'm not arguing that the 5/10 pattern wasn't predominant in most Marine units, but that's also the same with Primaris. Select specialist units (Aggressors, Centurions, Bikers, Inceptors, etc etc) buck that trend - and that's fine to admit that.
You do understand that 'common theme' can have exceptions right? And that when you get too many exceptions it stops being the common theme? I absolutely can ignore those _2_ units. What I can't ignore is all the new units of 3-6 or indeed just 3 that have turned up lately.
I personally would be happier if all that design time on centurions, stalker, hunters and primaris had instead been spent on refreshing other parts of the range. Eldar, Orks, sisters and so on. Think where those armies would be now with that many kits updated. No more resin!
Agreed. I don't think the whole Space Marine model reboot in 2017 (was it 2017) needed to be done. The kits were fine as they were. However, I think out of the two revamps to the line, the Primaris one is better than the 2017 range, generally speaking.
Not just the 2017 range... The primaris range wasn't necessary either if you ask me. At least, not yet. All the xeno races and sisters and imperial guard should have been updated before we even considered primaris.
Thank you for the lore info. I am not questioning the fact that they made up lore in order to justify the models (GW is generally attentive to this, regardless of what can one think about the specific lore). Nonetheless, I find the lore change itself bad because makes the differences between imperium and other factions less special.
I feel like you'll do anything to brush off the lore and call it not canon. Rogue Trader started with the Imperium having Grav Tech, and the Astartes kept it in some form or another for decades. Now that the studio has gone back and gone "let's give Marines their grav tanks back" you say it breaks canon? Bull.
You've created you're own idea of what you think40k should be, and instead of admitting you're pigeonholing the setting you keep trying to claim that every single call back to that old lore is somehow not in line with the very setting that is built on that lore. Even 30k's lore is built on a lot of stuff from Rogue Trader that most fans thought they'd never get back.
You can make up excuses all day and all night but the fact is you've created this problem for yourself and instead of trying to address you own failing headcanon you keep doubling down and blaming GW for doing it wrong.
Even when people hold your hand and explain how you can swap stuff around and do things to change how the models look you double down on the leg posability (reminder for those of us who've been playing a while, if you wanted customized leg poses you chopped the sucker off and built the missing bits out of green stuff so don't pretend this is a new problem) while ignoring how more natural the poses look and how the body line is more fitting than it used to be.
The arms off the old models -do- work on the new ones (images from Goonhammer):
And we can swap heads and shoulder pads as well. The only things that don't work without some kind of work are trying to use paired arms, but using the new paired arms and cutting the hands off to put on classic bolters or other weapons works just as well. Heck, you can even shave off the chest icon like I did here for a NMM chipping test model I did (spoilered for size because this is potato country):
Spoiler:
Jes gave us a pretty blank canvas to work with on what we do with these guys. If you stare at it and can't figure out how to play with what they gave you then the fault isn't on the studio, it's on you for not wanting to go outside the lines and then complaining they don't give you enough freedom.
With that said, I'm done with this nonsense. I'm working on a Crusaders chapter (quartered red and white scheme) that I'm planning on adding candles, and doing a fair bit of parts swapping on (thinking of using Grey Knight arms with the swords and trying to make the storm bolters into Auto Bolt Rifles and giving them Crusader helms and use some back banners on them too).
Thank you for the lore info. I am not questioning the fact that they made up lore in order to justify the models (GW is generally attentive to this, regardless of what can one think about the specific lore). Nonetheless, I find the lore change itself bad because makes the differences between imperium and other factions less special.
I feel like you'll do anything to brush off the lore and call it not canon. Rogue Trader started with the Imperium having Grav Tech, and the Astartes kept it in some form or another for decades. Now that the studio has gone back and gone "let's give Marines their grav tanks back" you say it breaks canon? Bull.
You've created you're own idea of what you think40k should be, and instead of admitting you're pigeonholing the setting you keep trying to claim that every single call back to that old lore is somehow not in line with the very setting that is built on that lore. Even 30k's lore is built on a lot of stuff from Rogue Trader that most fans thought they'd never get back.
You can make up excuses all day and all night but the fact is you've created this problem for yourself and instead of trying to address you own failing headcanon you keep doubling down and blaming GW for doing it wrong.
That "headcannon" is based on very real things, however. Namely that Grav-tech is RARE, and that it hasn't been on a production model for the Imperium outside of Land Speeders up until about 2016 or so.
Thank you for the lore info. I am not questioning the fact that they made up lore in order to justify the models (GW is generally attentive to this, regardless of what can one think about the specific lore). Nonetheless, I find the lore change itself bad because makes the differences between imperium and other factions less special.
I feel like you'll do anything to brush off the lore and call it not canon. Rogue Trader started with the Imperium having Grav Tech, and the Astartes kept it in some form or another for decades. Now that the studio has gone back and gone "let's give Marines their grav tanks back" you say it breaks canon? Bull.
You've created you're own idea of what you think40k should be, and instead of admitting you're pigeonholing the setting you keep trying to claim that every single call back to that old lore is somehow not in line with the very setting that is built on that lore. Even 30k's lore is built on a lot of stuff from Rogue Trader that most fans thought they'd never get back.
You can make up excuses all day and all night but the fact is you've created this problem for yourself and instead of trying to address you own failing headcanon you keep doubling down and blaming GW for doing it wrong.
That "headcannon" is based on very real things, however. Namely that Grav-tech is RARE, and that it hasn't been on a production model for the Imperium outside of Land Speeders up until about 2016 or so.
You seem to be confused about how common it still is in the setting. Namely even with ONE THOUSAND chapters having access to it, that only represents a force (assuming some old math of mine that put an estimate at the population size of the Imperium at 16 Quintillion back before they broke the galaxy, let's call it a nice round 10 quintillion to represent the losses) 1 million people who can use anti-grav tech out of 10 quintillion is .00000000001% of the Imperium having access to the some kind of anti-grav tech.
The galaxy is a huge place, and just because a large chunk of what we see on the table can ride in grav tanks doesn't make it common to the setting.
Servo-skulls are practically everywhere and they use grav tech. If you can make servo-skulls and land speeders, then you logically should be also be able to make grav tanks. I really don't think that sort of setting logic attack works against grav tanks, they make certainly enough sense in the setting.
It is fine to prefer the tracked look though. Whilst I like Repulsors, and they clearly have the Space Marine vehicle look, it still clearly is a a bit different aesthetic than a tracked tank.
Kaiyanwang wrote:Again, Guilliman pushing for advancements is made to give fluff to these new models, but IMHO makes the setting less interesting. Land speeders were just 1-2 models, the way they were spammed on the table is not a valid point.
There was at least 4 variant hulls of Land Speeder (standard, Storm, Tempest, and the Dark Angel one - the Darkshroud, was it?). And in most sources I can find, they're no rarer than Land Raiders. Hell, they don't even seem rarer than Predators and Vindicators.
For all the talk of them being rarer, it doesn't really come across in how many are depicted (again, not even on tabletop).
When you make arguments like "Primaris have skimmers*, they're stepping on the toes of the Eldar!", I felt this was a suitable point.
This cannot be possibly taken seriously because you are using it as a validation for your point while the a-grav rich factions are the ones supposed to have an ancient and elegant tech (necron, eldar) or are the true innovators (tau). Your ork statement is not only illogical (you draw a conclusion while there is no connection) but spins on his head Insectum's point. It's nonsense.
Insectum's point seemed to be that "Space Marines can't have XYZ because XYZ factions have that, and it's supposed to be unique to them" (which is untrue anyway, as there are plenty of Land Speeders). I reversed that point by showing how other factions also lay claim to "Marine things". Saying that "you can't do that, XYZ faction does it too" simply can't work when there is so much overlap between the many many factions.
And you say it yourself - "ancient and elegant tech" - the Repulsors don't fit that category. They're crude, violent, and brutally effective: all the things a Space Marine should be. I think the way they fluff the grav plates makes them more emblematic of Space Marines than any of the older vehicles.
They've got technology that would be considered magical by modern standards, and yet they use it in the most brutish and deadly way possible by having it lift heavily armoured tanks by punching into the ground.
That's the most Space Marine thing I've heard of, in my opinion.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But it is an argument against "the Imperium's never had skimmers!"
And here is where I think you just don't read other people's posts.
Existence alone is just one factor. You completely ignore rarity.
As addressed, Land Speeders are no rarer than Land Raiders, Predators, or Vindicators.
If the people complaining about skimmer tanks also said that they didn't like the Land Speeders, or that the Land Speeders didn't fit the Space Marine aesthetic, then that's a logical argument. But claiming that they had no problem with one kind of Space Marine skimmer, but having a problem with another purely because "skimmers aren't supposed to be Space Marine vehicles" would be strange.
It's not a difficult concept. One thing it's saying an element of an army shown as a rarity, another is it being the norm. Not many ork infantry units have a good armor save. Just meganobz (I think) have a 2+. Orks are supposed to have scrappy armor. In the moment they start to produce the new Prim-Ork (say) models all with a 2+, the way we perceive the faction changes. One could like the new aesthetics (if they look like the old black orcs I probably would!) but for sure the way we perceive Ork infantry would at least slightly change.
It depends how many Ork units have the 2+ save. Is it their regular boyz? Is the armour still in Ork-y style?
I think a big difference between the two is that Ork boyz have never worn mega-armour, but that Space Marine vehicles HAVE had anti-grav. Giving mega-armour to something like Stormboyz or Flash Gitz or something? I could work with that! But Ork core infantry has always been light-medium infantry. Space Marine vehicles however have always had *some* anti-grav units.
It's not that difficult to grasp. I don't want to persuade you that my pov is necessarily right, but you could at least admit that someone thinking differently could have a legitimate opinion - thing you outright refuse to do.
I can *see* what your argument is saying, but the reliance on logic that I find flimsy and incomprehensible is making it difficult to see any factual support behind it, beyond the fact of "I don't like Primaris" - which, as I continue to say, is absolutely fine on it's own. It's not the "I don't like Primaris" that's the problem. It's the "I don't like Primaris because XYZ", and that XYZ being some quite unusual logic to me.
And yes, agreed on the Black Orcs/Ironjaws aesthetic. I never played Orcs or Orruks, but I loved to play against Black Orc units. Such brutal looking models.
Zustiur wrote:Space marines did not have grav tanks. Now they do. That is a change in the overall aesthetic of space marines.
But they had grav tech: Land Speeders (of 4 different chassis types!).
The existence of Land Speeders tells me that the core to the Space Marine aesthetic was not in their lack of skimmer units. Land Speeders still look "Space Marine-y", as do the Repulsors, because the core of the Space Marine vehicle aesthetic isn't that they have tracks.
I clearly said tank. Is a land speeder a tank?
No, but it is a vehicle. I honestly don't really see why that distinction needs to be made. Space Marines had grav-vehicles. Their Land Speeders still fitted into their aesthetic. Therefore, I don't think the grav-part is exactly a "core" Space Marine issue.
But if the fact it's officially designated as a tank is the problem, fair enough. Would you have a problem if GW had created another skimmer that wasn't a tank?
It's a change I don't like and don't feel should have been done. I think insectum7 would agree with me. As has been pointed out, this change moves space marines one step away from their existing identity and very slightly blurs the line between marines and other armies such as Eldar and tau.
I don't feel that it does change their identity at all.
If I'm not mistaken, space marines now have more anti grav than Eldar!
Primaris have 3 anti-grav units. Classic Marines have, what, 5? 6? (Land Speeder, Typhoon, Tempest, Storm, Darkshroud and Sammael's jetbike).
Eldar tanks had grav. Space marines tanks had tracks. It was one of the things that separated them. Note careful, I said 'one of.' I did not say 'the only.'
I never meant to insinuate it was the "only" thing. However, with how many Space Marine *vehicles* had anti-grav (because I don't see why we're separating tanks and non-tanks here), I don't think that treads were a defining feature of Space Marine vehicles.
'm not sure you know what a silhouette is... But if you want to include helmet changes, Phobos helmets are different too. I don't see how that helps your argument.
My point was only to say that the silhouette of the older Marines has changed too. And hell, the whole point in the OP of "regular Marines have fewer silhouettes!" isn't really true when you consider that the silhouettes of old units are very much different (jump packs, bikes, and suchlike having an effect on the unit's silhouette).
The grenade launcher isn't doing anything a tactical squad's weapon options can't do better.
Against T5 or 6 targets, the krak grenades are useful to me.
And as noted above, moving with a heavy weapon doesn't necessarily mean that the heavy weapon is inferior to the grenade launcher.
Again, my point isn't so much with the actual effectiveness of the weapon - that changes between editions and all. My point is that the Primaris Marines *do* have tactical flexibility options - which, again, I don't see why that's a key trait of what makes a Space Marine in the first place.
You do understand that 'common theme' can have exceptions right? And that when you get too many exceptions it stops being the common theme? I absolutely can ignore those _2_ units. What I can't ignore is all the new units of 3-6 or indeed just 3 that have turned up lately.
And what is the point at which exception does stop being just an exception? Because as I see it, Primaris haven't crossed that boundary yet.
If the point had been left at just "we have a disagreement about how much is too much", then fair point, but the fact that yourself and Insectum have both tried to handwave the Centurions away sounds a lot like you're just picking and choosing from the Marine list.
I personally would be happier if all that design time on centurions, stalker, hunters and primaris had instead been spent on refreshing other parts of the range. Eldar, Orks, sisters and so on. Think where those armies would be now with that many kits updated. No more resin!
Agreed. I don't think the whole Space Marine model reboot in 2017 (was it 2017) needed to be done. The kits were fine as they were. However, I think out of the two revamps to the line, the Primaris one is better than the 2017 range, generally speaking.
Not just the 2017 range... The primaris range wasn't necessary either if you ask me. At least, not yet. All the xeno races and sisters and imperial guard should have been updated before we even considered primaris.
Did I say I disagreed with you? Sisters should have gotten updates well before we started adding other factions to the game, and Eldar should have gotten them before Space Marines got anything. I think guard are fine though, and the 2017 range wasn't needed. Neither the 2017 or Primaris were necessary, but out of the two, I know which I thought was superior.
Is it? At least, any rarer than Land Raiders, and suchlike?
and that it hasn't been on a production model for the Imperium outside of Land Speeders up until about 2016 or so.
It didn't mean it didn't exist though. Custodes had those hover vehicles for ages. There's lore about grav-tech being in use throughout the Imperium.
I'd like to point out that plasma's rare, but we see it in nearly every Imperial faction. Hell, some Necromundans have it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: It is fine to prefer the tracked look though. Whilst I like Repulsors, and they clearly have the Space Marine vehicle look, it still clearly is a a bit different aesthetic than a tracked tank.
This.
