The Nu-marines or Primaris marines, who do lots of people not like them? Is it because of the fluff? How they were introduced? From my understanding the space marine miniatures have changed a few times now. So why introducing the space marines people don't like? Can't we just say they are normal space marines in new armour like before? Why the hate or people being upset? Look at an old-marine now and it's totally different from Rouge Trader and 40K second edition. Thing is they are still the same space marines.
So only thing I can think of is because people don't like the fluff or how it was introduced. So ignore it and still use them as normal space marines, it's not that big of a deal. Space marines have changed over the years this is just a new change.
Please enlighten me and tell me what I am not seeing over the new hate/dislike for nu-marines.
I think you have to have gone through to process of having your own army brushed to the wayside to get what this is about. Don't know if you have or not - I haven't personally.
But the brain ache cause by the incongruous scale really does make it hard to field mixed armies imo.
Most Space Marine player haven't gone through this transition before, the marines have been pretty much unchanged since third edition. I remember discarding bunch of second edition models when the multipart marines arrived with 3rd edition and of course people had discarded full rogue trader marine armies before that. So to me is no different.
As history showed people were killing each other in real wars for stuff less important then likes or dislikes of a content of one or multiple books. So people just being irked by the "new" fluff seem to be acting natural, rather then odd.
The models themself seem fine, but I understand that with GW history updating WFB, some people worry that what is now shown as an addition of new units, is going to end with their armies being removed. And no one likes to here they just bought an army that will remain legal for maybe a year or two, and will stay good for even less.
If they were just a cosmetic change i'd be fine with them, something GW has done before with many factions. What I'm not fine with is that there is essentially no over lap between existing marine units and vehicles and the new primaris stuff. The models are great but it's such blatant and hamfisted money grab by GW to invalidate their best selling line to force try to and force the new marines down peoples throats that has me with no interest of ever buying any primaris models.
That along side the garbage retconned way they were introduced and the fact that the game to be healthy didn't need more marine stuff. Go give Chaos and Xenos some love.
I'll put it this way, my armies have been pretty clearly shoved to the wayside in favour of rushed out marines that aren't that interesting even if you look past the bad writing. That's the good treatment considering my armies are still playable rather than being cut like the last two times.
So while my 'hate' is more directed at GW it's hard to not have some spillover on their latest favourites.
Rescaling 2nd ed termies and tacs by 10~15% was ok.
Providing a 50~60 rescaled models and call them "not repacing old models" while having clear intent to do so is not so fine.
A primaris is taller than termies and almost the height of dreadnoughts. Gravis is larger than centurions and as tall as a dreadnought. Bad scale change.
Funny thing is, GW did the exact same thing with Plague Marines at the same time, just without any fluff explanation - and nobody seems to care. If you put a new Plague Marine next to an old one the difference in size and design is even bigger than between a Primaris and an old Marine. However, you can still switch between both or even mix them, as they only got additional equipment.
I'd say if they had introduced Primaris without any fluff explanation or just declaring it as a new armor mark AND making them compatible with old marines (Allowing for the same exquipment and use of transports) nobody would be upset aside from the people who are not playing Space Marines and always roll their eyes about yet another bunch of unnecessary Space Marines year after year.
I love the rules of Primaris, that's what the rules should be for normal marines... except no customization. That's the only thing keeping me from l liking new marines (and their terrible lore, but that's what headcanon is for)
Davor wrote: The Nu-marines or Primaris marines, who do lots of people not like them? Is it because of the fluff? How they were introduced? From my understanding the space marine miniatures have changed a few times now. So why introducing the space marines people don't like? Can't we just say they are normal space marines in new armour like before? Why the hate or people being upset? Look at an old-marine now and it's totally different from Rouge Trader and 40K second edition. Thing is they are still the same space marines.
So only thing I can think of is because people don't like the fluff or how it was introduced. So ignore it and still use them as normal space marines, it's not that big of a deal. Space marines have changed over the years this is just a new change.
Please enlighten me and tell me what I am not seeing over the new hate/dislike for nu-marines.
Davor
I think it's pretty much just the background.
Unfortunately, you can't just ignore the game's background. This game is built on its background, GW's entire existing is built on their fictional worlds, nobody is going to play any of their games for the quality of their rules.
SM's also haven't changed all *that* much over the years once they settled into 2E back in the early/mid 90's, they've had lots of bad writing heaped on top but not much in the way of change, while only the tiniest fraction of the current playerbase has ever read the original RT rulebook much less ever played it, and an overwhelmingly vast majority probably wasn't even alive when it came out, the same is probably true for 2E as well.
Been a Chaos and Ork player for the last... 12 years or so. Picked up the Primaris combat squad set for a Killteam. Assembled the models. Drank the Cawl-aid, and now I'm a blue blooded Loyalist to the Primarch Guilliman and the Emperor!
Primaris look better in person, and one you set a Lieutenant down next to your mini marine Chapter Master, you see why you just can't go back to old marines.
I love the rules of Primaris, that's what the rules should be for normal marines... except no customization. That's the only thing keeping me from l liking new marines (and their terrible lore, but that's what headcanon is for)
I loathe them because they were completely unnecessary. Everyone harps on about SM being "mini marines" and other such derogatory gak, but SM are not out of scale. You know what was? Normal humans. The Cadians were the problem. A normal human should be the baseline for your scale, not a 7ft tall metahuman.
Look at literally any other mini line (or even FW) and see how their normal bog standard humans fit next to SMs. But no, Gw had to hamfist them in with every other piece of rubbish that came along with them like Cawl and Girlyman.
A lot of people feel that GW will now stop producing "normal" Space Marines. Some of those people feel, rightly or wrongly, that this will mean they can't use their "regular" Space Marine Army on the tabletop anymore. As someone who has run 1st Ed Space Marines and Terminators on the tabletop within the last year, I disagree with this sentiment; I understand it and can sympathize, but I still disagree.
Arcanis161 wrote: A lot of people feel that GW will now stop producing "normal" Space Marines. Some of those people feel, rightly or wrongly, that this will mean they can't use their "regular" Space Marine Army on the tabletop anymore. As someone who has run 1st Ed Space Marines and Terminators on the tabletop within the last year, I disagree with this sentiment; I understand it and can sympathize, but I still disagree.
That particular tract is not due to the models, but the datasheets. GW has their asinine "no model no rules" policy remember. What will happen to the rules for tactical squads fro example if their models got he way of the Dodo?
Arcanis161 wrote: A lot of people feel that GW will now stop producing "normal" Space Marines. Some of those people feel, rightly or wrongly, that this will mean they can't use their "regular" Space Marine Army on the tabletop anymore. As someone who has run 1st Ed Space Marines and Terminators on the tabletop within the last year, I disagree with this sentiment; I understand it and can sympathize, but I still disagree.
That particular tract is not due to the models, but the datasheets. GW has their asinine "no model no rules" policy remember. What will happen to the rules for tactical squads fro example if their models got he way of the Dodo?
Meh, I guess I just see things differently. I tend to look at the use of the models themselves rather than their original intended rules. I'm pretty sure they're going to make equivalent units for each special/heavy weapon and some kind of Terminator equivalent. I don't see why someone couldn't run some Tac Marines with Bolters as Intercessors, old Terminators as whatever the new Terminators are, etc. Sure, there's things like aesthetics, height, and the like, but at that point I feel it becomes personal preference.
I find it funny how GW transfers its ideas from Fantasy to 40K. When fantasy first came out, the large, heavly armored, extaodinarly elite Chaos Warriors were very popular. They spawned Space Marine in the ancestor of 40K. Then Space Marine became even more popular than the knights and Chaos Warriors that inspired them in the first place. When Fantasy collapsed and was re-branded as Age of Sigmar, Space Marines inspired the Sormcast who were basically super-magic Space Marine. They, of course, were very popular, more so then any Fantasy model before. They in turn inspired the idea of making Space Marine larger and better to increase their popularity. This gave us the Primaris Marines.
Davor wrote: The Nu-marines or Primaris marines, who do lots of people not like them? Is it because of the fluff? How they were introduced? From my understanding the space marine miniatures have changed a few times now. So why introducing the space marines people don't like? Can't we just say they are normal space marines in new armour like before? Why the hate or people being upset? Look at an old-marine now and it's totally different from Rouge Trader and 40K second edition. Thing is they are still the same space marines.
So only thing I can think of is because people don't like the fluff or how it was introduced. So ignore it and still use them as normal space marines, it's not that big of a deal. Space marines have changed over the years this is just a new change.
Please enlighten me and tell me what I am not seeing over the new hate/dislike for nu-marines.
Davor
For me the "hate" is only because I don't like how they look. Too big and no customization, as my dudes are SW with lots of different bare heads with no helmets. I'm also disappointed that SM get lots of new releases and other armies don't.
Eventually, when standard SM will be phased out I'll play my normal sized dudes as primaris if necessary. No way I'm going to buy these new models.
Davor wrote: The Nu-marines or Primaris marines, who do lots of people not like them? Is it because of the fluff? How they were introduced? From my understanding the space marine miniatures have changed a few times now. So why introducing the space marines people don't like? Can't we just say they are normal space marines in new armour like before? Why the hate or people being upset? Look at an old-marine now and it's totally different from Rouge Trader and 40K second edition. Thing is they are still the same space marines.
So only thing I can think of is because people don't like the fluff or how it was introduced. So ignore it and still use them as normal space marines, it's not that big of a deal. Space marines have changed over the years this is just a new change.
Please enlighten me and tell me what I am not seeing over the new hate/dislike for nu-marines.
Davor
I think it's pretty much just the background.
Unfortunately, you can't just ignore the game's background. This game is built on its background, GW's entire existing is built on their fictional worlds, nobody is going to play any of their games for the quality of their rules.
Most games have zip to do with the game's background. Grey marines fighting something that's most likely other grey marines on a 6x4 piece of planet nowhere for nothing at all.
Its simply a matter of worrying that the stuff they spent money on will be replaced and un-usable at some point, thus requiring more money for the new stuff.
I like both and have no problem fielding them side by side. I'm not terribly happy about the prospect of most my marine army getting invalidated, though. That's my only hang up about the Primaris Marines.
Davor wrote: The Nu-marines or Primaris marines, who do lots of people not like them? Is it because of the fluff? How they were introduced? From my understanding the space marine miniatures have changed a few times now. So why introducing the space marines people don't like? Can't we just say they are normal space marines in new armour like before? Why the hate or people being upset? Look at an old-marine now and it's totally different from Rouge Trader and 40K second edition. Thing is they are still the same space marines.
So only thing I can think of is because people don't like the fluff or how it was introduced. So ignore it and still use them as normal space marines, it's not that big of a deal. Space marines have changed over the years this is just a new change.
Please enlighten me and tell me what I am not seeing over the new hate/dislike for nu-marines.
Davor
I think it's pretty much just the background.
Unfortunately, you can't just ignore the game's background. This game is built on its background, GW's entire existing is built on their fictional worlds, nobody is going to play any of their games for the quality of their rules.
Most games have zip to do with the game's background. Grey marines fighting something that's most likely other grey marines on a 6x4 piece of planet nowhere for nothing at all.
Its simply a matter of worrying that the stuff they spent money on will be replaced and un-usable at some point, thus requiring more money for the new stuff.
I disagree, forging a narrative through games is one of the most important parts (to me).
You can figure out anything with the backround if you try hard enough!
Meh, I guess I just see things differently. I tend to look at the use of the models themselves rather than their original intended rules. I'm pretty sure they're going to make equivalent units for each special/heavy weapon and some kind of Terminator equivalent. I don't see why someone couldn't run some Tac Marines with Bolters as Intercessors, old Terminators as whatever the new Terminators are, etc. Sure, there's things like aesthetics, height, and the like, but at that point I feel it becomes personal preference.
Yeah. The stupid fluff aside, I really don't see this being different than previous model updates. Because I want my models to look as good as they can, I would have felt just as compelled to ditch my old marines and upgrade if Intercessors had been just new Tactical models. And rules and loadouts change with editions. This is annoying, but it is nothing new. With the 3rd edition, along with the new marine models, many old marine loadouts became illegal. So I was then in the exact same situation than I was at the dawn of 8th edition: my old marines looked bad next to the new ones, and some of them had weapon choices that were not supported by the new rules (It is actually easier with 8th, as mini marines still have rules, so people who want to use their models as they are, still can.)
Davor wrote: The Nu-marines or Primaris marines, who do lots of people not like them? Is it because of the fluff? How they were introduced? From my understanding the space marine miniatures have changed a few times now. So why introducing the space marines people don't like? Can't we just say they are normal space marines in new armour like before? Why the hate or people being upset? Look at an old-marine now and it's totally different from Rouge Trader and 40K second edition. Thing is they are still the same space marines.
So only thing I can think of is because people don't like the fluff or how it was introduced. So ignore it and still use them as normal space marines, it's not that big of a deal. Space marines have changed over the years this is just a new change.
Please enlighten me and tell me what I am not seeing over the new hate/dislike for nu-marines.
Davor
I think it's pretty much just the background.
Unfortunately, you can't just ignore the game's background. This game is built on its background, GW's entire existing is built on their fictional worlds, nobody is going to play any of their games for the quality of their rules.
Most games have zip to do with the game's background. Grey marines fighting something that's most likely other grey marines on a 6x4 piece of planet nowhere for nothing at all.
Its simply a matter of worrying that the stuff they spent money on will be replaced and un-usable at some point, thus requiring more money for the new stuff.
Sure, but that's simply the nature of tabletop miniatures game of any stripe. There are other games with tighter rulesets, better mechanics, more balanced factions, etc. What drives interest in 40k and GW above those alternatives however is the background universe and imagery.
Davor wrote: The Nu-marines or Primaris marines, who do lots of people not like them? Is it because of the fluff? How they were introduced? From my understanding the space marine miniatures have changed a few times now. So why introducing the space marines people don't like? Can't we just say they are normal space marines in new armour like before? Why the hate or people being upset? Look at an old-marine now and it's totally different from Rouge Trader and 40K second edition. Thing is they are still the same space marines.
No we can't. They are about the size of custodians. To be space marines they would need to be head shorter. Custodians are to space marines what space marines are to normal humans.
They might be true scale for primaris marines but they are too tall to be standard space marines.
Blackie wrote: Too big and no customization, as my dudes are SW with lots of different bare heads with no helmets.
My Primaris are dudes with a lot of different bare head. Also some different helmets, as old helmets fit. I agree that the basic kit lacks customisation, but personalising your Primaris with bitsbox parts is pretty damn easy.
Blackie wrote: Too big and no customization, as my dudes are SW with lots of different bare heads with no helmets.
My Primaris are dudes with a lot of different bare head. Also some different helmets, as old helmets fit. I agree that the basic kit lacks customisation, but personalising your Primaris with bitsbox parts is pretty damn easy.
This is one of my issues with them. Veteran players have a ton bitz sitting around to do that. Newer players I've seen starting primaris though end up essentially with mirror match mini's. No new player is going to buy older kits to make their models more customized. Look at the level of difference between the grey hunter kit and the standard tactical kit and then compare to the half assed release GW did to make primaris wolfy.
For me it’s more the there was a tremendous missed opportunity:
Truescale marines have been a conversion target for several years now, but more importantly there has been grumbling about Marine statlines for quite a while. Launching a new edition with substantial departures from the previous decade of 40K was the PERFECT opportunity to revamp the space marine line, with an updated statline and new models to reflect the fluff. They could continue to support the old models, but provide an option for new and existing players to refresh their armies (or not) without adding further bloat to the most bloated army in the game. In my ideal world, they would start with the marines then gradually update the entire line to include vehicles, characters, etc.
I also don’t like the Primaris backstory, but GW blew a once in a decade chance to bring the fluff to the tabletop.
Davor wrote: The Nu-marines or Primaris marines, who do lots of people not like them? Is it because of the fluff? How they were introduced? From my understanding the space marine miniatures have changed a few times now. So why introducing the space marines people don't like? Can't we just say they are normal space marines in new armour like before? Why the hate or people being upset? Look at an old-marine now and it's totally different from Rouge Trader and 40K second edition. Thing is they are still the same space marines.
So only thing I can think of is because people don't like the fluff or how it was introduced. So ignore it and still use them as normal space marines, it's not that big of a deal. Space marines have changed over the years this is just a new change.
Please enlighten me and tell me what I am not seeing over the new hate/dislike for nu-marines.
Davor
Model-wise, not a big deal. Intercessors have a good design, a bit lanky perhaps. I think the legs should have been a tiny, tiny bit shorter. But is ok. I just realized it working on 5 of them for a non-ALKT. Aggressors are nice, I like the different concept of the gravis compared to the termy armor. Inceptors are perhaps too "modern", almost Star-Craft like, but not bad at all. Reivers are good but the legs ruin everything. If they had an high shirt collar they would look like perfect stereotypical douches. Nothing that cannot be fixed. The size of all Primaris in general is probably more appropriate to what the marines became since a long, long time.
Fluff wise? They make no sense, they make the Emperor Himself less special. Their fluff is borderline heresy. I strongly dislike them in this regard. It's clear the short marines have to go, I find the denial in this regard hilarious. And no, I don't care about what GW said. Fool me once, etc. In case it will just take a long time. And I am fine with that. We had routinely a change in model lines. not a big deal. The care that must be used in this regard (compared to, say, CSM) just shows how hyper-sensitive and entitled marine players are. As someone said they should have just added new loyalist units and designed a brand new tactical squad as Intercessors with all the options, or at least some. There is the possibility they (in a later future) will just split the weapon specialists in units (so not only plasma but flamers, melta etc), hopefully with nice design and not only a weapon change, to address the "master of nothing" problem tacticals have.
Ultimately, it would have been better to do what has been done with chaos (update the size but no fluff change), and give to ALL marines 2W from the start of 8th edition. In this way they could have adjusted the point cost of ALL the marine infantry (now is not possible because primaris exist along with the shorties) and make marines in general more usable again.
Vaktathi wrote: I think it's pretty much just the background.
Unfortunately, you can't just ignore the game's background. This game is built on its background, GW's entire existing is built on their fictional worlds, nobody is going to play any of their games for the quality of their rules.
You most certainly can ignore the background. I've got several WHFB/40K armies I've built & played for no other reason than I simply liked the models (Ex. my all Dreadnought force here in 40k). And there's a few that once enough crap was written about them that I just stopped caring about their fluff (Necrons are a good example of this - all I need are the rules to put my models on the table.).
MY disinterest in the primaris stems from their lack of options. The models are fine (except for those fugly jump pack guys), but I like the options my tac, dev, etc squads have.
I'm sure at some point GW will rectify this.
As for me replacing my old models? No. Not happening.
The fluff is absolutely terrible, and serves to undermine the previously established fluff of the emperor, the Horus heresy and the space marine chapters in general.
The advancement of technology flies in the face of what makes 40k great. It’s the dark age of technology 40,000 years in the future. There is no place for advancement and enlightenment. There is only war, religion and ignorance. That’s the fething setting for god sake. Do I need to school GW on their own god damn lore?
They aren’t ornate enough. There’s not enough skulls, bling, purity seals etc. So aesthetically they’re boring.
Apart from inceressors the rest of the range looks bad. And intercessors only look good because they have proper dimensions.
No close combat to speak of, so it’s boring as gak.
They may have the proper space marine stats, but they completely lack options and customization.
If they just updated the old marine line with better proportions then that’s fine. But I hate everything they are and everything they represent.
I regularly use my RTB01 beakies with my "current" astartes & Primaris. Although some may say they look terrible when fielded together but no more so than any recent GW release(1ksons & DGvs old sculpt).
I can see them having 3 different Time periods; Great Crusade to Scouring, Scouring to Dark millennium, Dark Millennium to .....
Narratively I think it opens up a ton of story development while not necessarily killing minimarines.
if at some point in the future they squat originalmarines, nothing will prevent you from using them. Big deal if they're not allowed in tournaments(most people I know could give zwei scheiss about competitive)
I think an important part of the primaris fluff people seem to forget or ignore is that they also break the ceiling of marine numbers and recruitment time. It was always stated that there were not enough marines, and a chapter of marines was also not enough to actually be able to do what it's said they can do. Finally, combined with the small numbers in chapters and overall, it was also a gripe that it took so long to produce marines, meaning a particularly devastating campaign losses wise, and with how difficult it is to find the right recruits and make them survive the process to become marines, it could take a chapter potentially a century or longer to replace the numbers lost such as half a chapter or more.
All of those problems I have stated above are no longer issues, there's more primaris, chapters are now bigger, there are more chapters and they are quicker to produce (or so I believe they are).
Yeah it's not ideal but it does solve that long standing issue.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I think an important part of the primaris fluff people seem to forget or ignore is that they also break the ceiling of marine numbers and recruitment time. It was always stated that there were not enough marines, and a chapter of marines was also not enough to actually be able to do what it's said they can do. Finally, combined with the small numbers in chapters and overall, it was also a gripe that it took so long to produce marines, meaning a particularly devastating campaign losses wise, and with how difficult it is to find the right recruits and make them survive the process to become marines, it could take a chapter potentially a century or longer to replace the numbers lost such as half a chapter or more.
All of those problems I have stated above are no longer issues, there's more primaris, chapters are now bigger, there are more chapters and they are quicker to produce (or so I believe they are).
Yeah it's not ideal but it does solve that long standing issue.
Except that it completely kills what 40k was about. The fact that the odds were grim and each loss irreplaceable were integral part of the tone of the setting.
A primaris is taller than termies and almost the height of dreadnoughts. Gravis is larger than centurions and as tall as a dreadnought. Bad scale change.
This is a joke right? Or a missed point?
I own all of those models.
The only thing there that's correct is that a Primaris marine is taller than a Terminator.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I think an important part of the primaris fluff people seem to forget or ignore is that they also break the ceiling of marine numbers and recruitment time. It was always stated that there were not enough marines, and a chapter of marines was also not enough to actually be able to do what it's said they can do. Finally, combined with the small numbers in chapters and overall, it was also a gripe that it took so long to produce marines, meaning a particularly devastating campaign losses wise, and with how difficult it is to find the right recruits and make them survive the process to become marines, it could take a chapter potentially a century or longer to replace the numbers lost such as half a chapter or more.
All of those problems I have stated above are no longer issues, there's more primaris, chapters are now bigger, there are more chapters and they are quicker to produce (or so I believe they are).
Yeah it's not ideal but it does solve that long standing issue.
Except that it completely kills what 40k was about. The fact that the odds were grim and each loss irreplaceable were integral part of the tone of the setting.
I get that, but it would still be the same if the 10m space marines.... It still wouldn't feel like enough and each loss would still be felt hugely.
Davor wrote: The Nu-marines or Primaris marines, who do lots of people not like them? Is it because of the fluff? How they were introduced? From my understanding the space marine miniatures have changed a few times now. So why introducing the space marines people don't like? Can't we just say they are normal space marines in new armour like before? Why the hate or people being upset? Look at an old-marine now and it's totally different from Rouge Trader and 40K second edition. Thing is they are still the same space marines.
So only thing I can think of is because people don't like the fluff or how it was introduced. So ignore it and still use them as normal space marines, it's not that big of a deal. Space marines have changed over the years this is just a new change.
Please enlighten me and tell me what I am not seeing over the new hate/dislike for nu-marines.
Davor
Look at your army.
Look at those models you like.
Now think how you would feel if they never made any of them again and the existing ones were slowly phased out of the game while GW expects you to buy everything again but a little different and with less (no) options.
If that doesn't make you understand people's problem with Primaris Marines then I don't know how to help you.
Ordana wrote: Look at your army.
Look at those models you like.
Now think how you would feel if they never made any of them again and the existing ones were slowly phased out of the game while GW expects you to buy everything again but a little different and with less (no) options.
If that doesn't make you understand people's problem with Primaris Marines then I don't know how to help you.
By that logic we should all still be playing with the Rogue Trader beakies and GW should have never updated them. Same with the Necrons, same with the Dark Eldar.
Ordana wrote: Look at your army.
Look at those models you like.
Now think how you would feel if they never made any of them again and the existing ones were slowly phased out of the game while GW expects you to buy everything again but a little different and with less (no) options.
If that doesn't make you understand people's problem with Primaris Marines then I don't know how to help you.
By that logic we should all still be playing with the Rogue Trader beakies and GW should have never updated them. Same with the Necrons, same with the Dark Eldar.
But neither of those are different unit types. People keep bringing this false equivalency up "Nuh uh! You had no problem with the Plague Marines!" Well, no gak Sherlock- they're just an upscaled version of an existing unit type- something Intercessors are not, they've bullied their way in and sooner or later these will be the meat and potatoes unit of SM armies, not the, now obsolete Tacticals.
But neither of those are different unit types. People keep bringing this false equivalency up "Nuh uh! You had no problem with the Plague Marines!" Well, no gak Sherlock- they're just an upscaled version of an existing unit type- something Intercessors are not, they've bullied their way in and sooner or later these will be the meat and potatoes unit of SM armies, not the, now obsolete Tacticals.
