Crimson wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

This is why i always tell people not to start marines. And i get shouted down by the pitchforks and torches casuals on here who think that because they can compete against trash tier nonsense players that the army is functional.

But if their local meta is trash tier nonsense meta (as in most places it is) then it is absolutely fine. This game is best when it is played on trash tier nonsense level anyway.

Agreed. Not every game is bleeding edge competitive, and to some people, the game is better that way.

HoundsofDemos wrote:The above to don't work for me though. For me anything I buy, build or collect starts with the fluff. If I don't like a units backstory then its a non starter. Additionally Primaris units being released look like more of the same. Models that basically take one weapon choice as a unit and are fairly self contained bitz wise from any other kit. Again, hard pass, that's so dull. Regular marines have so many options, bitz, marks of armor that its so easy to make a visually unique army over time.

Really? Even though the helmets and shoulderpads are easily cross compatible, and the other bits don't take much to convert over, the Primaris marines are unable to make distinct?
I've got both a full Ultramarines 2nd Company of old marines, and a homebrew Primaris 3rd Company. Out of the two, the 3rd Company list looks more diverse to me, just from the posing, ability to reuse assets from older kits, and lack of ornamentation of the Primaris allowing for any ornaments added to shine through more.

Again, you're well entitled to your opinion about Primaris, that's all fair and good, but I think they look so much better, and are just as good on the conversion/visual distinctiveness fronts.

Primaris marines all look the same and now due to a lack of bitz it's harder to avoid clam shell characters that even more static and boring.

Clamshells are annoying, but that was hardly a Primaris only problem. The good old plastic Space Marine Commander set was being largely ignored by GW in favour of the static combi-grav Captain sculpt long before Primaris.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
8.5 edition will soft-ban them by making their rules unsuitable compared to Pirmaris, who at that point will have fully replaced every oldmarine role.

9th edition will Squat them by making them "Index Only", in addition to making Index Only (as in the original indexes, not the supplemental ones like Assassins or Renegade Knights) entries Narrative Play only.

I'll refrain from saying "I told you so." when it happens.

I'll take that bet.

I'll say this; if I'd read some of GW's press statements before I started buying models again this edition I'd own nothing but Primaris and a couple of squads of Centurion Devastators. (Not that Centurions are good, I just love those models.)

I'm still buying them and feel pretty good about it.

There are also a TON of marine kits. They could lose 75% of the line and you'd still be able to build a perfectly fine army with the core kits (Tactical, Devastator, Assault), most other units are just some iteration of those.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm still buying them and feel pretty good about it.

There are also a TON of marine kits. They could lose 75% of the line and you'd still be able to build a perfectly fine army with the core kits (Tactical, Devastator, Assault), most other units are just some iteration of those.

Heck I kinda like the diea of dropping specific vetern units and simply allowing you to upgrade a unit to vetern status with a stratigium like what can be done with indomatus crusaders

You'll be dead one day, why bother getting out of bed?


Because you don't know when it will happen, so why worry about it?

"primaris marines are totally easy to make visually distinct and interesting! You just take the parts from oldmarine kits and put them on them, and wowza you've got one characterful primaris marine!"

^^^This is the problem.

Marines are going from an embarrassment of options with respect to how you can characterize your dudes to...well, essentially what many other factions' players have had to contend with for 20+ years. Pick what color your plastic mans are! Have fun with your four poses! Will this termagant be looking left, right, or forwards? Shall I build my guardian with his gun held out sort of like firing, or held down, sort of like he's kind of hanging out casually in his big wide horse stance?

It's one of the craziest steps back I've seen out of GW in their modern era. but boy howdy are they taking that step back! primaris marines are basically baby's first army, in terms of both modeling and rules. Considering that 3 years ago GW basically seemed comitted to making a whole second game out of artisanally crafted super-custom your dudes space marines, the whiplash slam to "NO your space marines will ALL LOOK THE SAME as EVERYONE ELSES" is a bit of a wild ride.

the_scotsman wrote:
"primaris marines are totally easy to make visually distinct and interesting! You just take the parts from oldmarine kits and put them on them, and wowza you've got one characterful primaris marine!"

^^^This is the problem.

Marines are going from an embarrassment of options with respect to how you can characterize your dudes to...well, essentially what many other factions' players have had to contend with for 20+ years. Pick what color your plastic mans are! Have fun with your four poses! Will this termagant be looking left, right, or forwards? Shall I build my guardian with his gun held out sort of like firing, or held down, sort of like he's kind of hanging out casually in his big wide horse stance?

It's one of the craziest steps back I've seen out of GW in their modern era. but boy howdy are they taking that step back! primaris marines are basically baby's first army, in terms of both modeling and rules. Considering that 3 years ago GW basically seemed comitted to making a whole second game out of artisanally crafted super-custom your dudes space marines, the whiplash slam to "NO your space marines will ALL LOOK THE SAME as EVERYONE ELSES" is a bit of a wild ride.

I can't think of anything coming out 3 years ago that implied super custom your dudes marines. the Marine HQ units where where mono pose etc

 JohnnyHell wrote:
There are investments with better returns. GW wants to sell you new toys, not have everyone using 20yr old toys. They can and will invalidate things at will.

You realize that the Primaris stuff so far has sucked pretty hard, right?

Only real exception is with Deathwatch.

If I were starting a new marine army, I'd stick with Primaris marines only, and I would recommend other starters to do the same, but as I've already started a (now old) marine army, I'm going to stick with it until it's finished.

The new minis look good(mostly), but the fluff is a joke. I think it would have gone over better if they had just said “new tech means we can rescale marines a bit “ and bring out a new box of guard that is scale down a little bit.
The future is here sorta thing. But they are selling, and that is all that matters to GW they will slowly send of the old marines, even if half of the new marines kits are to do truescale conversions for old marines.

Considering the numbers of marine kits of which some are pretty new it'll take GW years to replace them properly with Primaris.And once they've done it Primaris will have the same weapons old marines have (just bigger and +1) so you can use your old heavy bolter devastator as Primaris Vinquilator with heavy bolt-shredder. And by that time we are deep into 10th edition. So buy what you like, give Primaris MK VIII or MK III helmets as they look much better and you'll have a great army .

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:
According to GW, Primaris are reinforcements, not replacements.

Come on, man.

You quoted that out of context. That is what GW have said and that is the current status in 8th edition. I said myself (the bit you didn't quote) that based on what's happened since 8th edition landed that new releases will be Primaris only and that nobody knows what GW will do going forward.

 Brother Castor wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:
According to GW, Primaris are reinforcements, not replacements.

Come on, man.

You quoted that out of context. That is what GW have said and that is the current status in 8th edition. I said myself (the bit you didn't quote) that based on what's happened since 8th edition landed that new releases will be Primaris only and that nobody knows what GW will do going forward.

I don't think he was suggesting you weren't accurate, but rather that Games-Workshop are probably full of gak, and that even though no one knows what will happen to oldmarines going forward, we all still kinda "know" what is happening to oldmarines going forward.

Absolutely agree with OP. But only because you should buy Orks instead of Marines.

I have had no problem using my RT Marines in 8th, or any other edition. Though usually with the Chaos book, as, paradoxically, it seems to be the most ‘stable’ over time and they are my ‘b’ army. Not worth buying a new book for them every five minutes.

I came back into the hobby about a year ago and had no idea what Primaris marines even were but I knew they looked awesome. I bought Dark Imperium and got the Imperial fist battleforce for Xmas and now have a nearly all Primaris Crimson fist army.

The only non Primaris I have bought are 5 sternguard and 2 venerable dreads, I like this fluff wise as the Primaris are now the rank and file where the remaining old marines are veterans of a considerable length of time which makes sense for the remaining ones to be sternguard and ven dreads etc.

I think the entire Primaris project is a way of GW updating the entire Marine model line and aesthetic over a number of years, allowing them to not only revamp the range and give it a tabletop boost, but also consolidate the number of kits available.

I fully expect that, in five years or so, the model range will be entirely Primaris, that will be the norm and instead of two tiers, all marines will have the same stats again.

When that happens, I imagine there will be a lot of people using their old marine models anyway, just with the new stats.

Buy whatever you like the look of - in a few years you’ll be using them all as ‘Primaris’ anyway.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I fully expect that, in five years or so, the model range will be entirely Primaris, that will be the norm and instead of two tiers, all marines will have the same stats again.

When that happens, I imagine there will be a lot of people using their old marine models anyway, just with the new stats.

Yup, that's my plan.

There is no need to avoid buying them, I think you'll be fine a long time into the future. Many of the current classic marine kits are still quite new, GW is not going to stop selling them anytime in the next 10 years or so.

Even with the current focus on Primaris they are still producing new classic marine models through FW and the Heroes series.

In the longer future maybe they will go. Or maybe Primaris won't have worked out so well and the designers in 10 years time will return to classic marine kits and produce new versions. And then the forum cynics and antagonists will be saying primaris are being squatted

I personally doubt classic marines will ever disappear as they are iconic and have such a long history in the fluff. I think GW will always keep them in 40k.

The Primaris are just a new way of selling more types of marine.

Additionally in the fluff classic marines are still being produced, and GW have outright stated they are an addition to Space Marines, not a replacement.

Honestly, I don't think classic marines are going anywhere, anytime fast, if only because the Horus Heresy game is still a thing.

Whilst I'm about as diehard a 'oldmarines good, numarines bad' as it gets, I'm fairly sure, that for a long while at least, we'll still get the odd new toy to supplement our collections from the heresy series (and crossed fingers and toes) the 40k character series too.

While Games Workshop themselves probably won't release anything that isn't a hulking vat-grown ultramarine with a smoother mk iv helmet, greebles all over the place, and who is increasingly fine with like hanging out with eldar and not committing warcrimes.
But I think for anyone who really enjoys the more classically grimdark stuff, FW has our back, especially if the necromunda stuff is anything to go by. Sure, it's more expensive, but I guess if you're gonna be picky about your toys (like I am) them's the brakes.

I'm intrigued by the repulsor tank segregation thing though. It seems like such a deliberate separation, and really only serves to punish anyone looking to a) mix armies, or b) just straight-up add one to a classic marine army, both of which seem like kind of radical stumbling blocks, even with the "the rules only exist to force you to buy one for your primaris" argument. So GW may yet surprise us with something equally barmy. Luckily, I've pretty much finished my marines, without one of those Cawl monstrosities in sight.

I think the whole "dont buy old marines" is kinda a load of over the top worrying tbh. At some point MAYBE in the future they will stop making old marines, but we have YEARS till then [if they actually do] The space marine line has been growing since the 80's, and it will take them at a minimum 5-10 years to bring out the same amount of primaris equivalents, and only then can they start the phasing out of old marines, which could still take another 5-10 years, But ONLY if sales drop enough that they are no longer profitable. at the end of the day this is a company that wants to make money, nothing more nothing less. They are not going to discontinue their biggest selling line, and piss off half their customers like that. The space marine line in 1 year alone brings in about 50 times more profit than all of Warhammer fantasy did in its last 2-3 years [and probably like 100 times more popular], and look how people got up in arms about that! If it does happen it will be a long and very slow process so people dont notice the impact as much.

Personally i think they will actually release new old marine models instead, not scrap them 100% for primaris.

I think there'll come a point - give it a couple of years - that there'll be a Codex: Primaris Astartes or whatever it'll be called that contains only Primaris units, and all the old datasheets will be hived off to a legacy PDF (like they've been doing with Age of Sigmar).

Unless you only want to play Matched Play, that's fine. The models still exist, the rules still exist, so keep doing what you're doing.

For the background? the Primaris marines don't seem any more "good guys" than the other marines - they've got the same indoctrination, and by now they're part of the same culture and are drawn from the same recruitment pool as the ordinary Marines. If anything, the story is giving us a hint of the same sort of "terrans vs locals" conflict as the Horus Heresy stories used as foreshadowing.

Personally, I have stopped all purchases of marines.

I really wanted to do a Black Templar’s army and Grey Knights, but knowing that they will be obsolete soon has turned me off of them.

Marines used to look amazing too, skulls, purity seals, golden filigres, actual close combat weapons. The new ones are just so bland. Doesn’t fit the aesthetic of 40k at all.

Not to mention the Primaris fluff is complete hack garbage.

It’s a shame GW ruined SM like they did, they used to be awesome.

Guys, oldmarine models are fine and the more people buy them, the longer GW will support them. Simple as.

Models are updated, ranges are remade and yes a lot of local marine players in my area are moaning about the lack of 'customization' the Primaris get, as a Chaos Daemons player/Tyranid player I just pointed out the new Primaris are still more customizable than most other troops, by being able to use previous marine shoulder pads and helmets.

Hell the new primaris LOOK amazing, have plenty of awesome design space left and I would be collecting them and converting them into a Chaos Marine version if Abbadon wasn't right around the corner. They'd look amazing with converted power halberds and chained shields.

Even index-only rules wouldn't be the end of the world as long as they are valid for matched play. I doubt any assassins or renegade knights players are worried about being index-only.

Everything gets a facelift and is beeing remodeled, why should minis not be?
That old stuff is beeing removed and replaced is 100% natural, thats why museums exists.(heck, you do it with all other items/objects in your life)

I suspect that they won't remove old marines entirely, although I've been wrong before.

Even if, worst case scenario, Primaris marines replace standard marines entirely, I don't think we'll ever see a day when you won't be able to use your old marines on the table. (Should they all be replaced, your legacy models will still see use as primaris marines--I've never seen anyone refuse to play with 3rd edition DE Grotesques or the older, smaller Leman Russes.)

It's incredibly rare for an actual Citadel model to be completely invalidated.

It also depends what era you're setting your battles in. Most of the interesting campaigns take place before the opening of the Great Rift and obviously you can't use Primaris Marines in these, so it pays to have a good stock of normal sized marines.

Sumilidon wrote:
With the all new Primaris Marines, the porting of characters to Primaris and the new, upcoming range - now is another exciting times to buy Space Marines. The problem however is that many leading people in the industry fully expect the current line of Space Marines to slowly and surely be squatted.

As such, should anyone looking to start an army but the original line or just avoid them until GWs intentions are clear?

I mention this from my own viewpoint. I view this game not only as a hobby, but as an investment, especially considering the cost. I still have armies from 20 years ago that are completely useable and I still do (I have a 1988 Bloodthirster I use as a Daemon prince) - but the idea that the Space Marines you buy today, spend more than money but time building and painting, only to then find they may be unusable in the future is something I feel GW needs to address.

The sheer amount of oldmarine kits out there, especially snowflake units like wulven, death company, ravening bikes, etc. Make me doubtful GW is going to completely invalidate the old marines anytime soon. They just fill way too many niches and abilities that would take years to fill with Primaris and that would be a very marine heavy release period, making the marine waves we've suffered through in the past seem like a joke.

What I could see is replacing the generic marines with Primaris in a soft fashion whereas old marines fill a ton of specialist roles, aka what's happening right now. So Tac Marines are kind of trash but primaris really can't do the things you'd expect Sternguard, Death Company, Thunderwolf cav, grey knights, etc. Etc. Etc.

I mean think about, GW would have to cancel DOZENS of kits, many of which are their most iconic models. The rhino, land raider, mk VII marine, terminators, the original dreads, etc. Etc. And some factions, like grey knights would need to be squatted entirely. That's just not feasible in 2 years unless every release was primaris. Maybe 5 or 10 years, but not 2.

Essentially, primaris start filling in all the generic new guy roles while the old marines all get promoted into the veteran companies and take on leadership positions.

Anyone complaining the end is nigh is wrong, and they're whining for the sake of finding something to whine about.

BrianDavion wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
"primaris marines are totally easy to make visually distinct and interesting! You just take the parts from oldmarine kits and put them on them, and wowza you've got one characterful primaris marine!"

^^^This is the problem.

Marines are going from an embarrassment of options with respect to how you can characterize your dudes to...well, essentially what many other factions' players have had to contend with for 20+ years. Pick what color your plastic mans are! Have fun with your four poses! Will this termagant be looking left, right, or forwards? Shall I build my guardian with his gun held out sort of like firing, or held down, sort of like he's kind of hanging out casually in his big wide horse stance?

It's one of the craziest steps back I've seen out of GW in their modern era. but boy howdy are they taking that step back! primaris marines are basically baby's first army, in terms of both modeling and rules. Considering that 3 years ago GW basically seemed comitted to making a whole second game out of artisanally crafted super-custom your dudes space marines, the whiplash slam to "NO your space marines will ALL LOOK THE SAME as EVERYONE ELSES" is a bit of a wild ride.

I can't think of anything coming out 3 years ago that implied super custom your dudes marines. the Marine HQ units where where mono pose etc

I want to make a space marine unit armed with boltguns.

I have the choice of:

Space Marine Tactical Squad
Space Marine MKIII Tactical Squad
Space Marine MKIV Tactical Squad
Dark Angels Veterans Box
Blood Angels Tactical Squad Box
Space Wolves Box
Deathwatch Veterans Box
Sternguard Veterans Box
Upgrade Sprues for Crimson Fists, Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, Black Templars, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Ultramarines, White Scars and Raven Guard

All these bits are fully compatible and I can use any of them interchangeably to make the basic look of my space marines unique.

I want to make a unit of Primaris Intercessors TM

I have the choice of

Primaris Intercessors Box
Upgrade Sprues for Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Ultramarines




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Everything gets a facelift and is beeing remodeled, why should minis not be?
That old stuff is beeing removed and replaced is 100% natural, thats why museums exists.(heck, you do it with all other items/objects in your life)

I think the problem I have is that SPACE MARINES are not freaking OLD.

They're replacing kits that are objectively gorgeous compared to over half the basic units in other armies. They released the idea of Ynnari years ago with many speculating it would lead to an Eldar look redesign, but we haven't seen or heard a peep about it since the disaster that was their rules design.

Guard basic troops are ancient.

CSM basic troops are ancient (We at least have news of this now)

Eldar basic troops are ancient.

Ork basic troops are ancient.

Necron basic troops are ancient.

Sisters basic troops are so ancient they've fossilized into some sort of precious metal material that GW is pricing accordingly

why would you choose to scrap and overhaul the most up-to-date and extensive model range you have for something with much much less interesting gameplay (primaris are basically Necron/Eldar level in terms of options on their basic troops with none of the interesting unique rules) makes zero sense.

I mean, while you're not wrong...the Intercessors do have 3 different types of boltguns to choose from.

And it seems that like many others you're conflating "kitbashing" with "options". You have customization you can do, certainly but it is not really the same as actually having options.

I'd love to know where these Raven Guard upgrade sprues are though. Because GW sure as hell isn't the one selling them...and FW only sells packs to do 5 models at a time for $33.

I rather have a fewer number of good looking kits than greater nember of bad looking kits. And of course nothing is stopping one from kitbashing sime parts of those old kits with the Primaris. Whilst I agree that Primaris are currently somewhat samey, I exect it will change given time. Jes pretty much confirmed it already. Personally I have had absolute blast with the Primaris, personalising them has been great fun.

 Crimson wrote:
I rather have a fewer number of good looking kits than greater nember of bad looking kits. And of course nothing is stopping one from kitbashing sime parts of those old kits with the Primaris. Whilst I agree that Primaris are currently somewhat samey, I exect it will change given time. Jes pretty much confirmed it already. Personally I have had absolute blast with the Primaris, personalising them has been great fun.

Again, this is funny to me.

"primaris marines do have character, to make them look the way you like, just...use...old marine bits..."

the_scotsman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I rather have a fewer number of good looking kits than greater nember of bad looking kits. And of course nothing is stopping one from kitbashing sime parts of those old kits with the Primaris. Whilst I agree that Primaris are currently somewhat samey, I exect it will change given time. Jes pretty much confirmed it already. Personally I have had absolute blast with the Primaris, personalising them has been great fun.

Again, this is funny to me.

"primaris marines do have character, to make them look the way you like, just...use...old marine bits..."

That's not really what it seems like Crimson is saying. Crimson is saying that they are having fun personalizing the Primaris to what they want.