It's fine not to like it. It's fine not to like hover tanks. But to say "it's not a Space Marine style" is not exactly true, at least, until we can actually settle what "Space Marine style" is. Because clearly there is a great deal of disagreement about what Space Marine aesthetic actually is.
Honestly, it would be a lot easier just to say "it doesn't fit what I consider to be a Space Marine" than saying "that's clearly not Space Marine aesthetic".
Thank you for the lore info. I am not questioning the fact that they made up lore in order to justify the models (GW is generally attentive to this, regardless of what can one think about the specific lore). Nonetheless, I find the lore change itself bad because makes the differences between imperium and other factions less special.
I feel like you'll do anything to brush off the lore and call it not canon. Rogue Trader started with the Imperium having Grav Tech, and the Astartes kept it in some form or another for decades. Now that the studio has gone back and gone "let's give Marines their grav tanks back" you say it breaks canon? Bull.
You've created you're own idea of what you think40k should be, and instead of admitting you're pigeonholing the setting you keep trying to claim that every single call back to that old lore is somehow not in line with the very setting that is built on that lore. Even 30k's lore is built on a lot of stuff from Rogue Trader that most fans thought they'd never get back.
You can make up excuses all day and all night but the fact is you've created this problem for yourself and instead of trying to address you own failing headcanon you keep doubling down and blaming GW for doing it wrong.
That "headcannon" is based on very real things, however. Namely that Grav-tech is RARE, and that it hasn't been on a production model for the Imperium outside of Land Speeders up until about 2016 or so.
You seem to be confused about how common it still is in the setting. Namely even with ONE THOUSAND chapters having access to it, that only represents a force (assuming some old math of mine that put an estimate at the population size of the Imperium at 16 Quintillion back before they broke the galaxy, let's call it a nice round 10 quintillion to represent the losses) 1 million people who can use anti-grav tech out of 10 quintillion is .00000000001% of the Imperium having access to the some kind of anti-grav tech.
The galaxy is a huge place, and just because a large chunk of what we see on the table can ride in grav tanks doesn't make it common to the setting.
That really just depends on your frame of reference. "Rare among Space Marine vehicles" to "All Primaris vehicles." Or, "No antigrav tanks" to "All Primaris tanks." It's a defining factor of Primaris vehicles, regardless, which is a primary Imperial army now. While before, grav tanks were exceedingly uncommon outside the usual xenos suspects.
For the record, that percentage is even more tipped against the Marines than I thought because the original pop estimate I worked out was 21 quintillion (spoiler has context of the whole number crunching I did back in 2013 and had shared with the studio in 2014):
Spoiler:
About a year ago a friend of mine and myself sat down with the idea of trying to figure out about how "big" the Imperium was roughly population wise (and about how many Sisters of Battle would fit the setting). So we dug through all the information on population levels from old rulebooks and what we could find and here's what we worked out while trying to keep the numbers on the low end as possible:
To keep the numbers reasonably low we worked off the following rules:
1% of the entire Imperium meets the very basic criteria to be considered for becoming a Sororitas.
1% of those complete their "basic" training successfully
1% of those are on active status at any time (the other 99% have been deactivated for any number of reasons). This last one was to really just push the number a lot lower based on the "stuff happens" quotient.
50% of the final total is Militant Orders, the rest is divided into the various Non-Militant Orders (which makes each of those smaller than the combined Militant Orders).
So running some basic numbers we figured that from the Hive Worlds (all 32,380 of them) had a rough average of 50,000,000,000 (we went with 50 Billion a Hive, which is about the middle of the range (10-100,000,000,000), and 10 Hive a planet, which is a bit lower than half as the range is 5-20) 16,190,000,000,000,000 people on the hives.
To keep the math easy we went with an average of 5 Billion people on average on every other planet in the Imperium (working from 1,000,000 that means 967,620 worlds) which is lower than our current population on Earth. That gave us another 4,838,100,000,000,000 more people.
This gave us a total of 21,028,100,000,000,000 people in the Imperium on a lowball math run (that is 21 Quadrillion people for the record).
Of these 210,281,000,000,000 meet the very basic criteria (1% of the population).
Of those 2,102,810,000,000 complete the basic training (1% of those who meet the basic criteria).
Of those 21,028,100,000 are on any kind of active duty (1% of those who complete the training).
Of those 10,514,050,000 are Battle Sisters (50% of those who are active duty).
With 1 Million Worlds in the Imperium this means the Sisters could in theory put as many as 10,514 Sisters on every world on average (the real spread is likely much more varied depending on combat operations, duties on Shrine Worlds, escorting pilgrimages, ect. This is just to give a rough idea of how many there could be.)
Now understandably 10.5 Billion sounds like a lot, but considering the scale of the Imperium it turns out to only be .00005% of the entire Imperium (for a comparative basis it'd be like 300 Sisters in the United States,or 6 Sisters to every state in the US), so still plenty "elite" for the setting.
Likewise the same numbers could be applied to Tempestus Scions and Commissars (as they go through similar screening processes).
And just for fun, if the Imperium has properly tithed their Guardsmen and there were no massed casualties there would be 210,281,000,000,000 standing Guardsmen. Definitely enough to drown the enemy in bodies, eh?
So 1 million Astartes out of 15 quintillion people (assuming we lost 6 quintillion people to the rift)? 6.6666667e-12% (.0000000000066666667%).
That still makes every grav vehicile incredibly rare since chapters seem to have one for every so many of their Astartes.
Thank you for the lore info. I am not questioning the fact that they made up lore in order to justify the models (GW is generally attentive to this, regardless of what can one think about the specific lore). Nonetheless, I find the lore change itself bad because makes the differences between imperium and other factions less special.
I feel like you'll do anything to brush off the lore and call it not canon. Rogue Trader started with the Imperium having Grav Tech, and the Astartes kept it in some form or another for decades. Now that the studio has gone back and gone "let's give Marines their grav tanks back" you say it breaks canon? Bull.
You've created you're own idea of what you think40k should be, and instead of admitting you're pigeonholing the setting you keep trying to claim that every single call back to that old lore is somehow not in line with the very setting that is built on that lore. Even 30k's lore is built on a lot of stuff from Rogue Trader that most fans thought they'd never get back.
You can make up excuses all day and all night but the fact is you've created this problem for yourself and instead of trying to address you own failing headcanon you keep doubling down and blaming GW for doing it wrong.
That "headcannon" is based on very real things, however. Namely that Grav-tech is RARE, and that it hasn't been on a production model for the Imperium outside of Land Speeders up until about 2016 or so.
You seem to be confused about how common it still is in the setting. Namely even with ONE THOUSAND chapters having access to it, that only represents a force (assuming some old math of mine that put an estimate at the population size of the Imperium at 16 Quintillion back before they broke the galaxy, let's call it a nice round 10 quintillion to represent the losses) 1 million people who can use anti-grav tech out of 10 quintillion is .00000000001% of the Imperium having access to the some kind of anti-grav tech.
The galaxy is a huge place, and just because a large chunk of what we see on the table can ride in grav tanks doesn't make it common to the setting.
That really just depends on your frame of reference. "Rare among Space Marine vehicles" to "All Primaris vehicles." Or, "No antigrav tanks" to "All Primaris tanks." It's a defining factor of Primaris vehicles, regardless, which is a primary Imperial army now. While before, grav tanks were exceedingly uncommon outside the usual xenos suspects.
The primary Imperial Army is still the Guard. Scions are the Special Forces of said army, and then above that you have Astartes which are more like WMDs.
on another note beyond rarity (BTW plasma guns are described as rare but no one raises an eyebrow when every guard suqad marine squad, etc has a plasma gun) I was in my local GW today and got talking to some folks and finally managed to actually hear a really good reason for aestetic issues with Primaris.
He said that they look just eneugh like space marines to obviously be space marines, but have just eneugh differances to throw you off. It's , to borrow a term, kind of like an uncanny valley issue. And THAT is IMHO a pretty valid arguement. (I don't have the issue myself but... I can see it)
Insectum7 wrote: Faction identity: rare to faction identity: rule
Rarity to a faction is not the same as a rarity to the overall race of government.
Space Marines are rare, but we can field whole armies of them despite having only a million in the setting to work with. Making them have access to something even rarer than they are doesn't make it more common in the setting and confusing the rarity on the table (which is based more on its rules versus points costs than anything since the old 0-1 stuff died years ago) for the rarity in the setting and then using it to proclaim as making something "too common" is only creating a false premise on which to create an argument on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: on another note beyond rarity (BTW plasma guns are described as rare but no one raises an eyebrow when every guard suqad marine squad, etc has a plasma gun) I was in my local GW today and got talking to some folks and finally managed to actually hear a really good reason for aestetic issues with Primaris.
He said that they look just eneugh like space marines to obviously be space marines, but have just eneugh differances to throw you off. It's , to borrow a term, kind of like an uncanny valley issue. And THAT is IMHO a pretty valid arguement. (I don't have the issue myself but... I can see it)
I can see it. Just different enough that the differences can be hard for some people to parse is a valid reason for any model update (and might be where some of those memes about "soul" versus "soulless" really stem from).
Makes more sense than most of the handwavium I've seen used in this thread.
Insectum7 wrote: Faction identity: rare to faction identity: rule
Rarity to a faction is not the same as a rarity to the overall race of government.
No, but army wise it's pretty significant. That's what people play, and that's how faction identity manifests itself on the tabletop.
Space Marines go from no flying tanks, to all flying tanks. "High techy" factions go from skimmer-tank exclusivity, to sharing them with the most popular/played faction in the game. It's not insignificant. A degradation of faction design identity.
"All flying tanks". Nice hyperbole. Currently the only part of the Marines who are "all" flying tanks are the Primaris, but we know they have Land Raiders (Silver Templar chapter organization) and that they drive Rhinos (current codex).
ClockworkZion wrote: "All flying tanks". Nice hyperbole. Currently the only part of the Marines who are "all" flying tanks are the Primaris, but we know they have Land Raiders (Silver Templar chapter organization) and that they drive Rhinos (current codex).
ClockworkZion wrote: "All flying tanks". Nice hyperbole. Currently the only part of the Marines who are "all" flying tanks are the Primaris, but we know they have Land Raiders (Silver Templar chapter organization) and that they drive Rhinos (current codex).
ClockworkZion wrote: "All flying tanks". Nice hyperbole. Currently the only part of the Marines who are "all" flying tanks are the Primaris, but we know they have Land Raiders (Silver Templar chapter organization) and that they drive Rhinos (current codex).
Never said it was grimdark, just that he's amazing. Kind of thought it would lead to more chariots being seen but I guess that design phase passed us by.
Insectum7 wrote: Sometimes, as it devolped, it immatured. Marines riding wolves, marines in armor, in armor. . .
Yeah, because nothing says "Grimdark" like Santa and his hover sleigh...
That model, actually done up and painted a bit better is great. I will fight the haters on it everyday and twice on Sunday.
I 100% believe you. It's just really not what I want to think about when I think Space Wolf.
On the other hand, I've always wanted a Lord of Skulls. I think the crazy stuff has it's place for sure. One nice thung about the sled is that Grimnar himself is a great model without it, so you can go more conservative.
No, they are jet engines, holding his epic self aloft and pulled forward by massive war beasts holding him from flying away !..yes probably anti grav, which would hint it's not as rare as might be imagined.
Insectum7 wrote: Sometimes, as it devolped, it immatured. Marines riding wolves, marines in armor, in armor. . .
Yeah, because nothing says "Grimdark" like Santa and his hover sleigh...
That model, actually done up and painted a bit better is great. I will fight the haters on it everyday and twice on Sunday.
I 100% believe you. It's just really not what I want to think about when I think Space Wolf.
On the other hand, I've always wanted a Lord of Skulls. I think the crazy stuff has it's place for sure. One nice thung about the sled is that Grimnar himself is a great model without it, so you can go more conservative.
I can get that, it isn't everyones taste for sure. You can easily set him up for use on and off the chariot so long as you have the extra base just use some magnets and ta da !
BrianDavion wrote: on another note beyond rarity (BTW plasma guns are described as rare but no one raises an eyebrow when every guard suqad marine squad, etc has a plasma gun) I was in my local GW today and got talking to some folks and finally managed to actually hear a really good reason for aestetic issues with Primaris.
He said that they look just eneugh like space marines to obviously be space marines, but have just eneugh differances to throw you off. It's , to borrow a term, kind of like an uncanny valley issue. And THAT is IMHO a pretty valid arguement. (I don't have the issue myself but... I can see it)
That's a pretty good sum-up.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Never said it was grimdark, just that he's amazing. Kind of thought it would lead to more chariots being seen but I guess that design phase passed us by.
I would have loved a Dark Eldar character chariot of some kind, since I've always loved the bizarre war-beasts and gladiatorial games angle of the wych cults.
BrianDavion wrote: on another note beyond rarity (BTW plasma guns are described as rare but no one raises an eyebrow when every guard suqad marine squad, etc has a plasma gun) I was in my local GW today and got talking to some folks and finally managed to actually hear a really good reason for aestetic issues with Primaris.
He said that they look just eneugh like space marines to obviously be space marines, but have just eneugh differances to throw you off. It's , to borrow a term, kind of like an uncanny valley issue. And THAT is IMHO a pretty valid arguement. (I don't have the issue myself but... I can see it)
That's a pretty good sum-up.
.
I thought it worked and I can accept that arguement I mean it's not all some "ohh Primaris aren't real marines cause.."
because the table top isn't indicative of whats common in the setting. I mean grey Knights and space wolves are both a codex despite numbering ~1000 individuals
This reminds me historical wwii player who want all the ferdinand elephants at one battle with no mark ivs. Except those games usually prevent that. Not this one.
GWs setting is of little consequence if it has no impact on gameplay. Otherwise its just bloviation.
And yes chapter sizes are mega stupid.
If people love the fluff so much, why do they tolerate such violations?
Martel732 wrote: They can say plasma is rare, but until restrictions go in the game, its not rare.
my point is that things fluffed as rare being common is the NORM in 40k
Rare can mean a lot in context, Finding 40 plasma for a specifc part of a battle for the IG does not mean they are not Rare. The battle context is often that its just a small part of the war, or even the battle itself for that very reason. Or even a chapter master or leader in the imperium having access to the tech itself, It could be special requested and taken 15 years to make.
Or they could only be making 12 thousand plasma guns a year, That is a lot. Unless you have to outfit the entire imperium with that number.
Bring back that plasma gun, its worth more than you are solder. Do not worry, we will get a pick up for that gun. Quite grimdark in a way
Besides if we enforced rarity on the table top it'd lead to gak like "ok, so our gaming group is up to 100 players, since we're at that level guys I've put everyone's name in a hat. the person who wins the draw may make a space Marines army"
That's better, thank you. In a number of previous posts you came across as dismissive of other people's opinions and presented points. That's why I jumped in to add weight and hopefully clarity to the arguments being put forth.