So what? If they really remove rule support for old marines you can use your tacticals as intercessors etc. And sure, not all loadouts can be use that way, but not all 2E marine loadouts could be used in 3E either. And of course, there probably will be some legacy rules for minimarines for foreseeable future, so you don't even need to do that.
But the thing is, most people will upgrade, and they would just the same if this was just an aesthetic update. You don't see first genDE around, you don't see old school metal necrons, 2E monopose plastic marines, let alone RT beakies. People will get the new better looking models, and old ones get shelved. This is nothing new, it just has been a long time since this last happened to the marines.
Ordana wrote: Look at your army.
Look at those models you like.
Now think how you would feel if they never made any of them again and the existing ones were slowly phased out of the game while GW expects you to buy everything again but a little different and with less (no) options.
If that doesn't make you understand people's problem with Primaris Marines then I don't know how to help you.
By that logic we should all still be playing with the Rogue Trader beakies and GW should have never updated them. Same with the Necrons, same with the Dark Eldar.
Almost all of those models are still useable. Fielding an army of entirely 1st edition models is completely legal, squad numbers and all. I see old Dark Eldar models at our club with some regularity.
The fear comes from the idea that the army that took many hundreds of dollars, hundreds of hours, that has a thousand hours of table time will be forcefully retired.
Lots of guys here says "but every line will have an update sooner or later". Well, yes, all my tau units was updates - from old broadsides to humble firewarrion. New models, cooler, detailed, awesone. I love it. Buuuut - I still can use my older model. All units I spend my money for, time and love are still usable. New crisis and broadside suits are much bigger (and have a different base, but this problem is fixable), but they are not a shelf plastic.
Now my wolfs have an "update" too, but not the one I want. So, I have an army that I collected and painted for years, and now it is somehow "ok" to throw it off and begin again from the scratch? Wow, hell no. Normal marines couldn't be played as primaris, they have different loadouts. Every 5 gray hunted has special weapon and power axe, but intercessors are bolter only. So should I break my minis? And what about jump pack guys or terminators? Bikers, cavalry, small dreds? All those minis become squatted.
I love how the primaris looks, but instead of the update they become the replacement, and I don't want to spend hundred of hours on the new army, I haven't that much free time anymore.
Lots of guys here says "but every line will have an update sooner or later". Well, yes, all my tau units was updates - from old broadsides to humble firewarrion. New models, cooler, detailed, awesone. I love it. Buuuut - I still can use my older model. All units I spend my money for, time and love are still usable. New crisis and broadside suits are much bigger (and have a different base, but this problem is fixable), but they are not a shelf plastic.
Now my wolfs have an "update" too, but not the one I want. So, I have an army that I collected and painted for years, and now it is somehow "ok" to throw it off and begin again from the scratch? Wow, hell no. Normal marines couldn't be played as primaris, they have different loadouts. Every 5 gray hunted has special weapon and power axe, but intercessors are bolter only. So should I break my minis? And what about jump pack guys or terminators? Bikers, cavalry, small dreds? All those minis become squatted.
I love how the primaris looks, but instead of the update they become the replacement, and I don't want to spend hundred of hours on the new army, I haven't that much free time anymore.
Then continue to play as they are. If you want the new shiny then you need to update. This isn't the first time GW have done something like this. Hell they invalidated several entire factions in Fantasy with the AOS reboot.
Everyone just needs to accept that over the next few years there will be a slow trickle of updated marines as they reboot the entire model line.
Lots of guys here says "but every line will have an update sooner or later". Well, yes, all my tau units was updates - from old broadsides to humble firewarrion. New models, cooler, detailed, awesone. I love it. Buuuut - I still can use my older model. All units I spend my money for, time and love are still usable. New crisis and broadside suits are much bigger (and have a different base, but this problem is fixable), but they are not a shelf plastic.
Now my wolfs have an "update" too, but not the one I want. So, I have an army that I collected and painted for years, and now it is somehow "ok" to throw it off and begin again from the scratch? Wow, hell no. Normal marines couldn't be played as primaris, they have different loadouts. Every 5 gray hunted has special weapon and power axe, but intercessors are bolter only. So should I break my minis? And what about jump pack guys or terminators? Bikers, cavalry, small dreds? All those minis become squatted.
I love how the primaris looks, but instead of the update they become the replacement, and I don't want to spend hundred of hours on the new army, I haven't that much free time anymore.
Then continue to play as they are. If you want the new shiny then you need to update. This isn't the first time GW have done something like this. Hell they invalidated several entire factions in Fantasy with the AOS reboot.
Everyone just needs to accept that over the next few years there will be a slow trickle of updated marines as they reboot the entire model line.
You know, marine rules aren't great already and they will become worse. GW smart enouth to not squat them right at the launch, instead they will just make primaris better rulewise so you will have to buy them to play a game. And this is NOT ok, you couldn't convuce me in that.
And from my personal experience all this "but why can't you just play with models even if their rules a bad?" I heard only from folks who actually do not play games. They just paint and showing in the club once in month or two, losing hard and vanish again. Everyone who actually play the game uses more or less workable roster, just because you can see the weak units, and you do not want to play weak units. Terminators and tacticals are ok only if you play the game via youtube.
Blackie wrote: Too big and no customization, as my dudes are SW with lots of different bare heads with no helmets.
My Primaris are dudes with a lot of different bare head. Also some different helmets, as old helmets fit. I agree that the basic kit lacks customisation, but personalising your Primaris with bitsbox parts is pretty damn easy.
Taken from where? Older marines has small heads compared to primaris ones.
Blackie wrote: Too big and no customization, as my dudes are SW with lots of different bare heads with no helmets.
My Primaris are dudes with a lot of different bare head. Also some different helmets, as old helmets fit. I agree that the basic kit lacks customisation, but personalising your Primaris with bitsbox parts is pretty damn easy.
Taken from where? Older marines has small heads compared to primaris ones.
Lots of guys here says "but every line will have an update sooner or later". Well, yes, all my tau units was updates - from old broadsides to humble firewarrion. New models, cooler, detailed, awesone. I love it. Buuuut - I still can use my older model. All units I spend my money for, time and love are still usable. New crisis and broadside suits are much bigger (and have a different base, but this problem is fixable), but they are not a shelf plastic.
I guess this is the disconnect. I would update just the same even if it was just an aesthetic update; the old models would be just as unusable to me. I wouldn't use the RT beakies either, I wouldn't use the old broadsides, I most definitely wouldn't use the old ugly Dark Eldar.
Ordana wrote: Look at your army.
Look at those models you like.
Now think how you would feel if they never made any of them again and the existing ones were slowly phased out of the game while GW expects you to buy everything again but a little different and with less (no) options.
If that doesn't make you understand people's problem with Primaris Marines then I don't know how to help you.
By that logic we should all still be playing with the Rogue Trader beakies and GW should have never updated them. Same with the Necrons, same with the Dark Eldar.
No because the example you listed were the same units with just a more modern look. Primaris are a complete different army that is going to invalidate the older one.
Beakies are perfectly fine as tacticals, so are the ancient dark eldar kabalites, wyches, hellions, scourges, talos, raiders, etc...
A few units that are phased out in order to get new ones may be fine, like the new ork vehicles that replaced the old buggies, but squatting an entire army with something completely new is a different matter. I have a large SW collection and I adore it, no way I'm going to re-build another SW army with all new models, even if the new models look gorgeous. Eventually I'll just use the models as proxies or keep them only as a collection without bringing them to the game.
Then continue to play as they are. If you want the new shiny then you need to update. This isn't the first time GW have done something like this. Hell they invalidated several entire factions in Fantasy with the AOS reboot.
Everyone just needs to accept that over the next few years there will be a slow trickle of updated marines as they reboot the entire model line.
What about people who bought their armies in 8th ed, and their armies do not work? to them the armies they have are new and shiny.
Beakies are perfectly fine as tacticals, so are the ancient dark eldar kabalites, wyches, hellions, scourges, talos, raiders, etc...
They aren't perfectly fine, they're old and ugly.
A few units that are phased out in order to get new ones may be fine, like the new ork vehicles that replaced the old buggies, but squatting an entire army with something completely new is a different matter.
But that is exactly the same thing than with the Primaris. Updated models which are kinda the same thing than the old one, but not exactly and thus get a new datasheet.
Beakies are perfectly fine as tacticals, so are the ancient dark eldar kabalites, wyches, hellions, scourges, talos, raiders, etc...
They aren't perfectly fine, they're old and ugly.
A few units that are phased out in order to get new ones may be fine, like the new ork vehicles that replaced the old buggies, but squatting an entire army with something completely new is a different matter.
But that is exactly the same thing than with the Primaris. Updated models which are kinda the same thing than the old one, but not exactly and thus get a new datasheet.
You have no right to claim that someone shouldn't use his minis because you don't like their look. Want to rebuy and repaint whole army from the scratch? It's your right. The same as mine to be upsed for my army become invalidated, because I spend coutless hours on every marine and paint new army just because of GW greed? No thanks.
A few units that are phased out in order to get new ones may be fine, like the new ork vehicles that replaced the old buggies, but squatting an entire army with something completely new is a different matter.
But that is exactly the same thing than with the Primaris. Updated models which are kinda the same thing than the old one, but not exactly and thus get a new datasheet.
Yeah, but that's just a few models that have been replaced in an army that continues to exist as it was before the new releases. The same thing would be if orks were completely squatted in favor of a full speed freaks army.
You have no right to claim that someone shouldn't use his minis because you don't like their look. Want to rebuy and repaint whole army from the scratch? It's your right. The same as mine to be upsed for my army become invalidated, because I spend coutless hours on every marine and paint new army just because of GW greed? No thanks.
No one is stopping you from using your old models. They will have legacy rule support for foreseeable future, and even if they at some point don't you can use most of the as counts as Primaris.
Yeah, but that's just a few models that have been replaced in an army that continues to exist as it was before the new releases. The same thing would be if orks were completely squatted in favor of a full speed freaks army.
But they didn't squat the marines. They introduce some new units and perhaps some old ones will vanish over time; just like with the orks.
The Primaris Marines mark a jump in history, away from dark age to renaissance.
This could mean that we will more advanced technology for Mankind in the future.
You have no right to claim that someone shouldn't use his minis because you don't like their look. Want to rebuy and repaint whole army from the scratch? It's your right. The same as mine to be upsed for my army become invalidated, because I spend coutless hours on every marine and paint new army just because of GW greed? No thanks.
No one is stopping you from using your old models. They will have legacy rule support for foreseeable future, and even if they at some point don't you can use most of the as counts as Primaris.
Yeah, but that's just a few models that have been replaced in an army that continues to exist as it was before the new releases. The same thing would be if orks were completely squatted in favor of a full speed freaks army.
But they didn't squat the marines. They introduce some new units and perhaps some old ones will vanish over time; just like with the orks.
According to your posts I assume that you are not very familiar with space marine range, I'll help you here. The only mini you could proxy as a "primaris" is a bolterguy. But intercessor, the primaris bolterguys, do not have special weapons and/or heavy weapons, combi weapon/power weapon sergeant. So even your regular tactical squads cannot be used as intercessors. And how do you plan to use terminators, as agressors? Or jump pack dudes, or non-gravi bikes? All current marine range is unusable as a primaris force. It is completly different army. Using current marine as primaris is the same as use them as eldar or necron force. Totally wrong.
And no, thanks, I do not want "legacy" rules, I want my army to be viable as any other on tabletop. I spend a lot for my army and want my right to play it.
According to your posts I assume that you are not very familiar with space marine range, I'll help you here. The only mini you could proxy as a "primaris" is a bolterguy. But intercessor, the primaris bolterguys, do not have special weapons and/or heavy weapons, combi weapon/power weapon sergeant. So even your regular tactical squads cannot be used as intercessors. And how do you plan to use terminators, as agressors? Or jump pack dudes, or non-gravi bikes? All current marine range is unusable as a primaris force. It is completly different army. Using current marine as primaris is the same as use them as eldar or necron force. Totally wrong.
And no, thanks, I do not want "legacy" rules, I want my army to be viable as any other on tabletop. I spend a lot for my army and want my right to play it.
If there will be a point when the rule support for minimarines is really cancelled, then the Primaris range has been vastly expanded, and there will be Primaris analogues for most old units.
According to your posts I assume that you are not very familiar with space marine range, I'll help you here. The only mini you could proxy as a "primaris" is a bolterguy. But intercessor, the primaris bolterguys, do not have special weapons and/or heavy weapons, combi weapon/power weapon sergeant. So even your regular tactical squads cannot be used as intercessors. And how do you plan to use terminators, as agressors? Or jump pack dudes, or non-gravi bikes? All current marine range is unusable as a primaris force. It is completly different army. Using current marine as primaris is the same as use them as eldar or necron force. Totally wrong.
And no, thanks, I do not want "legacy" rules, I want my army to be viable as any other on tabletop. I spend a lot for my army and want my right to play it.
If there will be a point when the rule support for minimarines is really cancelled, then the Primaris range has been vastly expanded, and there will be Primaris analogues for most old units.
They will not rerelease old minis in highter scale. There will be gravibikes instead if regular bikes, agressors instead of terminators, same role, different model and weapon loadout. GW will not remove current marine from the game, they will just make their rules much worse than primaris, to the point that taking them will be handicaping. So it's take primarise or struggle in every game.
Then continue to play as they are. If you want the new shiny then you need to update. This isn't the first time GW have done something like this. Hell they invalidated several entire factions in Fantasy with the AOS reboot.
Everyone just needs to accept that over the next few years there will be a slow trickle of updated marines as they reboot the entire model line.
What about people who bought their armies in 8th ed, and their armies do not work? to them the armies they have are new and shiny.
Most new people in 8th will be starting with Primaris. Sure, there will be plenty buying older space marine kits because they are in the latest codex, but my point is that over time they will be replaced.
But neither of those are different unit types. People keep bringing this false equivalency up "Nuh uh! You had no problem with the Plague Marines!" Well, no gak Sherlock- they're just an upscaled version of an existing unit type- something Intercessors are not, they've bullied their way in and sooner or later these will be the meat and potatoes unit of SM armies, not the, now obsolete Tacticals.
So what? If they really remove rule support for old marines you can use your tacticals as intercessors etc. And sure, not all loadouts can be use that way, but not all 2E marine loadouts could be used in 3E either. And of course, there probably will be some legacy rules for minimarines for foreseeable future, so you don't even need to do that.
But the thing is, most people will upgrade, and they would just the same if this was just an aesthetic update. You don't see first genDE around, you don't see old school metal necrons, 2E monopose plastic marines, let alone RT beakies. People will get the new better looking models, and old ones get shelved. This is nothing new, it just has been a long time since this last happened to the marines.
People will get the new models *if* they are better looking. Primaris are very ugly, chunky and too big in my opinion, I have no desire to buy them to 'upgrade' my normal marines. They have different design aesthetic to normal marines. If they were a straight update with improved looking models, like the 2nd edition tactical marine to the 1998 ones, or the 1998 to 2013 ones, I would be buying.
People will get the new models *if* they are better looking. Primaris are very ugly, chunky and too big in my opinion, I have no desire to buy them to 'upgrade' my normal marines. They have different design aesthetic to normal marines. If they were a straight update with improved looking models, like the 2nd edition tactical marine to the 1998 ones, or the 1998 to 2013 ones, I would be buying.
Primaris obviously look better. There really is no question about that. New players will overwhelmingly get Primaris.
People will get the new models *if* they are better looking. Primaris are very ugly, chunky and too big in my opinion, I have no desire to buy them to 'upgrade' my normal marines. They have different design aesthetic to normal marines. If they were a straight update with improved looking models, like the 2nd edition tactical marine to the 1998 ones, or the 1998 to 2013 ones, I would be buying.
Primaris obviously look better. There really is no question about that. New players will overwhelmingly get Primaris.
Neither design is very good, but the old design has the nostalgia advantage which is why people are so eager to go up to bat for it.
People will get the new models *if* they are better looking. Primaris are very ugly, chunky and too big in my opinion, I have no desire to buy them to 'upgrade' my normal marines. They have different design aesthetic to normal marines. If they were a straight update with improved looking models, like the 2nd edition tactical marine to the 1998 ones, or the 1998 to 2013 ones, I would be buying.
Primaris obviously look better. There really is no question about that. New players will overwhelmingly get Primaris.
No they don't. They don't fit the Imperium's aesthetic and look far more like the theoretical Dornian Heresy Ultras after they've stolen Tau tech.
Old style marines looked far better with more baroque armour and the ability to mix and match armour styles is one of the strengths of the range.
Neither design is very good, but the old design has the nostalgia advantage which is why people are so eager to go up to bat for it.
It indeed is pure nostalgia to think that old marines look better. But the new players are not affected by that.
You do know how nostalgia works, right? If the thing is right in front of you you're not going from memories. That's not nostalgia, that just personal taste.
People will get the new models *if* they are better looking. Primaris are very ugly, chunky and too big in my opinion, I have no desire to buy them to 'upgrade' my normal marines. They have different design aesthetic to normal marines. If they were a straight update with improved looking models, like the 2nd edition tactical marine to the 1998 ones, or the 1998 to 2013 ones, I would be buying.
Primaris obviously look better. There really is no question about that. New players will overwhelmingly get Primaris.
There is a question about that. You are mistaking your personal opinion for fact.
I find primaris ugly and aesthetically inferior to normal marines, and will not be buying them. Others may decide differently, you can't dictate to people what their subjective view of something should be.
As to whether new players will overwhelmingly get primaris, you don't have any data to make such a claim. Its possible I'll agree, but only because primaris are available cheaply and are a good starter army cause they are easy to put together.
And for people who prefer the size and scale of primaris, the 'truescale' devotees, I think if a 'truescale' classic mk7 marine was produced, with similar size and proportions to Primaris but otherwise classic look, they would drop Primaris faster than a hot rock.
You do know how nostalgia works, right? If the thing is right in front of you you're not going from memories. That's not nostalgia, that just personal taste.
But the reactions which the perceptions elict are affected by previous experiences and associations. By pure looks alone no one would think the old marines look better.
Using heavily biased comparison pictures does not help your argument. Try putting a multi-part unpainted tactical marine next to the intercessor, not a poorly painted 3 part starter marine from an oop boxset
By pure looks alone I think 'old' marines look better, so your statement that no one would think that is incorrect.
You do know how nostalgia works, right? If the thing is right in front of you you're not going from memories. That's not nostalgia, that just personal taste.
But the reactions which the perceptions elict are affected by previous experiences and associations. By pure looks alone no one would think the old marines look better.
There really is no contest.
Nice strawman there- Let's put a unpainted Primaris next to a gakky painted starter box marine with no other context and ask someone to choose which looks better.
You do know how nostalgia works, right? If the thing is right in front of you you're not going from memories. That's not nostalgia, that just personal taste.
But the reactions which the perceptions elict are affected by previous experiences and associations. By pure looks alone no one would think the old marines look better.
There really is no contest.
So you put super old and ugly glued and painted DA mini next to primaris and this should be an argument? Well, lets put better painted regular marine as example to make it more fair:
robbienw wrote: Using heavily biased comparison pictures does not help your argument. Try putting a multi-part unpainted tactical marine next to the intercessor, not a poorly painted 3 part starter marine from an oop boxset
This is true.
My army can't even use most of the normal marine stuff, but if it went by my taste, I would say the mkIII marines look the best. That would be mixing up personal tastes with what people think.
Also from 4m away there is not much difference between either, other then primaris having huge bases.
robbienw wrote: Using heavily biased comparison pictures does not help your argument. Try putting a multi-part unpainted tactical marine next to the intercessor, not a poorly painted 3 part starter marine from an oop boxset
That was a pic readily available from the internet. And doing what you suggest doesn't much help. The old marine proportions are just bad, there is no way around that.
I don't know the dude on the right seems better to me. The primaris has too long lass. People are stocky, and superior people should be more stocky. And not some wierd long legs short arms things. Talking about pure up close esthetics here. From the other side of the table it would be hard to notice the difference.
I also don't like the primaris weapon looks. The size makes it seem like they are handling some sort of MSG hvy bolter, while it is not the case rules wise. Units should not confuse players with their looks.
As I've said before, the problem was the Cadians. Compare the old marines to literally any other basic human model or even the FWIG or the 2nd ed metals. Basic humans are the problem being too big.
robbienw wrote: Using heavily biased comparison pictures does not help your argument. Try putting a multi-part unpainted tactical marine next to the intercessor, not a poorly painted 3 part starter marine from an oop boxset
That was a pic readily available from the internet. And doing what you suggest doesn't much help. The old marine proportions are just bad, there is no way around that.
It's ok to have better proportion, I am all up for it. Give me new true scale marines, but marines for my army, not entirely new faction with different units rules and roles.
New true scale tactical squad that not invalidating old ones - awesome, give me two! Entirely new unit that force to shelf my previous guys? Hell no.
The normal marine looks miles better to me. The intercessors rifle is ridiculously long, I really don't like his giant ski boot looking boots, and his shoulderpads look small for a space marine. He is also way too big, to the point it is feeling like a model rather than a miniature. Bigger does not automatically equal better. The normal marines proportions don't make it worse than the intercessor, cause the intercessor is such an ugly design.
There you go, someone has a different opinion to you.
People are allowed to have different ones. You having a strong emotional reaction to an opinion different to yours does not make your one fact
As I've said before, the problem was the Cadians. Compare the old marines to literally any other basic human model or even the FWIG or the 2nd ed metals. Basic humans are the problem being too big.
All GWs plastic humans are at least as tall than Cadians, many of them are taller. Sure, old metal humans are better scaled to newer plastic marines, but that is a false comparison; when those humans were made, marines were smaller (and mostly metal) too.
I'd take the old marines all the time It's not just a simple comparison between the older and the newer model but it's a comparison between the primaris size and the other armies regular troops' sizes. IMHO that big troops look dumb.
I also don't like the absence of customization in the new kits but even if this was resolved in the future it doesn't change the fact that I don't like primaris.
Intercessors and hellblasters are also among the best ones. What about aggressors, inceptors and the repulsor??? Guilliman???
As I've said before, the problem was the Cadians. Compare the old marines to literally any other basic human model or even the FWIG or the 2nd ed metals. Basic humans are the problem being too big.
All GWs plastic humans are at least as tall than Cadians, many of them are taller. Sure, old metal humans are better scaled to newer plastic marines, but that is a false comparison; when those humans were made, marines were smaller (and mostly metal) too.
Sounds like you're just confirming Cadians are the problem, just like I said in my OPITT- You shouldn't use a metahuman as your baseline for scale, hence why everything that came after Cadians is fethed up in scale. Tell me, are Orks out of scale too? As the pictures in the background show them towering over normal humans but the models dispute that as they grow 'em big on Cadia!
Basic humans have got an upscale as well. Put a newer one like the renegade guardsman from Blackstone fortress, a voidsman from Rogue Trader or a Necromunda Van Saar next to the re-scaled Chaos Marines. Almost the same height. Put them next to a Primaris Marine and they are only a bit shorter, maybe half a head, not tiny like humans in the art compared to marines.
I imagine this may upset the 'truescale' fans, they will now need to truescale upsize their marines again.
See we've been through this before when you antagonize older veterans in favour of new players it goes badly.
Kirby did it and it led to a 10 year decline in sales.
I won't rebuy my armie, neither I think will most marine players but I will stop buying completely to demonstrate my displeasure should they squat the classic marines.
robbienw wrote: Basic humans have got an upscale as well. Put a newer one like the renegade guardsman from Blackstone fortress, a voidsman from Rogue Trader or a Necromunda Van Saar next to the re-scaled Chaos Marines. Almost the same height. Put them next to a Primaris Marine and they are only a bit shorter, maybe half a head, not tiny like humans in the art compared to marines.
I imagine this may upset the 'truescale' fans, they will now need to truescale upsize their marines again.
Eventually GW will go into the realm of self-parody and The Grimdarkian will become a reality.
It's ok to have better proportion, I am all up for it. Give me new true scale marines, but marines for my army, not entirely new faction with different units rules and roles.
New true scale tactical squad that not invalidating old ones - awesome, give me two! Entirely new unit that force to shelf my previous guys? Hell no.
I agree that how they're handling this is awkward. But ultimately it is just details, the Intercessors are new Tacticals.
It's ok to have better proportion, I am all up for it. Give me new true scale marines, but marines for my army, not entirely new faction with different units rules and roles.
New true scale tactical squad that not invalidating old ones - awesome, give me two! Entirely new unit that force to shelf my previous guys? Hell no.
I agree that how they're handling this is awkward. But ultimately it is just details, the Intercessors are new Tacticals.
They are not just new tacticals, they REPLACE all current tacticals, this is not just some "details". And this is the breaking point. Invalidating almost half oh the armies in the game could not be tolerated.
GW is trying to leave the dark age behind and open a new era with more progressed Marines. AM could follow.
While Xenos races stay in their old tradition with the weapons and equipment they have.
They are not just new tacticals, they REPLACE all current tacticals, this is not just some "details". And this is the breaking point. Invalidating almost half oh the armies in the game could not be tolerated.