And quite frankly? I can't do crap to personalize old Marines to make them Raven Guard without going to Forge World or buying a single shoulderpad from the Deathwatch Veterans boxed set via bits sellers or buying a bunch of Corvus armor. It's no different than if I were to do Iron Hands(although at least there I can buy Mark III armor in plastic) or White Scars or Fists of any type(although, again, at least powerfists are in plastic). So I have no reason to be upset about not being able to do the same for Primaris. I've got a Raven Guard transfer sheet and I've been doing a few things here and there to make characters 'mine'. My LTs and Captains, for example, are getting Stalker Bolt Rifles and I've grafted the barrels from Scout Sniper Rifles onto the end to denote them as 'Master-Crafted'.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I mean, while you're not wrong...the Intercessors do have 3 different types of boltguns to choose from.

And it seems that like many others you're conflating "kitbashing" with "options". You have customization you can do, certainly but it is not really the same as actually having options.

I'd love to know where these Raven Guard upgrade sprues are though. Because GW sure as hell isn't the one selling them...and FW only sells packs to do 5 models at a time for $33.

They sure do. And one type of boltgun is 100% always the best option.

I am not conflating "kitbashing" with "options" i'm looking at them separately.

Oldmarines have far better kitbashing potential to make your squad of identically armed dudes unique.

Oldmarines also have far more extensive in-game options to make your squad of dudes armed differently, and therefore more unique.

They have both. Primaris have the exact same level of options on their units as eldar and necrons do. Most people who want to play space marines want to make them interesting by customizing them, and this loss of options is a problem. If you are not one of those people, great! Don't pretend that loss doesn't exist, though.

the_scotsman wrote:


Again, this is funny to me.

"primaris marines do have character, to make them look the way you like, just...use...old marine bits..."

What's so funny about it? Sameyness is the known flaw of the primaris at this point due the youngness of the line. But with combining them with the old bits gives you best of the both worlds, personalised marines that do not look like mishapen squats.

In answer to the OP, no I don't think we should all just avoid buying SM, although they are welcome to if they're worried. I only came back to WH40K in 8th edition, and started collecting from scratch again. Whatever happens in the future, I'm just glad to have bought and painted an army of iconic SM and have the full set of 8th edition rules for them.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I rather have a fewer number of good looking kits than greater nember of bad looking kits. And of course nothing is stopping one from kitbashing sime parts of those old kits with the Primaris. Whilst I agree that Primaris are currently somewhat samey, I exect it will change given time. Jes pretty much confirmed it already. Personally I have had absolute blast with the Primaris, personalising them has been great fun.

Again, this is funny to me.

"primaris marines do have character, to make them look the way you like, just...use...old marine bits..."

I like how primaris detractors don't see how hilarious they and their arguments are, especially seeing they apply three times as much to old marines than to primaris. Imagine tactical squad box just came out and is the only kit in SM range - what can you do to customize them? Well, gee, nothing! The fact you need to kitbash your basic troop box with another SM kit to customize them applies equally to both, in fact it applies way more to old marines. Why? Because all you can do with tactical squad box is 10 clones clutching bolter in front in dumb way, complete with even dumber squat. Primaris have lots of differing combinations and interesting bits, I feel pretty confident I can make 20 different ones out of the box in minutes, whereas I'd need to spend hours doing the same to tactical squad cutting them up to get rid of clutchsquat plus waste tons of greenstuff and the end result would be much worse...

AndrewGPaul wrote:I think there'll come a point - give it a couple of years - that there'll be a Codex: Primaris Astartes or whatever it'll be called that contains only Primaris units, and all the old datasheets will be hived off to a legacy PDF (like they've been doing with Age of Sigmar)....

I think this might happen sooner than you think. I suspect we'll be seeing a Primaris Vanguard codex later this year.

Also, I quite like the clean, featureless aesthetic of the Primaris. It let's me add flair if and how I want to. It's a lot easier to add flair where there's none, than it is to remove flair that's part of a model's mould.

 Irbis wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I rather have a fewer number of good looking kits than greater nember of bad looking kits. And of course nothing is stopping one from kitbashing sime parts of those old kits with the Primaris. Whilst I agree that Primaris are currently somewhat samey, I exect it will change given time. Jes pretty much confirmed it already. Personally I have had absolute blast with the Primaris, personalising them has been great fun.

Again, this is funny to me.

"primaris marines do have character, to make them look the way you like, just...use...old marine bits..."

I like how primaris detractors don't see how hilarious they and their arguments are, especially seeing they apply three times as much to old marines than to primaris. Imagine tactical squad box just came out and is the only kit in SM range - what can you do to customize them? Well, gee, nothing! The fact you need to kitbash your basic troop box with another SM kit to customize them applies equally to both, in fact it applies way more to old marines. Why? Because all you can do with tactical squad box is 10 clones clutching bolter in front in dumb way, complete with even dumber squat. Primaris have lots of differing combinations and interesting bits, I feel pretty confident I can make 20 different ones out of the box in minutes, whereas I'd need to spend hours doing the same to tactical squad cutting them up to get rid of clutchsquat plus waste tons of greenstuff and the end result would be much worse...

When was the last time you assembled a Tactical squad? Its got every special weapon, a heavy weapon, the parts to build any combi-weapon, several marks of armor with some shoulder pad options, plus a number of different cc weapon options for the sergeant/s. I havent built the intercessor kit, but I hear they're more rigorously monopose than the Tacs as well.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I rather have a fewer number of good looking kits than greater nember of bad looking kits. And of course nothing is stopping one from kitbashing sime parts of those old kits with the Primaris. Whilst I agree that Primaris are currently somewhat samey, I exect it will change given time. Jes pretty much confirmed it already. Personally I have had absolute blast with the Primaris, personalising them has been great fun.

Again, this is funny to me.

"primaris marines do have character, to make them look the way you like, just...use...old marine bits..."

I like how primaris detractors don't see how hilarious they and their arguments are, especially seeing they apply three times as much to old marines than to primaris. Imagine tactical squad box just came out and is the only kit in SM range - what can you do to customize them? Well, gee, nothing! The fact you need to kitbash your basic troop box with another SM kit to customize them applies equally to both, in fact it applies way more to old marines. Why? Because all you can do with tactical squad box is 10 clones clutching bolter in front in dumb way, complete with even dumber squat. Primaris have lots of differing combinations and interesting bits, I feel pretty confident I can make 20 different ones out of the box in minutes, whereas I'd need to spend hours doing the same to tactical squad cutting them up to get rid of clutchsquat plus waste tons of greenstuff and the end result would be much worse...

When was the last time you assembled a Tactical squad? Its got every special weapon, a heavy weapon, the parts to build any combi-weapon, several marks of armor with some shoulder pad options, plus a number of different cc weapon options for the sergeant/s. I havent built the intercessor kit, but I hear they're more rigorously monopose than the Tacs as well.

I put together one kit because I got it for free.

They're really not that monopose. Detractors are just mad because angles of Bolters really get them going or something.
When all is said and done, how many poses are you going to get with a bolter anyway?

 Crimson wrote:
Why not just buy the Primaris instead?

Because a primaris captain can't equip a thunder hammer and terminator armor.

Primaris are far too limited in what you can build them as for me to want to play them. If I wanted that I'd play Eldar.

 Melissia wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Why not just buy the Primaris instead?

Because a primaris captain can't equip a thunder hammer and terminator armor.

Primaris are far too limited in what you can build them as for me to want to play them. If I wanted that I'd play Eldar.

You can kitbash the Captains with realistic proportions. "Captain" entry and make a better model.

Easy as that. Terminator armor is more difficult of course along with Biker, but Jump Pack is also easy.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Why not just buy the Primaris instead?

Because a primaris captain can't equip a thunder hammer and terminator armor.

Primaris are far too limited in what you can build them as for me to want to play them. If I wanted that I'd play Eldar.

You can kitbash the Captains with realistic proportions. "Captain" entry and make a better model.

Easy as that. Terminator armor is more difficult of course along with Biker, but Jump Pack is also easy.

"If you think can't, you're right!" Paraphrased from Henry Ford.

Nothing is stopping you from doin it.

I want to kitbash an Inceptor Captain with thunder hammer and flamestorm gauntlet.

If you want the models then the idea that the models may no longer be available in the future is only all the more reason to get them; it's now or never!

Maybe if your insane. It is clear that they are going to be removing normal power armor units at some point, they are bad now. What if they never get to be good between now, and the point when GW decides to remove them totaly. Better spend money on something fun and useful.

Karol wrote:
Maybe if your insane. It is clear that they are going to be removing normal power armor units at some point, they are bad now. What if they never get to be good between now, and the point when GW decides to remove them totaly. Better spend money on something fun and useful.

My Space Marines are fun and that in itself is useful to me. That's good enough reason for me to buy them, and I don't think that makes me insane. Like I said before, if I were starting out fresh, I'd go with Primaris, because they're new and I like them a lot, but I already have a bunch of oldmarines, which I also like, and I fully intend to keep adding more of them.

Also,

at some point

could be quite a bit away. I'd rather get what I want now and have it now, than wait an unknown amount of time not getting anything because I'm afraid of what might happen tomorrow.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Why not just buy the Primaris instead?

Because a primaris captain can't equip a thunder hammer and terminator armor.

Primaris are far too limited in what you can build them as for me to want to play them. If I wanted that I'd play Eldar.

You can kitbash the Captains with realistic proportions.

Realistic proportions

Its a myth that Primaris are realistically proportioned or 'truescale'. Their bodies are closer to ideal art proportions than classic marines, but they still have oversized heads/helmets, arms, hands, hugely oversized weapons and narrow bodies. They are still heroically scaled.

Its also a myth they are better posed than classic marines; most of them are still in the classic braced firing 'squatting' pose like classics. Sure you have 2 nicely posed walking guys in the Dark Imperium box, but I can have nicely posed walking guys as well if I use a pair of legs from the deathwatch kit. I can also get a large variety of leg poses from many other classic kits.

Of course the Primaris are heroically proportioned, all GW models are and it is absolutely fine. They just have better heroic proportions. Just like GW's newer human models have better heroic proportions than Cadians or Catachans have.

I was pointing out that they don't have realistic proportions, as slayerfan123 claimed.

I wasn't commenting on which had better proportions. That is the realm of opinion.

Proportions don't come into it for me where primaris are concerned, aside from the fact I find them overly large for infantry models. I dislike many aspects of their design aethsetic.

robbienw wrote:
I was pointing out that they don't have realistic proportions, as slayerfan123 claimed.

I wasn't commenting on which had better proportions. That is the realm of opinion.

Proportions don't come into it for me where primaris are concerned, aside from the fact I find them overly large for infantry models. I dislike many aspects of their design aethsetic.

It's realistic compared to everything else so my point stands. If you're really going to try and create a "got you!" moment from that, it proves how much better the Primaris models are.
There's also literally nothing off about their design or aesthetic. They're the next armor up, and if they were released in minimarine proportions NOBODY would say anything. It's simply hating Primaris for the sake of hating them.

Y'all need to get over it.

Your point does not stand. Its not a 'got you', you are just wrong. You should have said they are slightly closer to being realistically proportioned to 'everything else' then, because they are not realistically proportioned.

There being nothing off with their design aesthetic is your individual opinion, it is not fact. Primaris mega fans trying to assert their opinions as fact seems to be a bit of a on ongoing theme.

In my opinion, there are a lot of things off with the primaris design aethsetic, and the classic marine model design aethsetic is superior. It may be the case that it is you that needs to get over other people having a differing view to yours.

Karol wrote:
Maybe if your insane. It is clear that they are going to be removing normal power armor units at some point, they are bad now. What if they never get to be good between now, and the point when GW decides to remove them totaly. Better spend money on something fun and useful.

By that logic you should be buying IG and IK instead, Primaris are also bad now. They really need embedded heavy weapon support and the only way to get that is to to play DW where old Marines are blatently superior. And even then DW is still inferior to IG/IK soup and is likely to remain so.

Have we really got to the point on Dakka where if you're not buying top tier tournament units you're insane?

 Brother Castor wrote:
Have we really got to the point on Dakka where if you're not buying top tier tournament units you're insane?

We've been there for a while. The unique aspect of this current time period appears to be the added twist that not only are people generally called insane for not buying top tier tournament units, the people calling them insane also complain loudly about how much The Militant Casuals have taken over the forum with their evil poisonous regime.

This seems a lot like the Nu-crons debacle. Somewhat aesthetically, but especially in terms of fluff and gameplay, primaris marines are not the space marines that people bought into. I bought into deathwatch because the fact I could custom build every soldier with his own unique loadout and appearance made for an awesome army building experience. Primaris marines have none of that flexibility. Being told to buy into primaris marines is like trying to collect Eldar and having someone tell me I just have to shut up and buy Tyranids now because they're obviously the same thing.

There are some things about them aesthetically I don't like - the obvious shift to keeping all their appearances "on brand" annoys me (every model has the recognizably "space marine" silhouette and helmet, unlike previously different designs for scouts, marines, terminators, etc) and I loathe every aspect of the Call of Duty aesthetic that got jammed into the Reivers. But for the most part, the actual reason I'll never play primaris marines is that gameplay wise they just aren't the army I signed up for. I wanted a mechanized, melee/shooting mixed, rapid deploying army with flexible loadouts allowing you to create specialized units. Primaris marines are a plodding, dull static footslogger gunline. They are as distinct in terms of playstyle as are regular marines and Tau, or regular marines and necrons.

I would absolutely love to see updated primaris-sized MkVI armour.

Sumilidon wrote:
With the all new Primaris Marines, the porting of characters to Primaris and the new, upcoming range - now is another exciting times to buy Space Marines. The problem however is that many leading people in the industry fully expect the current line of Space Marines to slowly and surely be squatted.

As such, should anyone looking to start an army but the original line or just avoid them until GWs intentions are clear?

I mention this from my own viewpoint. I view this game not only as a hobby, but as an investment, especially considering the cost. I still have armies from 20 years ago that are completely useable and I still do (I have a 1988 Bloodthirster I use as a Daemon prince) - but the idea that the Space Marines you buy today, spend more than money but time building and painting, only to then find they may be unusable in the future is something I feel GW needs to address.

To me its more that the current Marine range has been completed, with the few new elements becoming more and more outlandish so rather than keep expecting people to buy the 40th "new" slightly differnt version of the same tactical marine model or the super flanderised WOlfy Wolf wulf wulf models they have decided to stop - thank the gods. What model exactly are you missing from the current range?

Of course even if GW production stopped of the "old style Marines" they would continue to receive more support than all the other factions put together via Forgeworld.

If you are buying as an investment then the sooner they stop the better - althought the sheer amount of Marines producecd over the lifetime means they are unlikely to ever become rare.

Unless you are playing in tournaments most people will allow proxying - I still use my RT Marines as well as the shiny new ones - not every Marine is the same height or shape

robbienw wrote:
Your point does not stand. Its not a 'got you', you are just wrong. You should have said they are slightly closer to being realistically proportioned to 'everything else' then, because they are not realistically proportioned.

There being nothing off with their design aesthetic is your individual opinion, it is not fact. Primaris mega fans trying to assert their opinions as fact seems to be a bit of a on ongoing theme.

In my opinion, there are a lot of things off with the primaris design aethsetic, and the classic marine model design aethsetic is superior. It may be the case that it is you that needs to get over other people having a differing view to yours.

Pray tell...
What's off, design-wise? They fit the general aesthetic of a new armor, like a combination of Mk7, 8, and 4, the Bolters are just slightly bigger, and they're more realistically proportioned.

I said it once and I'll say it again: it is just hate of Primaris fluff. Everyone can keep saying they don't fit the setting, but they never explain how.

The Newman wrote:

Karol wrote:
Maybe if your insane. It is clear that they are going to be removing normal power armor units at some point, they are bad now. What if they never get to be good between now, and the point when GW decides to remove them totaly. Better spend money on something fun and useful.

By that logic you should be buying IG and IK instead, Primaris are also bad now. They really need embedded heavy weapon support and the only way to get that is to to play DW where old Marines are blatently superior. And even then DW is still inferior to IG/IK soup and is likely to remain so.

If I could get the money I would. If you think primaris are bad then you dont know what bad means.

What's off, design-wise? They fit the general aesthetic of a new armor, like a combination of Mk7, 8, and 4, the Bolters are just slightly bigger, and they're more realistically proportioned.

7&8 are one of the worse looking armors marines can have, so that is one thing. Their bolters are not slightly bigger their are bigger then hvy bolters or psycannons, while having slightly upgraded stats of normal bolters. If there were realisticaly proportioned they would be smaller, or they would have different rules.

I actually don't like the primaris sculpts. I know this is probably heresy to many here. But they're just so much bigger than anything else on the table.

I would like them better if they had Custodes like rules, where they were something like 50 points apiece but were absolutely savage. Instead they're just "bigger marines," which doesn't really jive with me. Marines were big enough.

 Marmatag wrote:
I actually don't like the primaris sculpts. I know this is probably heresy to many here. But they're just so much bigger than anything else on the table.

I would like them better if they had Custodes like rules, where they were something like 50 points apiece but were absolutely savage. Instead they're just "bigger marines," which doesn't really jive with me. Marines were big enough.

Take MiniMarines out of that equation of "bigger than anything else on the table".

What's the issue after that? They hulk over Eldar and humans? That doesn't seem like a valid complaint to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Karol wrote:
Maybe if your insane. It is clear that they are going to be removing normal power armor units at some point, they are bad now. What if they never get to be good between now, and the point when GW decides to remove them totaly. Better spend money on something fun and useful.

By that logic you should be buying IG and IK instead, Primaris are also bad now. They really need embedded heavy weapon support and the only way to get that is to to play DW where old Marines are blatently superior. And even then DW is still inferior to IG/IK soup and is likely to remain so.

If I could get the money I would. If you think primaris are bad then you dont know what bad means.

What's off, design-wise? They fit the general aesthetic of a new armor, like a combination of Mk7, 8, and 4, the Bolters are just slightly bigger, and they're more realistically proportioned.

7&8 are one of the worse looking armors marines can have, so that is one thing. Their bolters are not slightly bigger their are bigger then hvy bolters or psycannons, while having slightly upgraded stats of normal bolters. If there were realisticaly proportioned they would be smaller, or they would have different rules.

Please show the size difference between the Bolt Rifle and the Psycannon/Psilencer. I will be following up on this.

Also REALLY? Mk7 is basically the most iconic armor. I'm a Mk3 fanboy as they come, but to say Mk7 (and Mk8 too, especially as that's what everyone was giddy about when Deathwatch had announced kits) is the worst is just silly.
You're a Mk6 person, aren't you?

Karol wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Karol wrote:
Maybe if your insane. It is clear that they are going to be removing normal power armor units at some point, they are bad now. What if they never get to be good between now, and the point when GW decides to remove them totaly. Better spend money on something fun and useful.

By that logic you should be buying IG and IK instead, Primaris are also bad now. They really need embedded heavy weapon support and the only way to get that is to to play DW where old Marines are blatently superior. And even then DW is still inferior to IG/IK soup and is likely to remain so.

If I could get the money I would. If you think primaris are bad then you dont know what bad means.

What's off, design-wise? They fit the general aesthetic of a new armor, like a combination of Mk7, 8, and 4, the Bolters are just slightly bigger, and they're more realistically proportioned.

7&8 are one of the worse looking armors marines can have, so that is one thing. Their bolters are not slightly bigger their are bigger then hvy bolters or psycannons, while having slightly upgraded stats of normal bolters. If there were realisticaly proportioned they would be smaller, or they would have different rules.

Your last point is one of the big ones for me, but again it's gameplay related: Almost nothing Primaris performs the way it looks in game.

A redemptor dread is like 1.5x the size of a regular dreadnought. If you look at them next to each other they don't seem like they should be anywhere NEAR the same league of creature, it's like the difference between a crisis suit and a Ghostkeel. But what's the difference? Like half a lascannon worth of damage. Defenses identical otherwise. Firepower nothing special.

Gravis armor is the other one. The size difference between a regular primaris marine and an aggressor is equivalent to the size difference between a marine and a terminator. What's a terminator to a marine? Invuln save, double the wounds, double the firepower, double the attacks, 2+ save. What's a gravis marine to a primaris marine? +1T.