To me there is a very significant difference between a speeder and a tank.
To me, there is a significant difference between a long standing unit and centurions, so I have no trouble considering them to be one of the new units which are contributing to a shift in the identity of a marine army.
I admit I was forgetting about the Tempest. The typhoon is not a variant of speeder, just a weapon. They're the same dataslate. So land speeder, Tempest, storm, vengeance/Dark shroud and now repulsors and impulsors. 6 by my counting. Compared to Falcon, for prism, night shroud, vyper and jetbikes. 5. So in my eyes Eldar no longer hold the title for most anti grav units. That's weird to me.
T5 and T6 are very rare in my area. So that explains that I guess.
Suffice to say there have been a large number of new models in the last few years which have been visually jarring to me. When I and others try to discuss what we find jarring, we don't want to be told that our comments are invalid because someone doesn't hold the same mental image of what a space marine is.
Taking cuts out of the lower leg, uneven shoulders, anti grav tanks, space hopper autocannons, stubbers, unit sizes based on the number 3, entire squads with the same weapon... None of these things say marine to me. Perhaps I've just been around the hobby for too long. I remember when imperial units came 1, 5 or 10 models per unit, without the option to take 6,7,8 or 9, let alone 3. Even ogryns were 5 per unit.
I've been playing since 3rd edition and don't see this whole "been in the hobby too long" thing as ringing true.
I stand by my earlier point: you (and others) have built a littld mental box that says what a Space Marine "should" be and since GW has decided to use a bigger box that your box fits inside of you've blamed them for thinking outside of your box when all they're trying to do is give a larger box of ideas to play in.
I painted an Intercessor Sergeant in a quartered red and white scheme last night for a little color test. Why? Because all this talk over over the top Marines who seem more like walking Cathederals has me wanting to make just that. So I did a paint scheme test last night, am off to get plastic rod, wire, jewlery chain and sculpting putty and making it (I'm also going to nees crusader helms, swords and other bits but the Grey Knights kits are a good source for that).
Heck, I'm building the whole army around Rapid Assault (assault weapons don't suffer a penalty for advancing) and Whirlwind of Rage (exploding 6s to hit in melee) to play Primaris army that moves up and wants to get stuck in.
You've created you're own idea of what you think40k should be, and instead of admitting you're pigeonholing the setting you keep trying to claim that every single call back to that old lore is somehow not in line with the very setting that is built on that lore. Even 30k's lore is built on a lot of stuff from Rogue Trader that most fans thought they'd never get back.
You can make up excuses all day and all night but the fact is you've created this problem for yourself and instead of trying to address you own failing headcanon you keep doubling down and blaming GW for doing it wrong.
Even when people hold your hand and explain how you can swap stuff around and do things to change how the models look you double down on the leg posability (reminder for those of us who've been playing a while, if you wanted customized leg poses you chopped the sucker off and built the missing bits out of green stuff so don't pretend this is a new problem) while ignoring how more natural the poses look and how the body line is more fitting than it used to be.
I did not create ANYTHING. I used the 3rd-7th ed 40k fluff, the one that I prefer. You know, preferences, stuff that seems forbidden over here. You can run in circles as much as you want, but tech was introduced and presented in specific ways, and depicting a specific setting, and these ways have been thrown out in order to re-make the whole marine line. You can like it, I don't.
And we can swap heads and shoulder pads as well.
I don't care. I can modify Plague Marines because the excesses are balanced by other excellent elements the minis have. Primaris are not worthy my time in that regard.
I stand by my earlier point: you (and others) have built a littld mental box that says what a Space Marine "should" be and since GW has decided to use a bigger box that your box fits inside of you've blamed them for thinking outside of your box when all they're trying to do is give a larger box of ideas to play in.
And you should stop. It's perfectly legitimate to support a revamp of the line and to appreciate the new fluff. But it should be easy to understand that other's preferences have root in the older fluff and such older fluff can be thr preferred one. Stop calling it "headcanon". It's at best, disingenuous. Seriously, this thread is surreal. There is not even the attempt to convince you that primaris are X or Y, we are just trying to legitimate our point of view. It's like talking with zealots.
Kaiyanwang wrote:Again, Guilliman pushing for advancements is made to give fluff to these new models, but IMHO makes the setting less interesting. Land speeders were just 1-2 models, the way they were spammed on the table is not a valid point.
There was at least 4 variant hulls of Land Speeder (standard, Storm, Tempest, and the Dark Angel one - the Darkshroud, was it?). And in most sources I can find, they're no rarer than Land Raiders. Hell, they don't even seem rarer than Predators and Vindicators. For all the talk of them being rarer, it doesn't really come across in how many are depicted (again, not even on tabletop).
1) it's just the LS, not other tanks 2) funny that you introduce the Dark Angels - they are supposed to have more a-grav, like Sammael's last jetbike. a-grav everywhere taints a bit their flluff too.
You did create something: a definition of ehat you think a Marinenshould be. If you hadn't you wouldn't be griping about all the ways the Phobos and grav tank stuff doesn't fit that definition.
ClockworkZion wrote: You did create something: a definition of ehat you think a Marinenshould be. If you hadn't you wouldn't be griping about all the ways the Phobos and grav tank stuff doesn't fit that definition.
And that definions has roots in the old fluff.
It's perfectly legitimate to state "I love the new fluff! It's an improvement!".
But what you are trying to do is rather "the old fluff never existed. Also, we always been at war with Eastasia".
Martel732 wrote: They can say plasma is rare, but until restrictions go in the game, its not rare.
my point is that things fluffed as rare being common is the NORM in 40k
There can be different levels of rarity, obviously. I'm not sure if Plasma tech is 'rare' or that it's just not well understood or if the forgeworlds capable of producing it en masse are rare. Hive gangs can get plasma weapons, whereas the Dark Angels have only one personal jetbike.
Level of tech application could be an issue too. For anti-grav, it could be a simple matter to get a servo skull to float, but as mass increases the level of sophistication might increase dramatically.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: You did create something: a definition of ehat you think a Marinenshould be. If you hadn't you wouldn't be griping about all the ways the Phobos and grav tank stuff doesn't fit that definition.
So we should just ignore precedent and move on like nothing has happened? 25 odd years of marines manifesting very consistently and we just toss it, huh? No thank you.
Except the hobby ignores changes to the lore all the time.
Or is Leman Russ still the size of a normal Marine and did the Heresy end in Horus' command bunker?
Heck in 2nd edition Uriah Jacobus died in a plague infested swamp but in 5th he was still alive and kicking.
Stuff changes all the tims and if you're resisting change for the sake of resisting change then you'll never really be happy with snything they do.
Heck we can sit here and quote Jes talking abouy his thoughts involving designing good and evil space wizards all day but if you've chosen to dislike the new Marine before even looking at the lore or seeing why the designers changed how they approach the designs then we can't make you like them.
Phobos armour is clearly an update on the classic scout designs (visors and all) while unifying the statline with the rest of the army (3+ save instead of a 4+). It doesn't look like a classic Marine because it's not supposed to look like a classic Marine. It's supposed to be an evolution of the old carapace armour to reflect the more modular MkX design. That's why they have power boots instead of flared greaves like standard Marines.
I mean, complain about shoulder pads and the like all you want, but if you put a Phobos armoured mini next to a Scout mini and asked someone who new nothingnof the hobby to pick out the Space Marine they'd pick the Phobos model everytime.
Minor changes happen all the time. Major changes happen rather infrequently. The state of Uriah Jacobus is decidedly less important/relevant than major changes to the most popular faction of the game.
Insectum7 wrote: Minor changes happen all the time. Major changes happen rather infrequently. The state of Uriah Jacobus is decidedly less important/relevant than major changes to the most popular faction of the game.
That should be followed with a 'duh'.
Importance is relative to the person reading it, duh.
Insectum7 wrote: Minor changes happen all the time. Major changes happen rather infrequently. The state of Uriah Jacobus is decidedly less important/relevant than major changes to the most popular faction of the game.
That should be followed with a 'duh'.
Importance is relative to the person reading it, duh.
Im afraid it cant be waved away that easily, but nice try. Faction-wide patterns repeated consistently for 25 years have more conceptual inertia than a single model whose rules are seldom updated.
Insectum7 wrote: Minor changes happen all the time. Major changes happen rather infrequently. The state of Uriah Jacobus is decidedly less important/relevant than major changes to the most popular faction of the game.
That should be followed with a 'duh'.
Importance is relative to the person reading it, duh.
But for that person can be important. Hence the whole "what bothers me about primaris design".
Insectum7 wrote: Minor changes happen all the time. Major changes happen rather infrequently. The state of Uriah Jacobus is decidedly less important/relevant than major changes to the most popular faction of the game.
That should be followed with a 'duh'.
Importance is relative to the person reading it, duh.
Im afraid it cant be waved away that easily, but nice try. Faction-wide patterns repeated consistently for 25 years have more conceptual inertia than a single model whose rules are seldom updated.
You waived it off with the same tone, so I was merely returning the favor.
And take a step back from comparing a Phobos Marine to a Tactical and compare it to the unit it's replacing, the Scout, and take a good look at the elements they share and tell me which one looks more like a Marine. And be honest about it.
Insectum7 wrote: Minor changes happen all the time. Major changes happen rather infrequently. The state of Uriah Jacobus is decidedly less important/relevant than major changes to the most popular faction of the game.
That should be followed with a 'duh'.
Importance is relative to the person reading it, duh.
Im afraid it cant be waved away that easily, but nice try. Faction-wide patterns repeated consistently for 25 years have more conceptual inertia than a single model whose rules are seldom updated.
You waived it off with the same tone, so I was merely returning the favor.
And take a step back from comparing a Phobos Marine to a Tactical and compare it to the unit it's replacing, the Scout, and take a good look at the elements they share and tell me which one looks more like a Marine. And be honest about it.
While the phobos might be replacing scouts, it has none of the flavor or even the feel of the model it's replacing at all. The whole primaris line in fact has virtually no soul, they feel like just add water, ready to battle super soldiers that are just there. Marines, you have a clear path of experience and build up, even the different set ups of the scouts told stories of their levels of experience and personal growth. Going from sniper scouts, to ones with bolters, to shotguns and CCW armed scouts, to being mounted one a speeder storm to having scout bikes.
These phobos marines, have no such story, they are all bad ass supermans sprung straight from the tube ready to rock, no growth, no feeling, no soul really just completely expendable super men, like Sigmarines. Which is probably what they are going for but it's a definite loss of character into bland, run of the mill sci fi supermen, hell even Master Chief from Halo has more riveting backstory.
Now, if you don't mind that loss of flavor and feel, that's completely fine, but some do lament how bland these numarines feel. So they may be lovely to look at, but they have no depth of character.
While the phobos might be replacing scouts, it has none of the flavor or even the feel of the model it's replacing at all. The whole primaris line in fact has virtually no soul, they feel like just add water, ready to battle super soldiers that are just there. Marines, you have a clear path of experience and build up, even the different set ups of the scouts told stories of their levels of experience and personal growth. Going from sniper scouts, to ones with bolters, to shotguns and CCW armed scouts, to being mounted one a speeder storm to having scout bikes.
These phobos marines, have no such story, they are all bad ass supermans sprung straight from the tube ready to rock, no growth, no feeling, no soul really just completely expendable super men, like Sigmarines. Which is probably what they are going for but it's a definite loss of character into bland, run of the mill sci fi supermen, hell even Master Chief from Halo has more riveting backstory.
Now, if you don't mind that loss of flavor and feel, that's completely fine, but some do lament how bland these numarines feel. So they may be lovely to look at, but they have no depth of character.
This is all total bs.The primaris are recruited just like marines of the old, and they gain experience going through different combat roles just like the marines of the old. There is literally a section of detailing a whole career of a primaris battle brother in the new codex.
Nice flanderization of lore to make claims about the Vanguard units (who are trainees who have a black carapace) and are barely more trained than scouts themselves.
Let's not even forget that a number of the defrosted Primaris have memories of the old Imperium and have to live with a far worse future than the world they lived in. Or how about the Grey Shields who were excited to meet their gene-breathren only to be shunned for existing or being told that they need to go guard a warp rift instead.
And what about the fact the psycho indoctrinated training Cawl gave those first Primaris was hardly a replacement for real world experiance amd it took a 200 year crusade/time jump to fix it.
Lastly, define "soul". Because no one is able to define whatever they claim models lack while blaming CAD despite some.of their examples of models with "soul" also being CAD produced models (we know CAD had been in use since 5th edition at least). Is it just a codeword for "it's new so it's bad"? Because rhat's all it seems like as someone whonhas no idea what such a vague criticism is supposed to be aimed at.
While the phobos might be replacing scouts, it has none of the flavor or even the feel of the model it's replacing at all. The whole primaris line in fact has virtually no soul, they feel like just add water, ready to battle super soldiers that are just there. Marines, you have a clear path of experience and build up, even the different set ups of the scouts told stories of their levels of experience and personal growth. Going from sniper scouts, to ones with bolters, to shotguns and CCW armed scouts, to being mounted one a speeder storm to having scout bikes.
These phobos marines, have no such story, they are all bad ass supermans sprung straight from the tube ready to rock, no growth, no feeling, no soul really just completely expendable super men, like Sigmarines. Which is probably what they are going for but it's a definite loss of character into bland, run of the mill sci fi supermen, hell even Master Chief from Halo has more riveting backstory.
Now, if you don't mind that loss of flavor and feel, that's completely fine, but some do lament how bland these numarines feel. So they may be lovely to look at, but they have no depth of character.
This is all total bs.The primaris are recruited just like marines of the old, and they gain experience going through different combat roles just like the marines of the old. There is literally a section of detailing a whole career of a primaris battle brother in the new codex.
Oh man,did they write one thing to try and make primaris feel like they have personality ? Then it must be gospel then ! I think your response is total BS, while we're calling stuff BS. Please do though, tell me all this level of personal growth they go through, please I'm excited to hear it. As in all the books I have that have primaris, they say nothing of this at all. I have to think that any such rot placed in the new marine codex is simply them trying to mimic oldmarine backstory and hoist it on the primaris and say " Look, they has character see !! ".
While the phobos might be replacing scouts, it has none of the flavor or even the feel of the model it's replacing at all. The whole primaris line in fact has virtually no soul, they feel like just add water, ready to battle super soldiers that are just there. Marines, you have a clear path of experience and build up, even the different set ups of the scouts told stories of their levels of experience and personal growth. Going from sniper scouts, to ones with bolters, to shotguns and CCW armed scouts, to being mounted one a speeder storm to having scout bikes.
These phobos marines, have no such story, they are all bad ass supermans sprung straight from the tube ready to rock, no growth, no feeling, no soul really just completely expendable super men, like Sigmarines. Which is probably what they are going for but it's a definite loss of character into bland, run of the mill sci fi supermen, hell even Master Chief from Halo has more riveting backstory.