Tacticals will have some form of rule support for foreseeable future, and if at some point they don't you can use them as Intercessors if you're hell bent on using old ugly models. (And you can form a Hellblaster squad from all the plasmas from those Tactical Squads. Let's not pretend that almost all marine specials aren't plasmas.)
"But, but this and that model doesn't have a Primaris equivalent!" Let's worry about that if rule support for old marines actually vanishes, the situation will be completely different bu then. (And you probably have replaced most of your army with the Primaris by then anyway.)
They are not just new tacticals, they REPLACE all current tacticals, this is not just some "details". And this is the breaking point. Invalidating almost half oh the armies in the game could not be tolerated.
Tacticals will have some form of rule support for foreseeable future, and if at some point they don't you can use them as Intercessors if you're hell bent on using old ugly models. (And you can form a Hellblaster squad from all the plasmas from those Tactical Squads. Let's not pretend that almost all marine specials aren't plasmas.)
"But, but this and that model doesn't have a Primaris equivalent!" Let's worry about that if rule support for old marines actually vanishes, the situation will be completely different bu then. (And you probably have replaced most of your army with the Primaris by then anyway.)
You didn't read what I answer you in previos notes, right?..
Tacticals will have some form of rule support for foreseeable future, and if at some point they don't you can use them as Intercessors if you're hell bent on using old ugly models. (And you can form a Hellblaster squad from all the plasmas from those Tactical Squads. Let's not pretend that almost all marine specials aren't plasmas.)
There you go again, confusing opinions with facts.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Funny thing is, GW did the exact same thing with Plague Marines at the same time, just without any fluff explanation - and nobody seems to care. If you put a new Plague Marine next to an old one the difference in size and design is even bigger than between a Primaris and an old Marine. However, you can still switch between both or even mix them, as they only got additional equipment.
I'd say if they had introduced Primaris without any fluff explanation or just declaring it as a new armor mark AND making them compatible with old marines (Allowing for the same exquipment and use of transports) nobody would be upset aside from the people who are not playing Space Marines and always roll their eyes about yet another bunch of unnecessary Space Marines year after year.
Yeah, but you know what?
All the kicking and screaming with Death Guard got done in the index (when every existing DG player lost their bikes, Terminators, Oblits, forge/maulerfiends, etc) and then when they came out with a new kit, they only superseded one existing kit - the plague marines, and even then they kept their wargear, transports etc compatible so existing DG players could at least use some of their old stuff.
DG also had a microscopic fanbase compared to the combined fanbases of Marines, Deathwatch, Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Space Wolves.
the_scotsman wrote: and even then they kept their wargear, transports etc compatible so existing DG players could at least use some of their old stuff.
.
Must've missed the page where I can give me Termies Chainfists and Powefists...
They are not just new tacticals, they REPLACE all current tacticals, this is not just some "details". And this is the breaking point. Invalidating almost half oh the armies in the game could not be tolerated.
Tacticals will have some form of rule support for foreseeable future, and if at some point they don't you can use them as Intercessors if you're hell bent on using old ugly models. (And you can form a Hellblaster squad from all the plasmas from those Tactical Squads. Let's not pretend that almost all marine specials aren't plasmas.)
"But, but this and that model doesn't have a Primaris equivalent!" Let's worry about that if rule support for old marines actually vanishes, the situation will be completely different bu then. (And you probably have replaced most of your army with the Primaris by then anyway.)
You didn't read what I answer you in previos notes, right?..
Oh well, no reason to asnwer you anymore then.
Yes, I did and they're not making any more sense. You're hung up on nomenclature. Just cross over 'Intercessors' in the datasheet in your codex and write' Tactical Squad' there. Done. Now you have updated tactical squad rules, which you can represent with old or new models however you please.
They are not just new tacticals, they REPLACE all current tacticals, this is not just some "details". And this is the breaking point. Invalidating almost half oh the armies in the game could not be tolerated.
Tacticals will have some form of rule support for foreseeable future, and if at some point they don't you can use them as Intercessors if you're hell bent on using old ugly models. (And you can form a Hellblaster squad from all the plasmas from those Tactical Squads. Let's not pretend that almost all marine specials aren't plasmas.)
"But, but this and that model doesn't have a Primaris equivalent!" Let's worry about that if rule support for old marines actually vanishes, the situation will be completely different bu then. (And you probably have replaced most of your army with the Primaris by then anyway.)
You didn't read what I answer you in previos notes, right?..
Oh well, no reason to asnwer you anymore then.
Yes, I did and they're not making any more sense. You're hung up on nomenclature. Just cross over 'Intercessors' in the datasheet in your codex and write' Tactical Squad' there. Done. Now you have updated tactical squad rules, which you can represent with old or new models however you please.
Ok and what I gonna do with my meltas and power axes in tactical squad that have no support in intercessor datasheet? Breaking my minis apart to make them all bolter? In every single squad?
I dislike primaris for 3 reasons and actually like them for one reason, which is slowly being wiped out.
I dislike them because they fundamentally don't work on the table top and by their inclusion in the codex prevent traditional marines from being given functional rules. Simply put they oversaturated an already crowded design space. So instead of more choice we just end up with an unplayable mess of a codex thats contains a buch of units without a clear tabletop role.
They lack customisation or variation, a squad or two looks OK but a whole army of them starts to look very repetitive, with traditional marines you can add multiple marks of armour and headswaps etc to make them an army of individuals instead of the obviously lego like nature of primaris.
They really don't work next to any of the Forgeworld models from dreads to sicarans to spartans and the one FW primaris model is the worst creation I have seen from FW in a while, it's as bad as the SW and their upside down bolters.
They did finally make marine look like marines on the table top not like squats next to cadians, who are ironically larger than catachans, who are borderline abhumans. Warp tainted cadians obviously fetch the inquisition! Exterminatous of the warp tainted cadians must be sanctioned immediately. but GW has made every new kit upscale aswell so they arn't the truescale GW promised they just allowed guardsmen etc to become bigger than orks FFS.
So all in all a total failure and pretty much why I walked away from marines as an army since I started 40k
Ok and what I gonna do with my meltas and power axes in tactical squad that have no support in intercessor datasheet? Breaking my minis apart to make them all bolter? In every single squad?
That's what I did for many marine models in the dawn of 3rd edition when options were removed. (Also, assuming that Index options are removed, a lot of armies have similar problems now, completely outside this Primaris issue.) Or you can shelve those specific models and wait for Primaris equivalents, which might appear. Though you already said you liked the new models, so I don't see what's the problem, you're literally just upset because they're called 'Intercessors' instead of 'Tacticals'.
Personally my biggest problem with Primaris Marines is fluffy. I really like Aggressors even though they need a cheaper delivery system then the Repulsor.
30K Legions: "Tactical Squads" (not sure exact 30K nomenclature for Legion troops) - Mono-task, inflexible squads of 10-20 SM with bolters.
31K-40K: Tactical Squads - Tactically flexible squads of 5-10 with bolters and a choice of taking special and/or heavy weapons.
40K post-RG: Intercessor Squads - Mono-task, inflexible squads of 5-10 PM armed with one of 3 types of "bolters" but 1/5 can take auxilary grenade launchers.
Ok and what I gonna do with my meltas and power axes in tactical squad that have no support in intercessor datasheet? Breaking my minis apart to make them all bolter? In every single squad?
That's what I did for many marine models in the dawn of 3rd edition when options were removed. (Also, assuming that Index options are removed, a lot of armies have similar problems now, completely outside this Primaris issue.) Or you can shelve those specific models and wait for Primaris equivalents, which might appear. Though you already said you liked the new models, so I don't see what's the problem, you're literally just upset because they're called 'Intercessors' instead of 'Tacticals'.
So now we agree that your argument "just play your current marines as primaris" is a strawman, because from all line the only comparable unit is regular bolterguys and even then you have to break and remade 2/3 in every freaking squad? And the rest 90% should be just shelved. If you don't see any problem here I don't think we should continue our dialoge. There lots of peoples here agrees with my opinion and you alone making the same argument over and over again.
I'm not as convinced as others that the original Astartes are heading for the bin.
See, we've not had updated sculpts because barring the Bikers, they're all relatively modern kits. So there's not as much need for them to be resculpted - especially not compared to other armies.
Then, there's the fact that none of the Primaris units are direct analogues of their predecessors. Intercessors are not Tactical Squads. They've no special or heavy weapons. Helblasters are only Plasma. Jumpy Ones are firepower, not assault. And the clumpyfisty ones aren't Terminators.
Likely, the Primaris were introduced as a way to drive sales, precisely because the pre-existing line is so well defined. You'll struggle to sell resculpted Marines to a player that already owns a couple of Company's worth. But give them all new units, stuff never seen before? Each of which offers something different to their existing collection? That's far more tempting.
Sure, I may be wrong here. And time will tell. This isn't meant as a 'calling out' of those with concerns. Just my ha'penny worth as food for thought.
Guys if the marines are really going away (and i'm not 100% sure yet, considering that we still have rules for some pretty ancient OOP stuff), then that is going to take many many years. Probably at least 2 editions, 8 years or so.
Also, the primaris fluff was necessary for the the game, it was crumbling under its absurdity without it. The devastation of Baal would have been impossible without primaris marines ready to refill the chapters, the same for the fall of Cadia. Vigilus will be the same.
Until now we had a grimdark setting where the good guys couldn't die too much!! Some could say that this was the spirit of 40K, but i say that after 25 years of it, it became simply too absurd and in dire need of a shake up.
See, we've not had updated sculpts because barring the Bikers, they're all relatively modern kits. So there's not as much need for them to be resculpted - especially not compared to other armies.
Just FYI, the biker kit got recut ages ago circa 5th/6th ed. to have the ball and socket connection the modern SM torsos and legs have, despite all appearance it's not the same kit from the 90's.
So now we agree that your argument "just play your current marines as primaris" is a strawman, because from all line the only comparable unit is regular bolterguys and even then you have to break and remade 2/3 in every freaking squad? And the rest 90% should be just shelved. If you don't see any problem here I don't think we should continue our dialoge. There lots of peoples here agrees with my opinion and you alone making the same argument over and over again.
Why are you ignoring the fact that many other armies lose options and whole units too, if Index options go? And that is way more likely to happen (and happen soon) than old marines losing the rule support. The option to use old marines as Primaris is for the distant future when and if old marine rules really vanish, and then, I'm sure, those rare people who have not upgraded to Primaris already will find a way to use most of their collections as counts-as. (I mean, you can already do so with many models if you want, to, but now there is no pressing need to do so.)
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I'm not as convinced as others that the original Astartes are heading for the bin.
See, we've not had updated sculpts because barring the Bikers, they're all relatively modern kits. So there's not as much need for them to be resculpted - especially not compared to other armies.
Then, there's the fact that none of the Primaris units are direct analogues of their predecessors. Intercessors are not Tactical Squads. They've no special or heavy weapons. Helblasters are only Plasma. Jumpy Ones are firepower, not assault. And the clumpyfisty ones aren't Terminators.
Likely, the Primaris were introduced as a way to drive sales, precisely because the pre-existing line is so well defined. You'll struggle to sell resculpted Marines to a player that already owns a couple of Company's worth. But give them all new units, stuff never seen before? Each of which offers something different to their existing collection? That's far more tempting.
Sure, I may be wrong here. And time will tell. This isn't meant as a 'calling out' of those with concerns. Just my ha'penny worth as food for thought.
Intercessors are already much better troop than tacticals. They live longer, have better firepower and their role is the same as tacticals. Agressors, lets see - bulky unit with many s4 shooting and some powerfists attack in melee, sounds familiar... right, basic terminators with stormbolter and power fists. We will see melee agressor soon to replace assault termies. And may be sure, soon there will be new hellblasters with assault cannons and lascannon equivalent, and gravbikers to replace current bikers.
wuestenfux wrote: The Primaris Marines mark a jump in history, away from dark age to renaissance.
This could mean that we will more advanced technology for Mankind in the future.
This. Imo, they're ruining the setting with this. The Imperium is losing it's 'grim darkness', with Guilliman coming back and the age of new Primaris Marines.
Spoletta wrote: Guys if the marines are really going away (and i'm not 100% sure yet, considering that we still have rules for some pretty ancient OOP stuff), then that is going to take many many years. Probably at least 2 editions, 8 years or so.
Also, the primaris fluff was necessary for the the game, it was crumbling under its absurdity without it. The devastation of Baal would have been impossible without primaris marines ready to refill the chapters, the same for the fall of Cadia. Vigilus will be the same.
Until now we had a grimdark setting where the good guys couldn't die too much!! Some could say that this was the spirit of 40K, but i say that after 25 years of it, it became simply too absurd and in dire need of a shake up.
Er....dude they did the devastation of baal, cadia and the invasion of fenris specifically to set up numarines, they were in development before those were even written.
But because they don't do customer research they had no clue primaris would not be welcomed.
So now we agree that your argument "just play your current marines as primaris" is a strawman, because from all line the only comparable unit is regular bolterguys and even then you have to break and remade 2/3 in every freaking squad? And the rest 90% should be just shelved. If you don't see any problem here I don't think we should continue our dialoge. There lots of peoples here agrees with my opinion and you alone making the same argument over and over again.
Why are you ignoring the fact that many other armies lose options and whole units too, if Index options go? And that is way more likely to happen (and happen soon) than old marines losing the rule support. The option to use old marines as Primaris is for the distant future when and if old marine rules really vanish, and then, I'm sure, those rare people who have not upgraded to Primaris already will find a way to use most of their collections as counts-as. (I mean, you can already do so with many models if you want, to, but now there is no pressing need to do so.)
Tell me which "other army" is at the edge of full revamp with the entirely new units?
Er....dude they did the devastation of baal, cadia and the invasion of fenris specifically to set up numarines, they were in development before those were even written.
But because they don't do customer research they had no clue primaris would not be welcomed.
I think it is more the mentality of thinking that what ever you do is going to be cool, and cool is what people like. I mean everyone at the studio thinks it is cool.
If EA can think that the mobile version of C&C is the bomb, and blizzard can think that a reskin of their own game is going to make them immortal, we shouldn't be suprised that same can happen at GW. I don't even think it is a bad thing, just a thing that happens in large companies.
Imagine your someone even from the outside. If you see a new project a criticise something that studio just worked for 3-6 months, they will just stop asking your for a commment.
Okay place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.
What is the accurate representation of an Orc or Dwarf in a game then. Even a space marine is like a Brock Lesnar that ate another Brok Lesnar.Add armor and it will never look good.
All your old marines will be obsolete in another 5 years.
Now that doesn't mean you won't be able to play them, much like I have a buddy that still uses his 1989 Land Raider in games, and your classic marines will "count as" primaris.
But you will not ever be able to expand your classic collection. Everything new is going to be Primaris sized. And eventually people are going ask why your playing with Epic scale Mini's in 40K.
Spoletta wrote: Guys if the marines are really going away (and i'm not 100% sure yet, considering that we still have rules for some pretty ancient OOP stuff), then that is going to take many many years. Probably at least 2 editions, 8 years or so.
Also, the primaris fluff was necessary for the the game, it was crumbling under its absurdity without it. The devastation of Baal would have been impossible without primaris marines ready to refill the chapters, the same for the fall of Cadia. Vigilus will be the same.
Until now we had a grimdark setting where the good guys couldn't die too much!! Some could say that this was the spirit of 40K, but i say that after 25 years of it, it became simply too absurd and in dire need of a shake up.
Er....dude they did the devastation of baal, cadia and the invasion of fenris specifically to set up numarines, they were in development before those were even written.
But because they don't do customer research they had no clue primaris would not be welcomed.
"Would not be welcomed" is a bold statement without sales figures. I think that primaris stuff actually sold quite well. Those models look fantastic, i'm seriously thinking about putting my bugs on the side for a bit to gather an all primaris force. I'm not doing it just because the primaris range is too small at the moment.
And yes, those novels were written to introduce primaris in the picture, but that doesn't mean that they are not really good pieces of fluff (IMHO) which were made possible only because the imperium can finally take a beating! Allowing the imperium to take meaningful losses without breaking the setting, opens a lot of narrative chances for the authors.
I wouldn't use the old-old RT beakies only because I think the models look bad.
I do however have some old 2nd ed marines in my army. Since they are only maybe half a head shorter you really don't notice the difference on the table. That and they have pretty much the same look (newer just has some added detail) so they blend in nicely.
With Primaris being a full head taller (a head and a half to the 2nd ed marines) and their armor design completely different, they will stand out like a sore thumb to me.
Maybe if they were the same size as the current marines then I'd consider them as I'm not huge on fluff (I won't play with wolfen because to me, they are still the lost 13th. I don't understand the need to change the story, especially in WHFB, for what is in essence a large board game) but I do love the atmosphere of the background.
I think the only injured party here is the person who is upset and trolling because people don't agree with his opinion. Very immature.
As for sales figure, no one knows the sales figures for the individual primaris units, so you cant really comment on them accurately. GW's financials have been excellent, but they have released large and varied amounts of excellent stuff in the last few years, a group of 5 units, 2 vehicles and a handful of characters mostly released 1 1/2 years ago is unlikely to be the sole reason for that.
I thought I remember a thread talking about primaris sales, and how they weren't what GW was hoping for them. I don't remember which thread it was though.
Mmmpi wrote: I thought I remember a thread talking about primaris sales, and how they weren't what GW was hoping for them. I don't remember which thread it was though.
It is just something some people keep bringing up without any backing up.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if the multipart Primaris sets wouldn't be selling amazingly well. Rules are written so that the loadiuts you get in the Dark Imperium are the best, so there is little reason to get the more expensive multipart kits.
Mmmpi wrote: I thought I remember a thread talking about primaris sales, and how they weren't what GW was hoping for them. I don't remember which thread it was though.
It is just something some people keep bringing up without any backing up.
The amount of people tryng to arguee that primaris are ugly or bad models, oh my god.
Is absolutely fine to aesthetically dislike them but this amount of denial and defense of the horrible old marine and terminator proportions.... And LOVE terminators. Much more than agressors. But I love old marines despise their proportions and small size, not becausr of them.
BTW Grimstuff, nice one calling Crimson biased for his picture of an intercessors vs a dark vengeance marine and then using one of and old metal model vs a new deathwatch veteran, that have longer legs and proportions that older marines like tacticals, etc...
I have yet to see someone use the same arguments that they use to arguee that primaris are ugly to try and sell people that new rubrics are worse than the old ones when the change is the same done with primaris.
It’s not like that at all though. New rubrics are similar to the old models, they are just a full plastic update.
Primaris diverge from the marine aethsetic to a far greater degree and are far larger.
What happened with rubrics would be like if the current tactical squad was replaced with a new one based on the size and detail of the space marine heroes models - just an update.
As for proportions, i suspect less people than you think care about ideal human art proportions that much.
That's not a DW Vet. Those legs are from the Tactical sprue. Do some homework before you go calling out people like that. Not a single set of legs on the DW sprue has both feet touching the ground- 2 minutes of looking on GW's site would tell you that they're all in a walking pose.
The problem is that instead of just releasing improved models with MkX armour so that SM players could upgrade their existing units or not depending on preference, GW went down the route of not only changing the models, but also the lore and rules too. That leaves existing SM players wondering how long before their army gets squatted.
If you currently own a painted WYSIWYGSM army the thought of having to use them as proxies for Primaris units in the future isn't very appealing. In addition, the lack of options for Primaris units might be easier for new players, but that offers less depth for experienced players.
Personally, I like them. They look good, scale is good, but I'm fairly underwhelmed by the 'terminator' equivalent being the aggressors. They need some kind of invuln save. They just die too easily.
That said though - If i had a full SM army, I'd be fairly upset by the abrupt change that invalidated my army.
I returned to the Hobby last year. Now I am near the end of painting all the stuff I buyed this year. Every unit I finish I am closer to the moment where I will need to buy new minis.
Well, at this point, I am not sure the way SM will take. Lots of rumors. I will wait till CA if we see new Primaris model or at least new equipment upgrade for Intercessors and Reivers. Maybe we will some something similar to video games and his expansions or DLC.
But neither of those are different unit types. People keep bringing this false equivalency up "Nuh uh! You had no problem with the Plague Marines!" Well, no gak Sherlock- they're just an upscaled version of an existing unit type- something Intercessors are not, they've bullied their way in and sooner or later these will be the meat and potatoes unit of SM armies, not the, now obsolete Tacticals.
So what? If they really remove rule support for old marines you can use your tacticals as intercessors etc. And sure, not all loadouts can be use that way, but not all 2E marine loadouts could be used in 3E either. And of course, there probably will be some legacy rules for minimarines for foreseeable future, so you don't even need to do that.
But the thing is, most people will upgrade, and they would just the same if this was just an aesthetic update. You don't see first genDE around, you don't see old school metal necrons, 2E monopose plastic marines, let alone RT beakies. People will get the new better looking models, and old ones get shelved. This is nothing new, it just has been a long time since this last happened to the marines.
Metal necrons - yep, use them.
2E monopose- boxes full, still used.
RT Beakies- they are the bulk of my fallen.
Orks- many of mine have names and are metal. When he's in one piece, my weirdboy leads and megaphone runtherd controls monopose grots
What many have yet to realise is that a full move to primaris will lead to the removal of some chapters within the space marines and mentioned in the books. How can all the chapters classified loyal, but largely unknown details suddenly become Primaris only chapters?.
There are millions of people that own marines. What GW will find if they start changing fluff to eradicate old marines, there will be many who tell them where to shove their changes, and will continue to play older editions or house rules of no oversized marines.
Time to start watching eBay I think, all the sheep will flog their marines to finance new marines, flooding the market, reducing the prices
It's very obvious that GW is going to prune the line eventually. Primaris are obviously going to replace marines, and they will have different options, new units, the works.
My normal marines will thus inevitably be tomb kinged. Until I see proof otherwise, I won't buy any space marine models until I know I'm safe. The line seems to volatile to invest in.
But neither of those are different unit types. People keep bringing this false equivalency up "Nuh uh! You had no problem with the Plague Marines!" Well, no gak Sherlock- they're just an upscaled version of an existing unit type- something Intercessors are not, they've bullied their way in and sooner or later these will be the meat and potatoes unit of SM armies, not the, now obsolete Tacticals.
So what? If they really remove rule support for old marines you can use your tacticals as intercessors etc. And sure, not all loadouts can be use that way, but not all 2E marine loadouts could be used in 3E either. And of course, there probably will be some legacy rules for minimarines for foreseeable future, so you don't even need to do that.
But the thing is, most people will upgrade, and they would just the same if this was just an aesthetic update. You don't see first genDE around, you don't see old school metal necrons, 2E monopose plastic marines, let alone RT beakies. People will get the new better looking models, and old ones get shelved. This is nothing new, it just has been a long time since this last happened to the marines.
My area sees all of the above from time to time and I love it. I love when people break out old school models because much of the appeal of 40k to me is it's rich and long history, both in background models. Are those older models ugly, yea a bit but they have a certain charm and I personally find it awesome to play against someone that has a model that is from before my time in the game.
If I've used a squad of models for 3 years or so. I'd say I've gotten more than my $50 worth.
I don't know about anyone else but I had just finished my Gladius for 7th the December before the gathering storm. 6 Tac squads 2 dev 2 assaults 2 dreads 6 rhino's 2 razorbacks 2 drop pods. Got all that painted before Guilliman's big release.
That being said I haven't got 3 years out of some of that. If tomorrow GW said I couldn't use any of them anymore, then I wouldn't play any future editions easy peasy. But I play with a small group so it wouldn't be that big of a deal.
Didn't GW say this was the "last" edition?
If that's the case then normal marines are here to stay. On top of that what is currently doing better? I prefer using tacticals(even though they suck) over intercessors and then hellblasters too in the same list. It's one book not two!
When I first saw the leaked photos of the primaris marines I was stoked.
"Truescale marines with Mk4 helmets and cooler bolters? That's fantastic!"
I was going to replace most of my marines out of the gate.
But then we got the background, these were not true scale space marines in the manner we expected, these were something new, different. Our new space marines were even space marine-er, out to replace all of your inferior heroes. From the mind of Cawl, the handwaviest plot device to ever handwave.
It's not the terrible fluff that actually bothers me though. It's GW's VERY obvious attempt at forcing the new units. What do you mean they can't get in a Rhino? Oh, they must be big like Terminators... Wait, no Land Raiders either? Drop Pods? Nothing? Oh no, not nothing. This new super grav Land Raider got handwaved in and ONLY Primaris can ride in it. Your cool Captain? Nope, gotta walk.
This super hard line was laid down by GW between the Primaris and classic SM, this coupled with the heavy onslaught of terrible writing about how awesome Primaris marines are and now nobody's going to make standard marines anymore gave the impression that classic is out in terms of new models, and it's a very short jump to conclude that GW will eventually move to point standard marines out of relevancy to sell Primaris.
That's why I've got a negative view on the model like, which I like the appearance of a lot. Just the idea that GW is slowly going to slide my army by the wayside leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
If you currently own a painted WYSIWYGSM army the thought of having to use them as proxies for Primaris units in the future isn't very appealing.