The amount of times I've played vs primaris marines and stuff just gets hosed off the table while I blink and go "Wait...really? That's all they had to them?" is amazing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

robbienw wrote:
Your point does not stand. Its not a 'got you', you are just wrong. You should have said they are slightly closer to being realistically proportioned to 'everything else' then, because they are not realistically proportioned.

There being nothing off with their design aesthetic is your individual opinion, it is not fact. Primaris mega fans trying to assert their opinions as fact seems to be a bit of a on ongoing theme.

In my opinion, there are a lot of things off with the primaris design aethsetic, and the classic marine model design aethsetic is superior. It may be the case that it is you that needs to get over other people having a differing view to yours.

Pray tell...
What's off, design-wise? They fit the general aesthetic of a new armor, like a combination of Mk7, 8, and 4, the Bolters are just slightly bigger, and they're more realistically proportioned.

I said it once and I'll say it again: it is just hate of Primaris fluff. Everyone can keep saying they don't fit the setting, but they never explain how.

The regular primaris marines are fine. as are the hellblasters. If you started from there, and that was the new sculpt for bolter marine and plasma gun marine, you'd be sitting pretty, and I'd be loving it.

The rest, design-wise, they completely F'ed up.

The Aggressors got hosed by GW trying to make Terminators into something brand-identifiable, so they had to stick with the tiny marine head and legs and they just boofed up the torso to ridiculous levels. They have a lesser version of Centurion syndrome, with a side helping of Primaris "too many weapons, don't know what is the focal point of the model" which is a theme throughout.

Reivers have a vomit-inducing Call of Duty modern warfare commando aesthetic, where they look specifically like what a ten year old would draw when you asked him to draw a commando, and not like what an actual commando might look like. Replacing the role of Scouts with proper power armored marines is something they could do successfully (And probably did do successfully with the great looking vanguard marines) but Reivers ain't it. The skull masks are beyond stupid and the lopsided shoulderpad shtick makes zero sense here. The one thing I do respect on reivers is the great posing they pulled off, it's tough to make good looking close combat poses and they did that quite well, it's just too bad they didn't realize the base design was so awful.

Potbelly dreadnought is potbelly dreadnought. When you shift the proportion from the "shoulders" to the center of the bottom, it reads as obese, even though it's a non-anatomical robot. there's a reason practically everyone saw the redemptor and immediately thought "oh, it's fat." You're programmed to see that body shape and proportion as abnormally fat, even on non-humans where that might be the average/"intended" shape, like a walrus or panda.

Flying giant clownshoe is the perfect example of "too many weapons, nothing to focus on." They're just bristling out of the thing with no rhyme or reason, and it's very clear that all the guns were added in because they were just desperate to make it an all-rounder vehicle that can be added to anyone's collection and will never be "bad" because it's so unspecialized. There is a reason that so many GW models incorporate sponsons rather than turrets, despite them being an outdated concept in warfare: Design-wise, it allows you to separate the weaponry at a glance, and affords you an easy way to show that a vehicle has a pair of a particular type of gun, because we see the symmetry. The repulsive's turret area is an absolute clusterfeth, and has WAY too much going on, versus the sides of the vehicle which are much more flat and bare. Again, there's no symmetry, and again, it doesn't look intentional, just sloppy.

The jump troops have a few problems. First for me is the "old eldar jetbiker issue" where you have a unit that's supposedly fast and dynamic, but is posed to read as chilled out and relaxed. The way they've been posed in mostly spreadeagled positions makes them look like they're leaning back and relaxing, and the focus on the model is back and down, rather than forward and up like the current assault marines. The pose of an inceptor holding his gun is like an overweight 45 year old flopping down on the couch and holding out the TV remote, and their chunky proportions don't do anything to help that. Add to that that their guns are enormously stubby and oversized, and the design of their new flying base draws the eye and is distracting rather than something out of the way, and they're a huge swing and a miss for me.

That is why I don't like primaris units aesthetically. It isn't just blind hate of primaris fluff, and I hope that is enough "explaining why" to satisfy you, or at least make you stop claiming everyone has no reasons.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I actually don't like the primaris sculpts. I know this is probably heresy to many here. But they're just so much bigger than anything else on the table.

I would like them better if they had Custodes like rules, where they were something like 50 points apiece but were absolutely savage. Instead they're just "bigger marines," which doesn't really jive with me. Marines were big enough.

Take MiniMarines out of that equation of "bigger than anything else on the table".

What's the issue after that? They hulk over Eldar and humans? That doesn't seem like a valid complaint to me.

The issue is i don't like the aesthetic. They look like models from a different universe.

Is not liking the color "teal" an invalid stance as well?

 Marmatag wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I actually don't like the primaris sculpts. I know this is probably heresy to many here. But they're just so much bigger than anything else on the table.

I would like them better if they had Custodes like rules, where they were something like 50 points apiece but were absolutely savage. Instead they're just "bigger marines," which doesn't really jive with me. Marines were big enough.

Take MiniMarines out of that equation of "bigger than anything else on the table".

What's the issue after that? They hulk over Eldar and humans? That doesn't seem like a valid complaint to me.

The issue is i don't like the aesthetic. They look like models from a different universe.

Is not liking the color "teal" an invalid stance as well?

In what manner do they look like they're from a different universe? How is Mk10 that much different than the other Mk armors? It isn't. That's the problem.
So if you're looking for hulking power armor...yeah, guess what actually fits the bill that fits on the tabletop?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I actually don't like the primaris sculpts. I know this is probably heresy to many here. But they're just so much bigger than anything else on the table.

I would like them better if they had Custodes like rules, where they were something like 50 points apiece but were absolutely savage. Instead they're just "bigger marines," which doesn't really jive with me. Marines were big enough.

Take MiniMarines out of that equation of "bigger than anything else on the table".

What's the issue after that? They hulk over Eldar and humans? That doesn't seem like a valid complaint to me.

The issue is i don't like the aesthetic. They look like models from a different universe.

Is not liking the color "teal" an invalid stance as well?

In what manner do they look like they're from a different universe? How is Mk10 that much different than the other Mk armors? It isn't. That's the problem.
So if you're looking for hulking power armor...yeah, guess what actually fits the bill that fits on the tabletop?

Their scale looks strange next to nearly everything else.

Verbal descriptions like "hulking power armor" are pretty useless in this regard. "Hulking Power armor" can have a lot of aesthetic variation, some of it fitting, and some not. Like 2001 and The Black Hole could both be called "space movies". . . but there's a world of difference. Execution and context.

Intercessors look like "bigger space marines" with somewhat different proportions to most of the GW line. So they look out of place to many of us.

and of course the new Primaris Jump Marines are based almost exactly on original RT artwork like alot of recent models

I honestly doubt we will see normal sized marines go anywhere within the next decade. GW has a lot invested in those molds and still sells plenty of kits. They also have to know how much their fans would revolt if they were to eliminate them. Now as molds break and more primaris things come out... maybe. but by then we will be in like 11th edition and even then i would expect retro rules for them where they are just not competitive with other armies but still narrative usable.

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Karol wrote:
Maybe if your insane. It is clear that they are going to be removing normal power armor units at some point, they are bad now. What if they never get to be good between now, and the point when GW decides to remove them totaly. Better spend money on something fun and useful.

By that logic you should be buying IG and IK instead, Primaris are also bad now. They really need embedded heavy weapon support and the only way to get that is to to play DW where old Marines are blatently superior. And even then DW is still inferior to IG/IK soup and is likely to remain so.

If I could get the money I would. If you think primaris are bad then you dont know what bad means.

What's off, design-wise? They fit the general aesthetic of a new armor, like a combination of Mk7, 8, and 4, the Bolters are just slightly bigger, and they're more realistically proportioned.

7&8 are one of the worse looking armors marines can have, so that is one thing. Their bolters are not slightly bigger their are bigger then hvy bolters or psycannons, while having slightly upgraded stats of normal bolters. If there were realisticaly proportioned they would be smaller, or they would have different rules.

Your last point is one of the big ones for me, but again it's gameplay related: Almost nothing Primaris performs the way it looks in game.

A redemptor dread is like 1.5x the size of a regular dreadnought. If you look at them next to each other they don't seem like they should be anywhere NEAR the same league of creature, it's like the difference between a crisis suit and a Ghostkeel. But what's the difference? Like half a lascannon worth of damage. Defenses identical otherwise. Firepower nothing special.

Gravis armor is the other one. The size difference between a regular primaris marine and an aggressor is equivalent to the size difference between a marine and a terminator. What's a terminator to a marine? Invuln save, double the wounds, double the firepower, double the attacks, 2+ save. What's a gravis marine to a primaris marine? +1T.

The amount of times I've played vs primaris marines and stuff just gets hosed off the table while I blink and go "Wait...really? That's all they had to them?" is amazing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

robbienw wrote:
Your point does not stand. Its not a 'got you', you are just wrong. You should have said they are slightly closer to being realistically proportioned to 'everything else' then, because they are not realistically proportioned.

There being nothing off with their design aesthetic is your individual opinion, it is not fact. Primaris mega fans trying to assert their opinions as fact seems to be a bit of a on ongoing theme.

In my opinion, there are a lot of things off with the primaris design aethsetic, and the classic marine model design aethsetic is superior. It may be the case that it is you that needs to get over other people having a differing view to yours.

Pray tell...
What's off, design-wise? They fit the general aesthetic of a new armor, like a combination of Mk7, 8, and 4, the Bolters are just slightly bigger, and they're more realistically proportioned.

I said it once and I'll say it again: it is just hate of Primaris fluff. Everyone can keep saying they don't fit the setting, but they never explain how.

The regular primaris marines are fine. as are the hellblasters. If you started from there, and that was the new sculpt for bolter marine and plasma gun marine, you'd be sitting pretty, and I'd be loving it.

The rest, design-wise, they completely F'ed up.

The Aggressors got hosed by GW trying to make Terminators into something brand-identifiable, so they had to stick with the tiny marine head and legs and they just boofed up the torso to ridiculous levels. They have a lesser version of Centurion syndrome, with a side helping of Primaris "too many weapons, don't know what is the focal point of the model" which is a theme throughout.

Reivers have a vomit-inducing Call of Duty modern warfare commando aesthetic, where they look specifically like what a ten year old would draw when you asked him to draw a commando, and not like what an actual commando might look like. Replacing the role of Scouts with proper power armored marines is something they could do successfully (And probably did do successfully with the great looking vanguard marines) but Reivers ain't it. The skull masks are beyond stupid and the lopsided shoulderpad shtick makes zero sense here. The one thing I do respect on reivers is the great posing they pulled off, it's tough to make good looking close combat poses and they did that quite well, it's just too bad they didn't realize the base design was so awful.

Potbelly dreadnought is potbelly dreadnought. When you shift the proportion from the "shoulders" to the center of the bottom, it reads as obese, even though it's a non-anatomical robot. there's a reason practically everyone saw the redemptor and immediately thought "oh, it's fat." You're programmed to see that body shape and proportion as abnormally fat, even on non-humans where that might be the average/"intended" shape, like a walrus or panda.

Flying giant clownshoe is the perfect example of "too many weapons, nothing to focus on." They're just bristling out of the thing with no rhyme or reason, and it's very clear that all the guns were added in because they were just desperate to make it an all-rounder vehicle that can be added to anyone's collection and will never be "bad" because it's so unspecialized. There is a reason that so many GW models incorporate sponsons rather than turrets, despite them being an outdated concept in warfare: Design-wise, it allows you to separate the weaponry at a glance, and affords you an easy way to show that a vehicle has a pair of a particular type of gun, because we see the symmetry. The repulsive's turret area is an absolute clusterfeth, and has WAY too much going on, versus the sides of the vehicle which are much more flat and bare. Again, there's no symmetry, and again, it doesn't look intentional, just sloppy.

The jump troops have a few problems. First for me is the "old eldar jetbiker issue" where you have a unit that's supposedly fast and dynamic, but is posed to read as chilled out and relaxed. The way they've been posed in mostly spreadeagled positions makes them look like they're leaning back and relaxing, and the focus on the model is back and down, rather than forward and up like the current assault marines. The pose of an inceptor holding his gun is like an overweight 45 year old flopping down on the couch and holding out the TV remote, and their chunky proportions don't do anything to help that. Add to that that their guns are enormously stubby and oversized, and the design of their new flying base draws the eye and is distracting rather than something out of the way, and they're a huge swing and a miss for me.

That is why I don't like primaris units aesthetically. It isn't just blind hate of primaris fluff, and I hope that is enough "explaining why" to satisfy you, or at least make you stop claiming everyone has no reasons.

Complaining for the sake of complaining! Here we go...
1. What's too many weapons on Aggressors? Not much different to anything else having too many weapons like a Land Raider or Terminators with CML or Ironclad Dreads. The frag launchers are pretty subtle for anything else in the game, and the Flamers aren't being combined with another weapon.
So seriously, what's too many weapons?
Also of course the torso seems big. Aggressors are basically weapons platforms, and fit the slight impracticality that comes from being in the 40k universe. Making them sleek would be stupid silly. Next.
2. Complaining about skull masks on a terror unit is pretty silly, especially since skulls are a focal point of design choices in 40k already. If we can't complain about Chaplains doing this (THEY'RE SPIRITUAL!!!), you can't complain about a terror unit using it. Also lopsided shoulder pads are prominent already. Fire Warriors are the easiest example of that.
3. You don't have the build the Dread with the extra armor. The website even shows examples of that. You also already kinda conceded by pointing out it's not supposed to be anthropomorphic anyway.
All the Dishwasher Dreads are silly anyway compared to what Contemptors have to offer us.
4. Yeah I'll concede on the Repulsor.
5. I have no idea what you're talking about with the posting on the Inceptors. They all look like they're about to land or in the middle of the first leap.
You can also pose them at a different angle if that bothers you.

Outside the Repulsor, you're the 40k version of this article.
https://thehardtimes.net/harddrive/game-freak-unveils-new-line-up-of-pokemon-for-you-to-be-upset-about-old-man/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I actually don't like the primaris sculpts. I know this is probably heresy to many here. But they're just so much bigger than anything else on the table.

I would like them better if they had Custodes like rules, where they were something like 50 points apiece but were absolutely savage. Instead they're just "bigger marines," which doesn't really jive with me. Marines were big enough.

Take MiniMarines out of that equation of "bigger than anything else on the table".

What's the issue after that? They hulk over Eldar and humans? That doesn't seem like a valid complaint to me.

The issue is i don't like the aesthetic. They look like models from a different universe.

Is not liking the color "teal" an invalid stance as well?

In what manner do they look like they're from a different universe? How is Mk10 that much different than the other Mk armors? It isn't. That's the problem.
So if you're looking for hulking power armor...yeah, guess what actually fits the bill that fits on the tabletop?

Their scale looks strange next to nearly everything else.

Verbal descriptions like "hulking power armor" are pretty useless in this regard. "Hulking Power armor" can have a lot of aesthetic variation, some of it fitting, and some not. Like 2001 and The Black Hole could both be called "space movies". . . but there's a world of difference. Execution and context.

Intercessors look like "bigger space marines" with somewhat different proportions to most of the GW line. So they look out of place to many of us.

But you aren't describing what, exactly, is out of scale once you remove MiniMarines out of the equation.

Karol wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Karol wrote:
Maybe if your insane. It is clear that they are going to be removing normal power armor units at some point, they are bad now. What if they never get to be good between now, and the point when GW decides to remove them totaly. Better spend money on something fun and useful.

By that logic you should be buying IG and IK instead, Primaris are also bad now. They really need embedded heavy weapon support and the only way to get that is to to play DW where old Marines are blatently superior. And even then DW is still inferior to IG/IK soup and is likely to remain so.

If I could get the money I would. If you think primaris are bad then you dont know what bad means.

I think it means "doesn't perform well on the tabletop for the points", and frankly they don't.

That's a great article. Thank you for the chuckle.

I don't dislike new things just because they're new and not 'the thing I know.' I like most of the new releases GW puts out, whether they're revived old concepts or completely new ones, and I'm not sure how much I have to make it clear that I can find something to like about almost literally every faction in the entire game before people will stop pulling out the old ad hominem byline of "you're just a complainy nostalgia complainer!"

I dislike the aesthetics of the units I just went through because their aesthetics are bad. There are univerally understood standards of design that the specialist primaris units break, or where they do follow standards of design they follow the wrong one and give off unintended impressions.

This is not a unit correctly designed to read like it's "Leaping" unless the leap you're talking about is kind of a lazy jumping jack. They don't work for the same reason this model doesn't work.

The focus of the wulfen is forward, and slightly backwards. He is supposed to be "pouncing forward" but the posing makes so sense for that, which is why your brain first leaps to "He looks like he's doing the karate crane stance" and then "oh god he's so stupid." You CAN achieve the effect you want with a model like that, and you can do it with almost exactly the same pose, just slightly different.

And as for the dreadnought, it doesn't matter if something is a completely non-anthropomorphic object, humans will anthropomorphize it if you give us ANY features to work off of. We anthropomorphize cars, animals, phones, everything. The redemptor has arms and legs, and that gives it proportion. And the proportion of this is a whole lot closer to the proportion of this than this.

There is a reason people reject the aesthetics of units like the centurion, dreadknight, repulsor, and wulfen, and a reason they don't seem to reject the aesthetics of other new releases like genestealer cult, speed freek stuff, and the new rogue traders and other new models that have been getting rave reviews. Dismissing them as "Complaining for the sake of complaining" when you first opened with "oh they just don't have a reason they're just blindly hating just 'cause" is ridiculous. You asked for reasoning. I provided it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Karol wrote:
Maybe if your insane. It is clear that they are going to be removing normal power armor units at some point, they are bad now. What if they never get to be good between now, and the point when GW decides to remove them totaly. Better spend money on something fun and useful.

By that logic you should be buying IG and IK instead, Primaris are also bad now. They really need embedded heavy weapon support and the only way to get that is to to play DW where old Marines are blatently superior. And even then DW is still inferior to IG/IK soup and is likely to remain so.

If I could get the money I would. If you think primaris are bad then you dont know what bad means.

What's off, design-wise? They fit the general aesthetic of a new armor, like a combination of Mk7, 8, and 4, the Bolters are just slightly bigger, and they're more realistically proportioned.

7&8 are one of the worse looking armors marines can have, so that is one thing. Their bolters are not slightly bigger their are bigger then hvy bolters or psycannons, while having slightly upgraded stats of normal bolters. If there were realisticaly proportioned they would be smaller, or they would have different rules.

Your last point is one of the big ones for me, but again it's gameplay related: Almost nothing Primaris performs the way it looks in game.

A redemptor dread is like 1.5x the size of a regular dreadnought. If you look at them next to each other they don't seem like they should be anywhere NEAR the same league of creature, it's like the difference between a crisis suit and a Ghostkeel. But what's the difference? Like half a lascannon worth of damage. Defenses identical otherwise. Firepower nothing special.

Gravis armor is the other one. The size difference between a regular primaris marine and an aggressor is equivalent to the size difference between a marine and a terminator. What's a terminator to a marine? Invuln save, double the wounds, double the firepower, double the attacks, 2+ save. What's a gravis marine to a primaris marine? +1T.

The amount of times I've played vs primaris marines and stuff just gets hosed off the table while I blink and go "Wait...really? That's all they had to them?" is amazing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

robbienw wrote:
Your point does not stand. Its not a 'got you', you are just wrong. You should have said they are slightly closer to being realistically proportioned to 'everything else' then, because they are not realistically proportioned.

There being nothing off with their design aesthetic is your individual opinion, it is not fact. Primaris mega fans trying to assert their opinions as fact seems to be a bit of a on ongoing theme.

In my opinion, there are a lot of things off with the primaris design aethsetic, and the classic marine model design aethsetic is superior. It may be the case that it is you that needs to get over other people having a differing view to yours.

Pray tell...
What's off, design-wise? They fit the general aesthetic of a new armor, like a combination of Mk7, 8, and 4, the Bolters are just slightly bigger, and they're more realistically proportioned.

I said it once and I'll say it again: it is just hate of Primaris fluff. Everyone can keep saying they don't fit the setting, but they never explain how.