Now, if you don't mind that loss of flavor and feel, that's completely fine, but some do lament how bland these numarines feel. So they may be lovely to look at, but they have no depth of character.
This is all total bs.The primaris are recruited just like marines of the old, and they gain experience going through different combat roles just like the marines of the old. There is literally a section of detailing a whole career of a primaris battle brother in the new codex.
Oh man,did they write one thing to try and make primaris feel like they have personality ? Then it must be gospel then ! I think your response is total BS, while we're calling stuff BS. Please do though, tell me all this level of personal growth they go through, please I'm excited to hear it. As in all the books I have that have primaris, they say nothing of this at all. I have to think that any such rot placed in the new marine codex is simply them trying to mimic oldmarine backstory and hoist it on the primaris and say " Look, they has character see !! ".
If you're going to criticize the lore you should actually read it instead of just quoting /tg/.
While the phobos might be replacing scouts, it has none of the flavor or even the feel of the model it's replacing at all. The whole primaris line in fact has virtually no soul, they feel like just add water, ready to battle super soldiers that are just there. Marines, you have a clear path of experience and build up, even the different set ups of the scouts told stories of their levels of experience and personal growth. Going from sniper scouts, to ones with bolters, to shotguns and CCW armed scouts, to being mounted one a speeder storm to having scout bikes.
These phobos marines, have no such story, they are all bad ass supermans sprung straight from the tube ready to rock, no growth, no feeling, no soul really just completely expendable super men, like Sigmarines. Which is probably what they are going for but it's a definite loss of character into bland, run of the mill sci fi supermen, hell even Master Chief from Halo has more riveting backstory.
Now, if you don't mind that loss of flavor and feel, that's completely fine, but some do lament how bland these numarines feel. So they may be lovely to look at, but they have no depth of character.
This is all total bs.The primaris are recruited just like marines of the old, and they gain experience going through different combat roles just like the marines of the old. There is literally a section of detailing a whole career of a primaris battle brother in the new codex.
Oh man,did they write one thing to try and make primaris feel like they have personality ? Then it must be gospel then ! I think your response is total BS, while we're calling stuff BS. Please do though, tell me all this level of personal growth they go through, please I'm excited to hear it. As in all the books I have that have primaris, they say nothing of this at all. I have to think that any such rot placed in the new marine codex is simply them trying to mimic oldmarine backstory and hoist it on the primaris and say " Look, they has character see !! ".
If you're going to criticize the lore you should actually read it instead of just quoting /tg/.
I've got hundreds of dollars worth of books with none of this character giving fluff in it, I'm not going to buy yet another book because one person claims it gives primaris marines personality finally. As for the books, the dark imperium books are painful to read and I will not waste my time that way. I know enough of their fluff to know it sucks, you want to go ahead and buy me this stuff and send it to me to change my mind, be my guest.
Edit: Let me clarify to say as I feel like the pro primaris crowd doesn't read back to understand where someone is coming from. I like the primaris, look wise, I have some in my Deathwatch. I think their lore sucks, I think its worse than oldmarines and they are a relatively vapid creation even if they can do well on the table top and look better. If someone can't accept the fact that people don't like them, you need to get real, it's opinion as is so much we say on here. Everyone has the right to criticize things they don't like. Just like you have the right to love them beyond all reason. Me, or anyone saying they suck in some way or another doesn't somehow devalue them to someone who cherishes them.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I've got hundreds of dollars worth of books with none of this character giving fluff in it, I'm not going to buy yet another book because one person claims it gives primaris marines personality finally. As for the books, the dark imperium books are painful to read and I will not waste my time that way. I know enough of their fluff to know it sucks, you want to go ahead and buy me this stuff and send it to me to change my mind, be my guest.
It's in the main codex.
I suspected you were acting in bad faith in order to troll for attention and this cements it: you don't do any research and come wading into a discussion like arguing from ignorance makes you an expert on anything. Go sort yourself out.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I've got hundreds of dollars worth of books with none of this character giving fluff in it, I'm not going to buy yet another book because one person claims it gives primaris marines personality finally. As for the books, the dark imperium books are painful to read and I will not waste my time that way. I know enough of their fluff to know it sucks, you want to go ahead and buy me this stuff and send it to me to change my mind, be my guest.
It's in the main codex.
I suspected you were acting in bad faith in order to troll for attention and this cements it: you don't do any research and come wading into a discussion like arguing from ignorance makes you an expert on anything. Go sort yourself out.
I'm not buying a codex for an army I don't play just to debate some random fanboy on the net. It says none of this stuff in the DA codex, that I see, the space wolves dex, that I see or the deathwatch book that I see and have all of. You sir, are the troll here assuming I can only have a say it I have that one book there. So how about you sort yourself out, Sir.
Let me add, as primaris are in all of these books, they are all main books for their understanding. Unless you are claiming the only true word is in the vanilla dex.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I've got hundreds of dollars worth of books with none of this character giving fluff in it, I'm not going to buy yet another book because one person claims it gives primaris marines personality finally. As for the books, the dark imperium books are painful to read and I will not waste my time that way. I know enough of their fluff to know it sucks, you want to go ahead and buy me this stuff and send it to me to change my mind, be my guest.
It's in the main codex.
I suspected you were acting in bad faith in order to troll for attention and this cements it: you don't do any research and come wading into a discussion like arguing from ignorance makes you an expert on anything. Go sort yourself out.
I'm not buying a codex for an army I don't play just to debate some random fanboy on the net. It says none of this stuff in the DA codex, that I see, the space wolves dex, that I see or the deathwatch book that I see and have all of. You sir, are the troll here assuming I can only have a say it I have that one book there. So how about you sort yourself out, Sir.
Of course it's not in those codexes, they didn't have Vanguard units at the time of release!
You are making up reasons to be mad that fail even a basic common sense check. I don't need to be sorted because I've taken the time to read up about what I'm talking about instead of making up things about the current Marine lore and insisting I'm more right because I didn't bother to read the current stuff.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I've got hundreds of dollars worth of books with none of this character giving fluff in it, I'm not going to buy yet another book because one person claims it gives primaris marines personality finally. As for the books, the dark imperium books are painful to read and I will not waste my time that way. I know enough of their fluff to know it sucks, you want to go ahead and buy me this stuff and send it to me to change my mind, be my guest.
It's in the main codex.
I suspected you were acting in bad faith in order to troll for attention and this cements it: you don't do any research and come wading into a discussion like arguing from ignorance makes you an expert on anything. Go sort yourself out.
I'm not buying a codex for an army I don't play just to debate some random fanboy on the net. It says none of this stuff in the DA codex, that I see, the space wolves dex, that I see or the deathwatch book that I see and have all of. You sir, are the troll here assuming I can only have a say it I have that one book there. So how about you sort yourself out, Sir.
Of course it's not in those codexes, they didn't have Vanguard units at the time of release!
You are making up reasons to be mad that fail even a basic common sense check. I don't need to be sorted because I've taken the time to read up about what I'm talking about instead of making up things about the current Marine lore and insisting I'm more right because I didn't bother to read the current stuff.
I never said I was mad, I just said I found them bland, maybe you're mad though. Though it should talk about all the flair and experience in all the other marine primaris units, it doesn't, nor does it say much of anything important about the reivers other than they spread " terror ". So where is all the this depth ? There is 0 there. No one should be expected to own every single book to argue any point, sorry not sorry. You love primaris fine, love them all day and twice on sunday but people can hate them for reasons aside them just being a hater.
All those books are current books they are all current stuff.
Insectum7 wrote: Minor changes happen all the time. Major changes happen rather infrequently. The state of Uriah Jacobus is decidedly less important/relevant than major changes to the most popular faction of the game.
That should be followed with a 'duh'.
Importance is relative to the person reading it, duh.
Im afraid it cant be waved away that easily, but nice try. Faction-wide patterns repeated consistently for 25 years have more conceptual inertia than a single model whose rules are seldom updated.
You waived it off with the same tone, so I was merely returning the favor.
there's a real point there though. Are you going to address it?
And take a step back from comparing a Phobos Marine to a Tactical and compare it to the unit it's replacing, the Scout, and take a good look at the elements they share and tell me which one looks more like a Marine. And be honest about it.
Weird question, as Scouts look more like Scouts, which is what they're supposed to look like.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I've got hundreds of dollars worth of books with none of this character giving fluff in it, I'm not going to buy yet another book because one person claims it gives primaris marines personality finally. As for the books, the dark imperium books are painful to read and I will not waste my time that way. I know enough of their fluff to know it sucks, you want to go ahead and buy me this stuff and send it to me to change my mind, be my guest.
It's in the main codex.
I suspected you were acting in bad faith in order to troll for attention and this cements it: you don't do any research and come wading into a discussion like arguing from ignorance makes you an expert on anything. Go sort yourself out.
I'm not buying a codex for an army I don't play just to debate some random fanboy on the net. It says none of this stuff in the DA codex, that I see, the space wolves dex, that I see or the deathwatch book that I see and have all of. You sir, are the troll here assuming I can only have a say it I have that one book there. So how about you sort yourself out, Sir.
Of course it's not in those codexes, they didn't have Vanguard units at the time of release!
You are making up reasons to be mad that fail even a basic common sense check. I don't need to be sorted because I've taken the time to read up about what I'm talking about instead of making up things about the current Marine lore and insisting I'm more right because I didn't bother to read the current stuff.
I never said I was mad, I just said I found them bland, maybe you're mad though. Though it should talk about all the flair and experience in all the other marine primaris units, it doesn't, nor does it say much of anything important about the reivers other than they spread " terror ". So where is all the this depth ? There is 0 there. No one should be expected to own every single book to argue any point, sorry not sorry. You love primaris fine, love them all day and twice on sunday but people can hate them for reasons aside them just being a hater.
All those books are current books they are all current stuff.
If you want to argue lore, you should be arguing from the most recent points, not from something written more than two years ago (we know from the studio that the codex was written well in advance of 8th).
Since you can't even bother to do some research, here's the bit that walks us through the career of an Ultramarines Primaris Marine recruited since the chapter gained the ability to make their own Primaris (and those who crossed the Rubric have centuries under their belts meaning they're even more storied than this one was). And yes, with Calgar uncapping the Rubricon stuff (something we all knew was coming) that means that there are plenty of Primaris running around who used to be the Old Marines, who carry that "personality" (what little a loyalist has beyond "Duty" and being a shadow of their Primarch) forward as well:
The codex has more lore as well and if you do even a bit of digging you can find more.
Insectum7 wrote: Minor changes happen all the time. Major changes happen rather infrequently. The state of Uriah Jacobus is decidedly less important/relevant than major changes to the most popular faction of the game.
That should be followed with a 'duh'.
Importance is relative to the person reading it, duh.
Im afraid it cant be waved away that easily, but nice try. Faction-wide patterns repeated consistently for 25 years have more conceptual inertia than a single model whose rules are seldom updated.
You waived it off with the same tone, so I was merely returning the favor.
there's a real point there though. Are you going to address it?
And take a step back from comparing a Phobos Marine to a Tactical and compare it to the unit it's replacing, the Scout, and take a good look at the elements they share and tell me which one looks more like a Marine. And be honest about it.
Weird question, as Scouts look more like Scouts, which is what they're supposed to look like.
Why should I bother answering your points when you clearly ignore mine?
And while scouts look like Scouts, what part of the models really look like they're Astartes in training? The Phobos models actually look like part of the same larger force and since regular companies can strip down to deploy as Vanguard it means any chapter can adjust their deployment to fit the mission.
Exactly my point though, even in that blurb, which thank you for dropping it for me, I do appreciate it.
They just pick someone and poop him out as a primaris, there is not the same level of growth as oldmarines. They are just picked, made into an instant space marine, placed into phobos squads, then work into regular primaris units.
Says nothing of what all they had to do to even earn being a marine other than he was storied, which fine, that is neither here or nor there.
It is however, to me anyways, less impactful than the old way of marine creation. Where they go through the motions, then get some of the augments, and scout armor and have to go through the many levels of being a scout. Then go through the black carapace and the last bits of being made into a marine as only once going all through the scouts did they earn being a full battle brother.
Now space wolves of course skipped this part, but their induction was much more brutal so their newbies come in as a blood claw with all the stuff and learn in the heat of harshest battle.
That said, they have a lot of character and growth with that. As well the fact marine scout vet sgts were considered the best of the best as they were training the next generation, hence for example why telion was such a good shot in the ultramarines for instance.
So yeah, it's obvious they are trying to mimic how old marines matured their recruits but they are just still making them pretty much instant super soldiers with no real feel of new guy status so it ends up feeling more like go from straight human to super human with little transition, that still feels like a net loss in feel.
They are doing their best to make it mirror old marines but it doesn't feel the same and feels cheaper on the read. Now if you like that, it's fine, but I can see where folks, like myself, don't and find it a bit more lacking in its design.
That said, thank you again for dropping that information, it was appreciated and very nice of you.
Kaiyanwang wrote:I did not create ANYTHING. I used the 3rd-7th ed 40k fluff, the one that I prefer. You know, preferences, stuff that seems forbidden over here.
I'd like to point out that in 3rd-7th, Chapters seemed to have just as many Land Speeders as Land Raiders (in lore, to clarify - tabletop is another beast entirely). They really weren't *that* rare. Maybe Sammael's speeder was unique, maybe Land Speeders were just rarely distributed from Mars and other forge worlds to the Chapters, but they weren't exactly any more priceless or archeotech than Land Raiders were.
Sammael's Jetbike rarity adds to the a-grav rarity point.
Maybe his bike is, but a-grav in general? Not so much, as addressed above.
And you should stop. It's perfectly legitimate to support a revamp of the line and to appreciate the new fluff. But it should be easy to understand that other's preferences have root in the older fluff and such older fluff can be thr preferred one. Stop calling it "headcanon". It's at best, disingenuous.
The problem is when that "older fluff" actually supports the new fluff as well, trying to create this kind of "the old fluff would NEVER approve of this!!" is simply not true. If grav-tech had come out of nowhere, or the Space Marines had NEVER used grav-tech, I'd see your point. But that's not true.
If Space Marines NEVER had mono-armament squads, or squads that broke the 5/10 basis, I'd see that point. But that's not true either.
Seriously, this thread is surreal. There is not even the attempt to convince you that primaris are X or Y, we are just trying to legitimate our point of view. It's like talking with zealots.
You don't need to legitimise your opinions. I can't speak for everyone, but if you had just said your opinions, I wouldn't have argued. I *maybe* would have given a counter-opinion, but I certainly wouldn't have doubted an opinion. What I *am* doubting is your legitimisation of it, which relies on, funnily enough, more opinions. The idea of "what the Space Marine aesthetic is" or "what makes a Space Marine" seem to be less objective than any of us actually thought, which make arguments like "but Space Marines having grav-tech is out of character" less of a legitimate fact and more of a difference of opinion over what we actually think Space Marine aesthetic is.