I'm not concerned about it. I've got until at least 9th edition until this might happen. Probably longer.
Assuming for the sake of argument that it does? Then I'll pay x pts, refer to the primaris stats, & game on. Maybe I'll mount them on larger bases. Maybe I'll have to assign a few weapons to different squads. Maybe some weapon will have to be called by a different name & use a different stat line.
If someone complains about the size of my primaris? I'll tell them that's what they look like from further away. Or that it's bad computer graphics. Or if they don't know any better maybe I'll just lie to them & tell them those are old versions of the model.
But neither of those are different unit types. People keep bringing this false equivalency up "Nuh uh! You had no problem with the Plague Marines!" Well, no gak Sherlock- they're just an upscaled version of an existing unit type- something Intercessors are not, they've bullied their way in and sooner or later these will be the meat and potatoes unit of SM armies, not the, now obsolete Tacticals.
So what? If they really remove rule support for old marines you can use your tacticals as intercessors etc. And sure, not all loadouts can be use that way, but not all 2E marine loadouts could be used in 3E either. And of course, there probably will be some legacy rules for minimarines for foreseeable future, so you don't even need to do that.
But the thing is, most people will upgrade, and they would just the same if this was just an aesthetic update. You don't see first genDE around, you don't see old school metal necrons, 2E monopose plastic marines, let alone RT beakies. People will get the new better looking models, and old ones get shelved. This is nothing new, it just has been a long time since this last happened to the marines.
Metal necrons - yep, use them.
2E monopose- boxes full, still used.
RT Beakies- they are the bulk of my fallen.
Orks- many of mine have names and are metal. When he's in one piece, my weirdboy leads and megaphone runtherd controls monopose grots
What many have yet to realise is that a full move to primaris will lead to the removal of some chapters within the space marines and mentioned in the books. How can all the chapters classified loyal, but largely unknown details suddenly become Primaris only chapters?.
There are millions of people that own marines. What GW will find if they start changing fluff to eradicate old marines, there will be many who tell them where to shove their changes, and will continue to play older editions or house rules of no oversized marines.
Time to start watching eBay I think, all the sheep will flog their marines to finance new marines, flooding the market, reducing the prices
Oh that's not a problem, even if a chapter is defeated you can still keep playing it as "the few survivors having skirmishes here and there", like tyranids have been doing from the start with the hive fleets. Out of the 7 fleets of the codex, only 2 still exist (Hydra and Kronos), the other 5 were already vanquished by somone and we play the small splinters of those fleets that still wander around.
Mmmpi wrote: I thought I remember a thread talking about primaris sales, and how they weren't what GW was hoping for them. I don't remember which thread it was though.
It is just something some people keep bringing up without any backing up.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if the multipart Primaris sets wouldn't be selling amazingly well. Rules are written so that the loadiuts you get in the Dark Imperium are the best, so there is little reason to get the more expensive multipart kits.
So you're going to take back every post you've made in this thread than?
Jaxler wrote: It's very obvious that GW is going to prune the line eventually. Primaris are obviously going to replace marines, and they will have different options, new units, the works.
My normal marines will thus inevitably be tomb kinged. Until I see proof otherwise, I won't buy any space marine models until I know I'm safe. The line seems to volatile to invest in.
Arcanis161 wrote: A lot of people feel that GW will now stop producing "normal" Space Marines. Some of those people feel, rightly or wrongly, that this will mean they can't use their "regular" Space Marine Army on the tabletop anymore. As someone who has run 1st Ed Space Marines and Terminators on the tabletop within the last year, I disagree with this sentiment; I understand it and can sympathize, but I still disagree.
That particular tract is not due to the models, but the datasheets. GW has their asinine "no model no rules" policy remember. What will happen to the rules for tactical squads fro example if their models got he way of the Dodo?
It's not like it's the first time something like that has happened, vanilla Marines used to be able to take Autocannons and Heavy Flamers. If you still own those models then you have to use them to represent other things.
If the basic marine profile goes away then the old marines get used as something else. Maybe boltgun marines become Intercessors and Termies become Aggressors and so forth, maybe people decide to use all the old-scale marines as scouts, who knows.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Put me in the camp that isn't terribly worried, at least as far as basic Marines go. What worries me more is the pile of stuff that has no equivalent in the Primaris line yet; bikes, Centurions, the Rhino-based tanks, and so forth.
Edit: This might explain why I think the Centurions look so much like something I would expect to see as a Primaris heavy support option, I don't want that particular model to go away and re-branding them as Primaris (even if it means that a given squad has to have matching weapons) would keep them as legal options for longer.
Jaxler wrote: It's very obvious that GW is going to prune the line eventually. Primaris are obviously going to replace marines, and they will have different options, new units, the works.
My normal marines will thus inevitably be tomb kinged. Until I see proof otherwise, I won't buy any space marine models until I know I'm safe. The line seems to volatile to invest in.
It is pretty safe to get the Primaris models...
What if I said I hate primaris because they seem to be lacking options and all their lists look the same? They seem too boring to play.
Maybe I’m being simplistic about this. I thought the whole idea with the GW design process to be done by CAD was that it was easier to design and adjust the models.
Couldn’t they just have theoretically just bumped the size of the sprues by like 10%+ and made all old marine models primaris sized and just had primaris be normal marines, with better armour and weapons but more limited options, and rule wise bumped all marines to +1 arrack and wound? So suddenly primaris are not ‘that’ special, or a thing other than them being vat grown or cloned?
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Maybe I’m being simplistic about this. I thought the whole idea with the GW design process to be done by CAD was that it was easier to design and adjust the models.
Couldn’t they just have theoretically just bumped the size of the sprues by like 10%+ and made all old marine models primaris sized and just had primaris be normal marines, with better armour and weapons but more limited options, and rule wise bumped all marines to +1 arrack and wound? So suddenly primaris are not ‘that’ special, or a thing other than them being vat grown or cloned?
Yeah, but then they wouldn't have been able to do the proportions change, which is a key aspect of the Primaris design (and fan-made truescale conversions).
Perth wrote: When I first saw the leaked photos of the primaris marines I was stoked.
"Truescale marines with Mk4 helmets and cooler bolters? That's fantastic!"
I was going to replace most of my marines out of the gate.
But then we got the background, these were not true scale space marines in the manner we expected, these were something new, different. Our new space marines were even space marine-er, out to replace all of your inferior heroes. From the mind of Cawl, the handwaviest plot device to ever handwave.
It's not the terrible fluff that actually bothers me though. It's GW's VERY obvious attempt at forcing the new units. What do you mean they can't get in a Rhino? Oh, they must be big like Terminators... Wait, no Land Raiders either? Drop Pods? Nothing? Oh no, not nothing. This new super grav Land Raider got handwaved in and ONLY Primaris can ride in it. Your cool Captain? Nope, gotta walk.
This super hard line was laid down by GW between the Primaris and classic SM, this coupled with the heavy onslaught of terrible writing about how awesome Primaris marines are and now nobody's going to make standard marines anymore gave the impression that classic is out in terms of new models, and it's a very short jump to conclude that GW will eventually move to point standard marines out of relevancy to sell Primaris.
That's why I've got a negative view on the model like, which I like the appearance of a lot. Just the idea that GW is slowly going to slide my army by the wayside leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I completely agree that the full is absolutely terrible, and has been at least since Gathering Storm.
However, writing the Primaris as a new thing was an attempt to avoid the reactions we're seeing in this thread. They tried to make them seem more like an addition and less of an replacement. It seems that really didn't work anyway, but now we're stuck with this awkward situation in both rules and the fluff. Though I appreciate that they're diverging from the old tired marine squad compositions, and creating new units. That could have been achieved by a new organisation and new gear though, without the fluff for übermarines.
However, this is details. The models are amazing, and I am not gonna let any of this detract from that. Whether they're called 'Intercessors' or 'Tactical Marines' do not affect the new marines looking better than the old ones, and I would have upgraded just the same. Ultimately this hobby is about building and painting beautiful miniatures, and maybe occasionally playing some games with them, and the Primaris suit for that just fine.
What if I said I hate primaris because they seem to be lacking options and all their lists look the same? They seem too boring to play.
That is certainly the biggest problem with the Primaris at the moment. It will definitely be alleviated somwehat over time as new options are released; how much exactly remains to be seen.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Funny thing is, GW did the exact same thing with Plague Marines at the same time, just without any fluff explanation - and nobody seems to care. If you put a new Plague Marine next to an old one the difference in size and design is even bigger than between a Primaris and an old Marine. However, you can still switch between both or even mix them, as they only got additional equipment.
I'd say if they had introduced Primaris without any fluff explanation or just declaring it as a new armor mark AND making them compatible with old marines (Allowing for the same exquipment and use of transports) nobody would be upset aside from the people who are not playing Space Marines and always roll their eyes about yet another bunch of unnecessary Space Marines year after year.
I think you underestimate this hobby's base. No matter what Games Workshop decided to do with Marines (or any faction for that matter) someone(s) were going to complain.
For me I'm mostly alright with the fluff, what I balk at is the ridiculous cost. $4 per marine model is already absurd by industry standard. $5 per marine model is even more absurd, regardless of if the marine model is taller. Furthermore in the Primaris boxes you get gak-all for bits to customize them, meaning you need to further empty your own pockets if you want to trick them out instead of bits shipping with the box. Granted Terminators are even more ridiculously priced than Intercessors and Hellblasters, but at least some of the boxes give you a load of bits offering ludicrous customization of models.
What I'm not sold on at all is the idea where every single unit in the army basically gets $10 more expensive, for less customization and less variation. If I wanted to pay an absurd amount of money for an army of samey-looking elites, I'd just play Eldar. Marines are supposed to be the army of the ultimate "your dudes", yet all of the "your dudes" support has been gutted for Primaris in favor of standardized BS that reduces army options for no benefit. I'll only be interested in Primaris if they either get proper terminator models that don't suck arse in rules, or if they get proper weapon options and not this monobuild nonsense. Increasing cost with increasing options is fine. Increasing cost with a decrease in options and customization is a load of gak and frankly pisses me off. It feels like GW is trying to treat me as a brainless oaf who mindlessly consumes their products without looking at the numbers.
As much as I like the Primaris Marines, I don't like that they exist at the same time as the old Marines and that they don't have the same options. If 8E just started with both "types" of Marine as the same, it would have been far better, not only for rules, but for collecting. 15ppm 2W Marines with all the same options as the old Marines would have been ideal. Primaris could have just been Mark X armoured reinforcements without being Nu-marines altogether.
This would have allowed older players to continue using their existing collection without having this weird "are my Marines gonna get squatted" vibe, or the "my old Marines aren't as good as the Nu-Marines" nonsense. Primaris Marines should have just been treated as a new sculpt of Marine, not a whole new unit
It would have been the best of both worlds. Older players could continue using their models with better rules and have the CHOICE to update if they wanted to, while newer players could start playing and choose which armour Mark they like best. But at the end of the day, I don't feel it was a good idea to make Primaris different than the older Marines form a rules standpoint. New units like Helblasters, Inceptors and Aggressors would have been fine additions, but Intercessors should have just been Tacticals with Mark X armour. And all Marines should have been 2Ws
Galef wrote: As much as I like the Primaris Marines, I don't like that they exist at the same time as the old Marines and that they don't have the same options.
If 8E just started with both "types" of Marine as the same, it would have been far better, not only for rules, but for collecting.
15ppm 2W Marines with all the same options as the old Marines would have been ideal. Primaris could have just been Mark X armoured reinforcements without being Nu-marines altogether.
This would have allowed older players to continue using their existing collection without having this weird "are my Marines gonna get squatted" vibe, or the "my old Marines aren't as good as the Nu-Marines" nonsense. Primaris Marines should have just been treated as a new sculpt of Marine, not a whole new unit
It would have been the best of both worlds. Older players could continue using their models with better rules and have the CHOICE to update if they wanted to, while newer players could start playing and choose which armour Mark they like best.
But at the end of the day, I don't feel it was a good idea to make Primaris different than the older Marines form a rules standpoint. New units like Helblasters, Inceptors and Aggressors would have been fine additions, but Intercessors should have just been Tacticals with Mark X armour.
And all Marines should have been 2Ws
-
While I do agree with this, I think it's an interesting thought to entertain that Loyalist marines could play more like legion armies, with dedicated squads to do things, and Chaos marines could play like they do now, with mixed in special weapons. It could create a more interesting difference between the two armies other than "This one is spikey, and has less options"
Galef wrote: As much as I like the Primaris Marines, I don't like that they exist at the same time as the old Marines and that they don't have the same options.
If 8E just started with both "types" of Marine as the same, it would have been far better, not only for rules, but for collecting.
15ppm 2W Marines with all the same options as the old Marines would have been ideal. Primaris could have just been Mark X armoured reinforcements without being Nu-marines altogether.
This would have allowed older players to continue using their existing collection without having this weird "are my Marines gonna get squatted" vibe, or the "my old Marines aren't as good as the Nu-Marines" nonsense. Primaris Marines should have just been treated as a new sculpt of Marine, not a whole new unit
It would have been the best of both worlds. Older players could continue using their models with better rules and have the CHOICE to update if they wanted to, while newer players could start playing and choose which armour Mark they like best.
But at the end of the day, I don't feel it was a good idea to make Primaris different than the older Marines form a rules standpoint. New units like Helblasters, Inceptors and Aggressors would have been fine additions, but Intercessors should have just been Tacticals with Mark X armour.
And all Marines should have been 2Ws
-
While I do agree with this, I think it's an interesting thought to entertain that Loyalist marines could play more like legion armies, with dedicated squads to do things, and Chaos marines could play like they do now, with mixed in special weapons. It could create a more interesting difference between the two armies other than "This one is spikey, and has less options"
Isnt it supposed to be the other way around? Chaos plays like legions since they have been trapped in time in the warp, while loyalists have gone though the codex astartes reorganization Hence why loyalists use combat squads, and chaos can field 20 man blob of marines.
Crimson wrote: It's CHAOS, they're supposed to be uniform and organised. They're not just 30K marines frozen in time.
A) I think you meant they're NOT supposed to be uniform and organized and
B) Some Warbands (although admittedly very few) actually ARE 30K Mairnes frozen in time. Time works differently in the Warp.
I love all these folks lambasting the fluff, they hate horus heresy, they hate nu-marines, they hate hate hate.
If it's not gaunts ghosts or Aaron there is this super vocal minority on the internet that feels the need to try and convince everyone their toys are dumb.
Things change, the latest Plague War book was awesome, Nu-marines are amazing models, the fluff was getting stale.
They have plenty of options, there is a chapter approved coming out soon that is confirmed to have marine buffs in it, if you don't like them then why are you playing them?
sfshilo wrote: I love all these folks lambasting the fluff, they hate horus heresy, they hate nu-marines, they hate hate hate.
If it's not gaunts ghosts or Aaron there is this super vocal minority on the internet that feels the need to try and convince everyone their toys are dumb.
Things change, the latest Plague War book was awesome, Nu-marines are amazing models, the fluff was getting stale.
They have plenty of options, there is a chapter approved coming out soon that is confirmed to have marine buffs in it, if you don't like them then why are you playing them?
We generally are not. I've been a space marine player for over a decade and I will never buy a single primaris model. The Plague War books were a good read but having SUPER DUPER marines added nothing. Delete the word primaris and you have the same story. And compared to the normal marine line, yea they have maybe 10% percent of the options and kitbashing potential and even that generally requires you to have original marine bitz.
The core take away that I think people miss is who wouldn't be upset that your army is never getting anything new/ might be deleted in a few years.
We generally are not. I've been a space marine player for over a decade and I will never buy a single primaris model. The Plague War books were a good read but having SUPER DUPER marines added nothing. Delete the word primaris and you have the same story. And compared to the normal marine line, yea they have maybe 10% percent of the options and kitbashing potential and even that generally requires you to have original marine bitz.
The core take away that I think people miss is who wouldn't be upset that your army is never getting anything new/ might be deleted in a few years.
Your army is getting plenty of new stuff, you're just irrationally refusing to get them.
We generally are not. I've been a space marine player for over a decade and I will never buy a single primaris model. The Plague War books were a good read but having SUPER DUPER marines added nothing. Delete the word primaris and you have the same story. And compared to the normal marine line, yea they have maybe 10% percent of the options and kitbashing potential and even that generally requires you to have original marine bitz.
The core take away that I think people miss is who wouldn't be upset that your army is never getting anything new/ might be deleted in a few years.
Your army is getting plenty of new stuff, you're just irrationally refusing to get them.
Well, not if you play Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Angels or Grey Knights and you've gotten used to being treated on par with other separate, smaller factions.
We generally are not. I've been a space marine player for over a decade and I will never buy a single primaris model. The Plague War books were a good read but having SUPER DUPER marines added nothing. Delete the word primaris and you have the same story. And compared to the normal marine line, yea they have maybe 10% percent of the options and kitbashing potential and even that generally requires you to have original marine bitz.
The core take away that I think people miss is who wouldn't be upset that your army is never getting anything new/ might be deleted in a few years.
Your army is getting plenty of new stuff, you're just irrationally refusing to get them.
it might as well be a new faction, with how terrible they look fielded side by side tbh. I can't stand runnig normal marines next to Primaris marines.
Well, not if you play Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Angels or Grey Knights and you've gotten used to being treated on par with other separate, smaller factions.
Especially grey knights, lol.
Well, Grey Knights are boned, that's true. Other loyalist marine factions get Primaris though, so they're fine.
it might as well be a new faction, with how terrible they look fielded side by side tbh. I can't stand runnig normal marines next to Primaris marines.
Me neither, and that's why I shelved my minimarines, but that's a personal preference. The same issue would exist if you tried to field Rogue Trader beakies next to the later marines.
They might as well be an entirely different faction. Yay, I got new not marines that are completely incompatible with any existing models and have completely different options, background, can't share transports/mix squads and most of the existing bitz I have are useless. I should be so excited and grateful.
We generally are not. I've been a space marine player for over a decade and I will never buy a single primaris model. The Plague War books were a good read but having SUPER DUPER marines added nothing. Delete the word primaris and you have the same story. And compared to the normal marine line, yea they have maybe 10% percent of the options and kitbashing potential and even that generally requires you to have original marine bitz.
The core take away that I think people miss is who wouldn't be upset that your army is never getting anything new/ might be deleted in a few years.
Your army is getting plenty of new stuff, you're just irrationally refusing to get them.
it might as well be a new faction, with how terrible they look fielded side by side tbh. I can't stand runnig normal marines next to Primaris marines.
Whats even worse is how bad they look next to anything FW have made over the years around thenold marine scale.
It feels really great knowing that they will all be squatted in 40K along with small marines and it not like 30K is being given any support by GW either just a giant You buy Primaris from GW
I think people need to reign in their exasperation a tad. There's no point in making something sound worse than it is.
1) Yes, Primaris will replace Space Marines.
2) Normal Space Marines will continue to have rules for 5-10 years at minimum...they're not going anywhere. Even when the kits get phased out, GW knows there's a massive population of people with classic marine armies.
3) There have been enough Space Marines sold that they'll be available via eBay and other sources for 10+ years easily.
4) Space Marine focus shifting to Primaris doesn't mean that GW will just wipe the shelves clean of marine units in the next six months and say "tough gak".
So what's the end result? As a classic marine player there's one sad thing: no new models. Doesn't mean any of your current models are invalidated, and let's be honest...marines have a fething gigantic 3rd party support mechanism, so even then you still have access to heaps of alternate sculpts moving forward (though these companies are already adopting to Primaris stuff). You'll also have the full Horus Heresy line if you're really hard up for models. Does it suck going forward that your line of marines is done? I guess. But I look at it from an Eldar player's perspective. My whole 5500 points army is 95% metals from the mid-90's...and I bought them in the past two years.
The Eldar haven't had new stuff in...ages (excluding the terrible Ynnari stuff). It doesn't make me love Eldar any less. There's also feth-all for support from 3rd party manufacturers for Eldar. Again, doesn't mean I don't like Eldar any more. I have models in my army which are 25 years old and still have rules. Yes, it sucks you won't be getting new models, but marines aren't going anywhere - you still have a massively vast range of models to choose from and purchase. I think you guys need to dial down the "well, I'm gonna throw my marines in the trash!" kind of attitude.
If 8th edition really is the last edition and a living ruleset, it's possible that the units in the SM codex will still be valid even if a Primaris-only codex is released (in the same way that units from the index are still valid).
Elbows wrote: I think people need to reign in their exasperation a tad. There's no point in making something sound worse than it is.
1) Yes, Primaris will replace Space Marines.
2) Normal Space Marines will continue to have rules for 5-10 years at minimum...they're not going anywhere. Even when the kits get phased out, GW knows there's a massive population of people with classic marine armies.
3) There have been enough Space Marines sold that they'll be available via eBay and other sources for 10+ years easily.
4) Space Marine focus shifting to Primaris doesn't mean that GW will just wipe the shelves clean of marine units in the next six months and say "tough gak".
So what's the end result? As a classic marine player there's one sad thing: no new models. Doesn't mean any of your current models are invalidated, and let's be honest...marines have a fething gigantic 3rd party support mechanism, so even then you still have access to heaps of alternate sculpts moving forward (though these companies are already adopting to Primaris stuff). You'll also have the full Horus Heresy line if you're really hard up for models. Does it suck going forward that your line of marines is done? I guess. But I look at it from an Eldar player's perspective. My whole 5500 points army is 95% metals from the mid-90's...and I bought them in the past two years.
The Eldar haven't had new stuff in...ages (excluding the terrible Ynnari stuff). It doesn't make me love Eldar any less. There's also feth-all for support from 3rd party manufacturers for Eldar. Again, doesn't mean I don't like Eldar any more. I have models in my army which are 25 years old and still have rules. Yes, it sucks you won't be getting new models, but marines aren't going anywhere - you still have a massively vast range of models to choose from and purchase. I think you guys need to dial down the "well, I'm gonna throw my marines in the trash!" kind of attitude.
The issue is GW doesn't actually have to remove the rules from old marines to squat them just leave them as they are, ie not a competitive army and just give primaris units reduced points cost via CA while increasing FW points and it won't matter a damn if you still technically have valid rules if they are unusable.
In the Rogue Trader marines were recruited as adults. They had some hormone treatment and enhancements, but were mostly normal people. A squad could have wild combinations of weapons, lasguns, autoguns, webbers or even shuriken catapults. They were represented by tiny, beaky models. Oh, and they could have a grav tank.
Later the fluff was retconned. Marines gained a lot more enhancements, they become much superhuman, and even the statline was improved. However many of the weapon options of the old vanished, though they gained many new units, albeit with much more structured and restrained gear selection. They also got new models, which were noticeably larger than the older ones.
Sounds familiar? If GW had not done what many people are decrying now, you'd still be playing with rogue trader beakies, armed with lasguns and shuriken cannons. Only thing different this time, is that they didn't just retcon things, they tried to create a narrative (as awkward as it may be) which allows you to use your old style and new style marines side by side. Granted, very few people seem to be satisfied with this solution, so a clear retcon might have been better this time too.
Crimson wrote: which allows you to use your old style and new style marines side by side.
with the added side effect of neither having ideal rules because GW has to make them different enough to merit them being side by side. If they had just started 8E will 15ppm 2W Marines that would have been better. Release Mark X armoured Marines, sure, but make them still Tacs, Devs, AMs, etc "Primaris" Marine could have just been the new roles such as Helblasters, Inceptors and Aggresors. But the Standard Marines stay the same, but with the option of having Mark X armour
2) Normal Space Marines will continue to have rules for 5-10 years at minimum...they're not going anywhere. Even when the kits get phased out, GW knows there's a massive population of people with classic marine armies.
They will not remove their rules, they will just make them worse than primaris. So you either will buy primaris, or will buy new army to play a game. This may be not squatting, but tomb kinging.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elbows wrote: So what's the end result? As a classic marine player there's one sad thing: no new models. Doesn't mean any of your current models are invalidated, and let's be honest...marines have a fething gigantic 3rd party support mechanism, so even then you still have access to heaps of alternate sculpts moving forward (though these companies are already adopting to Primaris stuff). You'll also have the full Horus Heresy line if you're really hard up for models. Does it suck going forward that your line of marines is done? I guess. But I look at it from an Eldar player's perspective. My whole 5500 points army is 95% metals from the mid-90's...and I bought them in the past two years.
The Eldar haven't had new stuff in...ages (excluding the terrible Ynnari stuff). It doesn't make me love Eldar any less. There's also feth-all for support from 3rd party manufacturers for Eldar. Again, doesn't mean I don't like Eldar any more. I have models in my army which are 25 years old and still have rules. Yes, it sucks you won't be getting new models, but marines aren't going anywhere - you still have a massively vast range of models to choose from and purchase. I think you guys need to dial down the "well, I'm gonna throw my marines in the trash!" kind of attitude.