The regular primaris marines are fine. as are the hellblasters. If you started from there, and that was the new sculpt for bolter marine and plasma gun marine, you'd be sitting pretty, and I'd be loving it.

The rest, design-wise, they completely F'ed up.

The Aggressors got hosed by GW trying to make Terminators into something brand-identifiable, so they had to stick with the tiny marine head and legs and they just boofed up the torso to ridiculous levels. They have a lesser version of Centurion syndrome, with a side helping of Primaris "too many weapons, don't know what is the focal point of the model" which is a theme throughout.

Reivers have a vomit-inducing Call of Duty modern warfare commando aesthetic, where they look specifically like what a ten year old would draw when you asked him to draw a commando, and not like what an actual commando might look like. Replacing the role of Scouts with proper power armored marines is something they could do successfully (And probably did do successfully with the great looking vanguard marines) but Reivers ain't it. The skull masks are beyond stupid and the lopsided shoulderpad shtick makes zero sense here. The one thing I do respect on reivers is the great posing they pulled off, it's tough to make good looking close combat poses and they did that quite well, it's just too bad they didn't realize the base design was so awful.

Potbelly dreadnought is potbelly dreadnought. When you shift the proportion from the "shoulders" to the center of the bottom, it reads as obese, even though it's a non-anatomical robot. there's a reason practically everyone saw the redemptor and immediately thought "oh, it's fat." You're programmed to see that body shape and proportion as abnormally fat, even on non-humans where that might be the average/"intended" shape, like a walrus or panda.

Flying giant clownshoe is the perfect example of "too many weapons, nothing to focus on." They're just bristling out of the thing with no rhyme or reason, and it's very clear that all the guns were added in because they were just desperate to make it an all-rounder vehicle that can be added to anyone's collection and will never be "bad" because it's so unspecialized. There is a reason that so many GW models incorporate sponsons rather than turrets, despite them being an outdated concept in warfare: Design-wise, it allows you to separate the weaponry at a glance, and affords you an easy way to show that a vehicle has a pair of a particular type of gun, because we see the symmetry. The repulsive's turret area is an absolute clusterfeth, and has WAY too much going on, versus the sides of the vehicle which are much more flat and bare. Again, there's no symmetry, and again, it doesn't look intentional, just sloppy.

The jump troops have a few problems. First for me is the "old eldar jetbiker issue" where you have a unit that's supposedly fast and dynamic, but is posed to read as chilled out and relaxed. The way they've been posed in mostly spreadeagled positions makes them look like they're leaning back and relaxing, and the focus on the model is back and down, rather than forward and up like the current assault marines. The pose of an inceptor holding his gun is like an overweight 45 year old flopping down on the couch and holding out the TV remote, and their chunky proportions don't do anything to help that. Add to that that their guns are enormously stubby and oversized, and the design of their new flying base draws the eye and is distracting rather than something out of the way, and they're a huge swing and a miss for me.

That is why I don't like primaris units aesthetically. It isn't just blind hate of primaris fluff, and I hope that is enough "explaining why" to satisfy you, or at least make you stop claiming everyone has no reasons.

Complaining for the sake of complaining! Here we go...
1. What's too many weapons on Aggressors? Not much different to anything else having too many weapons like a Land Raider or Terminators with CML or Ironclad Dreads. The frag launchers are pretty subtle for anything else in the game, and the Flamers aren't being combined with another weapon.
So seriously, what's too many weapons?
Also of course the torso seems big. Aggressors are basically weapons platforms, and fit the slight impracticality that comes from being in the 40k universe. Making them sleek would be stupid silly. Next.
2. Complaining about skull masks on a terror unit is pretty silly, especially since skulls are a focal point of design choices in 40k already. If we can't complain about Chaplains doing this (THEY'RE SPIRITUAL!!!), you can't complain about a terror unit using it. Also lopsided shoulder pads are prominent already. Fire Warriors are the easiest example of that.
3. You don't have the build the Dread with the extra armor. The website even shows examples of that. You also already kinda conceded by pointing out it's not supposed to be anthropomorphic anyway.
All the Dishwasher Dreads are silly anyway compared to what Contemptors have to offer us.
4. Yeah I'll concede on the Repulsor.
5. I have no idea what you're talking about with the posting on the Inceptors. They all look like they're about to land or in the middle of the first leap.
You can also pose them at a different angle if that bothers you.

Outside the Repulsor, you're the 40k version of this article.
https://thehardtimes.net/harddrive/game-freak-unveils-new-line-up-of-pokemon-for-you-to-be-upset-about-old-man/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I actually don't like the primaris sculpts. I know this is probably heresy to many here. But they're just so much bigger than anything else on the table.

I would like them better if they had Custodes like rules, where they were something like 50 points apiece but were absolutely savage. Instead they're just "bigger marines," which doesn't really jive with me. Marines were big enough.

Take MiniMarines out of that equation of "bigger than anything else on the table".

What's the issue after that? They hulk over Eldar and humans? That doesn't seem like a valid complaint to me.

The issue is i don't like the aesthetic. They look like models from a different universe.

Is not liking the color "teal" an invalid stance as well?

In what manner do they look like they're from a different universe? How is Mk10 that much different than the other Mk armors? It isn't. That's the problem.
So if you're looking for hulking power armor...yeah, guess what actually fits the bill that fits on the tabletop?

Their scale looks strange next to nearly everything else.

Verbal descriptions like "hulking power armor" are pretty useless in this regard. "Hulking Power armor" can have a lot of aesthetic variation, some of it fitting, and some not. Like 2001 and The Black Hole could both be called "space movies". . . but there's a world of difference. Execution and context.

Intercessors look like "bigger space marines" with somewhat different proportions to most of the GW line. So they look out of place to many of us.

But you aren't describing what, exactly, is out of scale once you remove MiniMarines out of the equation.

Almost everything else. I don't like the way Primaris look next to Eldar or Tyranid Warrions either, for example. Imo if the plastic guard weren't so chunky there wouldn't be a problem to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
and of course the new Primaris Jump Marines are based almost exactly on original RT artwork like alot of recent models

Sort of. The older artwork also looks like an assault marine dual-wielding bolt pistols so there's not really any clarity there.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Their scale looks strange next to nearly everything else.

No, their scale looks great next to most other models. Space Marines that actually look like they're bigger than guardsmen!

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Their scale looks strange next to nearly everything else.

No, their scale looks great next to most other models. Space Marines that actually look like they're bigger than guardsmen!

Says you.

Imo Space Marines looked great next to the original metal cadian line. Had the plastics retained those proportions, great.

Stupid spaceballs trooper cadian plastics. Ruining everything for everybody since 1905 (or whenever those models came out, I don't remember).

The Aggressors got hosed by GW trying to make Terminators into something brand-identifiable, so they had to stick with the tiny marine head and legs and they just boofed up the torso to ridiculous levels. They have a lesser version of Centurion syndrome, with a side helping of Primaris "too many weapons, don't know what is the focal point of the model" which is a theme throughout.

I don't see Agressors as being terminator equivilants myself, I see them as being more centurion equivilants. slimmed down centurions with an anti infantry focus, in that light they're not bad, ignoring the stats and rules, I think they're definatly apperance wise an improvement over centurions.I do agree the power fists are unnesscary though.

Reivers have a vomit-inducing Call of Duty modern warfare commando aesthetic, where they look specifically like what a ten year old would draw when you asked him to draw a commando, and not like what an actual commando might look like. Replacing the role of Scouts with proper power armored marines is something they could do successfully (And probably did do successfully with the great looking vanguard marines) but Reivers ain't it. The skull masks are beyond stupid and the lopsided shoulderpad shtick makes zero sense here. The one thing I do respect on reivers is the great posing they pulled off, it's tough to make good looking close combat poses and they did that quite well, it's just too bad they didn't realize the base design was so awful.

40k has already been more alike a ten year old boys fancyful imagination then whats realistic. This is a setting where one of the principal weapons of mankind is a CHAINSWORD. Reivers are supposed to be terror troops and the skull motif certainly sends that message. as for the lopsided shoulder bad I don't get that eaither, but perhaps the vanguard marines will make the reasoning a little more clear. as it's obvious that the Phobos armor isn't unique to reivers.. Taking a GUESS, it's a weight savings approuch, with the "away from the enemy" pad, being lighter then the "towards the enemy" pad.

The jump troops have a few problems. First for me is the "old eldar jetbiker issue" where you have a unit that's supposedly fast and dynamic, but is posed to read as chilled out and relaxed. The way they've been posed in mostly spreadeagled positions makes them look like they're leaning back and relaxing, and the focus on the model is back and down, rather than forward and up like the current assault marines. The pose of an inceptor holding his gun is like an overweight 45 year old flopping down on the couch and holding out the TV remote, and their chunky proportions don't do anything to help that. Add to that that their guns are enormously stubby and oversized, and the design of their new flying base draws the eye and is distracting rather than something out of the way, and they're a huge swing and a miss for me.

This is easily explained by their not being jump troops. Their airborne troops. they're dropped out of a dropship at high altitude and basicly fly around the battlefield, (you see this early on in hte novel dark imperium)
thus the posing id going to be differant from jump troops. Jump troops are shown ASCENDING, the droptroops are shown DESCENDING. the body language of the minis makes this VERY clear.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Says you.

Imo Space Marines looked great next to the original metal cadian line. Had the plastics retained those proportions, great.

The Cadian metals which were replaced about twenty years ago? Yeah sure, but that ship has sailed, decommissioned, and been sold as scrap metal.

Mr Morden wrote:and of course the new Primaris Jump Marines are based almost exactly on original RT artwork like alot of recent models

This is the first thing I thought of when I saw the inceptors.

Re: Terminators vs Cents.

They're definitely an improvement on centurions, which may be the single worst proportioned model GW has ever put out. I'm still not a fan. A lot of the reason why the "elephant" style terminators need that elongated muzzle-face is to make sure their head doesn't get lost in the bulk of the armor, which aggressors fail at (there's a reason the studio painter gave them bright red helmets in a lot of their shots to pump up the contrast). Combine that with there being a much subtler mouthpiece on MkX armor and there's a recognition problem. Looking at pictures online, leaving the rocket pack off the back of them MASSIVELY improves them in my opinion and makes them look a lot less topheavy, though I still don't like the random powerfists. Here, aim this gun while wearing boxing gloves.

Re: reivers.

So many units use the skull motif in 40k that it doesn't really convey anything, other than "this is a 40k model, see, it's got skulls on." As was pointed out above, skull masks are already a thing for a space marine unit - the chaplain. It's like calling your unit "Death-something" in 40k: it's ceased to be an "oh no, not the DEATH guys, that's scary" and become a comedic meme because of just how many factions use that word. When we have leapers stalkers marks guard korps watch...just come up with another idea.

You just have to look at how the sergeant looks with the half mask to see what they were going for with reivers. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS9qtl4Jjx5PyQgrhZpsOqLHAoMgcTSoe4LCsQBpqG43MIfZtuO

It looked weird and out of place in the setting when they went for it with Militarium Tempestorius (tm). It looks weird and out of place here.

Re: Inceptors

A model that's supposed to be descending and shooting down looks a lot less believable when posed on a base 1/4" off the ground than a model that's supposed to be ascending and shooting up. See the problems with the new Sanguinius model, forever doomed to look like he just nailed himself in the golden codpiece with a pointy rock.

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Says you.

Imo Space Marines looked great next to the original metal cadian line. Had the plastics retained those proportions, great.

The Cadian metals which were replaced about twenty years ago? Yeah sure, but that ship has sailed, decommissioned, and been sold as scrap metal.

And replaced by something clunkier. Not unlike many models in the Primaris line.

Big and simple. Clunky.

Classic space marines and Eldar are some of, if not THE worst models GW makes. Their posing and proportions are horrendous. Some people here call it “classic”. I call it ugly. Why do terminators have heads that stick out from their chests? Why do space marines have hips attached directly to their ribs?

Some of the Primaris kits have bad poses as well, such as the dark Imperium inceptors and the gravis captain, but at least the proportion is good.

Reivers, yeah, I don’t like their helmets either but just swap them ffs. No more ridiculous than most chaplain models.

The repulsor is easily built as a sleek armed transport. Just leave off the antenna and strapped on cargo and leave off the tech marine gunner. Crazy how many people complain about this who haven’t built one, because then they’d know this.

Quasistellar wrote:
Classic space marines and Eldar are some of, if not THE worst models GW makes. Their posing and proportions are horrendous. Some people here call it “classic”. I call it ugly. Why do terminators have heads that stick out from their chests? Why do space marines have hips attached directly to their ribs?

Because that's what looks good at 2-3 feet away, on the tabletop as you're playing. The GW classic proportions are specifically stylized to communicate model character clearly at a distance. The design of the model is built to the gameplay, and not to the fact that everyone has a macro-lens in their pocket. That technology might be the most influential change on model proportion over the years.

I actually like what the scotsman wrote a lot. Very good break down, it is essentially how i feel as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Quasistellar wrote:
Classic space marines and Eldar are some of, if not THE worst models GW makes. Their posing and proportions are horrendous. Some people here call it “classic”. I call it ugly. Why do terminators have heads that stick out from their chests? Why do space marines have hips attached directly to their ribs?

Some of the Primaris kits have bad poses as well, such as the dark Imperium inceptors and the gravis captain, but at least the proportion is good.

Reivers, yeah, I don’t like their helmets either but just swap them ffs. No more ridiculous than most chaplain models.

The repulsor is easily built as a sleek armed transport. Just leave off the antenna and strapped on cargo and leave off the tech marine gunner. Crazy how many people complain about this who haven’t built one, because then they’d know this.

What? I seriously disagree with this. The proportion of dark eldar kabalite warriors is amazing. They look like people. Primaris models make no sense when standing next to them.

I think he meant eldar as in craft world. Which are absolutely abysmal.

Classic marines have their posing issues, but modern classic marine sculpts like deathwatch and the newer csm stuff do that far far better.

Tbh the new chaos stuff is kind of the only reason I'm doubting the whole "classic marines ate getting squatted" narrative.

Why would they be putting out a box that is essentially primaris vs classic marines (chaos admittedly, but with classic marine armaments and aesthetic forms) if they're squatting the whole marine line?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You can kitbash the Captains with realistic proportions. "Captain" entry and make a better model.

WYSIWYG says otherwise. A Primaris Captain cannot equip a thunder hammer per game rules.

the_scotsman wrote:

Tbh the new chaos stuff is kind of the only reason I'm doubting the whole "classic marines ate getting squatted" narrative.

Why would they be putting out a box that is essentially primaris vs classic marines (chaos admittedly, but with classic marine armaments and aesthetic forms) if they're squatting the whole marine line?

Agree. Are we really going to enter an era where the good guy marines are just bigger and badder than the bad guy marines? That would be so dumb.

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You can kitbash the Captains with realistic proportions. "Captain" entry and make a better model.

WYSIWYG says otherwise. A Primaris Captain cannot equip a thunder hammer per game rules.

Unfortunately true. Fortunately nothing is stopping one from representing a standard captain with a thunder hammer with a primaris model with a thunder hammer.

What's the official height for Primaris marines? With ideally a reference

 fraser1191 wrote:
What's the official height for Primaris marines? With ideally a reference

Fluff-wise? I don't think it has ever been stated.

 Insectum7 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Tbh the new chaos stuff is kind of the only reason I'm doubting the whole "classic marines ate getting squatted" narrative.

Why would they be putting out a box that is essentially primaris vs classic marines (chaos admittedly, but with classic marine armaments and aesthetic forms) if they're squatting the whole marine line?

Agree. Are we really going to enter an era where the good guy marines are just bigger and badder than the bad guy marines? That would be so dumb.

Classic CSM are going away too. Death Guard have unique marines. Thousand Sons have unique marines. Expect the legacy legions to also get squatted in time, as well. At least, that's my thought.

Old marines are going away. It's just happening in loyalist land first.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Karol wrote:
Maybe if your insane. It is clear that they are going to be removing normal power armor units at some point, they are bad now. What if they never get to be good between now, and the point when GW decides to remove them totaly. Better spend money on something fun and useful.

By that logic you should be buying IG and IK instead, Primaris are also bad now. They really need embedded heavy weapon support and the only way to get that is to to play DW where old Marines are blatently superior. And even then DW is still inferior to IG/IK soup and is likely to remain so.

If I could get the money I would. If you think primaris are bad then you dont know what bad means.

What's off, design-wise? They fit the general aesthetic of a new armor, like a combination of Mk7, 8, and 4, the Bolters are just slightly bigger, and they're more realistically proportioned.

7&8 are one of the worse looking armors marines can have, so that is one thing. Their bolters are not slightly bigger their are bigger then hvy bolters or psycannons, while having slightly upgraded stats of normal bolters. If there were realisticaly proportioned they would be smaller, or they would have different rules.

Your last point is one of the big ones for me, but again it's gameplay related: Almost nothing Primaris performs the way it looks in game.

A redemptor dread is like 1.5x the size of a regular dreadnought. If you look at them next to each other they don't seem like they should be anywhere NEAR the same league of creature, it's like the difference between a crisis suit and a Ghostkeel. But what's the difference? Like half a lascannon worth of damage. Defenses identical otherwise. Firepower nothing special.

Gravis armor is the other one. The size difference between a regular primaris marine and an aggressor is equivalent to the size difference between a marine and a terminator. What's a terminator to a marine? Invuln save, double the wounds, double the firepower, double the attacks, 2+ save. What's a gravis marine to a primaris marine? +1T.

The amount of times I've played vs primaris marines and stuff just gets hosed off the table while I blink and go "Wait...really? That's all they had to them?" is amazing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

robbienw wrote:
Your point does not stand. Its not a 'got you', you are just wrong. You should have said they are slightly closer to being realistically proportioned to 'everything else' then, because they are not realistically proportioned.

There being nothing off with their design aesthetic is your individual opinion, it is not fact. Primaris mega fans trying to assert their opinions as fact seems to be a bit of a on ongoing theme.

In my opinion, there are a lot of things off with the primaris design aethsetic, and the classic marine model design aethsetic is superior. It may be the case that it is you that needs to get over other people having a differing view to yours.

Pray tell...
What's off, design-wise? They fit the general aesthetic of a new armor, like a combination of Mk7, 8, and 4, the Bolters are just slightly bigger, and they're more realistically proportioned.

I said it once and I'll say it again: it is just hate of Primaris fluff. Everyone can keep saying they don't fit the setting, but they never explain how.

The regular primaris marines are fine. as are the hellblasters. If you started from there, and that was the new sculpt for bolter marine and plasma gun marine, you'd be sitting pretty, and I'd be loving it.

The rest, design-wise, they completely F'ed up.

The Aggressors got hosed by GW trying to make Terminators into something brand-identifiable, so they had to stick with the tiny marine head and legs and they just boofed up the torso to ridiculous levels. They have a lesser version of Centurion syndrome, with a side helping of Primaris "too many weapons, don't know what is the focal point of the model" which is a theme throughout.

Reivers have a vomit-inducing Call of Duty modern warfare commando aesthetic, where they look specifically like what a ten year old would draw when you asked him to draw a commando, and not like what an actual commando might look like. Replacing the role of Scouts with proper power armored marines is something they could do successfully (And probably did do successfully with the great looking vanguard marines) but Reivers ain't it. The skull masks are beyond stupid and the lopsided shoulderpad shtick makes zero sense here. The one thing I do respect on reivers is the great posing they pulled off, it's tough to make good looking close combat poses and they did that quite well, it's just too bad they didn't realize the base design was so awful.

Potbelly dreadnought is potbelly dreadnought. When you shift the proportion from the "shoulders" to the center of the bottom, it reads as obese, even though it's a non-anatomical robot. there's a reason practically everyone saw the redemptor and immediately thought "oh, it's fat." You're programmed to see that body shape and proportion as abnormally fat, even on non-humans where that might be the average/"intended" shape, like a walrus or panda.