By trying to legitimise your points, that's what people are arguing against, because your sources for legitimising it aren't exactly solid as bedrock. And yes, I admit that if I have made any claims along the lines of "Primaris Marines are the same as Old Marines", that is my opinion, and I do not seek to legitimise it or claim it as a fact.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: There was at least 4 variant hulls of Land Speeder (standard, Storm, Tempest, and the Dark Angel one - the Darkshroud, was it?). And in most sources I can find, they're no rarer than Land Raiders. Hell, they don't even seem rarer than Predators and Vindicators.
For all the talk of them being rarer, it doesn't really come across in how many are depicted (again, not even on tabletop).
1) it's just the LS, not other tanks
Not sure on what you mean on this point? I'm pointing out that Land Speeders weren't that rare at all, considering how many different variants there were and the frequency of them in Space Marine Chapters.
2) funny that you introduce the Dark Angels - they are supposed to have more a-grav, like Sammael's last jetbike. a-grav everywhere taints a bit their flluff too.
Are they? I was aware they had more "relics", which may have included a jetbike, but grav itself? I'd like a source on that, if you please.
Insectum7 wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote: You did create something: a definition of ehat you think a Marinenshould be. If you hadn't you wouldn't be griping about all the ways the Phobos and grav tank stuff doesn't fit that definition.
So we should just ignore precedent and move on like nothing has happened? 25 odd years of marines manifesting very consistently and we just toss it, huh? No thank you.
Consistently having plenty of Land Speeders?
It would be fine if you were actually acknowledging the precedent of 25 years (plenty of grav-tech, plenty of specialised units, plenty of units that weren't 5/10 men). But you're not, not really, and that's the main argument. You're selectively picking from the 25 years and saying that the stuff you didn't think was important shouldn't be considered nowadays.
The idea of 'what a Marine should be' clearly hasn't been defined well enough that we can even agree on that.
[quote=Insectum7Im afraid it cant be waved away that easily, but nice try. Faction-wide patterns repeated consistently for 25 years have more conceptual inertia than a single model whose rules are seldom updated.
As above. Space Marines have had skimmers for 25 years. Why is them having some now such a big issue?
AngryAngel80 wrote:I'm not buying a codex for an army I don't play just to debate some random fanboy on the net.
In which case, can you really claim to actually know the points you're arguing on? No offence, but just admitting you don't know the most up-to-date lore isn't a problem. Getting passive-aggressive when someone points that out isn't really very, well, polite.
ClockworkZion wrote:Since you can't even bother to do some research, here's the bit that walks us through the career of an Ultramarines Primaris Marine recruited since the chapter gained the ability to make their own Primaris (and those who crossed the Rubric have centuries under their belts meaning they're even more storied than this one was). And yes, with Calgar uncapping the Rubricon stuff (something we all knew was coming) that means that there are plenty of Primaris running around who used to be the Old Marines, who carry that "personality" (what little a loyalist has beyond "Duty" and being a shadow of their Primarch) forward as well:
Spoiler:
The codex has more lore as well and if you do even a bit of digging you can find more.
Love these excerpts. Completely in flavour with the progression of classic Marines (even the whole 'going back to being a "Scout" Marine' is shown off in novels like Assault on Black Reach, where full fledged Tactical Marines don Scout armour to assist in the campaign), and such a flavourful piece of lore.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Exactly my point though, even in that blurb, which thank you for dropping it for me, I do appreciate it.
They just pick someone and poop him out as a primaris, there is not the same level of growth as oldmarines. They are just picked, made into an instant space marine, placed into phobos squads, then work into regular primaris units.
Says nothing of what all they had to do to even earn being a marine other than he was storied, which fine, that is neither here or nor there.
It is however, to me anyways, less impactful than the old way of marine creation. Where they go through the motions, then get some of the augments, and scout armor and have to go through the many levels of being a scout. Then go through the black carapace and the last bits of being made into a marine as only once going all through the scouts did they earn being a full battle brother.
Now space wolves of course skipped this part, but their induction was much more brutal so their newbies come in as a blood claw with all the stuff and learn in the heat of harshest battle.
That said, they have a lot of character and growth with that. As well the fact marine scout vet sgts were considered the best of the best as they were training the next generation, hence for example why telion was such a good shot in the ultramarines for instance.
So yeah, it's obvious they are trying to mimic how old marines matured their recruits but they are just still making them pretty much instant super soldiers with no real feel of new guy status so it ends up feeling more like go from straight human to super human with little transition, that still feels like a net loss in feel.
They are doing their best to make it mirror old marines but it doesn't feel the same and feels cheaper on the read. Now if you like that, it's fine, but I can see where folks, like myself, don't and find it a bit more lacking in its design.
That said, thank you again for dropping that information, it was appreciated and very nice of you.
I think you misread that ENTIRE thing. He spent time as a scout and only starts as a Phobos Marine AFTER his black carapace was implanted (where the story starts). It's a walkthrough of how the new Primaris work but it's very similar to how old Marines work. Now you may wonder how that is, but they're still Marines, just a bit taller and with three extra squiggly bits inside.
This will be expanded on more and more as new stuff comes out (my money is on a Gravis update like the Vanguard one come next year).
And Telion is still in the 10th teaching Scouts, but Scouts aren't counted directly as part of the fighting force, so the new codex only counts anyone with a black carapace towards the chapter's limits.
AngryAngel80 wrote: They just pick someone and poop him out as a primaris, there is not the same level of growth as oldmarines. They are just picked, made into an instant space marine, placed into phobos squads, then work into regular primaris units.
Doesn't it say about him serving as a Neophyte? Aka, a Scout?
His process of recruitment is exactly the same as a classic Marine, until he graduated from Scouthood.
Says nothing of what all they had to do to even earn being a marine other than he was storied, which fine, that is neither here or nor there.
I don't think we can really assume his story was any different to any other Marine aspirant. We heard nothing that indicates otherwise.
It is however, to me anyways, less impactful than the old way of marine creation. Where they go through the motions, then get some of the augments, and scout armor and have to go through the many levels of being a scout. Then go through the black carapace and the last bits of being made into a marine as only once going all through the scouts did they earn being a full battle brother.
Now space wolves of course skipped this part, but their induction was much more brutal so their newbies come in as a blood claw with all the stuff and learn in the heat of harshest battle.
Again, it *does* say he serves as a Neophye, aka, a Scout. He isn't just plonked in power armour. He serves as a Scout, and is then added to a Reiver Squad, not a Devastator Squad.
Because the rest of your post is pretty much based on the argument of "he's never served as a Scout Marine, he's missing that normal bit of flavour", which isn't exactly true, I won't keep making the same point. Suffice to say, he *does* serve as a Scout Marine, like every other one. The only difference is that he is added to a Reiver Squad, not a Devastator Squad, which both makes more and less sense:
More, in that they are still kept in a primarily skirmishing and stealth oriented role
Less, in that if they were sticking to the old formula, they should have joined the Eliminators, not the Reivers. Perhaps they're actually taking a Leif* out of the Space Wolves book, and acknowledging that younger Marines are still more likely to want to get closer and aggressive, and need to be then tempered out by long-range experience?
*Pretty proud of that pun.
That said, thank you again for dropping that information, it was appreciated and very nice of you.
Although it's not my comment, this is welcomed, I'm sure.
as for what he did to earn being a Marine... I'm sorry but thats a BS statement as he went through the exact same chapter recruitment process a normal ultramarine does (which varies from world to world) but GW wanted to show us how a typical Primaris progressed, not show how the Ultramarines recruit their members (which is to be fair the one aspect of marines Ultramarines are actually ATYPICAL of)
In fact I'd argue it indicated MORE character for the Primaris rather then LESS. a old Marine's progress would honestly be kinda dull, starting as a scout he'd then serve as a rifleman in a devestator squad, before being handed a heavy weapon and being allowed to pew pew with the heavy weapons. he'd then be told to put that aside and run around with a jump pack and chain sword. ohh and maybe get to sue a bike or and speeder. before becoming a tactical marine.
the Primaris bit has some intreasting stuff such as the marine being put with agressors until he could learn to chck his hate and agression. (intreastingly this was with the assault company too) so yeah it seems that there's actually MORE room for individual growth in Primaris.
You can assume all of that, it never mentions him being a scout or what armor at all he dons, nor does it say what he gets and when. It just phrases it as he gets everything, and takes time for it to mature then begins to mention joining the reivers, etc etc to the other phobos bands.
His entire scout process, if he even is a scout at all mind, is like a paragraph, nor does it go into any kind of detail of this scout process other than to mention a blurb or where he went.
You can like the new stuff all you want, but it does gloss over a lot and make them very generic super soldiers ala any sci fi reference where as the old fluff, to me, felt better. Showed easily the good transitions and just made more sense in its way.
Though, assuming you are correct, you'd think they actually talked about scouts more for primaris as they'd still be needed and used in the line if they are in active combat roles still. The phobos marines aren't actually replacing them at all making the whole debate about which is better scouts or vanguard marines pointless as they are still different things and not one replacing another at all.
AngryAngel80 wrote: You can assume all of that, it never mentions him being a scout or what armor at all he dons, nor does it say what he gets and when. It just phrases it as he gets everything, and takes time for it to mature then begins to mention joining the reivers, etc etc to the other phobos bands.
His entire scout process, if he even is a scout at all mind, is like a paragraph, nor does it go into any kind of detail of this scout process other than to mention a blurb or where he went.
You can like the new stuff all you want, but it does gloss over a lot and make them very generic super soldiers ala any sci fi reference where as the old fluff, to me, felt better. Showed easily the good transitions and just made more sense in its way.
Though, assuming you are correct, you'd think they actually talked about scouts more for primaris as they'd still be needed and used in the line if they are in active combat roles still. The phobos marines aren't actually replacing them at all making the whole debate about which is better scouts or vanguard marines pointless as they are still different things and not one replacing another at all.
Try that again after rereading it:
10th Company
Soon began Gaius Pollandus’ true testing. Implanted with cultured gene-seed organs and subjected to endless rounds of physical and mental conditioning, psych-indoctrination and spiritual assessment, he endured long months of forging of war. Joining the 10th Company as a neophyte Ultramarine….
[a fair bit of the next paragraph later describing his first and second missions]...By this point, the neophyte’s body had accepted his gene-seed, and all of his organs….
The first two paragraphs of the 10th company are about his time as a scout before he became a Reiver. I handed the lore to you on a platter and you still didn't read it completely before complaining about it.
EDIT: And it's worth noting that for OLD Marines they were scouts until they were given a Black Carapace then shunted off to the Devastators. As a Primaris they stay in the 10th company even longer to ensure they're ready before they're put into one of the reserve companies for more training and tempering before they get to be put into a Battle Company.
AngryAngel80 wrote: You can assume all of that, it never mentions him being a scout
"Joining the 10th Company as a neophyte Ultramarine..."
He was a Scout. Scouts are referred to as Neophytes, because they're not full Space Marines yet.
nor does it say what he gets and when. It just phrases it as he gets everything, and takes time for it to mature then begins to mention joining the reivers, etc etc to the other phobos bands.
Sorry, but just because it doesn't say "he gets SCOUT ARMOUR and a BOLTER and FRAG GRENADES" doesn't mean he doesn't.
What we are told is that he serves as a Neophyte (a Scout), serves in two long campaigns that see his body accept his implants - naturally, he wouldn't be sent into battle naked of equipment, so it's pretty clear that he served as a Scout, with Scout equipment, during this time.
His entire scout process, if he even is a scout at all mind, is like a paragraph, nor does it go into any kind of detail of this scout process other than to mention a blurb or where he went.
Just because this is not fleshed out doesn't mean it doesn't happen. We see where it's mentioned. We don't need to know every last detail about it, because you can just look over the 25+ years of lore about Scouts. That is unchanged. The only thing that *has* changed is where he goes afterwards.
Though, assuming you are correct, you'd think they actually talked about scouts more for primaris as they'd still be needed and used in the line if they are in active combat roles still. The phobos marines aren't actually replacing them at all making the whole debate about which is better scouts or vanguard marines pointless as they are still different things and not one replacing another at all.
I'd also assume that we'd see more about if there's any kind of deviation in the Primaris 1st Company, like the normal marines. But we'll have to wait and see for that.
However, this excerpt has been giving us data we didn't actually know before - namely that, yes, Primaris DO use Scouts, and now we have a rough idea of the progression between ranks, unless Pollandus had an exceptionally unusual rise in rank.
Basically, we have enough data now to work with logically. Yes, there's some patchy spots, but we can wait for that. I personally like how we're seeing the Primaris Marines evolve and gradually form up.
Ok, then scouts aren't at all being replaced by phobos, as phobos units aren't scouts. So at least one bit of the old marine line should always remain if they still have scouts. Correct ?
Which if we go all the way back, it was said phobos was a replacement, when they aren't. Point 1.
Point 2, I still like the old process of marine growth as opposed to this new process which still feels to me , bland and generic and lacks, to me, the same depth that old marines had. Which none of this changes my mind on that matter.
Yes though, digging into it and hashing it out here though is informative, I'll agree with that and hopefully others do take as much out of it as I have.
So I'd say primaris have are deeper than I believed starting out, still feels a bit soft to me and maybe, over a lot of time that will work its way out so my opinion may in time change on that matter. For now though, old marines, all the way as far as feeling deeper to me, but then I'd imagine they should having decades of lore behind them.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Ok, then scouts aren't at all being replaced by phobos, as phobos units aren't scouts. So at least one bit of the old marine line should always remain if they still have scouts. Correct ?
Which if we go all the way back, it was said phobos was a replacement, when they aren't. Point 1.
Point 2, I still like the old process of marine growth as opposed to this new process which still feels to me , bland and generic and lacks, to me, the same depth that old marines had. Which none of this changes my mind on that matter.
Yes though, digging into it and hashing it out here though is informative, I'll agree with that and hopefully others do take as much out of it as I have.
So I'd say primaris have are deeper than I believed starting out, still feels a bit soft to me and maybe, over a lot of time that will work its way out so my opinion may in time change on that matter. For now though, old marines, all the way as far as feeling deeper to me, but then I'd imagine they should having decades of lore behind them.
Phobos likely will be the long term replacement for Scouts since the longer training program Primaris follow (Scout then Phobos) means the combat role of the Scout will likely be stripped away in the future allowing chapters to use the implantation process to focus on training and testing aspirants more carefully meaning more become full-fledged Astartes.
Scout>Devastator>Assault>Tactical>Vet>Command isn't exactly a lot of depth, but you do you.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Ok, then scouts aren't at all being replaced by phobos, as phobos units aren't scouts. So at least one bit of the old marine line should always remain if they still have scouts. Correct ?