Nice, so you bought your army just 2 years ago? Now imagine this: next month - GW write a plot: almost all craftworld eldars and drukhai are dead. But now there is new eldar race that worship reborn eldar Gods - primaris eldars. All your aspect warriors, guardins and construct still will have some rules, but GW will release new primaris aspect warriors, primaris guardians, primaris construct and, ofcourse, primaris serpent (with the same role, but different weapons and model's look, so you couldn't use your old minis) that will be better than your current ones. GW want you to buy new kits, so all your army is just strickly worse than the new stuff, and you have to buy. Sounds awesome, right?
I'm skeptical about primaris replacing old marines tbh. For 2 reasons mainly:
- What about Chaos? GW released DG with primaris and all the DG models are still shorter than primaris. Same with TS and the new BL. If Primaris are "new scale" why didn't they make them match the new chaos models? Plus, squatting old marines would make chaos marines straight up inferior troopers to their imperial counterparts... which doesn't feel right. So, maybe the solution is to give chaos marines 2W and 2A? If that's the case, why even bother with "primaris" at all? Upscaling Chaos didn't have fluff consequences. Just be like "here's new gear, and squads work different under Gman's new codex, also, here's more pure geneseed or something". Instead, Primaris are described as being better marines for...no reason? IDK, the whole things a mess.
- Grey Knights aren't receiving primaris... for now at least. If there's no plans to upgrade grey knights, then you can't really be planning to squat old marines... unless you squat GK. Corporate lingo maybe?
Other, kinda weak reasons:
- GW said they won't replace old marines. Sure that's not worth much, but it would make sense if we assume that GW staffers love their old marines too. And if they do change their mind, at least we can point to them being misleading, I guess.
- The space marine heroes thing. It's not a kit per se, but it is an attempt to enter the Japanese market using old marines rather than numarines, which doesn't line up with the whole "get rid of them" plan. Why not use primaris instead? Just seems counter-productive to said plan.
That's said, I would not be surprised if primaris replace marines, but I wouldn't bet on it yet. The old kits will last 20 years if GW's other ranges are to be taken as an example of mould longevity.
Brother Castor wrote: If 8th edition really is the last edition and a living ruleset, it's possible that the units in the SM codex will still be valid even if a Primaris-only codex is released (in the same way that units from the index are still valid).
It seems I'm not the only one thinking this could be possible...
Dandelion wrote: - Grey Knights aren't receiving primaris... for now at least. If there's no plans to upgrade grey knights, then you can't really be planning to squat old marines... unless you squat GK. Corporate lingo maybe?.
Considering GKs do not share the same kits as other Marines, I don't really see your point. It's entirely possible that regular Marine chapters have all their standard Marine kits replaced with Primaris and GK Strike squads stick around. After all, they have wargear unique to their "chapter" that are relics from a different time, so why not also keep the same "relic" Marines?
Not saying it will happen as I truly believe GKs will get Primaris long before regular Marines get phase out, but still
Because they likely use different molds. There is a lot of speculation that a lot of FW stuff went the way of the dodo due to the molds breaking and GW not wanting to take the cost of replacing them. GW will probably continue to sell most of the smaller marine kits until the same thing happens.
Galef wrote: Considering GKs do not share the same kits as other Marines, I don't really see your point.
What does it matter that the kits different?
Because if GW "phases out" old Marines, it WILL be by removing/replacing kits. And from a practicality standpoint, it will be only a few kits at a time. There's no way GW releases over a dozen kits, while at the same time removes SEVERAL dozen kits at the same time, overnight.
GKs do NOT use the Tactical Marine kit, so if GW eventually released an Intercessor kit with options to replace Tacticals completely, it will not affect GKs If all other standard marines are removed, but GK Strikes are still around, you would still be able to say standard Marines got squatted
Galef wrote: Considering GKs do not share the same kits as other Marines, I don't really see your point.
What does it matter that the kits different?
Because if GW "phases out" old Marines, it WILL be by removing/replacing kits. And from a practicality standpoint, it will be only a few kits at a time.
There's no way GW releases over a dozen kits, while at the same time removes SEVERAL dozen kits at the same time, overnight.
GKs do NOT use the Tactical Marine kit, so if GW eventually released an Intercessor kit with options to replace Tacticals completely, it will not affect GKs If all other standard marines are removed, but GK Strikes are still around, you would still be able to say standard Marines got squatted
-
Intercessers are already new tacticals. They just have different loadout because GW don't want to let you use your current minimarines, they want you to buy new ones.
Silver144 wrote: Intercessers are already new tacticals. They just have different loadout because GW don't want to let you use your current minimarines, they want you to buy new ones.
Which while this might have been good for their business model, I don't think it was good for their customer service model.
I would have much preferred that Intercessors have the same exact options and were meant to outright replace Tacticals. That way you COULD use your old models instead of being pigeon-holed into buy new ones. Most players would have still bought plenty even if they didn't have to.
Galef wrote: Because if GW "phases out" old Marines, it WILL be by removing/replacing kits. And from a practicality standpoint, it will be only a few kits at a time.
There's no way GW releases over a dozen kits, while at the same time removes SEVERAL dozen kits at the same time, overnight.
GKs do NOT use the Tactical Marine kit, so if GW eventually released an Intercessor kit with options to replace Tacticals completely, it will not affect GKs If all other standard marines are removed, but GK Strikes are still around, you would still be able to say standard Marines got squatted
-
But, is there any indication that primaris will be one-to-one replacements and not just completely new units? Intercessors maybe, but what about Aggressors? What do they replace and how would that work? If GW were to do primaris grey knights it would only take one kit to do so. And GW is going to make more primaris kits anyway so what's stopping them?
Silver144 wrote: Intercessers are already new tacticals. They just have different loadout because GW don't want to let you use your current minimarines, they want you to buy new ones.
Which while this might have been good for their business model, I don't think it was good for their customer service model.
I would have much preferred that Intercessors have the same exact options and were meant to outright replace Tacticals. That way you COULD use your old models instead of being pigeon-holed into buy new ones. Most players would have still bought plenty even if they didn't have to.
-
Yep, everyone understand that. Should they just release true scale marines - I'll be among the first to buy those kits to expand my army. I always glad to expand my collectiot. But expanding is not replacing.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Aggressors are pretty much what happens if you fused a Terminator with a centurion.
So, in other words, not a one-to-one replacement of termies. With their current rules, aggressors can't fill the profile of termies, and likely never will. They'll just be different.
The more I look at it, the more I see primaris as just extra bloat. The only thing they added was more imposing marines.
Yep, everyone understand that. Should they just release true scale marines - I'll be among the first to buy those kits to expand my army. I always glad to expand my collectiot. But expanding is not replacing.
I really don't understand what's the difference in practice though. If Intercessor models had been called 'Tactical Marines' and wouldn't have had their own datasheet, you would have bought them, and used them along with your older marines? Why does it matter that they have slightly different rules? If you're going to use them with the old marines, doesn't it make more sense if slightly different looking models have slightly different rules?
HoundsofDemos wrote: Aggressors are pretty much what happens if you fused a Terminator with a centurion.
So, in other words, not a one-to-one replacement of termies. With their current rules, aggressors can't fill the profile of termies, and likely never will. They'll just be different.
The more I look at it, the more I see primaris as just extra bloat. The only thing they added was more imposing marines.
Ok, lets see - plenty s4 no ap d1 shooting and s8 powerfist attacks in melee. Now lets check terminators: s4 no ap d1 stormbolter, s8 powerfists attack. Yeeeah, totally not the same role.
Yes, I purchased my current army via old eBay rescues over the past 18 months...fully aware there is likely never going to be an Eldar upgrade of the current models. I fully expect Ynnari will become a "Primaris" version of Eldar (i.e. new story, new models etc.) and they'll probably suck. That does nothing to diminish how I feel about my current Eldar models. I'll continue owning, playing and enjoying the Eldar stuff I have.
Now, rules-wise...that's an enitrely different discussion. As a CSM player, I can agree with marines having lack lustre rules.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Aggressors are pretty much what happens if you fused a Terminator with a centurion.
So, in other words, not a one-to-one replacement of termies. With their current rules, aggressors can't fill the profile of termies, and likely never will. They'll just be different.
The more I look at it, the more I see primaris as just extra bloat. The only thing they added was more imposing marines.
Ok, lets see - plenty s4 no ap d1 shooting and s8 powerfist attacks in melee. Now lets check terminators: s4 no ap d1 stormbolter, s8 powerfists attack. Yeeeah, totally not the same role.
So, you'd be ok running termies as aggressors? Cuz that's what I'm talking about.
Yep, everyone understand that. Should they just release true scale marines - I'll be among the first to buy those kits to expand my army. I always glad to expand my collectiot. But expanding is not replacing.
I really don't understand what's the difference in practice though. If Intercessor models had been called 'Tactical Marines' and wouldn't have had their own datasheet, you would have bought them, and used them along with your older marines? Why does it matter that they have slightly different rules? If you're going to use them with the old marines, doesn't it make more sense if slightly different looking models have slightly different rules?
If they will have the same special and power weapon in every squad and will not have those magic "primaris" keyword that restrict them from using marines vehicles - yep, I'll buy them. But they are not space marine unit, it is some wierd half made "primaris" army, not the one I choose to collect.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Aggressors are pretty much what happens if you fused a Terminator with a centurion.
So, in other words, not a one-to-one replacement of termies. With their current rules, aggressors can't fill the profile of termies, and likely never will. They'll just be different.
The more I look at it, the more I see primaris as just extra bloat. The only thing they added was more imposing marines.
Ok, lets see - plenty s4 no ap d1 shooting and s8 powerfist attacks in melee. Now lets check terminators: s4 no ap d1 stormbolter, s8 powerfists attack. Yeeeah, totally not the same role.
Part of Terminators' thing is being tough, 2+/5++ or 2+/3++. Aggressors being T5 doesn't cut it when they have a worse armor save and no invulnerable, they're much more of a glass cannon compared to something like Storm Shield Terminators.
Unless the creation of new kits eventually leads to the removal of old kits and the rules to use them. Primaris being "something new" is part of that fear. It also adds to the bloat of the game. Marines had a good variety of units before, they just needed better rules. But creating Primaris Marines did not do this, rather it made it worse because GW needed to differentiate the Nu-Marines from the old. So now we have *too* many units and most of them are in weird places rules/points wise.
For example, Intercessors are too expensive at 18ppm, but Tacticals are too weak at 1W. If 8E had started with Tacticals as 15ppm 2W Marines, with the *option* to be clad in Mark X armour (no in-game difference here) with a Bolt rifle, that would have been better.
Dandelion wrote: The more I look at it, the more I see primaris as just extra bloat. The only thing they added was more imposing marines.
Agreed. And GW tends to cut out bloat between editions. When that happens for 9E, do you think they are going to cut out all the Nu-marines? No, they would axe the old. This may not happen for YEARS, but it will happen
HoundsofDemos wrote: Aggressors are pretty much what happens if you fused a Terminator with a centurion.
So, in other words, not a one-to-one replacement of termies. With their current rules, aggressors can't fill the profile of termies, and likely never will. They'll just be different.
The more I look at it, the more I see primaris as just extra bloat. The only thing they added was more imposing marines.
Ok, lets see - plenty s4 no ap d1 shooting and s8 powerfist attacks in melee. Now lets check terminators: s4 no ap d1 stormbolter, s8 powerfists attack. Yeeeah, totally not the same role.
So, you'd be ok running termies as aggressors? Cuz that's what I'm talking about.
No, it will not be an awfull proxy playing. I will not do it myself and will be not very happy to play against such proxy army. Because there is terminators in the game, they are just worse than agressors, because GW wants you to buy whole new army to play marines.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Aggressors are pretty much what happens if you fused a Terminator with a centurion.
So, in other words, not a one-to-one replacement of termies. With their current rules, aggressors can't fill the profile of termies, and likely never will. They'll just be different.
The more I look at it, the more I see primaris as just extra bloat. The only thing they added was more imposing marines.
Ok, lets see - plenty s4 no ap d1 shooting and s8 powerfist attacks in melee. Now lets check terminators: s4 no ap d1 stormbolter, s8 powerfists attack. Yeeeah, totally not the same role.
Part of Terminators' thing is being tough, 2+/5++ or 2+/3++. Aggressors being T5 doesn't cut it when they have a worse armor save and no invulnerable, they're much more of a glass cannon compared to something like Storm Shield Terminators.
I'm talking only about 2+/5++ terminators, we didn't get melee agressors yet, but there will be, you could be sure. And t4 2+ not so different from t5 3+. To be honest t5 3+ looks much better to me. You still could get 2+ with cover and t5 over t4 is a big thing.
No, it will not be an awfull proxy playing. I will not do it myself and will be not very happy to play against such proxy army. Because there is terminators in the game, they are just worse than agressors, because GW wants you to buy whole new army to play marines.
So, if aggressors fully replace termies and GW ditches all termies and remove their rules would you then play your termies as aggressors? Because that's what's implied when people say primaris will replace old marines.
No, it will not be an awfull proxy playing. I will not do it myself and will be not very happy to play against such proxy army. Because there is terminators in the game, they are just worse than agressors, because GW wants you to buy whole new army to play marines.
So, if aggressors fully replace termies and GW ditches all termies and remove their rules would you then play your termies as aggressors? Because that's what's implied when people say primaris will replace old marines.
They will not remove terminator rules, they will just keep them terrible rule wise. So you will have to buy agressors for the same role, if you didn't want to handicap yourself
No, it will not be an awfull proxy playing. I will not do it myself and will be not very happy to play against such proxy army. Because there is terminators in the game, they are just worse than agressors, because GW wants you to buy whole new army to play marines.
According to rumor there is a more direct replacement for terminators. In any case, what's the harm in running terminators as aggressors as long as you're not using terminators in your list?
Silver144 wrote: They will not remove terminator rules, they will just keep them terrible rule wise. So you will have to buy agressors for the same role, if you didn't want to handicap yourself
Which is my biggest issue with this whole thing. I'd happily play against a Marine army using old Terminators as Aggressors or old Tacticals as Intercessors *if* the rules for Terminators or Tacticals were removed (not that I want that). But as it stands, we have rules for all those units and the old Marines are going to continue to receive sub-par rules to encourage the sale of Nu-Marines
No, it will not be an awfull proxy playing. I will not do it myself and will be not very happy to play against such proxy army. Because there is terminators in the game, they are just worse than agressors, because GW wants you to buy whole new army to play marines.
According to rumor there is a more direct replacement for terminators. In any case, what's the harm in running terminators as aggressors as long as you're not using terminators in your list?
Because it is a proxy army. I pay and paint my marines to play them as good standalone army, not a proxy for something different. It is the same as using tacticals as sister of battle, or fire warriors as imperial guards.
If they will have the same special and power weapon in every squad and will not have those magic "primaris" keyword that restrict them from using marines vehicles - yep, I'll buy them. But they are not space marine unit, it is some wierd half made "primaris" army, not the one I choose to collect.
So you're literally hung up on couple of special weapons and one keyword? Doesn't this seem even a little bit bonkers to you? It is like RT era players having a fit and refusing to buy new models, because their ten man squad could no longer have three special weapons. (And then they weren't even provided an option to continue to use their old squad compositions with their old models if they wanted. I mean think about all those sad beakies with shuriken catapults that had to be shelved!)
Crimson Devil wrote: Does everything you buy from GW have to retain it's value forever? How many games/time does it take to get your money's worth out of your models?
I am ok with shelving a unit or two. I'm ok if they release the new Ulric the slayer in the dreadnought and current one will become "legacy". I am not ok with shelving my entire army to buy a new one. I can't understand why it is not obvious to some people.
No, it will not be an awfull proxy playing. I will not do it myself and will be not very happy to play against such proxy army. Because there is terminators in the game, they are just worse than agressors, because GW wants you to buy whole new army to play marines.
According to rumor there is a more direct replacement for terminators. In any case, what's the harm in running terminators as aggressors as long as you're not using terminators in your list?
Because it is a proxy army. I pay and paint my marines to play them as good standalone army, not a proxy for something different. It is the same as using tacticals as sister of battle, or fire warriors as imperial guards.
So no problem? All you're doing here is supporting gakky business practices and helping nobody but GW, which is part of the problem. Nobody should have a problem if anybody proxies anything so long as the proxy is relatively the same size as the intended unit and aren't being modeled for an advantage. Perhaps you should have more wisely spent your money so you don't get mad at people with a better sense of responsible purchasing?
No, it will not be an awfull proxy playing. I will not do it myself and will be not very happy to play against such proxy army. Because there is terminators in the game, they are just worse than agressors, because GW wants you to buy whole new army to play marines.
According to rumor there is a more direct replacement for terminators. In any case, what's the harm in running terminators as aggressors as long as you're not using terminators in your list?
Because it is a proxy army. I pay and paint my marines to play them as good standalone army, not a proxy for something different. It is the same as using tacticals as sister of battle, or fire warriors as imperial guards.
So no problem? All you're doing here is supporting gakky business practices and helping nobody but GW, which is part of the problem. Nobody should have a problem if anybody proxies anything so long as the proxy is relatively the same size as the intended unit and aren't being modeled for an advantage. Perhaps you should have more wisely spent your money so you don't get mad at people with a better sense of responsible purchasing?
I could let my opponent for pickup games play whatever he want. Go ahead and play with cola cup if you want, I am ok as long as they have different colors.
But you can't just go for tournament and say "hey, those terminators actually an agressors".
Whilst I personally wouldn't proxy normal marines as primaris, because I actually want to use the primaris models, I would have no problem with someone doing that. A Space Marine is a Space Marine. If both RT beakie and a current normal marine can represent a Tactical marine, then both current normal marine a primaris can represent an intercessor.
Crimson Devil wrote: Does everything you buy from GW have to retain it's value forever? How many games/time does it take to get your money's worth out of your models?
I could care less about the "value" of the model. I want any product I buy, regardless of company, to be USEABLE forever as what it was produced as. (assuming it's well cared for and not electronics) I remember growing up with old board games that my parents had from the 70s. You can still play those, as-is, even though those games have had many, many updates.
That is the core of my objection to how Primaris Marines have been implemented. I'd actually be ok if they were blatantly meant to replace the old models on a one-to-one, but they aren't. They're designed specifically as new units that will not only eventually replace the old models, but prevent the old models from even being used as them, because they are specifically not the same units
If Intercessors were just updated Tacticals and players could use their Tactical as Intercessors, it'd be fine. But Intercessors aren't Tactical. They're certainly replace them evnetually, but it won't be as acceptable to use your Tacticals as Intercessors until Tacticals are "officially" not a playable unit
I am ok with shelving a unit or two. I'm ok if they release the new Ulric the slayer in the dreadnought and current one will become "legacy". I am not ok with shelving my entire army to buy a new one. I can't understand why it is not obvious to some people.
Well, let's be honest. You're insisting that you have to play your army according to its rules instead of using them for counts-as Primaris, and at the same time complaining that your army's rules are not as good as those for Primaris, for pretty much no logical reason. Every time a new edition comes out the meta and rules change pretty drastically. I've had entire armies that were modelled to be fairly optimal according to their codex for one edition, only to have all of that invalidated or moved to the bottom of the heap in terms of effectiveness because of one simple rule or profile change. This stuff happens all the time.
In 7th edition I had a Ravenwing army with a huge amount of Black Knights and bikers with grav guns, because grav guns were ludicrous. The day 8th came out that army went from being somewhat TFGish to being horrible. But hey, I bought them and built them that way to juice the rules of the game when I knew a new edition was coming soon, so that's on me. When the new Death Guard came out people all of a sudden couldn't use their bikes, obliterators, etc. GW is under no obligation to keep your army's rules exactly the same as when you bought them until the end of time, or to never release anything better and more effective. But just because the rules change doesn't mean you can't still use your very same models if you wish, as long as you're not being confusing about it. People proxy stuff all the time without incident.
I am ok with shelving a unit or two. I'm ok if they release the new Ulric the slayer in the dreadnought and current one will become "legacy". I am not ok with shelving my entire army to buy a new one. I can't understand why it is not obvious to some people.
Well, let's be honest. You're insisting that you have to play your army according to its rules instead of using them for counts-as Primaris, and at the same time complaining that your army's rules are not as good as those for Primaris, for pretty much no logical reason. Every time a new edition comes out the meta and rules change pretty drastically. I've had entire armies that were modelled to be fairly optimal according to their codex for one edition, only to have all of that invalidated or moved to the bottom of the heap in terms of effectiveness because of one simple rule or profile change. This stuff happens all the time.
In 7th edition I had a Ravenwing army with a huge amount of Black Knights and bikers with grav guns, because grav guns were ludicrous. The day 8th came out that army went from being somewhat TFGish to being horrible. But hey, I bought them and built them that way to juice the rules of the game when I knew a new edition was coming soon, so that's on me. When the new Death Guard came out people all of a sudden couldn't use their bikes, obliterators, etc. GW is under no obligation to keep your army's rules exactly the same as when you bought them until the end of time, or to never release anything better and more effective. But just because the rules change doesn't mean you can't still use your very same models if you wish, as long as you're not being confusing about it. People proxy stuff all the time without incident.
Oh dear god, go and read what Galef said.
I played long enough to know what the meta shifting is. Today I play with 5 man squads in 7...9 droppods, next year cavalry with 5 characters in single unit, next year this wierd thing with 4++ wolves. It's ok as long as I expand MY army. Today I put my cavalry on the shelf, but tomorrow it will shine again, because meta is shifting.
But now I will have to move all my army to the shelf, because primaris is a totally new thing. My terminators will never see the table again, because they are not the primaris, and the primaris have an agressors. Bikers will be useless with primaris gravi bikes, land raider will never be better than repulsor. Should hellblaster receive lascannon, my long fang will be squatted too.
Oh dear god, go and read what Galef said.
I played ling enough to know what the meta shifting is. Today I play with 5 msn squads in 7...9 droppods, next year cavalry with 5 charactets in single unit, next year this wierd thing with 4++ wolves. It's ok as long as I expand MY army. Today I put my cavalry on the shelf, but tomorrow it will shine again, because meta is shifting.
But now I will have to move all my army to the shelf, because primaros is a totallt new thing. My jump terminators will never see the table again, because they are not the primaris, and the primaris have an agressors. Bikers will be useless with primaris gravi bikes, land raider will never be better than repulsor. Should hellblaster receive lascannon, my long fang will be squatted too.
Yeah but nothing is really stopping you from running your terminators as aggressors or tac squads as intercessors or anything like that. Most tournaments would even allow you to do so as long as you didn't have "aggressor" terminators and "terminator" terminators on the same table. There are still rules for all of your units and nothing makes them inherently better or worse than Primaris point for point, except for that shifting meta. Maybe next edition Intercessors will be garbage for some reason and tacticals will find one of the many blind spots in GW's rules writing to become much better for the cost. Is your main complaint that GW is releasing better versions of models you already have?
Oh dear god, go and read what Galef said.
I played ling enough to know what the meta shifting is. Today I play with 5 msn squads in 7...9 droppods, next year cavalry with 5 charactets in single unit, next year this wierd thing with 4++ wolves. It's ok as long as I expand MY army. Today I put my cavalry on the shelf, but tomorrow it will shine again, because meta is shifting.
But now I will have to move all my army to the shelf, because primaros is a totallt new thing. My jump terminators will never see the table again, because they are not the primaris, and the primaris have an agressors. Bikers will be useless with primaris gravi bikes, land raider will never be better than repulsor. Should hellblaster receive lascannon, my long fang will be squatted too.
Yeah but nothing is really stopping you from running your terminators as aggressors or tac squads as intercessors or anything like that. Most tournaments would even allow you to do so as long as you didn't have "aggressor" terminators and "terminator" terminators on the same table. There are still rules for all of your units and nothing makes them inherently better or worse than Primaris point for point, except for that shifting meta. Maybe next edition Intercessors will be garbage for some reason and tacticals will find one of the many blind spots in GW's rules writing to become much better for the cost. Is your main complaint that GW is releasing better versions of models you already have?
Nothing is stopping me from running terminators as genestealers either. It's still a proxie. That's the issue. People don't want to take their entire army and "run them as something else", because at the end of the day, the way the rules were written, tactical marines aren't intercessors.
Nothing is stopping me from running terminators as genestealers either. It's still a proxie. That's the issue. People don't want to take their entire army and "run them as something else", because at the end of the day, the way the rules were written, tactical marines aren't intercessors.
Ok, so run them as tacticals, lol. They're your models, you can do whatever you want with them
Being told to run your models as something else is annoying. You shouldn't have to run your models as another unit when it is full within GW's capacity to support them.
Sir Heckington wrote: Being told to run your models as something else is annoying. You shouldn't have to run your models as another unit when it is full within GW's capacity to support them.
Support them how? They still have their own rules, they're still in the codex and they're still legal options. This is an honest question. Aside from never having made Primaris, what could GW do to make things right for you?
The way I'm hearing this is that people like their old marine models and/or don't want to buy into Primaris (nothing wrong with that) but they wish their old marines had Primaris rules. So playing them with Primaris rules seems pretty reasonable when the only barrier to doing so is that the box they came in didn't say "Primaris" on it when you opened it up.