Flying giant clownshoe is the perfect example of "too many weapons, nothing to focus on." They're just bristling out of the thing with no rhyme or reason, and it's very clear that all the guns were added in because they were just desperate to make it an all-rounder vehicle that can be added to anyone's collection and will never be "bad" because it's so unspecialized. There is a reason that so many GW models incorporate sponsons rather than turrets, despite them being an outdated concept in warfare: Design-wise, it allows you to separate the weaponry at a glance, and affords you an easy way to show that a vehicle has a pair of a particular type of gun, because we see the symmetry. The repulsive's turret area is an absolute clusterfeth, and has WAY too much going on, versus the sides of the vehicle which are much more flat and bare. Again, there's no symmetry, and again, it doesn't look intentional, just sloppy.

The jump troops have a few problems. First for me is the "old eldar jetbiker issue" where you have a unit that's supposedly fast and dynamic, but is posed to read as chilled out and relaxed. The way they've been posed in mostly spreadeagled positions makes them look like they're leaning back and relaxing, and the focus on the model is back and down, rather than forward and up like the current assault marines. The pose of an inceptor holding his gun is like an overweight 45 year old flopping down on the couch and holding out the TV remote, and their chunky proportions don't do anything to help that. Add to that that their guns are enormously stubby and oversized, and the design of their new flying base draws the eye and is distracting rather than something out of the way, and they're a huge swing and a miss for me.

That is why I don't like primaris units aesthetically. It isn't just blind hate of primaris fluff, and I hope that is enough "explaining why" to satisfy you, or at least make you stop claiming everyone has no reasons.

Complaining for the sake of complaining! Here we go...
1. What's too many weapons on Aggressors? Not much different to anything else having too many weapons like a Land Raider or Terminators with CML or Ironclad Dreads. The frag launchers are pretty subtle for anything else in the game, and the Flamers aren't being combined with another weapon.
So seriously, what's too many weapons?
Also of course the torso seems big. Aggressors are basically weapons platforms, and fit the slight impracticality that comes from being in the 40k universe. Making them sleek would be stupid silly. Next.
2. Complaining about skull masks on a terror unit is pretty silly, especially since skulls are a focal point of design choices in 40k already. If we can't complain about Chaplains doing this (THEY'RE SPIRITUAL!!!), you can't complain about a terror unit using it. Also lopsided shoulder pads are prominent already. Fire Warriors are the easiest example of that.
3. You don't have the build the Dread with the extra armor. The website even shows examples of that. You also already kinda conceded by pointing out it's not supposed to be anthropomorphic anyway.
All the Dishwasher Dreads are silly anyway compared to what Contemptors have to offer us.
4. Yeah I'll concede on the Repulsor.
5. I have no idea what you're talking about with the posting on the Inceptors. They all look like they're about to land or in the middle of the first leap.
You can also pose them at a different angle if that bothers you.

Outside the Repulsor, you're the 40k version of this article.
https://thehardtimes.net/harddrive/game-freak-unveils-new-line-up-of-pokemon-for-you-to-be-upset-about-old-man/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I actually don't like the primaris sculpts. I know this is probably heresy to many here. But they're just so much bigger than anything else on the table.

I would like them better if they had Custodes like rules, where they were something like 50 points apiece but were absolutely savage. Instead they're just "bigger marines," which doesn't really jive with me. Marines were big enough.

Take MiniMarines out of that equation of "bigger than anything else on the table".

What's the issue after that? They hulk over Eldar and humans? That doesn't seem like a valid complaint to me.

The issue is i don't like the aesthetic. They look like models from a different universe.

Is not liking the color "teal" an invalid stance as well?

In what manner do they look like they're from a different universe? How is Mk10 that much different than the other Mk armors? It isn't. That's the problem.
So if you're looking for hulking power armor...yeah, guess what actually fits the bill that fits on the tabletop?

Their scale looks strange next to nearly everything else.

Verbal descriptions like "hulking power armor" are pretty useless in this regard. "Hulking Power armor" can have a lot of aesthetic variation, some of it fitting, and some not. Like 2001 and The Black Hole could both be called "space movies". . . but there's a world of difference. Execution and context.

Intercessors look like "bigger space marines" with somewhat different proportions to most of the GW line. So they look out of place to many of us.

But you aren't describing what, exactly, is out of scale once you remove MiniMarines out of the equation.

Almost everything else. I don't like the way Primaris look next to Eldar or Tyranid Warrions either, for example. Imo if the plastic guard weren't so chunky there wouldn't be a problem to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
and of course the new Primaris Jump Marines are based almost exactly on original RT artwork like alot of recent models

Sort of. The older artwork also looks like an assault marine dual-wielding bolt pistols so there's not really any clarity there.

Found this upon the internet. What's off and that you don't like?

 Crimson wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You can kitbash the Captains with realistic proportions. "Captain" entry and make a better model.

WYSIWYG says otherwise. A Primaris Captain cannot equip a thunder hammer per game rules.

Unfortunately true. Fortunately nothing is stopping one from representing a standard captain with a thunder hammer with a primaris model with a thunder hammer.

Wait, you can actualy do that? So let say someone could use a model from one army as another model from the same or other army? I thought that you have to have the specific gear, bases and the silhouette of the original model, because otherwise you would be cheating on LoS.

Karol wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You can kitbash the Captains with realistic proportions. "Captain" entry and make a better model.

WYSIWYG says otherwise. A Primaris Captain cannot equip a thunder hammer per game rules.

Unfortunately true. Fortunately nothing is stopping one from representing a standard captain with a thunder hammer with a primaris model with a thunder hammer.

Wait, you can actualy do that? So let say someone could use a model from one army as another model from the same or other army? I thought that you have to have the specific gear, bases and the silhouette of the original model, because otherwise you would be cheating on LoS.

Yeah it's called conversions and they've been done for a VERY long time.

the_scotsman wrote:


Potbelly dreadnought is potbelly dreadnought. When you shift the proportion from the "shoulders" to the center of the bottom, it reads as obese, even though it's a non-anatomical robot. there's a reason practically everyone saw the redemptor and immediately thought "oh, it's fat." You're programmed to see that body shape and proportion as abnormally fat, even on non-humans where that might be the average/"intended" shape, like a walrus or panda.

Hmm, while I fully appreciate everyone has a right to their opinion, and whilst I personally like primaris, and fully appreciate you are entitled not to like them (for example, I like reivers. I love the 'geared up' look they have). The only issue I have with what you say about the dread is 'oh, it's fat'. No mate, it's not fat, obese, or pot-bellied. It's Eddie Hall. Look at 'the worlds strongest man' competitions. Or Olympic weight lifters. Or the likes of Hafthor Bjornsson. Real, 'uge strength is often from a body type that is more thick around the waist, rather than skinny with 'uge arms. Some of those guys are beastly huge. And That's what I see when I see the dread. Not some fatty.

Other than that, To me, aggressors are fantastic, inceptors are brilliant, reivers are sublime and intercessors are simply perfect, and far better than anything from the oldstartes range. So, for what it's worth, I will politely disagree with you scotsman on this, but will genuinely respect your opinion on this.
Cheers!

 Crimson wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
What's the official height for Primaris marines? With ideally a reference

Fluff-wise? I don't think it has ever been stated.

Which is the piece I'm missing.

So I measured a marine from the dark Imperium, (the most upright one walking and aiming) using a vernier he was 1.5225". Upfront I'll also state this is a painted and finished model that I'm want to get too rough with, but when I build my other intercessors I'll try and get more exact measurements.

Using my unbuilt intercessors chest is 0.475"
Pointing arm from armpit to tip .630" (which seems really off)
Two arms and a chest equals 1.735 which is well above the original measurement. So Primaris marines wing span is too long.

A tempestus scion with a wide stance is 1.221", provided he's 6' tall a Primaris marine stands at 7.38 feet(88.56")

So in summary Primaris ARE true scale marines, not to scale Primaris marines. Granted their arms are a lot longer. But it seems like most other things are to proportion. Even the feet-forearm are close if you factor in the fact that they're encased in armour.

Might do the classics later

Yep, they are scaled to be about seven and half feet tall, which is good size for Space Marines.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Why not just buy the Primaris instead? They look much better and are guaranteed to have a full rule support for years to come.

Completely agree

I completely disagree. The Intercessors look great and the rest is just awful. The Scouts ripped off the Night Lords, Jump pack troops look like Baron Harkonnen, Dreadnought is oversized and has a beer belly and the Repulsor is just ugly and has sales driven transport rules. In a nutshell, Primaris SUCK!

Karol wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You can kitbash the Captains with realistic proportions. "Captain" entry and make a better model.

WYSIWYG says otherwise. A Primaris Captain cannot equip a thunder hammer per game rules.

Unfortunately true. Fortunately nothing is stopping one from representing a standard captain with a thunder hammer with a primaris model with a thunder hammer.

Wait, you can actualy do that? So let say someone could use a model from one army as another model from the same or other army? I thought that you have to have the specific gear, bases and the silhouette of the original model, because otherwise you would be cheating on LoS.

Yes, in general. The rule of thumb is that it should be something reasonable.

Now where you play & who you play with might have a strong influence on how far you can push this.

 Crimson wrote:
Yep, they are scaled to be about seven and half feet tall, which is good size for Space Marines.

We're supposed to assume that a Catachan guardsman is just as strong as an 8 foot tall genetically engineered super soldier. Size matters when determining strength. Primaris are nonsense in size.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yep, they are scaled to be about seven and half feet tall, which is good size for Space Marines.

We're supposed to assume that a Catachan guardsman is just as strong as an 8 foot tall genetically engineered super soldier. Size matters when determining strength. Primaris are nonsense in size.

How are they nonsense in size when the models are finally scaled to the size the marines are in the fluff?

Karol wrote:
Wait, you can actualy do that? So let say someone could use a model from one army as another model from the same or other army? I thought that you have to have the specific gear, bases and the silhouette of the original model, because otherwise you would be cheating on LoS.

Depends on how strong your local area is about WYSIWYG, I suppose. However, that doesn't change my argument really. I haven't really been given a need to buy a Primaris Captain when I can already buy the AWESOME non-primaris Blood Angels minis already out there by the arguments here.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Karol wrote:
Maybe if your insane. It is clear that they are going to be removing normal power armor units at some point, they are bad now. What if they never get to be good between now, and the point when GW decides to remove them totaly. Better spend money on something fun and useful.

By that logic you should be buying IG and IK instead, Primaris are also bad now. They really need embedded heavy weapon support and the only way to get that is to to play DW where old Marines are blatently superior. And even then DW is still inferior to IG/IK soup and is likely to remain so.

If I could get the money I would. If you think primaris are bad then you dont know what bad means.

What's off, design-wise? They fit the general aesthetic of a new armor, like a combination of Mk7, 8, and 4, the Bolters are just slightly bigger, and they're more realistically proportioned.

7&8 are one of the worse looking armors marines can have, so that is one thing. Their bolters are not slightly bigger their are bigger then hvy bolters or psycannons, while having slightly upgraded stats of normal bolters. If there were realisticaly proportioned they would be smaller, or they would have different rules.

Your last point is one of the big ones for me, but again it's gameplay related: Almost nothing Primaris performs the way it looks in game.

A redemptor dread is like 1.5x the size of a regular dreadnought. If you look at them next to each other they don't seem like they should be anywhere NEAR the same league of creature, it's like the difference between a crisis suit and a Ghostkeel. But what's the difference? Like half a lascannon worth of damage. Defenses identical otherwise. Firepower nothing special.

Gravis armor is the other one. The size difference between a regular primaris marine and an aggressor is equivalent to the size difference between a marine and a terminator. What's a terminator to a marine? Invuln save, double the wounds, double the firepower, double the attacks, 2+ save. What's a gravis marine to a primaris marine? +1T.

The amount of times I've played vs primaris marines and stuff just gets hosed off the table while I blink and go "Wait...really? That's all they had to them?" is amazing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

robbienw wrote:
Your point does not stand. Its not a 'got you', you are just wrong. You should have said they are slightly closer to being realistically proportioned to 'everything else' then, because they are not realistically proportioned.

There being nothing off with their design aesthetic is your individual opinion, it is not fact. Primaris mega fans trying to assert their opinions as fact seems to be a bit of a on ongoing theme.

In my opinion, there are a lot of things off with the primaris design aethsetic, and the classic marine model design aethsetic is superior. It may be the case that it is you that needs to get over other people having a differing view to yours.

Pray tell...
What's off, design-wise? They fit the general aesthetic of a new armor, like a combination of Mk7, 8, and 4, the Bolters are just slightly bigger, and they're more realistically proportioned.

I said it once and I'll say it again: it is just hate of Primaris fluff. Everyone can keep saying they don't fit the setting, but they never explain how.

The regular primaris marines are fine. as are the hellblasters. If you started from there, and that was the new sculpt for bolter marine and plasma gun marine, you'd be sitting pretty, and I'd be loving it.

The rest, design-wise, they completely F'ed up.

The Aggressors got hosed by GW trying to make Terminators into something brand-identifiable, so they had to stick with the tiny marine head and legs and they just boofed up the torso to ridiculous levels. They have a lesser version of Centurion syndrome, with a side helping of Primaris "too many weapons, don't know what is the focal point of the model" which is a theme throughout.

Reivers have a vomit-inducing Call of Duty modern warfare commando aesthetic, where they look specifically like what a ten year old would draw when you asked him to draw a commando, and not like what an actual commando might look like. Replacing the role of Scouts with proper power armored marines is something they could do successfully (And probably did do successfully with the great looking vanguard marines) but Reivers ain't it. The skull masks are beyond stupid and the lopsided shoulderpad shtick makes zero sense here. The one thing I do respect on reivers is the great posing they pulled off, it's tough to make good looking close combat poses and they did that quite well, it's just too bad they didn't realize the base design was so awful.

Potbelly dreadnought is potbelly dreadnought. When you shift the proportion from the "shoulders" to the center of the bottom, it reads as obese, even though it's a non-anatomical robot. there's a reason practically everyone saw the redemptor and immediately thought "oh, it's fat." You're programmed to see that body shape and proportion as abnormally fat, even on non-humans where that might be the average/"intended" shape, like a walrus or panda.

Flying giant clownshoe is the perfect example of "too many weapons, nothing to focus on." They're just bristling out of the thing with no rhyme or reason, and it's very clear that all the guns were added in because they were just desperate to make it an all-rounder vehicle that can be added to anyone's collection and will never be "bad" because it's so unspecialized. There is a reason that so many GW models incorporate sponsons rather than turrets, despite them being an outdated concept in warfare: Design-wise, it allows you to separate the weaponry at a glance, and affords you an easy way to show that a vehicle has a pair of a particular type of gun, because we see the symmetry. The repulsive's turret area is an absolute clusterfeth, and has WAY too much going on, versus the sides of the vehicle which are much more flat and bare. Again, there's no symmetry, and again, it doesn't look intentional, just sloppy.

The jump troops have a few problems. First for me is the "old eldar jetbiker issue" where you have a unit that's supposedly fast and dynamic, but is posed to read as chilled out and relaxed. The way they've been posed in mostly spreadeagled positions makes them look like they're leaning back and relaxing, and the focus on the model is back and down, rather than forward and up like the current assault marines. The pose of an inceptor holding his gun is like an overweight 45 year old flopping down on the couch and holding out the TV remote, and their chunky proportions don't do anything to help that. Add to that that their guns are enormously stubby and oversized, and the design of their new flying base draws the eye and is distracting rather than something out of the way, and they're a huge swing and a miss for me.

That is why I don't like primaris units aesthetically. It isn't just blind hate of primaris fluff, and I hope that is enough "explaining why" to satisfy you, or at least make you stop claiming everyone has no reasons.

Complaining for the sake of complaining! Here we go...
1. What's too many weapons on Aggressors? Not much different to anything else having too many weapons like a Land Raider or Terminators with CML or Ironclad Dreads. The frag launchers are pretty subtle for anything else in the game, and the Flamers aren't being combined with another weapon.
So seriously, what's too many weapons?
Also of course the torso seems big. Aggressors are basically weapons platforms, and fit the slight impracticality that comes from being in the 40k universe. Making them sleek would be stupid silly. Next.
2. Complaining about skull masks on a terror unit is pretty silly, especially since skulls are a focal point of design choices in 40k already. If we can't complain about Chaplains doing this (THEY'RE SPIRITUAL!!!), you can't complain about a terror unit using it. Also lopsided shoulder pads are prominent already. Fire Warriors are the easiest example of that.
3. You don't have the build the Dread with the extra armor. The website even shows examples of that. You also already kinda conceded by pointing out it's not supposed to be anthropomorphic anyway.
All the Dishwasher Dreads are silly anyway compared to what Contemptors have to offer us.
4. Yeah I'll concede on the Repulsor.
5. I have no idea what you're talking about with the posting on the Inceptors. They all look like they're about to land or in the middle of the first leap.
You can also pose them at a different angle if that bothers you.

Outside the Repulsor, you're the 40k version of this article.
https://thehardtimes.net/harddrive/game-freak-unveils-new-line-up-of-pokemon-for-you-to-be-upset-about-old-man/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I actually don't like the primaris sculpts. I know this is probably heresy to many here. But they're just so much bigger than anything else on the table.

I would like them better if they had Custodes like rules, where they were something like 50 points apiece but were absolutely savage. Instead they're just "bigger marines," which doesn't really jive with me. Marines were big enough.

Take MiniMarines out of that equation of "bigger than anything else on the table".

What's the issue after that? They hulk over Eldar and humans? That doesn't seem like a valid complaint to me.

The issue is i don't like the aesthetic. They look like models from a different universe.

Is not liking the color "teal" an invalid stance as well?

In what manner do they look like they're from a different universe? How is Mk10 that much different than the other Mk armors? It isn't. That's the problem.
So if you're looking for hulking power armor...yeah, guess what actually fits the bill that fits on the tabletop?

Their scale looks strange next to nearly everything else.

Verbal descriptions like "hulking power armor" are pretty useless in this regard. "Hulking Power armor" can have a lot of aesthetic variation, some of it fitting, and some not. Like 2001 and The Black Hole could both be called "space movies". . . but there's a world of difference. Execution and context.

Intercessors look like "bigger space marines" with somewhat different proportions to most of the GW line. So they look out of place to many of us.

But you aren't describing what, exactly, is out of scale once you remove MiniMarines out of the equation.

Almost everything else. I don't like the way Primaris look next to Eldar or Tyranid Warrions either, for example. Imo if the plastic guard weren't so chunky there wouldn't be a problem to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
and of course the new Primaris Jump Marines are based almost exactly on original RT artwork like alot of recent models

Sort of. The older artwork also looks like an assault marine dual-wielding bolt pistols so there's not really any clarity there.

Found this upon the internet. What's off and that you don't like?

Excellent find. That allows us to do a side-by-side and will hopefully really illustrate my side of this.




You can scoff at the old miniatures, but this is the size comparison I prefer. Tyranid Warriors are better as huge monsters, and marines are better as stalwart but outclassed defenders of the Imperium in comparison. Imo it gives the xenos threat more gravitas, and makes the marine more badass for fighting it. It's just more effin grimdark. I find the classic scale relationship infinitely more compelling from an atmospheric perspective.

 Insectum7 wrote:


You can scoff at the old miniatures, but this is the size comparison I prefer. Tyranid Warriors are better as huge monsters, and marines are better as stalwart but outclassed defenders of the Imperium in comparison. Imo it gives the xenos threat more gravitas, and makes the marine more badass for fighting it. It's just more effin grimdark. I find the classic scale relationship infinitely more compelling from an atmospheric perspective.

Thing is, when those models were made, the Tyranid Warriors were amongst the biggest models in the game. Now this is not even remotely true. So if you want Primaris Marines to face giant hulking alien bugs that completely dwarf them, that certainly can be arranged!

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


You can scoff at the old miniatures, but this is the size comparison I prefer. Tyranid Warriors are better as huge monsters, and marines are better as stalwart but outclassed defenders of the Imperium in comparison. Imo it gives the xenos threat more gravitas, and makes the marine more badass for fighting it. It's just more effin grimdark. I find the classic scale relationship infinitely more compelling from an atmospheric perspective.

Thing is, when those models were made, the Tyranid Warriors were amongst the biggest models in the game. Now this is not even remotely true. So if you want Primaris Marines to face giant hulking alien bugs that completely dwarf them, that certainly can be arranged!