Not quite. Phobos and Scouts both fill the "recon and stealth engagement" roles, but Phobos is treated as a wargear choice for fully promoted Marines. Scouts are treated as such due to their lack of experience and squishier nature.
So, whilst they fill the same function, they're not replacements for eachother.
An example for this might be Conscripts and Infantry Squads. Both fill the whole "hold the line with a wall of bodies" role, but Conscripts are untrained, Guardsmen are.
Which if we go all the way back, it was said phobos was a replacement, when they aren't. Point 1.
Yes, this is true. They're an alternative for battlefield function, but on a strategic and logistical level, they're not the same unit at all.
Point 2, I still like the old process of marine growth as opposed to this new process which still feels to me , bland and generic and lacks, to me, the same depth that old marines had. Which none of this changes my mind on that matter.
I don't understand what the old process has that the new one also doesn't. Could you elaborate on what exactly it is that's different?
having decades of lore behind them.
I think that's a big factor. People seem to be having a kneejerk reaction to Primaris because they're not just upscaled identical versions of their current collections, where in reality, Primaris lore refers and draws far more from Space Marine aesthetic, lore, and design than the immediate "they're nu and different" reaction belies.
As your own reaction to the actual Primaris rank progression and other people's reactions to hearing about how Repulsors actually work prove, there's more to Primaris than "they start off as super soldiers instantly with elegant and fancy grav-tech!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AngryAngel80 wrote: The very story though has it phobos can't be a replacement for something they are a step above.
Likely doesn't factor into it, unless they eventually cut the scout out entirely and they jump right into the reiver or they actually make a new scout like kit that is an actual scout replacement.
If they just jump right outta the scout process that will go a way to making my point in the long run of bland, for now though, they feel alright.
As it currently seems, it is Scout > Phobos > Tacticus = Gravis. Basically, after graduating from Scout to Phobos, you can then switch out between all types of Primaris armour type as you're required to.
The very story though has it phobos can't be a replacement for something they are a step above.
Likely doesn't factor into it, unless they eventually cut the scout out entirely and they jump right into the reiver or they actually make a new scout like kit that is an actual scout replacement.
If they just jump right outta the scout process that will go a way to making my point in the long run of bland, for now though, they feel alright.
As well, thanks so much for letting me be me, I appreciate it you can as well be you.
It isn't so much a factor that people have a kneejerk reaction to hate on primaris, as I said, I don't hate them, I just like old marines more. Now there is something of a definite reaction where people who love primairs have to jump on anyone who dislikes anything about them, which is always going to bring some conflict.
Most of the primaris hate isn't even in their creation, its the not knowing. Many like their old marines, and old fluff, and don't want their loved armies pooped all over for the coming of the new age. Then they say they aren't a fan, and jumped on. This happens both sides of the aisle and really it doesn't need to if we just knew what the actual F was going to be the long term plan.
Like if we knew primaris were just going to forever be alongside the old guard, I doubt primaris would be nearly as hated on.
I actually don't mind the anti grav tech stuff, it feels different than old marine stuff but whatever, it is what it is.
I just appreciate the old lore more so, not really a whole lot more to say on it than that. It feels better to me, has more resonance. Like a favorite movie. I like the layers in scout training primarily, I'm love scouts, primaris don't really talk much on it and instead get down with being tacticool in phobos. So for me, that isn't very cool.
I can appreciate some just don't care, and that's cool too, but I do. Which is why I hoped on to the phobos are a scout replacement, which they aren't, so I'm content now.
I'd even say, if they both hold true to being side by side lines, I'd actually love primaris as their inclusion would alongside old marines add a nice difference in design and history you could mix and match from. Like running the historical old guard, with the new age side by side. If that proves to be the direction it's going, I bet much of the hate will be gone, it'll just be some who will always stick with the old core, and some who will gladly splurge into the primaris.
Insectum7 wrote: Minor changes happen all the time. Major changes happen rather infrequently. The state of Uriah Jacobus is decidedly less important/relevant than major changes to the most popular faction of the game.
That should be followed with a 'duh'.
Importance is relative to the person reading it, duh.
Im afraid it cant be waved away that easily, but nice try. Faction-wide patterns repeated consistently for 25 years have more conceptual inertia than a single model whose rules are seldom updated.
You waived it off with the same tone, so I was merely returning the favor.
there's a real point there though. Are you going to address it?
And take a step back from comparing a Phobos Marine to a Tactical and compare it to the unit it's replacing, the Scout, and take a good look at the elements they share and tell me which one looks more like a Marine. And be honest about it.
Weird question, as Scouts look more like Scouts, which is what they're supposed to look like.
Why should I bother answering your points when you clearly ignore mine?
I'm sorry, what point was that? Did you make one? Not a joke question.
You seem to be saying that the death and rebirth of Uriah Jacobus was equally as important to the almost unchanging 25 year history of core Space Marine lore.
Jacobus was a small example of how they change or roll back lore every edition. I'm hardly going to make an itemized list of every change the game got in the last 25 years just to prove that things change and Marines aren't special.
When they first introduced the Necrons the whole Eldar ancient history got heavily retconned. And then later they famously retconned the Necrons themselves.
ClockworkZion wrote: Jacobus was a small example of how they change or roll back lore every edition. I'm hardly going to make an itemized list of every change the game got in the last 25 years just to prove that things change and Marines aren't special.
Okay. . . But my point in response is that there is a difference between minor changes, and major changes. And major changes are infrequent.
Plus:
Crimson wrote: When they first introduced the Necrons the whole Eldar ancient history got heavily retconned. And then later they famously retconned the Necrons themselves.
The Necrons being introduced changed nothing about the Eldar as an army, and barely affected it from a faction-lore standpoint. 95% of Eldar fiction didn't change. Iirc, the only thing that changed for Eldar was effectively the subject matter of myth and legend millions of years prior. If someone wants to correct me on this I'm all ears, but my recollection of the Eldar fan-rage at the time was more about the Necrons having a higher tech level.
The Eldar didn't get their army swapped out or units changed or anything. I believe all changes were entirely in the distant background.
As I recall it that is the case with the eldar fluff change from Necrons. That said, I kind of liked the old Necron fluff a bit more, felt more tragic somehow.
The new fluff feels too much like tomb kings in space. I also liked the C'tans being more powerful as opposed to smacked down by the necrons and enslaved as shards.
I think I posted on another thread a better implemenetation would to be making Primaris rarer in chapters as more of the modern 'elite' of the chapter. Maybe something happens and they realize "Wait we cannot make space marines like this it is wasteful."
So instead the go through the following process :
Start as a Scout - Become a Vet then become a Space marine in either the Devastator, Assault or Tactical, after graduating they become a Primaris Marine after the specialization into a either a Support, Phobos, or Intercessor.
Some may refuse if they cannot survive the process to become a Primaris and may stay as a commander. Risker? yes? More storied? Yes. it would also allow people to keep their old marines but some of their range is quelled and decreased in size.
You want major changes? 13th Black Crusade was a big change.
So was splitting all the legions into in-fighting warbands.
So was removing Chaos Undivided for anyone who isn't Belakor or Abbadon (still don't know how they plan to fix that one).
Grey Knight geneseed is now an amalgamation of sources and not the Emperor's prized creation based off his own genetic code.
Speaking of Grey Knights: Bloodtide was retgone post 5th edition .
You scrape off that veneer of overall continuity and there have been a lot of changes to core parts of the lore over the years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: I think I posted on another thread a better implemenetation would to be making Primaris rarer in chapters as more of the modern 'elite' of the chapter. Maybe something happens and they realize "Wait we cannot make space marines like this it is wasteful."
So instead the go through the following process :
Start as a Scout - Become a Vet then become a Space marine in either the Devastator, Assault or Tactical, after graduating they become a Primaris Marine after the specialization into a either a Support, Phobos, or Intercessor.
Some may refuse if they cannot survive the process to become a Primaris and may stay as a commander. Risker? yes? More storied? Yes. it would also allow people to keep their old marines but some of their range is quelled and decreased in size.
Doesn't make sense to potentially lose a commanding offixer of hundreds of years of experiance to the Rubricon when Joe Snuffy scout will do just as well.
ClockworkZion wrote: You want major changes? 13th Black Crusade was a big change.
So was splitting all the legions into in-fighting warbands.
So was removing Chaos Undivided for anyone who isn't Belakor or Abbadon (still don't know how they plan to fix that one).
Grey Knight geneseed is now an amalgamation of sources and not the Emperor's prized creation based off his own genetic code.
Speaking of Grey Knights: Bloodtide was retgone post 5th edition .
You scrape off that veneer of overall continuity and there have been a lot of changes to core parts of the lore over the years.
Which is fine, its evolving and I like the Primaris Evolution, its probably one of the best renovations of space marines in a while. Though I still don't like its implementation IE "EVERYONE USES PRIMARIS!"
Or the books written about the Primaris are all written like as if they are children : IE War of Secrets and Dark Imperium book 1 and 2.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: I think I posted on another thread a better implemenetation would to be making Primaris rarer in chapters as more of the modern 'elite' of the chapter. Maybe something happens and they realize "Wait we cannot make space marines like this it is wasteful."
So instead the go through the following process :
Start as a Scout - Become a Vet then become a Space marine in either the Devastator, Assault or Tactical, after graduating they become a Primaris Marine after the specialization into a either a Support, Phobos, or Intercessor.
Some may refuse if they cannot survive the process to become a Primaris and may stay as a commander. Risker? yes? More storied? Yes. it would also allow people to keep their old marines but some of their range is quelled and decreased in size.
Doesn't make sense to potentially lose a commanding offixer of hundreds of years of experiance to the Rubricon when Joe Snuffy scout will do just as well.
That is if the process does not become easier? We know for sure that primaris will only become a mere evolution not getting rid of the entire minimarine line up as that would be entirely stupid, it could be that primaris become more of the elite of the chapter.
ClockworkZion wrote: Grey Knight geneseed is now an amalgamation of sources and not the Emperor's prized creation based off his own genetic code.
That's how it originally was until Ward spank version of the codex changed it. Thankfully they changed it back.
Oh, and as an Eldar player at the time of introducing Necrons I certainly didn't consider the changes minor. Their ancient history and mythic cycles are very vital to their lore.
Asherian Command wrote: I think I posted on another thread a better implemenetation would to be making Primaris rarer in chapters as more of the modern 'elite' of the chapter. Maybe something happens and they realize "Wait we cannot make space marines like this it is wasteful."
So instead the go through the following process :
Start as a Scout - Become a Vet then become a Space marine in either the Devastator, Assault or Tactical, after graduating they become a Primaris Marine after the specialization into a either a Support, Phobos, or Intercessor.
Some may refuse if they cannot survive the process to become a Primaris and may stay as a commander. Risker? yes? More storied? Yes. it would also allow people to keep their old marines but some of their range is quelled and decreased in size.
I would love that, and be kind of around what I'd feel the ideal to be. expansions and not just " We R betterz ! ". I like it. A reasonable implementation and it still lets players run their old marines as they didn't need to implement them yet, or all the primaris as the old guard may have died off or upgraded and of course the most traditional the mix of old and new as forces in flux and growth which seems reasonable, as my Deathwatch are.
ClockworkZion wrote: Grey Knight geneseed is now an amalgamation of sources and not the Emperor's prized creation based off his own genetic code.
That's how it originally was until Ward spank version of the codex changed it. Thankfully they changed it back.
Indeed. I mean it was implied that something else was at work with the geneseed of the grey knights more than "It was from the emperor."
Because technically all geneseed comes from the emperor. But I think the changes so far to the imperium have be great outside of the Primaris Implementation of the company structure.
Honestly company structure should be :
First company - Vets Second Company - Vanguard Company Vets Third - Sixth Companies - 3 Main Battleline Companies Seven to Eleventh Companies - Reserve Companies 2 - Troops based, 1 Assault Base, 1 Devastator Twelveth Company - Neophytes / Recruits Company - Size Varies intensely
Twelve companies would make sense for several reasons as maybe the eleventh and twelveth have varying forces. I see the Phobos and Vanguard units as more a supplementary force sort of like the Veterans of the First Company. Instead spread through out the entirety of the Chapter. Those who specialize in recon and battle can become a vanguard vet. Instead of Vanguards being a 'scout'.
Allowing that evolution from Scout to Intercessor to stick around and be more interesting and 'characterful'.
I know in my fanon chapter I wrote it so each company is essentially split in half into demicompanies and each is entirely autonomous electing to work with other companies and seeing to their own recruitment so Demicompany of 50 would have various neophytes and scouts with them to supplement or replace their numbers on the field if need be. (Sorta like the real military in organizational tactics!)
ClockworkZion wrote: You want major changes? 13th Black Crusade was a big change.
So was splitting all the legions into in-fighting warbands.
So was removing Chaos Undivided for anyone who isn't Belakor or Abbadon (still don't know how they plan to fix that one).
Grey Knight geneseed is now an amalgamation of sources and not the Emperor's prized creation based off his own genetic code.
Speaking of Grey Knights: Bloodtide was retgone post 5th edition .
You scrape off that veneer of overall continuity and there have been a lot of changes to core parts of the lore over the years.
Which is fine, its evolving and I like the Primaris Evolution, its probably one of the best renovations of space marines in a while. Though I still don't like its implementation IE "EVERYONE USES PRIMARIS!"
Or the books written about the Primaris are all written like as if they are children : IE War of Secrets and Dark Imperium book 1 and 2.
If you had to fight an eternal war and were given the chance to be bigger, stronger and tougher while leading bigger, stronger and tougher troops you'd take it right?
Cause I know I sure the heck would.
I've said it before, sure a civil war over Primaris is more interesting at first, but when you consider the actual state of the Imperium it's a bad plot with pointless conflict.
The Imperium lost a large number of chapters to the rift and 13th Black Crusade (not to mention those likely lost forever when the Astronomicon was turned off). Humanity was losing on nearly every front and on the verge of total collapse.
Guilliman then met with the Emperor who spent the last 10k years making a plan to finally turn the tables in the Great Game with Chaos. Considering the Emperor he likely knew of the Primaris, or was told that an upgraded version of his beta build was ready for use. I can't see the Big E saying no to this chance to have one of his best game peices on the board backed by reinforcements.
So Guilliman rolls out the reinforcements for the broken chapters, bringing hope where there was none, and establishing new chapters to replace the ones lost. This takes -two hundred- years, a crusade the largest the galaxy has seen since M30 and the help of every Custodes and tech priest Guilliman can get his hands on and it's still not enough. Some chapters don't have gene-brethren ready and have to rebuild from their own genestock and use the Runricon to upgrade what's left.
But even the most apprehensive takes them because the Imperium is dying faster than ever and duty calls for every hand that can hold a bolter. Duty is more important than anything as an Astartes and an Astartes who fails to uphold his duty is no better than a traitor.