"I already bought tactical marines and I don't like and/or want to buy Intercessors."
"OK, so just play with your tactical marines."
"But I don't want to because they're not Intercessors."
"OK, so just use them as Intercessors."
"I don't want to, because they're not Intercessors."
"I'm sorry your tactical marines are not Intercessors?"
That is what I'm getting out of this grievance, but if I'm misunderstanding something please help me out. I definitely agree that making Primaris a separate entity in terms of rules and fluff was a dick move on GW's part, but their reasons for doing so are also clear from a business perspective. At least they are still supporting all of the old Space Marine models with rules as their own valid entries in the codex, and that Isn't going to change any time soon. I'm honestly trying to understand what would help improve your situation and enjoyment of the game.
Sir Heckington wrote: Being told to run your models as something else is annoying. You shouldn't have to run your models as another unit when it is full within GW's capacity to support them.
Support them how? They still have their own rules, they're still in the codex and they're still legal options. This is an honest question. Aside from never having made Primaris, what could GW do to make things right for you?
The way I'm hearing this is that people like their old marine models and/or don't want to buy into Primaris (nothing wrong with that) but they wish their old marines had Primaris rules. So playing them with Primaris rules seems pretty reasonable when the only barrier to doing so is that the box they came in didn't say "Primaris" on it when you opened it up.
"I already bought tactical marines and I don't like and/or want to buy Intercessors."
"OK, so just play with your tactical marines."
"But I don't want to because they're not Intercessors."
"OK, so just use them as Intercessors."
"I don't want to, because they're not Intercessors."
"I'm sorry your tactical marines are not Intercessors?"
That is what I'm getting out of this grievance, but if I'm misunderstanding something please help me out. I definitely agree that making Primaris a separate entity in terms of rules and fluff was a dick move on GW's part, but their reasons for doing so are also clear from a business perspective. At least they are still supporting all of the old Space Marine models with rules as their own valid entries in the codex, and that Isn't going to change any time soon. I'm honestly trying to understand what would help improve your situation and enjoyment of the game.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I personally have no issues with Normal Marines/Primaris marines. My situation is fine outside of my grievances with FW right now. I was referencing the hypothetical that tactical marines lose rules.
I got no issue with primaris once they get some options, I got 30k for my old marines.
Gotcha. Well, assuming that old marine models ever do get cut from the codex, I really don't see a problem with using them as proxies, but that will not happen for a long time.
I think most people would like to see more options for Primaris, though.
Sir Heckington wrote: Being told to run your models as something else is annoying. You shouldn't have to run your models as another unit when it is full within GW's capacity to support them.
Support them how? They still have their own rules, they're still in the codex and they're still legal options. This is an honest question. Aside from never having made Primaris, what could GW do to make things right for you?
The way I'm hearing this is that people like their old marine models and/or don't want to buy into Primaris (nothing wrong with that) but they wish their old marines had Primaris rules. So playing them with Primaris rules seems pretty reasonable when the only barrier to doing so is that the box they came in didn't say "Primaris" on it when you opened it up.
"I already bought tactical marines and I don't like and/or want to buy Intercessors."
"OK, so just play with your tactical marines."
"But I don't want to because they're not Intercessors."
"OK, so just use them as Intercessors."
"I don't want to, because they're not Intercessors."
"I'm sorry your tactical marines are not Intercessors?"
That is what I'm getting out of this grievance, but if I'm misunderstanding something please help me out. I definitely agree that making Primaris a separate entity in terms of rules and fluff was a dick move on GW's part, but their reasons for doing so are also clear from a business perspective. At least they are still supporting all of the old Space Marine models with rules as their own valid entries in the codex, and that Isn't going to change any time soon. I'm honestly trying to understand what would help improve your situation and enjoyment of the game.
Ok, I'll try to explain it in your way:
I - "Can my old marines have decent rules too?"
GW - "No, because we release a primaris marines we want to sell you! They are like your old marines, but even more elite and cool! Want to play a matched play games - buy those, or handicap yourself with your old legacy marines."
Giving old marins inferior rules actually IS the stopping their support. The primaris not the side line, all their units clearly have the same roles and clearly intended to replace all current units.
Elbows wrote: You act as if Primaris have good rules at the moment though...
It's already better to take intercessor than tactical and agressor than terminator. Wait for the second primaris wave, CA, primaris strategems and formations, and you will see the raising gap.
Intercessers are already new tacticals. They just have different loadout because GW don't want to let you use your current minimarines, they want you to buy new ones.
Well, what GWwants & what GW will get are two vastly different things.
Crimson Devil wrote: Does everything you buy from GW have to retain it's value forever? How many games/time does it take to get your money's worth out of your models?
I could care less about the "value" of the model. I want any product I buy, regardless of company, to be USEABLE forever as what it was produced as. (assuming it's well cared for and not electronics)
I remember growing up with old board games that my parents had from the 70s. You can still play those, as-is, even though those games have had many, many updates.
That is the core of my objection to how Primaris Marines have been implemented. I'd actually be ok if they were blatantly meant to replace the old models on a one-to-one, but they aren't. They're designed specifically as new units that will not only eventually replace the old models, but prevent the old models from even being used as them, because they are specifically not the same units
If Intercessors were just updated Tacticals and players could use their Tactical as Intercessors, it'd be fine. But Intercessors aren't Tactical. They're certainly replace them evnetually, but it won't be as acceptable to use your Tacticals as Intercessors until Tacticals are "officially" not a playable unit
-
I view my Blood Angels like you view your old board games. My current army was purchased for 5th edition and they remain legal for that edition. It's great I got the extra mileage out of them. I've definitely gotten my money's worth out them.
I just get a feeling from a lot of people on here, they only value the plastic and not the fun.
We have a different sense of fun I guess. I have no fun in squatting my army to buy a new one, but this seems fine to you. Well, why not, some folks just love buying.
Silver144 wrote: We have a different sense of fun I guess. I have no fun in squatting my army to buy a new one, but this seems fine to you. Well, why not, some folks just love buying.
Well It can do a lot with how good a painter or converter your are. If you put 400-500hours in to your army, doing free hands etc I guess you wouldn't be happy to get your army squated. On the other side of the spectrum there are people like me, I don't like painting, but if GW suddenly squated GK, I wouldn't be happy either. I just cant afford a new army. Then there are people who buy a new army every 2-3 months, who just wouldn't care if one of their armies suddenly end up without matched play rules.
I view my Blood Angels like you view your old board games. My current army was purchased for 5th edition and they remain legal for that edition. It's great I got the extra mileage out of them. I've definitely gotten my money's worth out them.
I just get a feeling from a lot of people on here, they only value the plastic and not the fun.
That is a lot of true in this. I guess if someone had fun with an army for a few years, and wants to switch up things, then a rebuying of an army wouldn't be that bad. But not everyone has to luck to have a fun army to play with. I had maybe 2 fun games in a year plus of playing. It feel even more like wasted money, if GW suddenly went and just removed GK. I wouldn't even have the option to resell. GK are too different from other marines, and unlike good old edition markets I doubt there is a huge resell market for GK.
Elbows wrote: You act as if Primaris have good rules at the moment though...
Exactly. Primaris are pretty much what people are already suggesting to "fix marines" - yet you don't see Primaris lists in tournaments for a reason.
When people try and fix marines they try to make a balanced unit. That's why they aren't going to enter tournaments. Tournaments aren't about taking the balanced units they're about taking the unbalanced ones.
Well It can do a lot with how good a painter or converter your are. If you put 400-500hours in to your army, doing free hands etc I guess you wouldn't be happy to get your army squated.
Nah. Every model in my old marine army was extensively converted, they were painted in highest standard I could possibly manage. Weathering and free hand markings on every model. I did all this because I wanted my army to look best it could, and it is for that exact same reason I'm switching to Primaris.
Silver144 wrote: We have a different sense of fun I guess. I have no fun in squatting my army to buy a new one, but this seems fine to you. Well, why not, some folks just love buying.
Except there's no evidence whatsoever that the plan is All Primaris, All The Time going forward. Not a shred.
So far, it's all speculation based on anecdotes.
But consider this. The Regular Marines aren't exactly crying out for many resculpts. Barring the Bikers, they're all fairly modern kits, and the range is almost entirely plastic, barring the odd special character. So what needs doing there? What could GW release that would actually tempt sales from those with existing armies, regardless of the size of collection?
As someone who once had one, once you've got a full, Codex Compliant Battle Company, anything barring an entirely new unit is a really hard sell. Nowt wrong with my existing models. And if there's the odd new gun (like Grav), I can just bitz site the odds and ends I might want.
But Primaris? Each fulfils a different role to Regular Marines. And the models are really nice. They offer me new tactical options as a player that simply didn't exist before.
Sure, Regular Marines may yet go the way of the Dodo at some point. But it's not going to be for a long, long time.
Its true there aren't many resculpts needed and the range is largely complete, but there are a couple of key ones left over, and its annoying they didn't get them out before the advent of primaris.
Bikes, as you mention, and perhaps most importantly standard codex terminators (regular and assault version), both need the modern CAD update.
Not as important but an updated standard dreadnaught, command squad, plastic techmarine with servitors and a plastic thuderfire cannon would have been nice as well.
Definitely enough for 1 more major release of standard marines.
Silver144 wrote: We have a different sense of fun I guess. I have no fun in squatting my army to buy a new one, but this seems fine to you. Well, why not, some folks just love buying.
My army isn't a pile of models, it's a on going project. It gets better as I go, the painting in better, the conversions are better, GW releases better models, etc.. When I play I want my best looking models on the table. That's fun.
Hate or upset? Maybe less that and more confusion and irritation.
First we had metal marines around the Rogue Trader and 2nd-3rd edition, they seemed good alongside metal guard.
I agree the plastic Cadians made it look like they were a match for marines in an arm-wrestle when they came out.
The metal grey-knight terminators got upscaled which lead to our present plastic terminators.
So then it was decided that marines should go from a 25mm to 32mm base which lead to some decision making on how to continue one's army (mind-you their feet did come very close to hanging off the edges). I found this bit oddly irritating in the extreme.
So then we have Primaris.
They are the tallest normal trooper out there, I suppose they should be.
I "think" the size is not a big as deal so-much, people have been making "true-scale" models on the side for quite some time.
They do have a clean futuristic look to them, I really like how they look, funny how the head scale is exactly the same and the arms seem a close match, they just have these massive basketball legs.
The main problems: - "Normal" marines are pretty much frozen, nothing new coming out for them.
- Primaris is pretty much "mono-squads" there is not the special and heavy weapons of the tactical squads (we have grenade launchers!!!).
- They seem to be trying to figure out how these guys are deployed: they have one "true" means of transport which is a super-fancy-expensive piece of kit.
- I have old metal scouts, compare the scale for the plastic ones. I use the plastic scouts as my "Primaris" army scouts to keep a similar scale. Mixing a couple generations of models IS rather jarring.
- There really is precious little point in changing the scale if you wanted to change the look of the space marines (Oh look! Cawl made the fancy Iron Armor Mark XXX which is WAY better), it really seems to indicate "replacement".
- They just cant seem to create the right spin or event to involve them further. Say the super mutated nurgle virus kills marines dead like nothing, but Primaris is oddly immune!
- Points to capability: They are an odd mix. You could very hesitantly say they are "balanced" since nothing seems like an "auto-include" but makes them victims for those other armies that are not as carefully costed.
- They REALLY lack character. They are newer than the Tau. Everything in 40k is incredibly, insanely ancient and these guys are like a bunch of cookie-cutter boy scouts got drafted into the long war. Developing named characters will be a beginning that they have hesitantly started.
So then we have Primaris.
They are the tallest normal trooper out there, I suppose they should be.
Tyranid Warriors hold that honor. Which is why I built my all Tyranid Warrior collection as a middle-finger to Primaris. I don't want marines to be the biggest-bestest normal guys around.
I understand not wanting your armies squatted, and as I mentioned quite a few pages ago proxying is a thing if you want. I understand not wanting to, as the scaling is different.
But, I gotta say, ya'll are acting like GW is going to can them tomorrow.
Well it wouldn't be a problem if marines were good or even mid tier armies. It is one thing to have fun for a few years and then having your army squated, and another having 0 fun playing a bad army, and then getting GW removing it instead of fixing it.
If GW suddenly removed eldar and replaced them with some primaris elf race, there would be an uproar, but eldar were great for what 30 years? But if someone started an army at the start of 6th and it kept being bad since then, seeing it squated would imo generate more anger.
People dislike new-marines because their fluff is silly,they are a technological innovation which goes against a core tenet of the setting, being that the Imperium is technologically and culturally stagnant unable to advance in any way and only gets new stuff when they find an STC they can just plug into a factory, the kits themselves are greatly simplified (or more focused, depending on your point of view) in terms of options, and most of all-and this is related to the fluff-they de-value "regular" marines. Primaris are, in fluff and on the table simply better than "normal" Astartes, who themselves are "supposed to be" the pinnacle of what the Imperium has to offer on the battlefield. Creating a better version is just, well, lame, and makes those armies many of us have put huge amounts of time and effort into essentially obsolete. Our marines aren't awesome anymore. Primaris herald a new direction or the game, much like Abrams "Trek" vs. everything prior to that, and not everyone is happy about that.
Space Marines never have been the pinnacle of what the imperium as to offer. They became that by circumstance after the Horus Heresy. They where the line troops of the Great Crusade, a feasible weapon that the Emperor could mass produce with his current technology and resources.
Thunder Warriors thought they where the pinnacle too.
Karol wrote: Well it wouldn't be a problem if marines were good or even mid tier armies. It is one thing to have fun for a few years and then having your army squated, and another having 0 fun playing a bad army, and then getting GW removing it instead of fixing it.
If GW suddenly removed eldar and replaced them with some primaris elf race, there would be an uproar, but eldar were great for what 30 years? But if someone started an army at the start of 6th and it kept being bad since then, seeing it squated would imo generate more anger.
We should see what happens with Chapter Approved before jumping to the conclusion that GW is purposefully making Space Marines bad in order to sell Primaris. As people pointed out earlier in the thread, Space Marines, including Primaris, haven't been doing so hot this edition. I do recall seeing some Regular Marine stuff make some top 10 lists for various tournaments, but I don't recall seeing anything Primaris related (unless you REALLY want to count Guilliman).
As far as my own experience, the only people I'm seeing buying Primaris are getting them for the aesthetics, not because they're actually any good. I have yet to see a full Primaris force win a game at my FLGS.
That was a friends idea, that GW is making the old marine armies feel bad to play, so when they do an AoS switch to the marine line, no one is going to miss them, because they are going to be pissed about 2-3 years of old marines being unfun.
Not my idea. And I don't know GW good enough, to know if they could do something like that.
What I do know is that the only explanation to GK being the way they are in 8th ed is either total incompetance on the design studio size, which would mean fixing GK could be unachivable, or GW not wanting people to play GK, which per se aint bad in itself, unless you happen to have a GK army.
I hope that primaris end up good. The very idea of bad units is something that irks me a lot. People should want to buy all GW models, and not just 2-3 per codex, unless they happen to be playing eldar of some sort.
I understand why people are upset, no one likes having models or armies change drastically, but let's be honest here: Space Marines are supposed to be the poster boys, and the "beginner's army". Unfortunately years of new rules and units have made them anything but accessible for new players. Mixed units with different equipment options are confusing for new players, unit bloat with so many units stepping on each others' toes also befuddles folks who are new to the game. Which fast attack option do you take? Hell if a new player is going to be able to decide since there are so damn many, and they haven't a clue which are actually any good.
I am honestly kind of excited for a Primaris Only marine codex. Each model is exactly what a marine needed to be for 8th edition: tough. Not to mention the models are really cool. I am pretty sure the folks upset by oldmarines being changed will still be able to use their models as either proxies or as an index-based list.
Karol wrote: People should want to buy all GW models, and not just 2-3 per codex, unless they happen to be playing eldar of some sort.
Eldar actually have a lot of terrible units too, it is just that their good stuff is very good.
Their bad stuff is also good, it is just worse then the best eldar can take. I can imagine that if melta were a good weapon something like firedragons could be really good. By the way I don't think it is a bad thing to have multiple good options in a codex. In fact ,if anything at all books should be as close to what eldar have as possible. Then armies would less hurt by sudden FAQ or CA changes, it would also be great at non tournament level of playing. Right now there are armies that are limited to either being a non entity or having a tournament list, and nothing in between.
Unfortunately years of new rules and units have made them anything but accessible for new players.
how hard is it to do the math on plasma vs other weapons? I can do it, and I am not math genius. In fact am a bit of an anti talent in that field.
Insectum7 wrote: Even then they're not the best the imperium has to offer, as we have a full-on Custodes army now.
It baffles me to see custodes. The only instance in which I could imagine them it would be as a single part of the retinue of an inquisitor.
But then again, this would not be a good way to sell models in Spamhammer 40k.
Insectum7 wrote: Even then they're not the best the imperium has to offer, as we have a full-on Custodes army now.
It baffles me to see custodes. The only instance in which I could imagine them it would be as a single part of the retinue of an inquisitor.
But then again, this would not be a good way to sell models in Spamhammer 40k.
I know. It kills me a little on the inside each time I see them played, and I see them often. What hurts worse is the ever popular 3 shield captains. How rare are those supposed to be? Don't they have some section of the imperial palace to stand in, somewhere? I suppose they're supposed to be mobilized anew for the current age, but still.
Thankfully I can take solace in eating them with Nids, most of the time. See that hero of the emperor? That champion of champions wielding the finest of the finest armour and wargear? He's going to die spending his last moments killing a few drones that are borne in the billions. Nomnomnomnom.
Insectum7 wrote: Even then they're not the best the imperium has to offer, as we have a full-on Custodes army now.
It baffles me to see custodes. The only instance in which I could imagine them it would be as a single part of the retinue of an inquisitor.
But then again, this would not be a good way to sell models in Spamhammer 40k.
From a fluff and setting perspective I would agree with you. But from a model and gameplay perspective I couldn't be in a bigger disagrement. Adeptus Custodes not only are stuning as models and as an army, but they actually feel like a true elite army in 40k.
Personally for me, the second is more important. And personally I don't see that big of a problem that sometimes 10-15 Custodes go somewere and kill things. At least not in the game where Guilliman can face a wombo combo of Mortarion+Magnus.
But even if you add those in the same sack, I have never had a problem with special characters like chapter masters being present in every single battle. I have a big mental separation between Warhammer 40k the setting and Warhammer 40k the tabletop wargame.
And Insectium7, I'll add that Shield-Captain means nothing. Nearly all Custodes are equal, the captain title is just temporal, they just follow one of them for a given mission. So is not more rare to see 3 shield captains that to see 3 normal Adeptus Custodes, thats more a Tabletop separation than a fluff one.
Yeah, just like the Inquisition, the only difference between an Inquisitor and a Lord Inquisitor is that the second has more respect from others and more power.
Galas wrote: Yeah, just like the Inquisition, the only difference between an Inquisitor and a Lord Inquisitor is that the second has more respect from others and more power.
Huh. Imo that makes the Custodes appearance on the tabletop even weirder.
Personally I think they should make the old marines have the same stats as primaris and then make the new primaris pay small amount of points for weapon upgrades over basic bolter. That way the units arent competing against each other and people can mix old and new models.
Smirrors wrote: Personally I think they should make the old marines have the same stats as primaris and then make the new primaris pay small amount of points for weapon upgrades over basic bolter. That way the units arent competing against each other and people can mix old and new models.
And what do you propose for Aspect Warriors in that scenario?
Elbows wrote: You act as if Primaris have good rules at the moment though...
They aren't exactly top tier but they're not too far off. The only unit I can think of that's really out of line is the Repulsor. The rest are missing support elements to make them shine and are probably 10% overcosted but they're not really bad.
Elbows wrote: You act as if Primaris have good rules at the moment though...
They aren't exactly top tier but they're not too far off. The only unit I can think of that's really out of line is the Repulsor. The rest are missing support elements to make them shine and are probably 10% overcosted but they're not really bad.
With the abundance of high AP D2 weapons in the game, Primaris are no where near top tier.
Smirrors wrote: Personally I think they should make the old marines have the same stats as primaris and then make the new primaris pay small amount of points for weapon upgrades over basic bolter. That way the units arent competing against each other and people can mix old and new models.
And what do you propose for Aspect Warriors in that scenario?
I support this idea, but what do Aspect Warriors have to do with this situation? If they get new models, they get new models, just like Jetbikes did. Use the old or the new.
The problem with Primaris is they made new models to replace a line, not update it.
Smirrors wrote: Personally I think they should make the old marines have the same stats as primaris and then make the new primaris pay small amount of points for weapon upgrades over basic bolter. That way the units arent competing against each other and people can mix old and new models.
And what do you propose for Aspect Warriors in that scenario?
I support this idea, but what do Aspect Warriors have to do with this situation? If they get new models, they get new models, just like Jetbikes did. Use the old or the new.
The problem with Primaris is they made new models to replace a line, not update it.
My issue is with marines suddenly getting boosted stats and has nothing to do with models. Why would space Marines get a free upgrade to 2A 2W, while other elite units stay at 1W 1A? I don't like the "basic Space Marine supremacy" of it.
My issue is with marines suddenly getting boosted stats and has nothing to do with models. Why would space Marines get a free upgrade to 2A 2W, while other elite units stay at 1W 1A? I don't like the "basic Space Marine supremacy" of it.
Well its not free, they will pay a fair/competitive price for it. Is there a need for multiple troop types? I feel like 2 is sufficient. Tactical and Primaris should be lumped into one. Fluff wise I think it makes sense too.
Sure, if you want to be paying 20 points per genestealer or 40 points for an aspect warrior. Those units tend to have a focused purpose and delivery mechanism so if you make the models better you'd have to raise the price more. It also doesn't really fit the fantasy of the units.
Insectum7 wrote: ^If Space Marines get upgraded to 2w 2A, I want Eldar Aspect Warriors to be 2w 2A, Necron Immortals to be 2w T5, and Genestealers to be 2w 5A.
2W 2A aspects and 2W necrons (including warriors) would be fine by me since it meshes with the fluff (as well as 2W sisters and 2W orks, I think that's it though). I mean, if Stealthsuits are 2W... it'd only be logical for those to get 2W too.
But what's up with those genestealers? They've never really been described as tough, have they? Besides, they're not elite infantry, that's what warriors are and they have 3W already so I think that's good.
Genestealers are 12 currently. Marines are 13. Dire Avengers are what, 8-10? Genestealers are priced like elite infantry. Compare them to a Striking Scorpion or Banshee and they're not that far off. Genestealers are fast, lightly armored elite CC infantry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
novembermike wrote: Sure, if you want to be paying 20 points per genestealer or 40 points for an aspect warrior. Those units tend to have a focused purpose and delivery mechanism so if you make the models better you'd have to raise the price more. It also doesn't really fit the fantasy of the units.
What delivery system do Aspect Warriors have that Marines don't? Both have transports. As for focused purpose, that's usually an excuse, imo. Tactical Marines engage in short range firefights with some assault duty, just like Dire Avengers. Assault marines engage in CC,(don't they have a delivery system?), Devastators are fire support. It's pretty straight forward.
When you say were gonna charge 40 points for an Aspect Warrior, which Aspect are you talking about. Striking Scorpions? Avengers? If so, are you going to pump the price point of marines up to 35? I assume that's not what you're proposing so let's see what you mean by that.
Insectum7 wrote: Genestealers are 12 currently. Marines are 13. Dire Avengers are what, 8-10? Genestealers are priced like elite infantry. Compare them to a Striking Scorpion or Banshee and they're not that far off. Genestealers are fast, lightly armored elite CC infantry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
novembermike wrote: Sure, if you want to be paying 20 points per genestealer or 40 points for an aspect warrior. Those units tend to have a focused purpose and delivery mechanism so if you make the models better you'd have to raise the price more. It also doesn't really fit the fantasy of the units.
What delivery system do Aspect Warriors have that Marines don't? Both have transports. As for focused purpose, that's usually an excuse, imo. Tactical Marines engage in short range firefights with some assault duty, just like Dire Avengers. Assault marines engage in CC,(don't they have a delivery system?), Devastators are fire support. It's pretty straight forward.
When you say were gonna charge 40 points for an Aspect Warrior, which Aspect are you talking about. Striking Scorpions? Avengers? If so, are you going to pump the price point of marines up to 35? I assume that's not what you're proposing so let's see what you mean by that.
Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines.
Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?
Fundamentally Aeldari internal balance is terrible.
Craftworld units pay a premium for native access to doom, guide etc.
Yannari Free double activations was always going to scale horribly.
Drukari and Harlequins can benifit from doom and a number of other buffs equally effectively as Craftworld units without paying a premium for native access.
Well there is also that thing that eldar can shot the opposing army to hell an back, so their wave serpents can actualy deploy their melee units to do something. Marines have to go all out tournament list to get even close, but then we are talking about a casual eldar list going toe to toe with a marine list. And if an eldar players takes a tournament list, he just rolls over a mono marine player.