I had a Reaver Titan in 2nd Ed.

The issue isn't "possible scale of models", the issue is the. . . how do I say it. . . the comparison of analogues between races. You don't scale your troops off the other factions vehicles. Tyranid Warrios are the "marines" of the Tyranids. Guardsmen personify Guard, Sisters personify Sisters, Aspect Warriors personify Eldar, IMO Tyranid Warriors personify Tyranids, and the traditional scale makes the faction as a whole seem more of a threat since their anthrapamorphic representation on the table is that much larger than the models of other races. It diminishes other factions to keep inflating marines.

This goes along with why I didn't like the nerfing of Necron Warriors and Immortals from their original codex to the 5th ed. one. Same principle. It's like it's impossible for people to accept basic troops that outclass marines, because of novels or whatever.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Why not just buy the Primaris instead? They look much better and are guaranteed to have a full rule support for years to come.

Completely agree

I completely disagree. The Intercessors look great and the rest is just awful. The Scouts ripped off the Night Lords, Jump pack troops look like Baron Harkonnen, Dreadnought is oversized and has a beer belly and the Repulsor is just ugly and has sales driven transport rules. In a nutshell, Primaris SUCK!

Your opinion, sure. Beauty in the eye of beholder etc

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Karol wrote:
Maybe if your insane. It is clear that they are going to be removing normal power armor units at some point, they are bad now. What if they never get to be good between now, and the point when GW decides to remove them totaly. Better spend money on something fun and useful.

By that logic you should be buying IG and IK instead, Primaris are also bad now. They really need embedded heavy weapon support and the only way to get that is to to play DW where old Marines are blatently superior. And even then DW is still inferior to IG/IK soup and is likely to remain so.

If I could get the money I would. If you think primaris are bad then you dont know what bad means.

What's off, design-wise? They fit the general aesthetic of a new armor, like a combination of Mk7, 8, and 4, the Bolters are just slightly bigger, and they're more realistically proportioned.

7&8 are one of the worse looking armors marines can have, so that is one thing. Their bolters are not slightly bigger their are bigger then hvy bolters or psycannons, while having slightly upgraded stats of normal bolters. If there were realisticaly proportioned they would be smaller, or they would have different rules.

Your last point is one of the big ones for me, but again it's gameplay related: Almost nothing Primaris performs the way it looks in game.

A redemptor dread is like 1.5x the size of a regular dreadnought. If you look at them next to each other they don't seem like they should be anywhere NEAR the same league of creature, it's like the difference between a crisis suit and a Ghostkeel. But what's the difference? Like half a lascannon worth of damage. Defenses identical otherwise. Firepower nothing special.

Gravis armor is the other one. The size difference between a regular primaris marine and an aggressor is equivalent to the size difference between a marine and a terminator. What's a terminator to a marine? Invuln save, double the wounds, double the firepower, double the attacks, 2+ save. What's a gravis marine to a primaris marine? +1T.

The amount of times I've played vs primaris marines and stuff just gets hosed off the table while I blink and go "Wait...really? That's all they had to them?" is amazing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

robbienw wrote:
Your point does not stand. Its not a 'got you', you are just wrong. You should have said they are slightly closer to being realistically proportioned to 'everything else' then, because they are not realistically proportioned.

There being nothing off with their design aesthetic is your individual opinion, it is not fact. Primaris mega fans trying to assert their opinions as fact seems to be a bit of a on ongoing theme.

In my opinion, there are a lot of things off with the primaris design aethsetic, and the classic marine model design aethsetic is superior. It may be the case that it is you that needs to get over other people having a differing view to yours.

Pray tell...
What's off, design-wise? They fit the general aesthetic of a new armor, like a combination of Mk7, 8, and 4, the Bolters are just slightly bigger, and they're more realistically proportioned.

I said it once and I'll say it again: it is just hate of Primaris fluff. Everyone can keep saying they don't fit the setting, but they never explain how.

The regular primaris marines are fine. as are the hellblasters. If you started from there, and that was the new sculpt for bolter marine and plasma gun marine, you'd be sitting pretty, and I'd be loving it.

The rest, design-wise, they completely F'ed up.

The Aggressors got hosed by GW trying to make Terminators into something brand-identifiable, so they had to stick with the tiny marine head and legs and they just boofed up the torso to ridiculous levels. They have a lesser version of Centurion syndrome, with a side helping of Primaris "too many weapons, don't know what is the focal point of the model" which is a theme throughout.

Reivers have a vomit-inducing Call of Duty modern warfare commando aesthetic, where they look specifically like what a ten year old would draw when you asked him to draw a commando, and not like what an actual commando might look like. Replacing the role of Scouts with proper power armored marines is something they could do successfully (And probably did do successfully with the great looking vanguard marines) but Reivers ain't it. The skull masks are beyond stupid and the lopsided shoulderpad shtick makes zero sense here. The one thing I do respect on reivers is the great posing they pulled off, it's tough to make good looking close combat poses and they did that quite well, it's just too bad they didn't realize the base design was so awful.

Potbelly dreadnought is potbelly dreadnought. When you shift the proportion from the "shoulders" to the center of the bottom, it reads as obese, even though it's a non-anatomical robot. there's a reason practically everyone saw the redemptor and immediately thought "oh, it's fat." You're programmed to see that body shape and proportion as abnormally fat, even on non-humans where that might be the average/"intended" shape, like a walrus or panda.

Flying giant clownshoe is the perfect example of "too many weapons, nothing to focus on." They're just bristling out of the thing with no rhyme or reason, and it's very clear that all the guns were added in because they were just desperate to make it an all-rounder vehicle that can be added to anyone's collection and will never be "bad" because it's so unspecialized. There is a reason that so many GW models incorporate sponsons rather than turrets, despite them being an outdated concept in warfare: Design-wise, it allows you to separate the weaponry at a glance, and affords you an easy way to show that a vehicle has a pair of a particular type of gun, because we see the symmetry. The repulsive's turret area is an absolute clusterfeth, and has WAY too much going on, versus the sides of the vehicle which are much more flat and bare. Again, there's no symmetry, and again, it doesn't look intentional, just sloppy.

The jump troops have a few problems. First for me is the "old eldar jetbiker issue" where you have a unit that's supposedly fast and dynamic, but is posed to read as chilled out and relaxed. The way they've been posed in mostly spreadeagled positions makes them look like they're leaning back and relaxing, and the focus on the model is back and down, rather than forward and up like the current assault marines. The pose of an inceptor holding his gun is like an overweight 45 year old flopping down on the couch and holding out the TV remote, and their chunky proportions don't do anything to help that. Add to that that their guns are enormously stubby and oversized, and the design of their new flying base draws the eye and is distracting rather than something out of the way, and they're a huge swing and a miss for me.

That is why I don't like primaris units aesthetically. It isn't just blind hate of primaris fluff, and I hope that is enough "explaining why" to satisfy you, or at least make you stop claiming everyone has no reasons.

Complaining for the sake of complaining! Here we go...
1. What's too many weapons on Aggressors? Not much different to anything else having too many weapons like a Land Raider or Terminators with CML or Ironclad Dreads. The frag launchers are pretty subtle for anything else in the game, and the Flamers aren't being combined with another weapon.
So seriously, what's too many weapons?
Also of course the torso seems big. Aggressors are basically weapons platforms, and fit the slight impracticality that comes from being in the 40k universe. Making them sleek would be stupid silly. Next.
2. Complaining about skull masks on a terror unit is pretty silly, especially since skulls are a focal point of design choices in 40k already. If we can't complain about Chaplains doing this (THEY'RE SPIRITUAL!!!), you can't complain about a terror unit using it. Also lopsided shoulder pads are prominent already. Fire Warriors are the easiest example of that.
3. You don't have the build the Dread with the extra armor. The website even shows examples of that. You also already kinda conceded by pointing out it's not supposed to be anthropomorphic anyway.
All the Dishwasher Dreads are silly anyway compared to what Contemptors have to offer us.
4. Yeah I'll concede on the Repulsor.
5. I have no idea what you're talking about with the posting on the Inceptors. They all look like they're about to land or in the middle of the first leap.
You can also pose them at a different angle if that bothers you.

Outside the Repulsor, you're the 40k version of this article.
https://thehardtimes.net/harddrive/game-freak-unveils-new-line-up-of-pokemon-for-you-to-be-upset-about-old-man/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I actually don't like the primaris sculpts. I know this is probably heresy to many here. But they're just so much bigger than anything else on the table.

I would like them better if they had Custodes like rules, where they were something like 50 points apiece but were absolutely savage. Instead they're just "bigger marines," which doesn't really jive with me. Marines were big enough.

Take MiniMarines out of that equation of "bigger than anything else on the table".

What's the issue after that? They hulk over Eldar and humans? That doesn't seem like a valid complaint to me.

The issue is i don't like the aesthetic. They look like models from a different universe.

Is not liking the color "teal" an invalid stance as well?

In what manner do they look like they're from a different universe? How is Mk10 that much different than the other Mk armors? It isn't. That's the problem.
So if you're looking for hulking power armor...yeah, guess what actually fits the bill that fits on the tabletop?

Their scale looks strange next to nearly everything else.

Verbal descriptions like "hulking power armor" are pretty useless in this regard. "Hulking Power armor" can have a lot of aesthetic variation, some of it fitting, and some not. Like 2001 and The Black Hole could both be called "space movies". . . but there's a world of difference. Execution and context.

Intercessors look like "bigger space marines" with somewhat different proportions to most of the GW line. So they look out of place to many of us.

But you aren't describing what, exactly, is out of scale once you remove MiniMarines out of the equation.

Almost everything else. I don't like the way Primaris look next to Eldar or Tyranid Warrions either, for example. Imo if the plastic guard weren't so chunky there wouldn't be a problem to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
and of course the new Primaris Jump Marines are based almost exactly on original RT artwork like alot of recent models

Sort of. The older artwork also looks like an assault marine dual-wielding bolt pistols so there's not really any clarity there.

Found this upon the internet. What's off and that you don't like?

Excellent find. That allows us to do a side-by-side and will hopefully really illustrate my side of this.




You can scoff at the old miniatures, but this is the size comparison I prefer. Tyranid Warriors are better as huge monsters, and marines are better as stalwart but outclassed defenders of the Imperium in comparison. Imo it gives the xenos threat more gravitas, and makes the marine more badass for fighting it. It's just more effin grimdark. I find the classic scale relationship infinitely more compelling from an atmospheric perspective.

Except those Warriors look like they're near 2-3× bigger by comparison, which makes little sense rules-wise.

Plus think about OTHER xeno threats like Raveners and even the Carnifex.

It's fairly clear what GW is planning even if they are saying other wise. Anyone thinking about a marine army should clearly wait a couple of years. If not just for the Primaris conversion but also for the new C:SM considering how under powered it is right now.

Personally, the Repulsor has been growing on me. When the Repulsor was previewed, I didn't really like it. The turret was too short compared to it's hull, and it had a lot of crap. But, you know, it does look like a silly flying Bradley, and I like that.

I also love the new Eliminators . They're so silly looking, with the night-vision sets and the Binoculars, the rifles with the collapsing stocks and tactical rails, and the two barrel attachments on their gun. Like someone google-searched "Tacticool" and made a guy to personify a 12-year-old Call of Duty player's idea of "Special Forces".

 Insectum7 wrote:



I had a Reaver Titan in 2nd Ed.

The issue isn't "possible scale of models", the issue is the. . . how do I say it. . . the comparison of analogues between races. You don't scale your troops off the other factions vehicles. Tyranid Warrios are the "marines" of the Tyranids. Guardsmen personify Guard, Sisters personify Sisters, Aspect Warriors personify Eldar, IMO Tyranid Warriors personify Tyranids, and the traditional scale makes the faction as a whole seem more of a threat since their anthrapamorphic representation on the table is that much larger than the models of other races. It diminishes other factions to keep inflating marines.

This goes along with why I didn't like the nerfing of Necron Warriors and Immortals from their original codex to the 5th ed. one. Same principle. It's like it's impossible for people to accept basic troops that outclass marines, because of novels or whatever.

I think of Guardsmen as the stalwart defenders of the Imperium fighting things that horribly outclass them, and the Space Marines as elite super-soldier janissaries. Like, let me put it this way: If I want to play stalwart outgunned defenders, there's a faction that isn't genetically engineered super-soldiers to do it with. Genetically Engineered Supersoldier Janissary and Stalwart Outclassed Defender are not two themes that, in my mind go together.

I think of Marines as giant inhuman warriors who wade into gunfire, while the small size makes them look like scrappy underdogs.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Tbh the new chaos stuff is kind of the only reason I'm doubting the whole "classic marines ate getting squatted" narrative.

Why would they be putting out a box that is essentially primaris vs classic marines (chaos admittedly, but with classic marine armaments and aesthetic forms) if they're squatting the whole marine line?

Agree. Are we really going to enter an era where the good guy marines are just bigger and badder than the bad guy marines? That would be so dumb.

Classic CSM are going away too. Death Guard have unique marines. Thousand Sons have unique marines. Expect the legacy legions to also get squatted in time, as well. At least, that's my thought.

Old marines are going away. It's just happening in loyalist land first.

What?

Death guard have old style boltguns. old style power armor. old style backpacks. Old style helmets. So do thousand sons. So do the new chaos space marines coming out in an upcoming box set alongside the new primaris marines.

In your doomsday scenario here, are they releasing these models to just squat them later? I mean, I guess by your logic, literally any model release they put out is going to be squatted EVENTUALLY, right?

is any unit replaced by a new higher detailed kit "squatted"?

The doom and gloom in this thread is mind boggling.

Could extend this logic to the entire 40k range. Why buy anything when it will get replaced in the future?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except those Warriors look like they're near 2-3× bigger by comparison, which makes little sense rules-wise.

Plus think about OTHER xeno threats like Raveners and even the Carnifex.

Had a couple of those, back then there were no Raveners, Warriors were your primary elite choice and carnifexes looked like this:

And were apparently passing the Tank they just ate.

Hive Tyrants were terrifying, Warriors were serious threats and there were special rules saying your enemies could explicitly target them even if you had them screened because of how important synapse was to your army.

Those old Warriors, and the hive tyrants by extension, deserved to be that much larger than marines, they were supposed to be serious threats to them. But as the marines are invincible super-dudes narrative has marched along a whole lot of other things got watered down to suit it. That or they just leaned entirely too hard into making them a horde army when they adopted the zerg look rather than a horde lead by specific and important elites, particularly given warriors are troops these days.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
8.5 edition will soft-ban them by making their rules unsuitable compared to Pirmaris, who at that point will have fully replaced every oldmarine role.

9th edition will Squat them by making them "Index Only", in addition to making Index Only (as in the original indexes, not the supplemental ones like Assassins or Renegade Knights) entries Narrative Play only.

I'll refrain from saying "I told you so." when it happens.

And I will jump for joy when this day comes! Primaris are infinitely better models, rules and fluff! Bring on the revolution!

 Crimson wrote:
Why not just buy the Primaris instead? They look much better and are guaranteed to have a full rule support for years to come.

If Primaris Marines are anything like Stormcast, Wave 2 and Wave 3 of Primaris releases will make the Wave 1 release mostly useless in comparison.

The real thing that stops me from caring enough about Primaris to make an army about them is that, gameplaywise, there's not much customization you can do with primaris units. Primaris captains can have a sword and rifle or fist and pistol, for example and... well, that's it. It's so limiting. A lot of chapters can't even give primaris captains their unique chapter wargear.

 Melissia wrote:
The real thing that stops me from caring enough about Primaris to make an army about them is that, gameplaywise, there's not much customization you can do with primaris units. Primaris captains can have a sword and rifle or fist and pistol, for example and... well, that's it. It's so limiting. A lot of chapters can't even give primaris captains their unique chapter wargear.

Valid points. Same could have been said for wave 1 for Stormcast in AOS.

I'd imagine after this second release, Primaris will be much more in depth.

Or they could be relegated to merely supporting normal marines.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:



I had a Reaver Titan in 2nd Ed.

The issue isn't "possible scale of models", the issue is the. . . how do I say it. . . the comparison of analogues between races. You don't scale your troops off the other factions vehicles. Tyranid Warrios are the "marines" of the Tyranids. Guardsmen personify Guard, Sisters personify Sisters, Aspect Warriors personify Eldar, IMO Tyranid Warriors personify Tyranids, and the traditional scale makes the faction as a whole seem more of a threat since their anthrapamorphic representation on the table is that much larger than the models of other races. It diminishes other factions to keep inflating marines.

This goes along with why I didn't like the nerfing of Necron Warriors and Immortals from their original codex to the 5th ed. one. Same principle. It's like it's impossible for people to accept basic troops that outclass marines, because of novels or whatever.

I think of Guardsmen as the stalwart defenders of the Imperium fighting things that horribly outclass them, and the Space Marines as elite super-soldier janissaries. Like, let me put it this way: If I want to play stalwart outgunned defenders, there's a faction that isn't genetically engineered super-soldiers to do it with. Genetically Engineered Supersoldier Janissary and Stalwart Outclassed Defender are not two themes that, in my mind go together.

I think of Marines as giant inhuman warriors who wade into gunfire, while the small size makes them look like scrappy underdogs.

I'll see your stalwart and raise you a grimdark. What I prefer is the imagery where the absolute best the imperium has to offer is clearly outmatched by basic soldiers of other at least one or two other factions. As good as marines are on an individual level, as a narrative point it's important to me that there are enemies they cant just wade through on an individual level, especially on the level of physical prowess.

If marines are by default the biggest fish in the pond, tension is removed. Traditionally, there are faction troops they can bully individually, there are faction troops they are on equal footing with (individually), and there are faction where they're on the defensive (individually). Imo that's ideal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Except those Warriors look like they're near 2-3× bigger by comparison, which makes little sense rules-wise.

Plus think about OTHER xeno threats like Raveners and even the Carnifex.

Warriors currently have 3w and 3a, so I dont know what you're referring to, rules-wise.

Raveners are essentially the Warrior chassis. Warriors are the Tyranid "troops of the line", which is why I compare them to basic marines. Carnifexes are Tyranid Dreadnoughts, really.

 Melissia wrote:
Or they could be relegated to merely supporting normal marines.

The proper course of action would have been to do the exact same thing that was done before with the change of marines back from the RT guys to the larger "modern" marines. No Primaris BS, just announce a new miniature scale, a rules buff to two wounds, and that would be that. You could still use your old minis, but the new models would be truescale and feature a lot of new toys. A "deluxe" line compared to the oldmarines. If anybody raised a fuss about the size difference, GW could just say that Guilliman unearthed some unspoilt geneseed with purity similar to the crusade era.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

robbienw wrote:
Your point does not stand. Its not a 'got you', you are just wrong. You should have said they are slightly closer to being realistically proportioned to 'everything else' then, because they are not realistically proportioned.

There being nothing off with their design aesthetic is your individual opinion, it is not fact. Primaris mega fans trying to assert their opinions as fact seems to be a bit of a on ongoing theme.

In my opinion, there are a lot of things off with the primaris design aethsetic, and the classic marine model design aethsetic is superior. It may be the case that it is you that needs to get over other people having a differing view to yours.

Pray tell...
What's off, design-wise? They fit the general aesthetic of a new armor, like a combination of Mk7, 8, and 4, the Bolters are just slightly bigger, and they're more realistically proportioned.

I said it once and I'll say it again: it is just hate of Primaris fluff. Everyone can keep saying they don't fit the setting, but they never explain how.

Fluff has got nothing to do with it. There is so much I find off about them. They do look like a combo of mk7 and 8 with a mk4 like helmet, but its like someone has tried to take all the cool bits from these armour types to make a super cool looking armour suit, and has failed.

With the normal mk10 armour guys - They feel too big, chunky and cluttered. I don't like the extra plating on the arms and legs. I don't like the helmet faceplate, its too narrow and dominated by the side bits where the pipes connect. I don't like the knee pad rims. I don't like the oversized greaves and feet, they just look too big. The feet look silly with the heel and and the awkward upper foot plate. I don't like the flexi bits of stomach armour. The backpack looks mis proportioned and top heavy. The bolt rifles look too long. I don't like the belt being leather rather than an armoured piece. The gorget doesn't look right either.