At least that's been my take away on this. A civil war would have killed an already dying Imperium even faster and only by putting their duty to the Emperor can any Astartes hope to overcome the foes of man.
In any other time a civil war would definitely happen, but with the Imperium about to go down like a boxer who took one too many to the chin it was the only way to stay upright and fighting.
Since then the Primaris have proven themselves countless times and the only thing slowing down their inclusion to some chapters are secrets the chapter holds that they fear will have them labelled traitor.
ClockworkZion wrote: Grey Knight geneseed is now an amalgamation of sources and not the Emperor's prized creation based off his own genetic code.
That's how it originally was until Ward spank version of the codex changed it. Thankfully they changed it back.
Oh, and as an Eldar player at the time of introducing Necrons I certainly didn't consider the changes minor. Their ancient history and mythic cycles are very vital to their lore.
Emperor's Gift made it canon, the Horus Heresy made that in-canon.
While the phobos might be replacing scouts, it has none of the flavor or even the feel of the model it's replacing at all. The whole primaris line in fact has virtually no soul, they feel like just add water, ready to battle super soldiers that are just there. Marines, you have a clear path of experience and build up, even the different set ups of the scouts told stories of their levels of experience and personal growth. Going from sniper scouts, to ones with bolters, to shotguns and CCW armed scouts, to being mounted one a speeder storm to having scout bikes.
These phobos marines, have no such story, they are all bad ass supermans sprung straight from the tube ready to rock, no growth, no feeling, no soul really just completely expendable super men, like Sigmarines. Which is probably what they are going for but it's a definite loss of character into bland, run of the mill sci fi supermen, hell even Master Chief from Halo has more riveting backstory.
Now, if you don't mind that loss of flavor and feel, that's completely fine, but some do lament how bland these numarines feel. So they may be lovely to look at, but they have no depth of character.
I guess it is good Gaius Pollandus is no more. This post would have probably made him quite sad.
ClockworkZion wrote: You want major changes? 13th Black Crusade was a big change.
So was splitting all the legions into in-fighting warbands.
So was removing Chaos Undivided for anyone who isn't Belakor or Abbadon (still don't know how they plan to fix that one).
Grey Knight geneseed is now an amalgamation of sources and not the Emperor's prized creation based off his own genetic code.
Speaking of Grey Knights: Bloodtide was retgone post 5th edition .
You scrape off that veneer of overall continuity and there have been a lot of changes to core parts of the lore over the years.
Which is fine, its evolving and I like the Primaris Evolution, its probably one of the best renovations of space marines in a while. Though I still don't like its implementation IE "EVERYONE USES PRIMARIS!"
Or the books written about the Primaris are all written like as if they are children : IE War of Secrets and Dark Imperium book 1 and 2.
If you had to fight an eternal war and were given the chance to be bigger, stronger and tougher while leading bigger, stronger and tougher troops you'd take it right?
Cause I know I sure the heck would.
I've said it before, sure a civil war over Primaris is more interesting at first, but when you consider the actual state of the Imperium it's a bad plot with pointless conflict.
The Imperium lost a large number of chapters to the rift and 13th Black Crusade (not to mention those likely lost forever when the Astronomicon was turned off). Humanity was losing on nearly every front and on the verge of total collapse.
Guilliman then met with the Emperor who spent the last 10k years making a plan to finally turn the tables in the Great Game with Chaos. Considering the Emperor he likely knew of the Primaris, or was told that an upgraded version of his beta build was ready for use. I can't see the Big E saying no to this chance to have one of his best game peices on the board backed by reinforcements.
So Guilliman rolls out the reinforcements for the broken chapters, bringing hope where there was none, and establishing new chapters to replace the ones lost. This takes -two hundred- years, a crusade the largest the galaxy has seen since M30 and the help of every Custodes and tech priest Guilliman can get his hands on and it's still not enough. Some chapters don't have gene-brethren ready and have to rebuild from their own genestock and use the Runricon to upgrade what's left.
But even the most apprehensive takes them because the Imperium is dying faster than ever and duty calls for every hand that can hold a bolter. Duty is more important than anything as an Astartes and an Astartes who fails to uphold his duty is no better than a traitor.
At least that's been my take away on this. A civil war would have killed an already dying Imperium even faster and only by putting their duty to the Emperor can any Astartes hope to overcome the foes of man.
In any other time a civil war would definitely happen, but with the Imperium about to go down like a boxer who took one too many to the chin it was the only way to stay upright and fighting.
Since then the Primaris have proven themselves countless times and the only thing slowing down their inclusion to some chapters are secrets the chapter holds that they fear will have them labelled traitor.
ClockworkZion wrote: Grey Knight geneseed is now an amalgamation of sources and not the Emperor's prized creation based off his own genetic code.
That's how it originally was until Ward spank version of the codex changed it. Thankfully they changed it back.
Oh, and as an Eldar player at the time of introducing Necrons I certainly didn't consider the changes minor. Their ancient history and mythic cycles are very vital to their lore.
Emperor's Gift made it canon, the Horus Heresy made that in-canon.
I don't think a civil war would be interesting, I just said certain chapters would be deeply mistrustful of primaris to the point of frevor even if the Custodes said "Here use this" I don't think some would elect to just based on tradition.
Tradition is very hard thing to break and some chapters would rebuke such efforts.
While the phobos might be replacing scouts, it has none of the flavor or even the feel of the model it's replacing at all. The whole primaris line in fact has virtually no soul, they feel like just add water, ready to battle super soldiers that are just there. Marines, you have a clear path of experience and build up, even the different set ups of the scouts told stories of their levels of experience and personal growth. Going from sniper scouts, to ones with bolters, to shotguns and CCW armed scouts, to being mounted one a speeder storm to having scout bikes.
These phobos marines, have no such story, they are all bad ass supermans sprung straight from the tube ready to rock, no growth, no feeling, no soul really just completely expendable super men, like Sigmarines. Which is probably what they are going for but it's a definite loss of character into bland, run of the mill sci fi supermen, hell even Master Chief from Halo has more riveting backstory.
Now, if you don't mind that loss of flavor and feel, that's completely fine, but some do lament how bland these numarines feel. So they may be lovely to look at, but they have no depth of character.
I guess it is good Gaius Pollandus is no more. This post would have probably made him quite sad.
Yeah, good thing indeed, sorry Gaius.... " No actual Gaius was harmed in the making of this post. "
It literally addresses some of the complaints, in detail.
There are three 'types' of Primaris: The Awoken(those who were the 'originals' that Cawl made) who were basically indoctrinated into serving as one thing(Aggressors, Reivers, Inceptors, or Intercessors) and had never been indoctrinated/brought up in Chapter traditions. There were a lot of the Awoken, they basically swelled up Chapters right off the bat.
The Indoctrinated(the 'new crop' of Primaris), Neophytes ascended into the ranks of the Primaris. They're growing up in the Chapters, indoctrinated into their ways and traditions. Not all Chapters are allowing for this to happen though--Space Wolves and Dark Angels are explicitly called out.
The Ascended(the old Marines being granted the Cawl upgrades). There's some debate between Calgar or Khan being the first of the Ascended.
Well then, the awoken are bland lamers. The indoctrinated are ok, at least they have some substance, though good on the wolves and DA for hating on them anyways, good job lads. The ascended are alright, same as the old with some slight bigger stats and stature.
ClockworkZion wrote: Grey Knight geneseed is now an amalgamation of sources and not the Emperor's prized creation based off his own genetic code.
That's how it originally was until Ward spank version of the codex changed it. Thankfully they changed it back.
Oh, and as an Eldar player at the time of introducing Necrons I certainly didn't consider the changes minor. Their ancient history and mythic cycles are very vital to their lore.
A: I understand their ancient history and mythic cycles are important, but I'm curious as to what actually changed.
B: It's not like Necrons came out and all of a sudden Aspect Warriors could mix squad weapons and all new Eldar tanks became treaded ground pounders.
If we want to argue that lore only matters when it changes armies then no lore matters because the inclusion of new units or the removal of old ones is a common occurance that informs the lore not the other way around.
BrianDavion wrote: also just because the blood tide hasn't been MENTIONED doesn't mean it was retconned out of existance
ClockworkZion wrote: If we want to argue that lore only matters when it changes armies then no lore matters because the inclusion of new units or the removal of old ones is a common occurance that informs the lore not the other way around.
I don't believe anyone has made that argument.
I am making the same argument as before, some changes are big, some changes are small. A unit changing, or an additional unit is a small change. An alteration in a piece of the lore is another thing. These things happen pretty often.
When was the last time a faction got redefined? Old units and organizations written out of the lore, while being replaced with new, different units and kits? Crimson keeps saying that lore-wise, Primaris are replacements for classic marines. If that is the case, marines as I am used to them will cease to exist. The background changes, the army list changes, the imagery changes. Primaris are not the marines I signed up for, I have no interest in them beyond seeing how GW fares with them in a business/branding sense moving forward as an academic observation.
I hope that will not be the case, but if it is the case, don't tell me it's is a common place occurrence.
crimson's not entirely right, right now Primaris are being advertised more as reinforcements/supplements. now eventually Primaris Marines will replace the old, but the lore is clear that this isn't going to occur quickly, and that not every marine chapter is producing only primaris marines. Some are, others are only producing a proportion with the new stuff.
I imagine GW will keep old marines around for ages to come, however the depiction of the blending will vary from chapter to chapter. the units with a lot of distinct old marine units as part of their identity will likely be shown with less Primaris Marines. Space Wolves for example in their codex had only 3 or 4 primaris units on their example army
Insectum7 wrote: I hope Crimson is not right. Tacticals in Rhinos 4 lyfe.
Me too.
I specifically asked my GW manager when I ordered Dark imperium. While I recognise that he probably doesn't know any better than us, his comment was - "I went on a trip to HQ to discuss this release. They said they have no intention of getting rid of existing marines because they know how much the fans love them and want to keep building those kits."
I hope that turns out to be true.
I'm not really loving the oldMarines any more after seeing the Primaris models, more specifically Intercessors and Hellblasters. Not a huge fan of Phobos/Reiver stuff personally. I wouldn't mind if they just rebooted the entire Space Marine line, meaning Primaris scale Tacticals/Assault/Devastators... They'd probably sell like hotcakes (especially if they got the proper stat boosts to primaris level).
From a fluff POV, the primaris line doesn't really make any sense: why not give the Emperor's finest the best possible wargear, namely Heavy and Special weapons and a proper assault loadout... Seems GW have carefully designed the Primaris line to not step on the toes of any oldMarines. I guess from a business POV that makes sense, but from any other POV not so much... Probably the biggest peeve I have with the whole Primaris lineup.
The moment the lore starts to impede the growth and development of the model line, it means that lore is no longer serving it's function to enrich the tabletop experience - which is the main focus of 40k.
I see people crying about how there's too much grav tech or whatever. News flash - the lore has changed and developed, and it no longer acts as a barrier for new and exciting model releases and stories.
If you value the 3rd and 4th edition more then you are free to play it and focus on the setting as it was then with other like minded players. You are not free to dictate what is and isn't correct 40k currently.
Also realise that as a complainer you are in a tiny minority. The rest of us are more engaged in the hobby than ever.
Ishagu wrote: The moment the lore starts to impede the growth and development of the model line, it means that lore is no longer serving it's function to enrich the tabletop experience - which is the main focus of 40k.
I see people crying about how there's too much grav tech or whatever. News flash - the lore has changed and developed, and it no longer acts as a barrier for new and exciting model releases and stories.
If you value the 3rd and 4th edition more then you are free to play it and focus on the setting as it was then with other like minded players. You are not free to dictate what is and isn't correct 40k currently.
Also realise that as a complainer you are in a tiny minority. The rest of us are more engaged in the hobby than ever.
I don't know if you responded to the OP or me, but like I said, I like most of the new line aesthetically so you can't really accuse me of "complaining". It's just that the rules and loadouts don't really make any sense if you stop to think about it. Think Land Raiders: You can fit Terminators and even Jump Pack marines inside, but for some reason Primaris Marines can't fit? It just feels nonsensical and arbitrary. It is too clearly driven by commercial goals (i.e. more sales).
IDK the only thing that primaris get is longer legs a bit bigger torso and longer arms....from look of all my marines all can tell (didn't read the 20 pages), shoulders still same check, ammo pouches still same check, heads still same check...all that matters.
Ishagu wrote: The moment the lore starts to impede the growth and development of the model line, it means that lore is no longer serving it's function to enrich the tabletop experience - which is the main focus of 40k.
I see people crying about how there's too much grav tech or whatever. News flash - the lore has changed and developed, and it no longer acts as a barrier for new and exciting model releases and stories.
If you value the 3rd and 4th edition more then you are free to play it and focus on the setting as it was then with other like minded players. You are not free to dictate what is and isn't correct 40k currently.
Also realise that as a complainer you are in a tiny minority. The rest of us are more engaged in the hobby than ever.
I'm getting really sick of your attitude ishigaru. Why do you have to push this aggressive rethoric against others? Why would people that dont like primaris be any less engaged in the hobby? And why do you constantly need to remind them that they are a minority (wherever you get that from)? Is that important in some way or do you just like to belittle them at every chance you get? You know, some people are actually invested in the setting that was and have no love for these broad retcons/pushes to a new setting and scale.
If someone played napoleonics they would be pretty upset that their rules providers and their opponents start pushing the game into ww1 with tanks etc. and abandoning them and their armies.
Insectum7 wrote: I hope Crimson is not right. Tacticals in Rhinos 4 lyfe.
Given how much time we have spent arguing against you that the tactical marine isn’t “the marine” standard I found this in the new codex and it made me laugh.
And Lysander is a old marine who can’t take his armour with him so will be biased!
Ishagu wrote: The moment the lore starts to impede the growth and development of the model line, it means that lore is no longer serving it's function to enrich the tabletop experience - which is the main focus of 40k.
I see people crying about how there's too much grav tech or whatever. News flash - the lore has changed and developed, and it no longer acts as a barrier for new and exciting model releases and stories.
If you value the 3rd and 4th edition more then you are free to play it and focus on the setting as it was then with other like minded players. You are not free to dictate what is and isn't correct 40k currently.
Also realise that as a complainer you are in a tiny minority. The rest of us are more engaged in the hobby than ever.
I'm getting really sick of your attitude ishigaru. Why do you have to push this aggressive rethoric against others? Why would people that dont like primaris be any less engaged in the hobby? And why do you constantly need to remind them that they are a minority (wherever you get that from)? Is that important in some way or do you just like to belittle them at every chance you get? You know, some people are actually invested in the setting that was and have no love for these broad retcons/pushes to a new setting and scale.
If someone played napoleonics they would be pretty upset that their rules providers and their opponents start pushing the game into ww1 with tanks etc. and abandoning them and their armies.