I think instead of having an entire new primaris line, with primaris tanks where ONLY primaris can go in, and primaris bikes and primaris this and primaris that......they should have introduced the primaris as a new unit, but more of an add on than a new way to play marines entirely.
Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines.
Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?
If another army can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots, why all the fuss about Tac Marines? Marines can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots too. I think your post highlights a fairly common double-standard of expectations. It seems a lot of people want to use Tacticals, but don't really care about the state of other races troops. There might be a bunch of Eldar players who want to run Avengers for similar reasons.
Dire Avengers are a core troop choice for Eldar. If we buff Marines do we buff Dire Avengers?
Karol wrote: Well there is also that thing that eldar can shot the opposing army to hell an back, so their wave serpents can actualy deploy their melee units to do something. Marines have to go all out tournament list to get even close, but then we are talking about a casual eldar list going toe to toe with a marine list. And if an eldar players takes a tournament list, he just rolls over a mono marine player.
Mono Eldar, no Ynnari, is not what shows up in tournaments. An Eldar Tournament list is typically Ynnari soup. In which case you're drawing an equivalency between mono-marine and soup Eldar.
If you're saying a good mono Craftworld list auto-stomps a good mono marine list, I doubt that assertion.
Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines.
Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?
If another army can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots, why all the fuss about Tac Marines? Marines can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots too. I think your post highlights a fairly common double-standard of expectations. It seems a lot of people want to use Tacticals, but don't really care about the state of other races troops. There might be a bunch of Eldar players who want to run Avengers for similar reasons.
Dire Avengers are a core troop choice for Eldar. If we buff Marines do we buff Dire Avengers?
No your taking what I'm saying and adjusting it to suit your own narative.
How good/ what point would a unit of banshees need to be to justify taking them and a waveserpent over just using shining spears? How few points do striking scorpions nned to be to compete for points in a list against dark reapers?
Both codex's have fundamentally different issues.
Eldar codex has some realy good for their points unit that can have special rules stacked on them. Other units gain way less from having those rules stacked on, them so players don't stack those rules on them and those units look even worse for the points in comparison.
Making a banshee cheap enough to compete for points with Yannari spear or other stuff leads to the issue of just going all in on them suddenly becomes a problem.
Spears need to be more points and banshees etc possibly need to be cheaper how much I'm not sure but you dont just make tgem straight up as efficent as yannari spears. Thats just asking for another drukari codex level of busted stuff.
If anything it's probably more an issue of the extreme level of buffing and debuff stacking that needs towned down.
Every marine is a tac + some change if you over pay for the fundamental statline everything in your army pays that cost plus a mark up. Totally different issue, it's more a fundamental miss calculating of value.
Insectum7 wrote: Genestealers are 12 currently. Marines are 13. Dire Avengers are what, 8-10? Genestealers are priced like elite infantry. Compare them to a Striking Scorpion or Banshee and they're not that far off. Genestealers are fast, lightly armored elite CC infantry.
DAs are 12 pt I believe. Guardians are 8 pts. In any case, the whole point of 2W is to give "heavy" infantry more staying power. Genestealers may be elite, but they are intended to be fragile and so are not heavy infantry. Unless you're proposing that 2W marines would necessitate 2W scions because they're "elite"? Which doesn't make sense tbh. Scions are elite light to medium infantry and cost 10 pts. Marines on the other hand are definitely heavy infantry, which is where the 2W idea comes from.
Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines.
Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?
If another army can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots, why all the fuss about Tac Marines? Marines can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots too. I think your post highlights a fairly common double-standard of expectations. It seems a lot of people want to use Tacticals, but don't really care about the state of other races troops. There might be a bunch of Eldar players who want to run Avengers for similar reasons.
Dire Avengers are a core troop choice for Eldar. If we buff Marines do we buff Dire Avengers?
No your taking what I'm saying and adjusting it to suit your own narative.
Well, do you acknowledge that there might be an issue with just pumping the core units of one codex, but ignoring them in another codex, despite the idea that both units should have some sort of parity?
How good/ what point would a unit of banshees need to be to justify taking them and a waveserpent over just using shining spears? How few points do striking scorpions nned to be to compete for points in a list against dark reapers?
Both codex's have fundamentally different issues.
Eldar codex has some realy good for their points unit that can have special rules stacked on them. Other units gain way less from having those rules stacked on, them so players don't stack those rules on them and those units look even worse for the points in comparison.
Making a banshee cheap enough to compete for points with Yannari spear or other stuff leads to the issue of just going all in on them suddenly becomes a problem.
Spears need to be more points and banshees etc possibly need to be cheaper how much I'm not sure but you dont just make tgem straight up as efficent as yannari spears. Thats just asking for another drukari codex level of busted stuff.
If anything it's probably more an issue of the extreme level of buffing and debuff stacking that needs towned down.
Every marine is a tac + some change if you over pay for the fundamental statline everything in your army pays that cost plus a mark up. Totally different issue, it's more a fundamental miss calculating of value.
Ok, this seems to me what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong:
Eldar have a diverse array of units, some of which work well in the meta and some of which don't. The ones that work well do so because of special abilities, and the ability to further multiply those abilities via spells, Ynnari, etc. Ok
"Making a banshee cheap enough . . ." (hard to figure out this section actually, maybe re-iterate that for me) ???
Then you seem to be saying something like: All Space Marine units are based off of Tac Marines, and if the evaluation of that stat-line is wrong, the whole army is off. a reasonable assertion.
Since I don't really know how to respond to the middle section, my initial response is something like. . .
A: I think people underestimate the value of a Tac Marine, in general, for a number of reasons. But rather than argue for it's current value of 13, I'd say that your post acknowledges that there's room for re-valuing the stat-line with points, rather than changing the stat-line itself.
B: All Eldar Aspect Warriors are similarly based off the same "Aspect Warrior stat-line", internally, so in that regard the units we're talking about here are in the same situation as Marines.
C: The issue you seem to be pointing too, in terms of balance, is just that some Eldar units benefit A LOT from certain synergies. This seems more likely to happen in a codex where the units themselves are more extreme, depending on the synergy opportunities offered. If you asked me if I thought that was inherently a problem, I'd say no, not really. The resulting balance between the Marine and Eldar codex can still be adjusted by modifying the potential buffs, special rules and points, and doesn't have to be modifying the statlines away from where they've been roughly for decades.
Insectum7 wrote: Genestealers are 12 currently. Marines are 13. Dire Avengers are what, 8-10? Genestealers are priced like elite infantry. Compare them to a Striking Scorpion or Banshee and they're not that far off. Genestealers are fast, lightly armored elite CC infantry.
DAs are 12 pt I believe. Guardians are 8 pts. In any case, the whole point of 2W is to give "heavy" infantry more staying power. Genestealers may be elite, but they are intended to be fragile and so are not heavy infantry. Unless you're proposing that 2W marines would necessitate 2W scions because they're "elite"? Which doesn't make sense tbh. Scions are elite light to medium infantry and cost 10 pts. Marines on the other hand are definitely heavy infantry, which is where the 2W idea comes from.
I think the term "heavy infantry" is ill-defined. How "heavy" is "heavy infantry"? See, since the mid 90's Striking Scorpions and Space Marines have had the same number of wounds, and the same armor. Are Necron Immortals "heavy infantry?" I'd argue that Necron Warriors are "heavy Infantry", too. Warp Spiders and Dark Reapers would seem to be "heavy Infantry".
As for "elite", I just mean units that are intended to be on a rough parity with Space Marines, which Scions are not, afaik. Genestealers are just the Tyranid version, trading armor (but not toughness) for speed. You can give them a 4+ save though, which isn't exactly fragile. A T4 4+ is nearly a Space Marine. A T4 4+ is a Necron Warrior, actually.
Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines.
Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?
If another army can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots, why all the fuss about Tac Marines? Marines can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots too. I think your post highlights a fairly common double-standard of expectations. It seems a lot of people want to use Tacticals, but don't really care about the state of other races troops. There might be a bunch of Eldar players who want to run Avengers for similar reasons.
Dire Avengers are a core troop choice for Eldar. If we buff Marines do we buff Dire Avengers?
No your taking what I'm saying and adjusting it to suit your own narative.
Well, do you acknowledge that there might be an issue with just pumping the core units of one codex, but ignoring them in another codex, despite the idea that both units should have some sort of parity?
How good/ what point would a unit of banshees need to be to justify taking them and a waveserpent over just using shining spears? How few points do striking scorpions nned to be to compete for points in a list against dark reapers?
Both codex's have fundamentally different issues.
Eldar codex has some realy good for their points unit that can have special rules stacked on them. Other units gain way less from having those rules stacked on, them so players don't stack those rules on them and those units look even worse for the points in comparison.
Making a banshee cheap enough to compete for points with Yannari spear or other stuff leads to the issue of just going all in on them suddenly becomes a problem.
Spears need to be more points and banshees etc possibly need to be cheaper how much I'm not sure but you dont just make tgem straight up as efficent as yannari spears. Thats just asking for another drukari codex level of busted stuff.
If anything it's probably more an issue of the extreme level of buffing and debuff stacking that needs towned down.
Every marine is a tac + some change if you over pay for the fundamental statline everything in your army pays that cost plus a mark up. Totally different issue, it's more a fundamental miss calculating of value.
Ok, this seems to me what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong:
Eldar have a diverse array of units, some of which work well in the meta and some of which don't. The ones that work well do so because of special abilities, and the ability to further multiply those abilities via spells, Ynnari, etc. Ok
"Making a banshee cheap enough . . ." (hard to figure out this section actually, maybe re-iterate that for me) ???
Then you seem to be saying something like: All Space Marine units are based off of Tac Marines, and if the evaluation of that stat-line is wrong, the whole army is off. a reasonable assertion.
Since I don't really know how to respond to the middle section, my initial response is something like. . .
A: I think people underestimate the value of a Tac Marine, in general, for a number of reasons. But rather than argue for it's current value of 13, I'd say that your post acknowledges that there's room for re-valuing the stat-line with points, rather than changing the stat-line itself.
B: All Eldar Aspect Warriors are similarly based off the same "Aspect Warrior stat-line", internally, so in that regard the units we're talking about here are in the same situation as Marines.
C: The issue you seem to be pointing too, in terms of balance, is just that some Eldar units benefit A LOT from certain synergies. This seems more likely to happen in a codex where the units themselves are more extreme, depending on the synergy opportunities offered. If you asked me if I thought that was inherently a problem, I'd say no, not really. The resulting balance between the Marine and Eldar codex can still be adjusted by modifying the potential buffs, special rules and points, and doesn't have to be modifying the statlines away from where they've been roughly for decades.
A Yes it doesn't need changed it just needs to be worth it's point's.
B I think the fundamental reason aspect worries are bad and marines are bad is different.
I believe Marines are flat miscosted.
Craftworld eldar have the cost of buffs being spreed across the codex inatead of being concentrated on the units providing the buffs.
C The issue I'm trying to point to is that I don't think that the eldar base unit is actually bad, it that it appears to be a victim of GW "fluffy" logic at it's best. They haven't made the psychers expensive enough to justify their buff powers so to even it out they have added a premium to all of the craftworld codex.
However that was inherently flawed logic as it makes everything more expensive when not everything can benifit. It also means those casters are inherently undercosted hence why they keep showing up in Harlequins and Drukari lists.
Aspect warriors can probably loose a point or two but a farseer with doom is a 200 point buff machine that currently costs less than half that.
Balance the unit for what they can do not the things that might effect them.
Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines.
Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?
If another army can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots, why all the fuss about Tac Marines? Marines can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots too. I think your post highlights a fairly common double-standard of expectations. It seems a lot of people want to use Tacticals, but don't really care about the state of other races troops. There might be a bunch of Eldar players who want to run Avengers for similar reasons.
Dire Avengers are a core troop choice for Eldar. If we buff Marines do we buff Dire Avengers?
No your taking what I'm saying and adjusting it to suit your own narative.
Well, do you acknowledge that there might be an issue with just pumping the core units of one codex, but ignoring them in another codex, despite the idea that both units should have some sort of parity?
How good/ what point would a unit of banshees need to be to justify taking them and a waveserpent over just using shining spears? How few points do striking scorpions nned to be to compete for points in a list against dark reapers?
Both codex's have fundamentally different issues.
Eldar codex has some realy good for their points unit that can have special rules stacked on them. Other units gain way less from having those rules stacked on, them so players don't stack those rules on them and those units look even worse for the points in comparison.
Making a banshee cheap enough to compete for points with Yannari spear or other stuff leads to the issue of just going all in on them suddenly becomes a problem.
Spears need to be more points and banshees etc possibly need to be cheaper how much I'm not sure but you dont just make tgem straight up as efficent as yannari spears. Thats just asking for another drukari codex level of busted stuff.
If anything it's probably more an issue of the extreme level of buffing and debuff stacking that needs towned down.
Every marine is a tac + some change if you over pay for the fundamental statline everything in your army pays that cost plus a mark up. Totally different issue, it's more a fundamental miss calculating of value.
Ok, this seems to me what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong:
Eldar have a diverse array of units, some of which work well in the meta and some of which don't. The ones that work well do so because of special abilities, and the ability to further multiply those abilities via spells, Ynnari, etc. Ok
"Making a banshee cheap enough . . ." (hard to figure out this section actually, maybe re-iterate that for me) ???
Then you seem to be saying something like: All Space Marine units are based off of Tac Marines, and if the evaluation of that stat-line is wrong, the whole army is off. a reasonable assertion.
Since I don't really know how to respond to the middle section, my initial response is something like. . .
A: I think people underestimate the value of a Tac Marine, in general, for a number of reasons. But rather than argue for it's current value of 13, I'd say that your post acknowledges that there's room for re-valuing the stat-line with points, rather than changing the stat-line itself.
B: All Eldar Aspect Warriors are similarly based off the same "Aspect Warrior stat-line", internally, so in that regard the units we're talking about here are in the same situation as Marines.
C: The issue you seem to be pointing too, in terms of balance, is just that some Eldar units benefit A LOT from certain synergies. This seems more likely to happen in a codex where the units themselves are more extreme, depending on the synergy opportunities offered. If you asked me if I thought that was inherently a problem, I'd say no, not really. The resulting balance between the Marine and Eldar codex can still be adjusted by modifying the potential buffs, special rules and points, and doesn't have to be modifying the statlines away from where they've been roughly for decades.
A Yes it doesn't need changed it just needs to be worth it's point's.
B I think the fundamental reason aspect worries are bad and marines are bad is different.
I believe Marines are flat miscosted.
Craftworld eldar have the cost of buffs being spreed across the codex inatead of being concentrated on the units providing the buffs.
C The issue I'm trying to point to is that I don't think that the eldar base unit is actually bad, it that it appears to be a victim of GW "fluffy" logic at it's best. They haven't made the psychers expensive enough to justify their buff powers so to even it out they have added a premium to all of the craftworld codex.
However that was inherently flawed logic as it makes everything more expensive when not everything can benifit. It also means those casters are inherently undercosted hence why they keep showing up in Harlequins and Drukari lists.
Aspect warriors can probably loose a point or two but a farseer with doom is a 200 point buff machine that currently costs less than half that.
Balance the unit for what they can do not the things that might effect them.
A: Cool. I'm mainly on here to combat the push for 2W marines. Marines dropping to 12 seems within reason.
B: Interesting. Fair enough.
C: The "premium" you talk of for Eldar is a new one for me. I'm not sure of that, but it's food for thought. As for a Farseer being a 200 point buff machine, do you mean a Farseer with Doom should be 200 points? I can't agree with that, not when Marine Lt's are 60 points for a passive buff. But sure, Farseers are a great HQ, no doubt about that.
Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines.
Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?
If another army can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots, why all the fuss about Tac Marines? Marines can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots too. I think your post highlights a fairly common double-standard of expectations. It seems a lot of people want to use Tacticals, but don't really care about the state of other races troops. There might be a bunch of Eldar players who want to run Avengers for similar reasons.
Dire Avengers are a core troop choice for Eldar. If we buff Marines do we buff Dire Avengers?
No your taking what I'm saying and adjusting it to suit your own narative.
Well, do you acknowledge that there might be an issue with just pumping the core units of one codex, but ignoring them in another codex, despite the idea that both units should have some sort of parity?
How good/ what point would a unit of banshees need to be to justify taking them and a waveserpent over just using shining spears? How few points do striking scorpions nned to be to compete for points in a list against dark reapers?
Both codex's have fundamentally different issues.
Eldar codex has some realy good for their points unit that can have special rules stacked on them. Other units gain way less from having those rules stacked on, them so players don't stack those rules on them and those units look even worse for the points in comparison.
Making a banshee cheap enough to compete for points with Yannari spear or other stuff leads to the issue of just going all in on them suddenly becomes a problem.
Spears need to be more points and banshees etc possibly need to be cheaper how much I'm not sure but you dont just make tgem straight up as efficent as yannari spears. Thats just asking for another drukari codex level of busted stuff.
If anything it's probably more an issue of the extreme level of buffing and debuff stacking that needs towned down.
Every marine is a tac + some change if you over pay for the fundamental statline everything in your army pays that cost plus a mark up. Totally different issue, it's more a fundamental miss calculating of value.
Ok, this seems to me what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong:
Eldar have a diverse array of units, some of which work well in the meta and some of which don't. The ones that work well do so because of special abilities, and the ability to further multiply those abilities via spells, Ynnari, etc. Ok
"Making a banshee cheap enough . . ." (hard to figure out this section actually, maybe re-iterate that for me) ???
Then you seem to be saying something like: All Space Marine units are based off of Tac Marines, and if the evaluation of that stat-line is wrong, the whole army is off. a reasonable assertion.
Since I don't really know how to respond to the middle section, my initial response is something like. . .
A: I think people underestimate the value of a Tac Marine, in general, for a number of reasons. But rather than argue for it's current value of 13, I'd say that your post acknowledges that there's room for re-valuing the stat-line with points, rather than changing the stat-line itself.
B: All Eldar Aspect Warriors are similarly based off the same "Aspect Warrior stat-line", internally, so in that regard the units we're talking about here are in the same situation as Marines.
C: The issue you seem to be pointing too, in terms of balance, is just that some Eldar units benefit A LOT from certain synergies. This seems more likely to happen in a codex where the units themselves are more extreme, depending on the synergy opportunities offered. If you asked me if I thought that was inherently a problem, I'd say no, not really. The resulting balance between the Marine and Eldar codex can still be adjusted by modifying the potential buffs, special rules and points, and doesn't have to be modifying the statlines away from where they've been roughly for decades.
A Yes it doesn't need changed it just needs to be worth it's point's.
B I think the fundamental reason aspect worries are bad and marines are bad is different.
I believe Marines are flat miscosted.
Craftworld eldar have the cost of buffs being spreed across the codex inatead of being concentrated on the units providing the buffs.
C The issue I'm trying to point to is that I don't think that the eldar base unit is actually bad, it that it appears to be a victim of GW "fluffy" logic at it's best. They haven't made the psychers expensive enough to justify their buff powers so to even it out they have added a premium to all of the craftworld codex.
However that was inherently flawed logic as it makes everything more expensive when not everything can benifit. It also means those casters are inherently undercosted hence why they keep showing up in Harlequins and Drukari lists.
Aspect warriors can probably loose a point or two but a farseer with doom is a 200 point buff machine that currently costs less than half that.
Balance the unit for what they can do not the things that might effect them.
A: Cool. I'm mainly on here to combat the push for 2W marines. Marines dropping to 12 seems within reason.
B: Interesting. Fair enough.
C: The "premium" you talk of for Eldar is a new one for me. I'm not sure of that, but it's food for thought. As for a Farseer being a 200 point buff machine, do you mean a Farseer with Doom should be 200 points? I can't agree with that, not when Marine Lt's are 60 points for a passive buff. But sure, Farseers are a great HQ, no doubt about that.
Doom and Guide is basically Guilliman level buffs on rerollable psychic test with a stack load of bonuses.
It's why craftworld as a codex is on the good not totally broken level of power but Yannari and Aeldari soup is downright broken.
Imagine being able to gice reroll wounds against any enemy unit in 24" for your entire army plus a chapter master buff to a unit of your choice for 110 points its mental.
Doom and Guide is basically Guilliman level buffs on rerollable psychic test with a stack load of bonuses.
It's why craftworld as a codex is on the good not totally broken level of power but Yannari and Aeldari soup is downright broken.
Imagine being able to gice reroll wounds against any enemy unit in 24" for your entire army plus a chapter master buff to a unit of your choice for 110 points its mental.
Sorta. I pay about 150 points (and 3CP) so that everyone rerolls all to-hits and re-rolls 1s to wound, and I don't have to cast psychic powers to do it. They seem roughly balanced to me.
I think the term "heavy infantry" is ill-defined. How "heavy" is "heavy infantry"? See, since the mid 90's Striking Scorpions and Space Marines have had the same number of wounds, and the same armor. Are Necron Immortals "heavy infantry?" I'd argue that Necron Warriors are "heavy Infantry", too. Warp Spiders and Dark Reapers would seem to be "heavy Infantry".
As for "elite", I just mean units that are intended to be on a rough parity with Space Marines, which Scions are not, afaik. Genestealers are just the Tyranid version, trading armor (but not toughness) for speed. You can give them a 4+ save though, which isn't exactly fragile. A T4 4+ is nearly a Space Marine. A T4 4+ is a Necron Warrior, actually.
The appeal to legacy doesn't really work. Guardsmen have the same number of wounds as marines and always have, but that doesn't mean we should keep them the same just because it's always been that way.
Secondly, I do feel that most heavy/elite infantry could do well to get 2W: Marines, Necrons, Orks, Sisters and also Aspects. I just don't really see Genestealers as part of that group. Tyranid Warriors have always been the elite nid troops. Genestealers are more of a specialist imo and they wouldn't need 2W to compete with marines anyway since they hit really hard (or at least should). Basically while marines are super durable, stealers are super killy which balances them out against each other. So they don't need to mirror their stats.
Though, while I'm at it, I'm not sure I know what your referencing when saying certain things should be on par with marines. Is it the fluff or just prior/current rules? Cuz if it's rules-wise then Scions easily have parity with aspect warriors (similar durability and lethality). Which would make them en par with marines, and therefore deserving of 2W, or whatever marines are (by what I understand of your logic).
I think the term "heavy infantry" is ill-defined. How "heavy" is "heavy infantry"? See, since the mid 90's Striking Scorpions and Space Marines have had the same number of wounds, and the same armor. Are Necron Immortals "heavy infantry?" I'd argue that Necron Warriors are "heavy Infantry", too. Warp Spiders and Dark Reapers would seem to be "heavy Infantry".
As for "elite", I just mean units that are intended to be on a rough parity with Space Marines, which Scions are not, afaik. Genestealers are just the Tyranid version, trading armor (but not toughness) for speed. You can give them a 4+ save though, which isn't exactly fragile. A T4 4+ is nearly a Space Marine. A T4 4+ is a Necron Warrior, actually.
The appeal to legacy doesn't really work. Guardsmen have the same number of wounds as marines and always have, but that doesn't mean we should keep them the same just because it's always been that way.
Legacy remains important. It tells us how the designers have felt about the balance between units over time, which for some of the core units, has remained pretty consistent. It doesn't mean trends can't be broken, but it certainly can't be ignored either. It shows us the intent behind the balance.
Secondly, I do feel that most heavy/elite infantry could do well to get 2W: Marines, Necrons, Orks, Sisters and also Aspects. I just don't really see Genestealers as part of that group. Tyranid Warriors have always been the elite nid troops. Genestealers are more of a specialist imo and they wouldn't need 2W to compete with marines anyway since they hit really hard (or at least should). Basically while marines are super durable, stealers are super killy which balances them out against each other. So they don't need to mirror their stats.
Ok, if you feel like a bunch of those units should be looked at and considered for an upgrade, then I'm on board to explore that possibility. About Tyranids though, they've always occupied a slightly different space. Gaunts are clearly horde, Genestealers have been similar to Banshees for most of the time, Tyranid Warriors are The Big Standard Nid, and have occupied the Elites slot for much of their time. Imo Genestealers could go either way, depending on what other strengths and weaknesses they have.
Though, while I'm at it, I'm not sure I know what your referencing when saying certain things should be on par with marines. Is it the fluff or just prior/current rules? Cuz if it's rules-wise then Scions easily have parity with aspect warriors (similar durability and lethality). Which would make them en par with marines, and therefore deserving of 2W, or whatever marines are (by what I understand of your logic).
Some combination of fluff and design trends. Scions are still fundamentaly a human profile. So are Sisters, for that matter. Things get tricky. Should an Aspect Warrior be twice as durable as a sister to small arms? I don't really think so. Should an Ork have 2 wounds? If Eldar did, then I'd say yes. How tough is a Space Marine, really? Right now they are as tough as an Ork, have armor comparable to the best Aspect Armor, and are stronger than both.