With the aggressors and inceptors its similar problems to the standard mk10, just turned up to 11. Extremely chunky. The feet and greaves are ridiculously large, it just doesn't look right. Too much armour plating on more armour plating. Odd looking bucket hood armour over the helmets that is unnecessary. The Aggressors are poorly posed and all of them having the crotch reliquaries in the same place is odd and looks silly, I can only conclude they put them there because they couldn't decide how to do the crotch armour. Generally the way gravis armour is setup reminds me of the body proportions of winnie the poo

The Reivers don't have the chunkiness problem like the others, but I really don't like the skull faceplates, the tire tread stomach armour and the capri shorts and trainers looking leg armour. I know the greave area on the reivers was meant to look like English civil war era bucket boots, but it just doesn't work. The ankle bit is too thin and the upper part of the armour is too close to the knee area, so it really looks like they are wearing long shorts.

The Redemptor is ok and the Repulsor is quite good. Its the infantry models I don't like, the vehicles are ok so far.

Please note this is how I feel from a design and aesthetic view. You can say 'but some of those parts you don't like make sense being that way cause reasons!', but its not about that and something making sense on a model according to you doesn't mean it looks good aesthetically to me.

 Melissia wrote:
The real thing that stops me from caring enough about Primaris to make an army about them is that, gameplaywise, there's not much customization you can do with primaris units. Primaris captains can have a sword and rifle or fist and pistol, for example and... well, that's it. It's so limiting. A lot of chapters can't even give primaris captains their unique chapter wargear.

Yeah. If these new primaris marines come out, and they are a real actual REPLACEMENT for the current tactical squad, in terms of wargear options, customizability, and model character....I am all in on the primaris train. They redesigned marines to be bigger scaled, just like they did with the chaos ranges, and to have better leg posing: That is fine. A-OK. What they are doing at present is in my eyes basically like "Hey we've got this hot new redesigned terminator, we call it, A CENTURION! WOOO!~ AREN'T YOU EXCITED?"

Just for curiosity's sake, I pulled out one of my recent thousand sons rubrics, and one of my four primaris marines (I bought an ez-build kit of reivers to run in Kill Team with my deathwatch, and I had a free Intercessor from some kit I made up as a grenade launcher guy) and the height difference was fething imperceptible stood side by side.

TBH, the biggest height difference between even an older space marine model and one of my primaris was due to the fact that the 32mm bases are actually almost 1/3 again as tall as the 25mm bases. I had a couple of the current Space Wolves sculpt for comparison as well.

The primaris was mostly just differently proportioned to the rubric...IMO, not much of an improvement. The chest was higher, which was good, but kind of bulgy about the pectorals which leads to the primaris marine looking like he had micro-neck. The bottom portion of the primaris' legs, around the ankles, was much thicker, and oddly contrary to my expectations, the Primaris marine actually had much more of a "horse stance" to him. From forehead of the rubric to forehead of the primaris (obviously not counting the headdress which made the rubric taller) the difference was 4mm with my set of verniers. The arms were the same. The hips were about the same, though the MkX hips were differently shaped.

I like the lower torso of the primaris marine better, the upper chest of the classic marine better, the helmets of specifically intercessors better, and the legs of the primaris marine better except for the megaman cankles.

So, if GW actually delivered me the same product as classic marines in terms of gameplay (or at least similar) I think I'd be pretty happy. I'd probably scale up my classic marines to fit and run them as primaris. This seems like what they're set to do with chaos marines - the new black legionnaires out of blackstone fortress are very nearly the height of a primaris marine. The problem I run into with the current primaris marine is tthat they deliver a very different, and far simpler, gameplay experience that I don't enjoy as much. There are more fun looking armies to play if you want a super elite, slow, footslogging gunline. I'd play Necrons or Custodes first.

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


You can scoff at the old miniatures, but this is the size comparison I prefer. Tyranid Warriors are better as huge monsters, and marines are better as stalwart but outclassed defenders of the Imperium in comparison. Imo it gives the xenos threat more gravitas, and makes the marine more badass for fighting it. It's just more effin grimdark. I find the classic scale relationship infinitely more compelling from an atmospheric perspective.

Thing is, when those models were made, the Tyranid Warriors were amongst the biggest models in the game. Now this is not even remotely true. So if you want Primaris Marines to face giant hulking alien bugs that completely dwarf them, that certainly can be arranged!

Grimdark is lame and very 90s. 2nd ed models were awful.

robbienw wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

robbienw wrote:
Your point does not stand. Its not a 'got you', you are just wrong. You should have said they are slightly closer to being realistically proportioned to 'everything else' then, because they are not realistically proportioned.

There being nothing off with their design aesthetic is your individual opinion, it is not fact. Primaris mega fans trying to assert their opinions as fact seems to be a bit of a on ongoing theme.

In my opinion, there are a lot of things off with the primaris design aethsetic, and the classic marine model design aethsetic is superior. It may be the case that it is you that needs to get over other people having a differing view to yours.

Pray tell...
What's off, design-wise? They fit the general aesthetic of a new armor, like a combination of Mk7, 8, and 4, the Bolters are just slightly bigger, and they're more realistically proportioned.

I said it once and I'll say it again: it is just hate of Primaris fluff. Everyone can keep saying they don't fit the setting, but they never explain how.

Fluff has got nothing to do with it. There is so much I find off about them. They do look like a combo of mk7 and 8 with a mk4 like helmet, but its like someone has tried to take all the cool bits from these armour types to make a super cool looking armour suit, and has failed.

With the normal mk10 armour guys - They feel too big, chunky and cluttered. I don't like the extra plating on the arms and legs. I don't like the helmet faceplate, its too narrow and dominated by the side bits where the pipes connect. I don't like the knee pad rims. I don't like the oversized greaves and feet, they just look too big. The feet look silly with the heel and and the awkward upper foot plate. I don't like the flexi bits of stomach armour. The backpack looks mis proportioned and top heavy. The bolt rifles look too long. I don't like the belt being leather rather than an armoured piece. The gorget doesn't look right either.

With the aggressors and inceptors its similar problems to the standard mk10, just turned up to 11. Extremely chunky. The feet and greaves are ridiculously large, it just doesn't look right. Too much armour plating on more armour plating. Odd looking bucket hood armour over the helmets that is unnecessary. The Aggressors are poorly posed and all of them having the crotch reliquaries in the same place is odd and looks silly, I can only conclude they put them there because they couldn't decide how to do the crotch armour. Generally the way gravis armour is setup reminds me of the body proportions of winnie the poo

The Reivers don't have the chunkiness problem like the others, but I really don't like the skull faceplates, the tire tread stomach armour and the capri shorts and trainers looking leg armour. I know the greave area on the reivers was meant to look like English civil war era bucket boots, but it just doesn't work. The ankle bit is too thin and the upper part of the armour is too close to the knee area, so it really looks like they are wearing long shorts.

The Redemptor is ok and the Repulsor is quite good. Its the infantry models I don't like, the vehicles are ok so far.

Please note this is how I feel from a design and aesthetic view. You can say 'but some of those parts you don't like make sense being that way cause reasons!', but its not about that and something making sense on a model according to you doesn't mean it looks good aesthetically to me.

. Cluttered
. Oversized feet
. Backpack too top heavy

Literally most of these complaints could be used for MiniMarines. Here's a direct comparison again. Also what belt being leather? Some people just paint them that way.
So start pointing out the specific stuff that can't be complained about with MiniMarines. You're on purpose looking for things ti be annoyed by because you refuse change.

Slayerfan in this thread:

"People don't like primaris marines for no reason! There is no aesthetic reason to not like them! Therefore they must just be blindly hating them because of their fluff and lying, saying they have aesthetic problems with them!"

Other people:

"No, here are my specific aesthetic problems with them, in my opinion."

Slayerfan:

"THAT IS NOT A VALID OPINION BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH IT! Therefore you dislike Primaris Marines for no reason!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(FTR: I completely understand the reasoning behind why GW added all the extra armor plates to the legs of primaris marines and replaced the face grille with a front plate, and I agree with the decision to do so. It adds more hard edges to the parts of the space marine that typically only looked good when carefully layered, meaning that a primaris marine looks better with a basic base coat/wash/drybrush paint scheme that a new player might apply. You can still layer paint them, so a high quality paintjob looks similarly good, but the added hard edges makes drybrush and simple edge highlights look better on the primaris armor.

I don't share robbienw's opinion, but that does not mean I don't think he's entitled to hold it. I also do not think slayer isn't entitled to hold his own opinion that primaris-equivalent units are superior to the previous marine designs in every way.)

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

robbienw wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

robbienw wrote:
Your point does not stand. Its not a 'got you', you are just wrong. You should have said they are slightly closer to being realistically proportioned to 'everything else' then, because they are not realistically proportioned.

There being nothing off with their design aesthetic is your individual opinion, it is not fact. Primaris mega fans trying to assert their opinions as fact seems to be a bit of a on ongoing theme.

In my opinion, there are a lot of things off with the primaris design aethsetic, and the classic marine model design aethsetic is superior. It may be the case that it is you that needs to get over other people having a differing view to yours.

Pray tell...
What's off, design-wise? They fit the general aesthetic of a new armor, like a combination of Mk7, 8, and 4, the Bolters are just slightly bigger, and they're more realistically proportioned.

I said it once and I'll say it again: it is just hate of Primaris fluff. Everyone can keep saying they don't fit the setting, but they never explain how.

Fluff has got nothing to do with it. There is so much I find off about them. They do look like a combo of mk7 and 8 with a mk4 like helmet, but its like someone has tried to take all the cool bits from these armour types to make a super cool looking armour suit, and has failed.

With the normal mk10 armour guys - They feel too big, chunky and cluttered. I don't like the extra plating on the arms and legs. I don't like the helmet faceplate, its too narrow and dominated by the side bits where the pipes connect. I don't like the knee pad rims. I don't like the oversized greaves and feet, they just look too big. The feet look silly with the heel and and the awkward upper foot plate. I don't like the flexi bits of stomach armour. The backpack looks mis proportioned and top heavy. The bolt rifles look too long. I don't like the belt being leather rather than an armoured piece. The gorget doesn't look right either.

With the aggressors and inceptors its similar problems to the standard mk10, just turned up to 11. Extremely chunky. The feet and greaves are ridiculously large, it just doesn't look right. Too much armour plating on more armour plating. Odd looking bucket hood armour over the helmets that is unnecessary. The Aggressors are poorly posed and all of them having the crotch reliquaries in the same place is odd and looks silly, I can only conclude they put them there because they couldn't decide how to do the crotch armour. Generally the way gravis armour is setup reminds me of the body proportions of winnie the poo

The Reivers don't have the chunkiness problem like the others, but I really don't like the skull faceplates, the tire tread stomach armour and the capri shorts and trainers looking leg armour. I know the greave area on the reivers was meant to look like English civil war era bucket boots, but it just doesn't work. The ankle bit is too thin and the upper part of the armour is too close to the knee area, so it really looks like they are wearing long shorts.

The Redemptor is ok and the Repulsor is quite good. Its the infantry models I don't like, the vehicles are ok so far.

Please note this is how I feel from a design and aesthetic view. You can say 'but some of those parts you don't like make sense being that way cause reasons!', but its not about that and something making sense on a model according to you doesn't mean it looks good aesthetically to me.

. Cluttered
. Oversized feet
. Backpack too top heavy

Literally most of these complaints could be used for MiniMarines. Here's a direct comparison again. Also what belt being leather? Some people just paint them that way.
So start pointing out the specific stuff that can't be complained about with MiniMarines. You're on purpose looking for things ti be annoyed by because you refuse change.

The old claim that someone doesn't like/can't take change is a really poor argument to attempt. Its one of those arguments people try going to when they can't admit they don't like it because other people are disagreeing with their subjective opinions and their is actually nothing they can argue against. It also assumes all change is good, which is not necessarily true.

I did actually point out plenty of stuff there that doesn't apply to the classic marines, oversized greaves, extra armour plating on armour plating, overly long rifle, heel and awkward upper plate on feet, the stomach armour, bucket hoods, etc.

Its also possible to like characteristics on one model and dislike similar characteristics on another model, because of the way they fit into the design, or the degree to which a characteristic has been used or overused in a design. The classic marines feet are also big for example, but they fit into the design a lot better. In my opinion son.

I know you may like these things, but I don't and i'm telling you what I don't like about the primaris design aethesetic. Its not a debate, you can't decide for me what I find good looking or not.

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah. If these new primaris marines come out, and they are a real actual REPLACEMENT for the current tactical squad, in terms of wargear options, customizability, and model character....I am all in on the primaris train.

Agreed. Literally the lack of customization options is what kept me from getting primaris for my BA. If they add customization, I might make a primaris raven guard army.

I just want customizable primaris Captains. Don’t really care about regular troops having 10 different weapons in the same squad at the same time. For that I have DW.

And I want customizable troops. Intercessors should be able to have more than just underslung grenade launchers. Would be nice if you could swap the two aux GLs for a combiweapon for example. Having them just be bog-standard rifles really limits their use, and marines are all about adaptability.

Martel732 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


You can scoff at the old miniatures, but this is the size comparison I prefer. Tyranid Warriors are better as huge monsters, and marines are better as stalwart but outclassed defenders of the Imperium in comparison. Imo it gives the xenos threat more gravitas, and makes the marine more badass for fighting it. It's just more effin grimdark. I find the classic scale relationship infinitely more compelling from an atmospheric perspective.

Thing is, when those models were made, the Tyranid Warriors were amongst the biggest models in the game. Now this is not even remotely true. So if you want Primaris Marines to face giant hulking alien bugs that completely dwarf them, that certainly can be arranged!

Grimdark is lame and very 90s. 2nd ed models were awful.

Says the guy who plays *Blood* *Angels*. The chapter of vampire marines. With Mephiston aping muscle-armor as seen in Coppolas Dracula. The chapter who are visited with dark visions of their deceased father. The pretty-boy space marines who paint their armor black, add more skulls and adorn it with tear-gems. And you're gonna hate on the 90's!? You might as well show up to the table costumed as Tom Cruises Lestat or Brad Pitts Louis and be rocking The Crow soundtrack. . . ."Someone take these dreams away. . . "

 Melissia wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah. If these new primaris marines come out, and they are a real actual REPLACEMENT for the current tactical squad, in terms of wargear options, customizability, and model character....I am all in on the primaris train.

Agreed. Literally the lack of customization options is what kept me from getting primaris for my BA. If they add customization, I might make a primaris raven guard army.

The lack of customization is a weird one to me, too. I really don't know why GW made that decision. I recall that a lot of people playing Heresy seemed to prefer a lack of customization in units though. If Intercessors did have more choices, they'd really look like they were putting the Tactical Squad out of business. I have mixed feelings about all that.

I do find it funny when people talk about doom and gloom that is in response to the eventual squatting of their entire collections.

(a) that's a totally valid reason to feel bummed out
and
(b) this is a community that is clearly drawn to grim dark, so it kind of fits to take the grim dark view of 9th, or 10th, edition.

I'd say the proof of the viability of "Grimdark" is in the Nolan Batman movies. Heck, Ledgers Joker is practically an avatar of Grimdark, and people love that depiction.

the_scotsman wrote:Slayerfan in this thread:

"People don't like primaris marines for no reason! There is no aesthetic reason to not like them! Therefore they must just be blindly hating them because of their fluff and lying, saying they have aesthetic problems with them!"

Other people:

"No, here are my specific aesthetic problems with them, in my opinion."

Slayerfan:

"THAT IS NOT A VALID OPINION BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH IT! Therefore you dislike Primaris Marines for no reason!"

But that's not what SlayerFan is saying.
They're pointing out that some of the criticisms of Primaris also apply to the normal Marines, and it's a bit skewed to only mention those bits when it's convenient to bashing on the Primaris.

Yes, opinions be subjective and all, and I definitely agree all are valid, but pointing out that some of the arguments about Primaris being inferior also applied to the old sculpts too (not to mention paintjob being down to personal interpretation, not the sculpt at all) isn't saying it's invalid.
It's just asking for specifics. Now, it very well could be that robbienw can't lay down a specific aesthetic reason that doesn't also incriminate the minimarines, but that's not to say their opinion is invalid. It just means that they can't articulate it, or reason it, but the effect the Primaris armour has on them is still there.

(FTR: I completely understand the reasoning behind why GW added all the extra armor plates to the legs of primaris marines and replaced the face grille with a front plate, and I agree with the decision to do so. It adds more hard edges to the parts of the space marine that typically only looked good when carefully layered, meaning that a primaris marine looks better with a basic base coat/wash/drybrush paint scheme that a new player might apply. You can still layer paint them, so a high quality paintjob looks similarly good, but the added hard edges makes drybrush and simple edge highlights look better on the primaris armor.

I've noticed this too, and I think it is very good. GW themselves are also leaning strongly into that with their battle-ready Primaris tutorials (which I *REALLY* like).
I've used both edge highlighting and drybrush techniques, and edge highlighting is so much easier than on older marines, as is drybrushing. They really are great sculpts for beginners in that respect too.

I don't share robbienw's opinion, but that does not mean I don't think he's entitled to hold it. I also do not think slayer isn't entitled to hold his own opinion that primaris-equivalent units are superior to the previous marine designs in every way.)

Agreed. I think the issue here is that Slayer is saying that robbienw's arguments also attack the older marines that they are defending by-proxy, and that it's a bit of a double-standard. It's not to say that robbienw's opinions and feelings aren't justified or real, but that they might be more personal and feelings-based rather than about quantifiable differences.

They don't apply. The relative scale of primaris to the rest of the game cause a real problem.

If you take a marine-centric viewpoint i'm sure their size is fine.

But i play Eldar, and I think the new marines are stupid.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:Slayerfan in this thread:

"People don't like primaris marines for no reason! There is no aesthetic reason to not like them! Therefore they must just be blindly hating them because of their fluff and lying, saying they have aesthetic problems with them!"

Other people:

"No, here are my specific aesthetic problems with them, in my opinion."

Slayerfan:

"THAT IS NOT A VALID OPINION BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH IT! Therefore you dislike Primaris Marines for no reason!"

But that's not what SlayerFan is saying.
They're pointing out that some of the criticisms of Primaris also apply to the normal Marines, and it's a bit skewed to only mention those bits when it's convenient to bashing on the Primaris.

Yes, opinions be subjective and all, and I definitely agree all are valid, but pointing out that some of the arguments about Primaris being inferior also applied to the old sculpts too (not to mention paintjob being down to personal interpretation, not the sculpt at all) isn't saying it's invalid.
It's just asking for specifics. Now, it very well could be that robbienw can't lay down a specific aesthetic reason that doesn't also incriminate the minimarines, but that's not to say their opinion is invalid. It just means that they can't articulate it, or reason it, but the effect the Primaris armour has on them is still there.

(FTR: I completely understand the reasoning behind why GW added all the extra armor plates to the legs of primaris marines and replaced the face grille with a front plate, and I agree with the decision to do so. It adds more hard edges to the parts of the space marine that typically only looked good when carefully layered, meaning that a primaris marine looks better with a basic base coat/wash/drybrush paint scheme that a new player might apply. You can still layer paint them, so a high quality paintjob looks similarly good, but the added hard edges makes drybrush and simple edge highlights look better on the primaris armor.

I've noticed this too, and I think it is very good. GW themselves are also leaning strongly into that with their battle-ready Primaris tutorials (which I *REALLY* like).
I've used both edge highlighting and drybrush techniques, and edge highlighting is so much easier than on older marines, as is drybrushing. They really are great sculpts for beginners in that respect too.

I don't share robbienw's opinion, but that does not mean I don't think he's entitled to hold it. I also do not think slayer isn't entitled to hold his own opinion that primaris-equivalent units are superior to the previous marine designs in every way.)

Agreed. I think the issue here is that Slayer is saying that robbienw's arguments also attack the older marines that they are defending by-proxy, and that it's a bit of a double-standard. It's not to say that robbienw's opinions and feelings aren't justified or real, but that they might be more personal and feelings-based rather than about quantifiable differences.