Anything that Ishagu does is of course done by the majority of the players and his opinion reflects the majority. Only a tiny % have any complaints at all with GW if we listen to him. Even if everyone I have met IRL, except indoctrinated GW personel, do have some kind of beef with them. Much more than any other game or games company. People love the Warhammer universe overall but not that many like GW's practices. We still enjoy the game but wish for it to improve.
I think he is mainly just a troll here on dakka. His extremely negative attitude just pisses people off and is way more toxic than all the complainers he thinks he is so much better than. In the threads I see him pop up it's almost never to actually discuss anything. Just show up to poster about how much better he is because he knows how to enjoy crap and everyone else is just a cry baby.
On topic:
Myself I do love the Intercessors and are quite OK with both the aggressors and the redemptor. But the new jump pack guys and the tanks look really really bad. I can see myself playing with them but I would convert the tanks so they look threaded and not flying and put the suppressors on the ground with some bits swapped out. The Invictor has amazing rules but needs some converting before I would ever field it too. Primaris lore is from what I have seen so far quite bad but I will probably get used to it.
Primaris feels very hit or miss and not very cohesive in looks or mechanics. If all we had were the intercessors and Redemptor I would have thought GW were just doing a scale upgrade and been fine with that. With some converting you can make the Primaris marines still feel a bit more like the old marines which I aim to do.
Ishagu wrote: The moment the lore starts to impede the growth and development of the model line, it means that lore is no longer serving it's function to enrich the tabletop experience - which is the main focus of 40k.
I see people crying about how there's too much grav tech or whatever. News flash - the lore has changed and developed, and it no longer acts as a barrier for new and exciting model releases and stories.
If you value the 3rd and 4th edition more then you are free to play it and focus on the setting as it was then with other like minded players. You are not free to dictate what is and isn't correct 40k currently.
Also realise that as a complainer you are in a tiny minority. The rest of us are more engaged in the hobby than ever.
I'm getting really sick of your attitude ishigaru. Why do you have to push this aggressive rethoric against others? Why would people that dont like primaris be any less engaged in the hobby? And why do you constantly need to remind them that they are a minority (wherever you get that from)? Is that important in some way or do you just like to belittle them at every chance you get? You know, some people are actually invested in the setting that was and have no love for these broad retcons/pushes to a new setting and scale.
If someone played napoleonics they would be pretty upset that their rules providers and their opponents start pushing the game into ww1 with tanks etc. and abandoning them and their armies.
There's been a fair bit of aggressive rhetoric against others in this thread.
It's also been going on ever since Primaris came out, so I can understand why some people might just be aggressively shutting down such attempts.
Ishagu wrote: The moment the lore starts to impede the growth and development of the model line, it means that lore is no longer serving it's function to enrich the tabletop experience - which is the main focus of 40k.
I see people crying about how there's too much grav tech or whatever. News flash - the lore has changed and developed, and it no longer acts as a barrier for new and exciting model releases and stories.
If you value the 3rd and 4th edition more then you are free to play it and focus on the setting as it was then with other like minded players. You are not free to dictate what is and isn't correct 40k currently.
Also realise that as a complainer you are in a tiny minority. The rest of us are more engaged in the hobby than ever.
If someone played napoleonics they would be pretty upset that their rules providers and their opponents start pushing the game into ww1 with tanks etc. and abandoning them and their armies.
That’s not what’s happening though. Primaris aren’t such a huge change that it’s the equivalent of napoleonic warfare vs WW1 warfare. It’s more like WW2 compared to later WW2. Barely a change at all.
I don't know if you responded to the OP or me, but like I said, I like most of the new line aesthetically so you can't really accuse me of "complaining". It's just that the rules and loadouts don't really make any sense if you stop to think about it. Think Land Raiders: You can fit Terminators and even Jump Pack marines inside, but for some reason Primaris Marines can't fit? It just feels nonsensical and arbitrary. It is too clearly driven by commercial goals (i.e. more sales).
Yeah, that definitely is unnecessary and annoying.
Ishagu wrote: The moment the lore starts to impede the growth and development of the model line, it means that lore is no longer serving it's function to enrich the tabletop experience - which is the main focus of 40k.
Lore and models are supposed to go along together. If new lore is cranked out and old one is retconned on a large scale in order to produce and sell en masse to the biggest section of the fanbase a new line with clear dissonance in style with the old one, people are going to notice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZebioLizard2 wrote: There's been a fair bit of aggressive rhetoric against others in this thread.
It's also been going on ever since Primaris came out, so I can understand why some people might just be aggressively shutting down such attempts.
The only true aggressive rethoric is to shut down any dissenting opinion as inherently silly and invalid. The rest is all consequences and reactions to that. Ishagu writes his posts as a joke account would.
Visually I think the DE revamp was a bigger shift in aesthetics than this primaris thing. They replace everything with new, better and different looking models. In theory you could have used the old models along with the older ones, but almost no one did as the new ones just looked so much better and quite different. An Intercessor looks more like a Tactical marine than a first generation Kabalite looks like a second generation Kabalite.
Crimson wrote: Visually I think the DE revamp was a bigger shift in aesthetics than this primaris thing. They replace everything with new, better and different looking models. In theory you could have used the old models along with the older ones, but almost no one did as the new ones just looked so much better and quite different. An Intercessor looks more like a Tactical marine than a first generation Kabalite looks like a second generation Kabalite.
Compare the scourge! They went from Kabalites with Jetpacks to literal bone winged monstrosities.
Crimson wrote: Visually I think the DE revamp was a bigger shift in aesthetics than this primaris thing. They replace everything with new, better and different looking models. In theory you could have used the old models along with the older ones, but almost no one did as the new ones just looked so much better and quite different. An Intercessor looks more like a Tactical marine than a first generation Kabalite looks like a second generation Kabalite.
Well, this is a good point, but there is a catch (at least for what concerns me, cannot speak for others). Those were, so to say, the "same" Dark Eldar in concept. Nothing you see implies they aren't the same BDSM Space Pirate/Gladiator/Mad Surgeon/Shadow Unseelie. They just updated the aesthetics to the same concept. Nothing in the new models, to my knowledge, implies changes in their background. They just look better, for most people. Me included. The line is gorgeous I think. Maybe the only exception is the new Archon. Defenders of the Primaris state that these are just the new marines but the original concept is not betrayed (that is, it's like with the dark eldar), detractors (at least myself) think that (disregarding details concerning specific body parts, proportions, specific concept concerning a given model) there is too much that changed, and the changes also imply a "new" relationship of the imperium with tradition and tech. Those that love the new fluff think that this is a good thing and fits the advent of Guilliman. For me it removes character from the Imperium. But I am also of the opinion that Guilliman and the primarchs should not be there, for a number of reasons included the fact that they make the galaxy a small place.
I play both Primaris and/or old marines. I mix, I play mono, I Play marines to their entirety. Is someone going to tell me I'm playing marines wrong?
You think that discussing one's opinion about a model line in a wargaming dedicated forum is crazy? Why? And why you think I want you to stop playing with your marines just because I dislike the models? Do people refrain from fielding Wulfen because of the DIGGANOBZ joke?
Well, this is a good point, but there is a catch (at least for what concerns me, cannot speak for others). Those were, so to say, the "same" Dark Eldar in concept. Nothing you see implies they aren't the same BDSM Space Pirate/Gladiator/Mad Surgeon/Shadow Unseelie. They just updated the aesthetics to the same concept. Nothing in the new models, to my knowledges, implies changes in their background.
They just look better, for most people. Me included. The line is gorgeous I think.
Defenders of the Primaris state that these are just the new marines but the original concept is not betrayed (that is, it's like with the dark eldar), detractors (at least myself) think that (disregarding details concerning specific body parts, proportions, specific concept concerning a given model) there is too much that changed, and the changes also imply a "new" relationship of the imperium with tradition and tech.
Those that love the new fluff think that this is a good thing and fits the advent of Guilliman. For me it removes character from the Imperium. But I am also of the opinion that Guilliman and the primarchs should not be there, for a number of reasons included the fact that they make the galaxy a small place.
But that's fluff, this thread was originally about aesthetics. Also, while I certainly agree that how the Primaris were introduced was hella awkward, I sill do not think that the basic concept of the Marines has been changed. They're still brutal, brainwashed supersoldiers who wear power armour and purge the xenos with bolt weapons. That's the concept. Exactly how many extra organs they have or the exact shape of kneepads, helmets, the length of the bolters etc are just details. Changing them doesn't change the basic concept.
Fluff and aesthetics go along. Think that they are separate is illogical. There are a lot of models in 40k that would seem really baffling to an outsider but we take for granted because we know the background. And fluff and aesthetics influence each other all the time. I mean even Ishagu admitted this above. "The moment the lore starts to impede the growth and development of the model line, it means that lore is no longer serving it's function to enrich the tabletop experience". I disagree, but I agree with the basic assumption - that there is a correlation, and very strong. Otherwise one would not need to write that.
And on the basic concept in the way you present it - people can disagree on that, sorry. You have to reduce it on a very generic level in order to fit new and old, to the point that is no longer 3rd-7th 40k marine.
I made a post in another thread that I feel applies here as well.
GW has no idea what direction they want to go with Space Marines. They're just tossing all of their ideas into the pot and seeing what happens. It's the same thing that happened with Stormcast Eternals for AoS. No direction... Just feel it out as it goes.
My prediction is that what we'll end up with / what we are currently getting is on par with what GW did with Stormcast Eternals in AoS in the sense that the Space Marines faction is no longer just one cohesive model line, but rather the Space Marines faction will become an umbrella with 3,4 or 5+ independent model lines under it and while we can/could mesh everything together we're not really meant to.
The intention being that SM armies become sub-divided...
a SM (i.e. classic) army consisting of only the classic models or...
a SM Primaris army consisting of only <Primaris> units or...
a SM Phobos army consisting of only the <Phobos> units, etc.
I play both Primaris and/or old marines. I mix, I play mono, I Play marines to their entirety. Is someone going to tell me I'm playing marines wrong?
I hope not. This thread is supposed to be about how primaris are so different from marines as to be offensive. And. How they are not. They are exactly the same as marines because they are marines. No one on the pro primaris side is saying old marines are wrong or pad. We are just defending primaris against false claims. ( said out loud it sounds dummer than it is).
Insectum7 wrote: I hope Crimson is not right. Tacticals in Rhinos 4 lyfe.
Given how much time we have spent arguing against you that the tactical marine isn’t “the marine” standard I found this in the new codex and it made me laugh.
And Lysander is a old marine who can’t take his armour with him so will be biased!
Ishagu wrote: The moment the lore starts to impede the growth and development of the model line, it means that lore is no longer serving it's function to enrich the tabletop experience - which is the main focus of 40k.
I see people crying about how there's too much grav tech or whatever. News flash - the lore has changed and developed, and it no longer acts as a barrier for new and exciting model releases and stories.
If you value the 3rd and 4th edition more then you are free to play it and focus on the setting as it was then with other like minded players. You are not free to dictate what is and isn't correct 40k currently.
Also realise that as a complainer you are in a tiny minority. The rest of us are more engaged in the hobby than ever.
I don't know if you responded to the OP or me, but like I said, I like most of the new line aesthetically so you can't really accuse me of "complaining". It's just that the rules and loadouts don't really make any sense if you stop to think about it. Think Land Raiders: You can fit Terminators and even Jump Pack marines inside, but for some reason Primaris Marines can't fit? It just feels nonsensical and arbitrary. It is too clearly driven by commercial goals (i.e. more sales).
Ignore him, he is not adding anything to the conversation. he has been constantly coming in here and talking down to people. i don't think anyone here has been ultra nostalgic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: I made a post in another thread that I feel applies here as well.
GW has no idea what direction they want to go with Space Marines. They're just tossing all of their ideas into the pot and seeing what happens. It's the same thing that happened with Stormcast Eternals for AoS. No direction... Just feel it out as it goes.
My prediction is that what we'll end up with / what we are currently getting is on par with what GW did with Stormcast Eternals in AoS in the sense that the Space Marines faction is no longer just one cohesive model line, but rather the Space Marines faction will become an umbrella with 3,4 or 5+ independent model lines under it and while we can/could mesh everything together we're not really meant to.
The intention being that SM armies become sub-divided... a SM (i.e. classic) army consisting of only the classic models or... a SM Primaris army consisting of only <Primaris> units or... a SM Phobos army consisting of only the <Phobos> units, etc.
Probably.
I mean someone literally made this photo:
Honestly its very annoying but makes sense.
Next up Primaris Psykers. Super powerful....
You get the point, we are heading down a path of another space marine unit each year.
While my poor eldar are left behind with 3rd edition Phoenix Lords and Aspect Warriors.
I play both Primaris and/or old marines. I mix, I play mono, I Play marines to their entirety. Is someone going to tell me I'm playing marines wrong?
I hope not. This thread is supposed to be about how primaris are so different from marines as to be offensive. And. How they are not. They are exactly the same as marines because they are marines. No one on the pro primaris side is saying old marines are wrong or pad. We are just defending primaris against false claims. ( said out loud it sounds dummer than it is).
False Claims? I think everyone has a point they agree on.
Primaris Marines have issues, but so did the classical marines.
Everyone has their issues with the classical marine line up, just like Primaris.
But that's fluff, this thread was originally about aesthetics. Also, while I certainly agree that how the Primaris were introduced was hella awkward, I sill do not think that the basic concept of the Marines has been changed. They're still brutal, brainwashed supersoldiers who wear power armour and purge the xenos with bolt weapons. That's the concept. Exactly how many extra organs they have or the exact shape of kneepads, helmets, the length of the bolters etc are just details. Changing them doesn't change the basic concept.
No basic concept hasn't changed marines, they are just taller. But they have become ultra specailized which is annoying, as marines are supposed to be generalists.
I used to care about the 40K background, think it was great. But years of Matt Wards and various Black Library authors eroding it had led it to become full of clinically stupid things, the original themes and the subtle satire being lost. The return of a loyalist Primarch was the last straw, the setting was irreparably damaged. So if you are lamenting the loss of 'decaying empire and barely remembered myths of the past' aspect of the setting, I'm right there with you. But at the same time I think that getting rid of some of the entrenched details was a good thing. I would have personally preferred had they just retconned the setting instead of making this awkward upheaval that damaged its themes. But considering how invested people are in all sort of trivial minor details, I am sure retconning would have caused a much greater backlash.
And I might not like how we got there but I like what we have. The Primaris are the Space Marines I have always wanted. They're amazing looking models which are large and detailed, they have rules which make them fell like individually powerful supersoldiers on the table, and as a bonus I got some cool new unit types like grav tanks and shooty jump pack marines. That I would shun them because in the background some lameass Primarch ordered them to be deployed or that they the fluff says that they have couple of made up organs more than before would be pure madness.
)