It doesn't sound like much in the context of the large battles with a bunch of tanks and airplanes that a current 40K game is, but I think it's proper for the relationships between basic core troops of 40K to not shift around too much.
"Doom and Guide is basically Guilliman level buffs on rerollable psychic test with a stack load of bonuses. "
What are these 'load of bonuses' you're speaking of? There are a couple I can think of that you *can* get, but we're talking about WC7/8 powers here.
"Imagine being able to gice reroll wounds against any enemy unit in 24" for your entire army"
That would be awesome. Gman nearly does that if you castle. But the Farseer has to be within 24", not the army.
"plus a chapter master buff to a unit of your choice"
To one unit vs a 6" aura. And shooting-only vs any. Plus, the CM is *much* better himself on the table.
For 115 points, a Farseer gets:
~75% chance to cause reroll-shooting-misses on one friendly
~75% chance to cause reroll-wounding-failures on one enemy
(~50% to get them both off)
-A character with the dakka of a Storm Guardian, and the durabilty of a little better than an IG Commander
That doesn't seem that much better than Marine options.
Legacy remains important. It tells us how the designers have felt about the balance between units over time, which for some of the core units, has remained pretty consistent. It doesn't mean trends can't be broken, but it certainly can't be ignored either. It shows us the intent behind the balance.
Eh, I wouldn't put that much weight on tradition or previous design decisions. Take Stealthsuits for example. They used to be 1W, T3 models, and now they're 2W, T4 models and it made them FAR better and more fun to use. Even their burst cannon got an extra shot in the process. In this case, ditching the old design improved their playability and "feel". Obviously you shouldn't change things willy nilly, but taking a step back and at least reconsidering some of these relationships would be a good thing.
The biggest thing for me, though, is the fundamental changes made to the game. A 2W model now isn't worth as much as a 2W model in the past due to the damage system. So while 2W marines/necrons might have been a bad idea before, the current rules seem to support having a larger proportion of 2W models without it being obnoxious. So I say we go for it.
Galas wrote: Space Marines never have been the pinnacle of what the imperium as to offer. They became that by circumstance after the Horus Heresy. They where the line troops of the Great Crusade, a feasible weapon that the Emperor could mass produce with his current technology and resources.
Thunder Warriors thought they where the pinnacle too.
Except the line troops of the Great Crusade was the Imperial Army, not the Legions. The Legions were only around 2 million strong total.
Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines. Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?
If another army can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots, why all the fuss about Tac Marines? Marines can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots too. I think your post highlights a fairly common double-standard of expectations. It seems a lot of people want to use Tacticals, but don't really care about the state of other races troops. There might be a bunch of Eldar players who want to run Avengers for similar reasons.
Dire Avengers are a core troop choice for Eldar. If we buff Marines do we buff Dire Avengers?
Eldar aren't an elite army. I have no idea why you think everything else needs to be increased with 2 wounds to tactical marine level when all the other factions besides Custodes and Tyranid Warriors aren't as durable as space marines. Space Marines should be universal two wound and high-cost because they are an elite army, not a horde. Eldar Aspects don't need any buffs besides maybe an increase to armor saves or weapon skill, otherwise they aren't supposed to be a tiny force in the first place. Giving everybody elites with the same stats is also terrible game design and defeats the purpose of having differentiated factions.
That and of course Eldar don't need anything because they're a good army.
Legacy remains important. It tells us how the designers have felt about the balance between units over time, which for some of the core units, has remained pretty consistent. It doesn't mean trends can't be broken, but it certainly can't be ignored either. It shows us the intent behind the balance.
Eh, I wouldn't put that much weight on tradition or previous design decisions. Take Stealthsuits for example. They used to be 1W, T3 models, and now they're 2W, T4 models and it made them FAR better and more fun to use. Even their burst cannon got an extra shot in the process. In this case, ditching the old design improved their playability and "feel". Obviously you shouldn't change things willy nilly, but taking a step back and at least reconsidering some of these relationships would be a good thing.
The biggest thing for me, though, is the fundamental changes made to the game. A 2W model now isn't worth as much as a 2W model in the past due to the damage system. So while 2W marines/necrons might have been a bad idea before, the current rules seem to support having a larger proportion of 2W models without it being obnoxious. So I say we go for it.
Well, like I said, some units have been pretty stable for a loooong time, and some factions are more stable than others. Aspect Warriors and Space Marines have had their respective relationship for 20+ years, and imo that relationship is an important one.
Weapons dealing multiple damage, just so you know, isn't new. It's a return to ancient days.
Wat? Do you 40K? What do you think Aspect Warriors are/supposed to be?
Pretty damn numerous compared to Custodes and Space Marines, being more comparable to Scions or Sisters. Eldar primarily focus on mobility over durability, and Aspect Warriors are a small slice of an Eldar army that should be mostly fielding Guardians.
Bharring wrote: "Doom and Guide is basically Guilliman level buffs on rerollable psychic test with a stack load of bonuses. "
What are these 'load of bonuses' you're speaking of? There are a couple I can think of that you *can* get, but we're talking about WC7/8 powers here.
"Imagine being able to gice reroll wounds against any enemy unit in 24" for your entire army"
That would be awesome. Gman nearly does that if you castle. But the Farseer has to be within 24", not the army.
"plus a chapter master buff to a unit of your choice"
To one unit vs a 6" aura. And shooting-only vs any. Plus, the CM is *much* better himself on the table.
For 115 points, a Farseer gets:
~75% chance to cause reroll-shooting-misses on one friendly
~75% chance to cause reroll-wounding-failures on one enemy
(~50% to get them both off)
-A character with the dakka of a Storm Guardian, and the durabilty of a little better than an IG Commander
That doesn't seem that much better than Marine options.
the inevitable warlork court thats casting +1 Save -1 to hit an any other buff though those tend to be the go too ones or sometimes jinx because just a bonus -1AP against a unit of your choice is just useless Oh strategums have another -1 to hit have a shoot then run away strategum, it a well designed codex but jesus did the costing of it all go terribly wrong.
Casters are too cheap units pay a premium for buffs that can't be spread army wide and to add insult to the fire eat free double activations with Ynnari.
Wat? Do you 40K? What do you think Aspect Warriors are/supposed to be?
Pretty damn numerous compared to Custodes and Space Marines, being more comparable to Scions or Sisters. Eldar primarily focus on mobility over durability, and Aspect Warriors are a small slice of an Eldar army that should be mostly fielding Guardians.
The numbers of them in the universe matter little to their individual worth on the tabletop. If that were the case Tyranid Warriors should have crappy stats because there's billions of them.
Wat? Do you 40K? What do you think Aspect Warriors are/supposed to be?
Pretty damn numerous compared to Custodes and Space Marines, being more comparable to Scions or Sisters. Eldar primarily focus on mobility over durability, and Aspect Warriors are a small slice of an Eldar army that should be mostly fielding Guardians.
The numbers of them in the universe matter little to their individual worth on the tabletop. If that were the case Tyranid Warriors should have crappy stats because there's billions of them.
And Aspect Warriors aren't an elite army. They are elites within a horde army, and they are not even supposed to be durable elites. Aspect Warriors have no posthuman physiology and are no different from normal Eldar or little more tough than humans. Making them 2 wounds is ridiculous and missing the point of game design itself, if you bump up everything in wounds all you've done is replicated the meta and kicked it up in scale with no change. With everything still playing similarly. Eldar aren't scant-strong tanky units of special forces, but a fast moving and highly skilled force. If they need a buff then they ought to be slapped with increased movement or weapon skill long before anybody thinks of a durability increase for what's supposed to be fast moving glass cannons. Tyranid Warriors have their stats because they're spines of the Tyranid army - synaptic cores supporting tendrils of gaunt blobs which nexus out from the Hive Tyrant at the center.
novembermike wrote: Sure, if you want to be paying 20 points per genestealer or 40 points for an aspect warrior. Those units tend to have a focused purpose and delivery mechanism so if you make the models better you'd have to raise the price more. It also doesn't really fit the fantasy of the units.
What delivery system do Aspect Warriors have that Marines don't? Both have transports. As for focused purpose, that's usually an excuse, imo. Tactical Marines engage in short range firefights with some assault duty, just like Dire Avengers. Assault marines engage in CC,(don't they have a delivery system?), Devastators are fire support. It's pretty straight forward.
When you say were gonna charge 40 points for an Aspect Warrior, which Aspect are you talking about. Striking Scorpions? Avengers? If so, are you going to pump the price point of marines up to 35? I assume that's not what you're proposing so let's see what you mean by that.
The comment is about the Monkey's Paw nature of asking for equal boosts. So far Primaris haven't gotten units that effectively use the wound and attack boost. If you start boosting these stats for units that actually use them then you pay more. Look at terminators if you want an example. This usually isn't correct, but it's how GW has done things.
As for delivery systems, Aspect Warriors tend to have higher movement, special rules for advance + shoot or advance + assault and their transports are better. That makes it easier to deliver them to use their attacks.
Wat? Do you 40K? What do you think Aspect Warriors are/supposed to be?
Pretty damn numerous compared to Custodes and Space Marines, being more comparable to Scions or Sisters. Eldar primarily focus on mobility over durability, and Aspect Warriors are a small slice of an Eldar army that should be mostly fielding Guardians.
The numbers of them in the universe matter little to their individual worth on the tabletop. If that were the case Tyranid Warriors should have crappy stats because there's billions of them.
And Aspect Warriors aren't an elite army. They are elites within a horde army, and they are not even supposed to be durable elites. Aspect Warriors have no posthuman physiology and are no different from normal Eldar or little more tough than humans. Making them 2 wounds is ridiculous and missing the point of game design itself, if you bump up everything in wounds all you've done is replicated the meta and kicked it up in scale with no change. With everything still playing similarly. Eldar aren't scant-strong tanky units of special forces, but a fast moving and highly skilled force. If they need a buff then they ought to be slapped with increased movement or weapon skill long before anybody thinks of a durability increase for what's supposed to be fast moving glass cannons. Tyranid Warriors have their stats because they're spines of the Tyranid army - synaptic cores supporting tendrils of gaunt blobs which nexus out from the Hive Tyrant at the center.
Why do you think Eldar are a horde army?
Why would Beil-Tan with a heavy focus on Aspect Warriors not be an elite army?
". . .and they are not even supposed to be durable elites." Based on what? I'm basing my interpretation on the fact that many Aspects have had the same number of wounds as a Space Marine, and the same armor as a Space Marine, for over 20 years.
Imo a Craftworld army is basically the combined Guard and Space Marine army. Guardians are guardsmen (except better), and Aspect Warriors are their Space Marine equivalent of Eldar flavor.
novembermike wrote: The comment is about the Monkey's Paw nature of asking for equal boosts. So far Primaris haven't gotten units that effectively use the wound and attack boost. If you start boosting these stats for units that actually use them then you pay more. Look at terminators if you want an example. This usually isn't correct, but it's how GW has done things.
Sure, units tend to pay for the overall combination of stats+equipment.
novembermike wrote: As for delivery systems, Aspect Warriors tend to have higher movement, special rules for advance + shoot or advance + assault and their transports are better. That makes it easier to deliver them to use their attacks.
Assault Marines/Vanguard Vets have a higher movement rate than most Aspects. Eldar Transports may be better, but they're more expensive, meaning you can take fewer.
[Aspect Warriors] "Pretty damn numerous compared to Custodes and Space Marines, being more comparable to Scions or Sisters."
At the same points, a stererotypical SM list has as many or more bodies than a stereotypical Aspect Host list. Not more.
"And Aspect Warriors aren't an elite army."
Dire Avengers are Troops. An army of nothing but Aspect Warriors is certainly elite.
"They are elites within a horde army,"
CWE have never been a horde army. Guardians get kinda-close, but they cost twice the PPM of Guardsman. They're GEQ-survivable, but not GEQ-priced (as it should be).
Fluffwise, there aren't supposed to be a lot of Guardians on the table. Their gun is basically a sidearm.
" and they are not even supposed to be durable elites."
True. They're Space Elves.
"Aspect Warriors have no posthuman physiology"
Being evolved far beyond human, that gets fairly posthuman.
Besides, Exarchs are postEldar, possibly moreso than Marines are postHuman.
"and are no different from normal Eldar or little more tough than humans. Making them 2 wounds is ridiculous and missing the point of game design itself, if you bump up everything in wounds all you've done is replicated the meta and kicked it up in scale with no change. With everything still playing similarly. Eldar aren't scant-strong tanky units of special forces, but a fast moving and highly skilled force. If they need a buff then they ought to be slapped with increased movement or weapon skill long before anybody thinks of a durability increase for what's supposed to be fast moving glass cannons."
Agreed that I don't see 2W basic Aspect Warriors as ideal. But not because they're not Elite. They're Elite in a different way.
Wat? Do you 40K? What do you think Aspect Warriors are/supposed to be?
Pretty damn numerous compared to Custodes and Space Marines, being more comparable to Scions or Sisters. Eldar primarily focus on mobility over durability, and Aspect Warriors are a small slice of an Eldar army that should be mostly fielding Guardians.
Bharring wrote: [Aspect Warriors] "Pretty damn numerous compared to Custodes and Space Marines, being more comparable to Scions or Sisters."
At the same points, a stererotypical SM list has as many or more bodies than a stereotypical Aspect Host list. Not more.
"And Aspect Warriors aren't an elite army."
Dire Avengers are Troops. An army of nothing but Aspect Warriors is certainly elite.
"They are elites within a horde army,"
CWE have never been a horde army. Guardians get kinda-close, but they cost twice the PPM of Guardsman. They're GEQ-survivable, but not GEQ-priced (as it should be).
Fluffwise, there aren't supposed to be a lot of Guardians on the table. Their gun is basically a sidearm.
Fluffwise, Guardians comprise the majority of a major Eldar offensive as the Aspects, while respectably numerous, are still smaller than the entire Craftworld militia which is fielded. Unless it's a really small scale game based on a small scale scenario, you're going to see a lot of Guardians deployed. Especially post Indomitus Crusade where the deployment of Guardians has ramped up.
" and they are not even supposed to be durable elites."
True. They're Space Elves.
"Aspect Warriors have no posthuman physiology"
Being evolved far beyond human, that gets fairly posthuman.
Besides, Exarchs are postEldar, possibly moreso than Marines are postHuman.
The only way to display Eldar durability is on a d20 or d100 system. Otherwise the difference is negligible between them and only Exarchs and Phoenix Lords are super-eldar. Aspect Warriors are just Eldar who have trained for a couple years to get really proficient at killing the enemy in a specific way. Warlocks and such also are no more durable than their fellows, and only have extra wounds due to the gameplay abstraction of being characters like Captains or Commissars.
"and are no different from normal Eldar or little more tough than humans. Making them 2 wounds is ridiculous and missing the point of game design itself, if you bump up everything in wounds all you've done is replicated the meta and kicked it up in scale with no change. With everything still playing similarly. Eldar aren't scant-strong tanky units of special forces, but a fast moving and highly skilled force. If they need a buff then they ought to be slapped with increased movement or weapon skill long before anybody thinks of a durability increase for what's supposed to be fast moving glass cannons."
Agreed that I don't see 2W basic Aspect Warriors as ideal. But not because they're not Elite. They're Elite in a different way.
I wouldn't call a glass cannon elite so much as it is a heavy hitting skirmisher force. In my mind an elite army is a scant numbered and incredibly beefy army comprised of incredibly expensive and durable models. Of which the only real example in modern 40k is Custodes, and previously was Grey Knights. For several editions now the game's been sitting in a bit of a pit where Eldar, Guard, Space Marines, etc all play pretty damn similar. Get a blob of some gakky infantry, rush them at an objective while sinking the meat of your points into a death star. Or just building a castle of dakka.
Well, like I said, some units have been pretty stable for a loooong time, and some factions are more stable than others. Aspect Warriors and Space Marines have had their respective relationship for 20+ years, and imo that relationship is an important one.
Weapons dealing multiple damage, just so you know, isn't new. It's a return to ancient days.
tbh I just don't see why that particular relation is so important. Termies are now 2W, and that didn't upset anyone. Stealthsuits are at 2W despite 15 years of not being that. Scouts had their BS buffed, despite being intentionally worse. The whole aspect=marines relationship you're talking about really only seems to matter to you. (granted someone else probably does but I haven't met that person yet). But, it's not a big deal. I just know that 2W marines plays more elite-like than 1W marines when compared to Guard or Tau. And I think that's what most people really want, and they're just not thinking about eldar.
Quite frankly though, and regardless of marines, Aspects need 2A to get that elite feeling from them. then give Striking Scorpion/Banshees 3A and so on. 1A is fine for cheap infantry but not elites.
tbh I just don't see why that particular relation is so important. Termies are now 2W, and that didn't upset anyone. Stealthsuits are at 2W despite 15 years of not being that. Scouts had their BS buffed, despite being intentionally worse. The whole aspect=marines relationship you're talking about really only seems to matter to you. (granted someone else probably does but I haven't met that person yet). But, it's not a big deal. I just know that 2W marines plays more elite-like than 1W marines when compared to Guard or Tau. And I think that's what most people really want, and they're just not thinking about eldar.
Quite frankly though, and regardless of marines, Aspects need 2A to get that elite feeling from them. then give Striking Scorpion/Banshees 3A and so on. 1A is fine for cheap infantry but not elites.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat. Aspects should get stats that make sense for them. Fire Dragons should be 1A, Dire Avengers 2A and Striking Scorpions/Banshees 3A. The number of wounds is fine, wounds either represent physical toughness or "character" toughness. Eldar Aspect Warriors aren't physically tougher and only exarchs get character toughness.
Dandelion wrote: I just know that 2W marines plays more elite-like than 1W marines when compared to Guard or Tau. And I think that's what most people really want, and they're just not thinking about eldar.
Right. They're not thinking about it. They just want their Space Marines to be head and shoulders above everyone else. Exactly.
tbh I just don't see why that particular relation is so important. Termies are now 2W, and that didn't upset anyone. Stealthsuits are at 2W despite 15 years of not being that. Scouts had their BS buffed, despite being intentionally worse. The whole aspect=marines relationship you're talking about really only seems to matter to you. (granted someone else probably does but I haven't met that person yet). But, it's not a big deal. I just know that 2W marines plays more elite-like than 1W marines when compared to Guard or Tau. And I think that's what most people really want, and they're just not thinking about eldar.
Quite frankly though, and regardless of marines, Aspects need 2A to get that elite feeling from them. then give Striking Scorpion/Banshees 3A and so on. 1A is fine for cheap infantry but not elites.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat. Aspects should get stats that make sense for them. Fire Dragons should be 1A, Dire Avengers 2A and Striking Scorpions/Banshees 3A. The number of wounds is fine, wounds either represent physical toughness or "character" toughness. Eldar Aspect Warriors aren't physically tougher and only exarchs get character toughness.
Well, like I said, some units have been pretty stable for a loooong time, and some factions are more stable than others. Aspect Warriors and Space Marines have had their respective relationship for 20+ years, and imo that relationship is an important one.
Weapons dealing multiple damage, just so you know, isn't new. It's a return to ancient days.
tbh I just don't see why that particular relation is so important. Termies are now 2W, and that didn't upset anyone. Stealthsuits are at 2W despite 15 years of not being that. Scouts had their BS buffed, despite being intentionally worse. The whole aspect=marines relationship you're talking about really only seems to matter to you. (granted someone else probably does but I haven't met that person yet). But, it's not a big deal. I just know that 2W marines plays more elite-like than 1W marines when compared to Guard or Tau. And I think that's what most people really want, and they're just not thinking about eldar.
Quite frankly though, and regardless of marines, Aspects need 2A to get that elite feeling from them. then give Striking Scorpion/Banshees 3A and so on. 1A is fine for cheap infantry but not elites.
The other thing with Terminators too is that the 2 wounds does squat to improve their usefulness. I mean ffs, a 10 man squad of terminators costs an obscene amount of points and just gives you something that will have a 3+ save at best when any amount of AP is directed at it now, only 2 wounds, and toughness 4. Storm bolters are a lot better now in shots, but 3+ BS results in most of those shots pinging off even 5+ saves. And to top it off you've got a melee weapon by default that makes you hit at 4+ WS.
Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines.
Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?
If another army can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots, why all the fuss about Tac Marines? Marines can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots too. I think your post highlights a fairly common double-standard of expectations. It seems a lot of people want to use Tacticals, but don't really care about the state of other races troops. There might be a bunch of Eldar players who want to run Avengers for similar reasons.
Dire Avengers are a core troop choice for Eldar. If we buff Marines do we buff Dire Avengers?
No your taking what I'm saying and adjusting it to suit your own narative.
Well, do you acknowledge that there might be an issue with just pumping the core units of one codex, but ignoring them in another codex, despite the idea that both units should have some sort of parity?
How good/ what point would a unit of banshees need to be to justify taking them and a waveserpent over just using shining spears? How few points do striking scorpions nned to be to compete for points in a list against dark reapers?
Both codex's have fundamentally different issues.
Eldar codex has some realy good for their points unit that can have special rules stacked on them. Other units gain way less from having those rules stacked on, them so players don't stack those rules on them and those units look even worse for the points in comparison.
Making a banshee cheap enough to compete for points with Yannari spear or other stuff leads to the issue of just going all in on them suddenly becomes a problem.
Spears need to be more points and banshees etc possibly need to be cheaper how much I'm not sure but you dont just make tgem straight up as efficent as yannari spears. Thats just asking for another drukari codex level of busted stuff.
If anything it's probably more an issue of the extreme level of buffing and debuff stacking that needs towned down.
Every marine is a tac + some change if you over pay for the fundamental statline everything in your army pays that cost plus a mark up. Totally different issue, it's more a fundamental miss calculating of value.
Ok, this seems to me what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong:
Eldar have a diverse array of units, some of which work well in the meta and some of which don't. The ones that work well do so because of special abilities, and the ability to further multiply those abilities via spells, Ynnari, etc. Ok
"Making a banshee cheap enough . . ." (hard to figure out this section actually, maybe re-iterate that for me) ???
Then you seem to be saying something like: All Space Marine units are based off of Tac Marines, and if the evaluation of that stat-line is wrong, the whole army is off. a reasonable assertion.
Since I don't really know how to respond to the middle section, my initial response is something like. . .
A: I think people underestimate the value of a Tac Marine, in general, for a number of reasons. But rather than argue for it's current value of 13, I'd say that your post acknowledges that there's room for re-valuing the stat-line with points, rather than changing the stat-line itself.
B: All Eldar Aspect Warriors are similarly based off the same "Aspect Warrior stat-line", internally, so in that regard the units we're talking about here are in the same situation as Marines.
C: The issue you seem to be pointing too, in terms of balance, is just that some Eldar units benefit A LOT from certain synergies. This seems more likely to happen in a codex where the units themselves are more extreme, depending on the synergy opportunities offered. If you asked me if I thought that was inherently a problem, I'd say no, not really. The resulting balance between the Marine and Eldar codex can still be adjusted by modifying the potential buffs, special rules and points, and doesn't have to be modifying the statlines away from where they've been roughly for decades.
A Yes it doesn't need changed it just needs to be worth it's point's.
B I think the fundamental reason aspect worries are bad and marines are bad is different.
I believe Marines are flat miscosted.
Craftworld eldar have the cost of buffs being spreed across the codex inatead of being concentrated on the units providing the buffs.
Spoiler:
C The issue I'm trying to point to is that I don't think that the eldar base unit is actually bad, it that it appears to be a victim of GW "fluffy" logic at it's best. They haven't made the psychers expensive enough to justify their buff powers so to even it out they have added a premium to all of the craftworld codex.
However that was inherently flawed logic as it makes everything more expensive when not everything can benifit. It also means those casters are inherently undercosted hence why they keep showing up in Harlequins and Drukari lists.
Aspect warriors can probably loose a point or two but a farseer with doom is a 200 point buff machine that currently costs less than half that.
Balance the unit for what they can do not the things that might effect them.
I'm suprised no one has pointed this out but the reason Marines are flat miscounted is exactly the same as the thing you point to as what is wrong with CWE: they're being pointed according to the buffs they might have. I don't even necessarily mean Guilliman.
If a basic marine with no support got to reroll 1s to hit, reroll 1s to wound, and on a 4+ got to fight/shoot one more time when it died, then I don't think anyone would complain about 13 ppm for them. They'd have to have non-buffing (and vastly cheaper) HQs for that to work though.
This game would be so much better if all the buffs got nerfed hard.
Auras push most armies - SM even more than most - into a deathstar playstyle. Only, instead of the one-unit deathstars in 7th GW killed off, we get 6-unit deathstars in one large blob on the table.
Bharring wrote: This game would be so much better if all the buffs got nerfed hard.
Auras push most armies - SM even more than most - into a deathstar playstyle. Only, instead of the one-unit deathstars in 7th GW killed off, we get 6-unit deathstars in one large blob on the table.
I generally agree. Spells have been in the game since forever, so I'm fine with that in principle. I'm not fond of the aura buff mechanic in particular. It makes armies act weird.
You buy Primaris from 