The language surrounding aesthetics is very difficult and fairly ill-defined. Also, as a guy who works in a creative industry, it takes two to tango. Both parties discussing aesthetic nuances usually have to either immediately "get it" or be very generous with their listening to try and understand what the other person is trying to articulate. Either between two "creatives" or in a "creative"- client relationship. Aesthetics and tastes are tricky to navigate.

"Listening generously" is fairly alien on dakka.

Agreed. I think the issue here is that Slayer is saying that robbienw's arguments also attack the older marines that they are defending by-proxy, and that it's a bit of a double-standard. It's not to say that robbienw's opinions and feelings aren't justified or real, but that they might be more personal and feelings-based rather than about quantifiable differences.

Well he tried to say that, but it was a bit of a straw man attack because he selectivey picked a couple of things that he felt also applied to normal Marines and ignores several other criticisms that aren’t applicable to normal marines.

There is obviously a lot of overlap between classics and Primaris so a lot of their characterisitics are going to be similar. But as I said its also possible to like characteristics of a model and dislike similar characteristics on different model, because of the way they fit into the design, or how they are used on a design.

Ultimately though you are right, these things with models and aethsetics are mainly based on the way you feel when looking at a model. It doesn’t need to be rationalised. I look at a classic tactical and I like it. I look at an intercessor and I think it looks ugly. No justification is required.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The lack of customization is a weird one to me, too. I really don't know why GW made that decision. I recall that a lot of people playing Heresy seemed to prefer a lack of customization in units though. If Intercessors did have more choices, they'd really look like they were putting the Tactical Squad out of business. I have mixed feelings about all that.

I relaly wouldn't care if they replced the tactical squad as long as the replacement could do the same level of customization, or better yet, more customization.

Insectum7 wrote:The language surrounding aesthetics is very difficult and fairly ill-defined. Also, as a guy who works in a creative industry, it takes two to tango. Both parties discussing aesthetic nuances usually have to either immediately "get it" or be very generous with their listening to try and understand what the other person is trying to articulate. Either between two "creatives" or in a "creative"- client relationship. Aesthetics and tastes are tricky to navigate.

"Listening generously" is fairly alien on dakka.

Oh, absolutely. I know myself that trying to explain certain qualities simply doesn't work if the other person isn't connecting on the same level. However, when two things are very similar to eachother, and saying that one is good while the other is bad, even though those parts are pretty much the same, is a bit strange. It's not like it's two totally different things, it's the same thing, just on a different canvas almost - yet all the criticisms of one don't seem to apply to the same thing elsewhere.

robbienw wrote:Well he tried to say that, but it was a bit of a straw man attack because he selectivey picked a couple of things that he felt also applied to normal Marines and ignores several other criticisms that aren’t applicable to normal marines.

Perhaps, and for me, that would imply that Slayer was conceding that those particular things they understood how you could dislike them. The edge on the kneepads, for example, are very much new, with no real design ancestor, so disliking them would make sense.

However, I think there was an insight to be gathered by challenging why you didn't like MiniMarine traits that appeared on the Primaris. It's not to say that you needed a rational explanation, but just pointing out that you do like some of the things on Primaris - just... not on Primaris?

And again, the leather belt wasn't really a sculpt thing at all.

There is obviously a lot of overlap between classics and Primaris so a lot of their characterisitics are going to be similar. But as I said its also possible to like characteristics of a model and dislike similar characteristics on different model, because of the way they fit into the design, or how they are used on a design.

Yes, this is true, but then it's not XYZ characteristics that are the problem (as you seem to imply - "don't like oversized greaves" "cluttered" "top heavy backpack"), but rather a nebulous personal dissonance with the Primaris design overall.

Just a phrasing thing, but the former phrasing doesn't make sense when you imply that the older Marines were fine, even though they had all the same negatives that you espouse Primaris to have.

Ultimately though you are right, these things with models and aethsetics are mainly based on the way you feel when looking at a model. It doesn’t need to be rationalised. I look at a classic tactical and I like it. I look at an intercessor and I think it looks ugly. No justification is required.

Agreed. You can like something without needing to know why. Yes, it's a little awkward to say "look, I just don't like it, I can't say why not, but I don't", but in my eyes, it's far better to do that. It's no less valid in my eyes.

For what it's worth, I see a Tactical Marine, and I like it. I see an Intercessor, and I like it more.

 Melissia wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The lack of customization is a weird one to me, too. I really don't know why GW made that decision. I recall that a lot of people playing Heresy seemed to prefer a lack of customization in units though. If Intercessors did have more choices, they'd really look like they were putting the Tactical Squad out of business. I have mixed feelings about all that.

I relaly wouldn't care if they replced the tactical squad as long as the replacement could do the same level of customization, or better yet, more customization.

I will say that if I were GW, and I had to do what GW did with the release of Primaris (bringing them out alongside existing marine units) I would handle the "squatting" of marines this way:

1) release Primaris Wave 1. Low options, but with new aesthetics. Get newer, younger playerbase interested in primaris marines. Limit the sprue count, so that later on, I can introduce new sprues using the old ones as a baseline.

2) Release Primaris Veteran units, after I complete primaris wave 1. Primaris veterans feature analogues to pieces of equipment that the older marine lines have, even if it's not exactly the same, but ensure that anything you could build out of the old tactical squad box, you can build out of the new Veteran Primaris Intercessors.

3) Release FAQ telling people "OK, now use the new Primaris rules with your existing space marine units. We will no longer be supporting old marine stuff with rules."

4) Any specialist units I'm not planning on updating anytime soon get rules to run them as equivalent to Primaris marines. GK strikes maybe don't get a kit for a while, but they get a new statline with AP-1 storm bolters, A2, W2.

This puts anyone with an oldmarine collection on the same footing as someone who has the old metal wraithguard, or gorkamorka-era orks. All (or at least, most) of the weapon options they could have with those units, they can have with the new rules. Some oddball combinations without model support probably get dropped, but for the most part, everything you can have in regular marine flavor, can now be run with primaris flavor.

Fluffwise, just say that at this point, the Primaris gene-improvements are so universal within the Space Marines that everything is up to their standard, and any old-marines that are left make up for their inferior genetics with their long veterancy and experience, so they fight essentially the same.

Whole lot of extra hoop-la for what is essentially just a model line reboot like any other, but hey, your biggest line requires the most finesse when making changes to it.

 Wyzilla wrote:

The proper course of action would have been to do the exact same thing that was done before with the change of marines back from the RT guys to the larger "modern" marines. No Primaris BS, just announce a new miniature scale, a rules buff to two wounds, and that would be that.

If GW do plan on replacing standard marines then I agree. If what they are saying currently turns out to be true (reinforcements not replacements) then I guess what they have done is okay. Time will tell.

dkoz wrote:
It's fairly clear what GW is planning even if they are saying other wise. Anyone thinking about a marine army should clearly wait a couple of years.

So instead of getting back into the hobby 6 months ago I should have waited? No thanks. If GW are true to their word waiting would have been pointless. If they do go ahead and replace standard marines then I will have been fortunate enough to get the last rules and miniatures for them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The language surrounding aesthetics is very difficult and fairly ill-defined. Also, as a guy who works in a creative industry, it takes two to tango. Both parties discussing aesthetic nuances usually have to either immediately "get it" or be very generous with their listening to try and understand what the other person is trying to articulate. Either between two "creatives" or in a "creative"- client relationship. Aesthetics and tastes are tricky to navigate.

"Listening generously" is fairly alien on dakka.

Oh, absolutely. I know myself that trying to explain certain qualities simply doesn't work if the other person isn't connecting on the same level. However, when two things are very similar to eachother, and saying that one is good while the other is bad, even though those parts are pretty much the same, is a bit strange. It's not like it's two totally different things, it's the same thing, just on a different canvas almost - yet all the criticisms of one don't seem to apply to the same thing elsewhere.

robbienw wrote:Well he tried to say that, but it was a bit of a straw man attack because he selectivey picked a couple of things that he felt also applied to normal Marines and ignores several other criticisms that aren’t applicable to normal marines.

Perhaps, and for me, that would imply that Slayer was conceding that those particular things they understood how you could dislike them. The edge on the kneepads, for example, are very much new, with no real design ancestor, so disliking them would make sense.

However, I think there was an insight to be gathered by challenging why you didn't like MiniMarine traits that appeared on the Primaris. It's not to say that you needed a rational explanation, but just pointing out that you do like some of the things on Primaris - just... not on Primaris?

And again, the leather belt wasn't really a sculpt thing at all.

There is obviously a lot of overlap between classics and Primaris so a lot of their characterisitics are going to be similar. But as I said its also possible to like characteristics of a model and dislike similar characteristics on different model, because of the way they fit into the design, or how they are used on a design.

Yes, this is true, but then it's not XYZ characteristics that are the problem (as you seem to imply - "don't like oversized greaves" "cluttered" "top heavy backpack"), but rather a nebulous personal dissonance with the Primaris design overall.

Just a phrasing thing, but the former phrasing doesn't make sense when you imply that the older Marines were fine, even though they had all the same negatives that you espouse Primaris to have.

Ultimately though you are right, these things with models and aethsetics are mainly based on the way you feel when looking at a model. It doesn’t need to be rationalised. I look at a classic tactical and I like it. I look at an intercessor and I think it looks ugly. No justification is required.

Agreed. You can like something without needing to know why. Yes, it's a little awkward to say "look, I just don't like it, I can't say why not, but I don't", but in my eyes, it's far better to do that. It's no less valid in my eyes.

For what it's worth, I see a Tactical Marine, and I like it. I see an Intercessor, and I like it more.

I think it’s easy to understand though why I don’t like a characteristic on one model but like it on another.

It’s not the characteristic in itself, but they way it is on the model.

For example on the greaves issue, I think the greave area on a tactical marine looks fine. I think the greaves on an intercessor look too big in relation to the rest of the model.

This is not strange at all.

It would be like someone saying they like an intercessors legs but not a tactical marines because the tactical marines are shorter. Then me coming along and saying no you must like the legs on the tactical because the intercessor also has legs. That is strange and makes no sense to me.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The language surrounding aesthetics is very difficult and fairly ill-defined. Also, as a guy who works in a creative industry, it takes two to tango. Both parties discussing aesthetic nuances usually have to either immediately "get it" or be very generous with their listening to try and understand what the other person is trying to articulate. Either between two "creatives" or in a "creative"- client relationship. Aesthetics and tastes are tricky to navigate.

"Listening generously" is fairly alien on dakka.

Oh, absolutely. I know myself that trying to explain certain qualities simply doesn't work if the other person isn't connecting on the same level. However, when two things are very similar to eachother, and saying that one is good while the other is bad, even though those parts are pretty much the same, is a bit strange. It's not like it's two totally different things, it's the same thing, just on a different canvas almost - yet all the criticisms of one don't seem to apply to the same thing elsewhere.

They are "pretty much the same" from one perspective. They are more of less the same idea expressed in two different styles. Like you could take one artists depiction of the xenomorph Alien and compare it to another artists depiction of the Alien, and you'd have two different depictions of the same thing, but potentially very different renditions. Objectively speaking for our Space Marines, as many have pointed out, the Primaris depiction is internally proportioned more realistically. The issue I take is when people make the claim that it makes the model "objectively better." That's a much harder sell from my standpoint (and a much bigger discussion). But I think the old style had it's purpose, and clearly performed its function well, even spectacularly.

An extreme analogy would be Michaelangelos statue of David, which is widely regarded as a superb depiction of the human form. At the same time, you have the characters in the movie The Incredibles, which are "objectively" a very poor rendition of the human form, but serve their purpose 100%, and thus are also "Good". In fact the film wouldn't be as effective if you used correctly proportioned animated characters. In that context, the extreme stylization is "better" than a more "realistic" one.

I'm not trying to prove that makes the traditional Space Marine "better", mind you. I'm actually pretty conflicted on it. I DO think that the older Space Marines look better next to most of the other models in the GW line, but that's more of an opinion than a fact. Personally what matters to me the most is how they look next to my current collection, and in that frame of context I'm not a fan of the new models.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

For what it's worth, I see a Tactical Marine, and I like it. I see an Intercessor, and I like it more.

I totally get it. 100%

 Crimson wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yep, they are scaled to be about seven and half feet tall, which is good size for Space Marines.

We're supposed to assume that a Catachan guardsman is just as strong as an 8 foot tall genetically engineered super soldier. Size matters when determining strength. Primaris are nonsense in size.

How are they nonsense in size when the models are finally scaled to the size the marines are in the fluff?

This is ultimately an issue of the granularity of the game system. Strength runs within a certain scale, that scale is all whole numbers, and the strength scale really doesn't represent all the aspects of strength in a real world context.

You have Strength 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc... Where strength 3 is a typical human and strength 4 is the typical space marine. There is however a spectrum of human strength in between. Where do characters portrayed in cinema by Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sylvester Stallone fall on this spectrum? - Because that's ultimately what Catachans are suppose to be. Their portrayed strength is more than average, being fictional, their fictional characters' strength is arguably on the edge human possibility, but just inside superhuman. For GW that's enough to justify it. There are however living individuals stronger than Arnold Schwarzenegger was at his peak, who could also be regarded similarly as Strength 4 humans.

Your hang up though is ultimately a question of what does strength 4 mean when a space marine and a Schwarzenegger analogue are both strength 4? And then what does it mean to be a space marine, if they are "only strength 4"?

To put it in a different context... you have two military jets... both capable of Mach 1.2, this is like our strength value, a threshold line in the sand. One of those jets has to fly with afterburners to achieve that speed, the other can do it just cruising and without afterburners. The aircraft with afterburners will typically have to slow down and turn off their afterburners after an amount of time or risk permanent damage. This is our Catachan. The aircraft flying in cruise can do it until it runs out of fuel or gets shot down. This is our marine... although to continue the analogy this jet not only super cruises its an armored tank with a nearly infinite fuel supply and that is ultimately as much of what makes a space marine super human.


The average soldier performs all the different weight lifting in the ball park of 125lbs to 150lbs; that is what strength 3 represents. Arnold Schwarzenegger at his peak was performing all the different lifts in a weight range of 525lbs to 750lbs. He could be kitted as a fully equipped soldier and additionally carry an average sized soldier equally equipped without necessarily hitting his peak strength. This is easily in the realm of picking up an unladen person and throwing them or knocking them so hard they're catching some air. His workouts were typically 5 hours a day, which speaks to his level of endurance to perform in this generally high domain. The man generally regarded as the strongest man in the world, Björnsson, the man who played "the Mountain" in the Game of Thrones tv show... he is our closest human analogue to a Space Marine, where he's 440lbs 6ft-9in and he performs many of his lifts and challenges at 900lbs+, but deadlifts 1000lbs+ and performs a log carry at 1400lbs+. I will use him as a baseline to ultimately compare how far removed in "strength" a space marine might be.

Space Marines, like normal people vary in size and capabilities, and through fiction have run the gambit... so any comparison has to keep that in mind, and assume much of the most over the top descriptions of marines are extreme outliers. GW's most often stated stats on a space marine is that unarmored they are minimally 7ft tall and weigh in at 700lbs. The weight difference to Bjornsson is 260lbs, but that includes the generally larger scale, their black carapace and other implants, 20 extra organs, their increased bone density, and only after the extra muscle they have over Bjornsson.

Bones for a typical human compose 15% of our overall weight, for a 700lbs normal human that would be 107lbs. Space marines however have increased bone density as part of their toughness... human bone density is typically around 1.24 g/cm^3, while the largest land mammal, the elephant, is 1.7g/cm^3... this is about 30% greater and I think serves as a good approximation for a marine. This makes a space marine's bones roughly 146lbs of their weight... meaning of the 260lbs difference 78lbs of that is additional bone mass.

In a similar way we can account for the added mass of a space marines organs and skin from just being larger... you get an additional 26lbs for the additional skin and 36lbs for the larger, otherwise natural, organs. At this point you have to attempt to account for the implanted space marine organs. Going by their descriptions we can infer the mass of these different organs relative to particular analogous standard human organs; without giving you a spread sheet it ends up coming to about an additional 56lbs. From this we can assume the remaining mass difference of a space marine is pure added muscle, but its really only 64lbs.

When we take the mass of Bjornsson's constituent parts we're left with 200lbs +/-20lb of him is muscle. And if we add up the constituent parts of a space marine he ends up at 264lbs +/- 20lbs of muscle. A space marine has 30% more muscle mass than the strongest man in the world.

We know a space marine receives lots of hormones, but we don't know if their muscles aren't just bigger but different. But just going by this muscle mass a space marine can dead lift and squat a full sized sedan, completely off the ground by himself. Bjornsson can only turn that sedan over on its side. Schwarzenegger can only lift the front end while the rear wheels stay on the ground.

Of a space marine's 700lbs, beyond a normal human a good amount of what makes a marine is going into that toughness 4, but just as much does make it into that Strength 4. But I think the aspect of strength and what makes a marine a marine, isn't as much their peak strength as it is their high endurance. The average Strength 3 guardsmen, can't lift a car but compared to a body builder that soldier can perform at their modest peak level for longer. While a Schwarzenegger or Catachans might be Strength 4 realistically this represents a surge strength, an occasional and concerted effort of peak performance that can't be sustained for as long as a space marine can. So while a marines relative mass and size might make you think they should just be stronger, a lot of the gain is really their endurance and toughness. A lot of it is also peak potential and longevity; at 200 years old a space marine could likely have trained themselves even further beyond that baseline performance, even further beyond human.

So if it helps you think about it, Strength 4 is a bench mark and not a proportional measure of all aspects of strength. If we lined up everything that was Strength 4 in order of strength this Catachan is at one end of the spectrum while space marines are at the other. Strength 4 is "can what this model represent lift a car?" Where strength 5 is a higher threshold that even primaris, despite being stronger than a typical marine can't quite reach... maybe that threshold is to punch a car some distance, I don't know. Its abstract to a degree so you have to give it elbow room.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yep, they are scaled to be about seven and half feet tall, which is good size for Space Marines.

We're supposed to assume that a Catachan guardsman is just as strong as an 8 foot tall genetically engineered super soldier. Size matters when determining strength. Primaris are nonsense in size.

Space marines are 7ft tall.

Chimps are way stronger than humans, pound for pound. Catachans could have a muscle mutation that makes human muscles as effective as chimp muscles, and S4 would be totally plausible.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yep, they are scaled to be about seven and half feet tall, which is good size for Space Marines.

We're supposed to assume that a Catachan guardsman is just as strong as an 8 foot tall genetically engineered super soldier. Size matters when determining strength. Primaris are nonsense in size.

Space marines are 7ft tall.

Chimps are way stronger than humans, pound for pound. Catachans could have a muscle mutation that makes human muscles as effective as chimp muscles, and S4 would be totally plausible.

Arguably you could also chalk it up to how they fight, sort of Krav Maga as opposed to karate. Not the best example but how you approach an enemy can change the outcome.

I mean, I really don't think that Catachans should be S4, but that's kinda another discussion.

The Marines have been described as seven feet (or a bit more) tall in the fluff for ages, so now that we finally have models that are actually scaled to be that tall compared to the normal humans, it is a bit weird that some people think it looks 'wrong.'

Primaris should be scaled to be taller then no?

Given that they are depicted as taller than standard space marines.

 Crimson wrote:
I mean, I really don't think that Catachans should be S4, but that's kinda another discussion.

The Marines have been described as seven feet (or a bit more) tall in the fluff for ages, so now that we finally have models that are actually scaled to be that tall compared to the normal humans, it is a bit weird that some people think it looks 'wrong.'

That depends tremendously on what models you are putting side by side to one another, because GWs "human" scale is all over the place. Terrain is even more bonkers.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yep, they are scaled to be about seven and half feet tall, which is good size for Space Marines.

We're supposed to assume that a Catachan guardsman is just as strong as an 8 foot tall genetically engineered super soldier. Size matters when determining strength. Primaris are nonsense in size.

Space marines are 7ft tall.

Chimps are way stronger than humans, pound for pound. Catachans could have a muscle mutation that makes human muscles as effective as chimp muscles, and S4 would be totally plausible.

Only in a world where space marines are str 6.

robbienw wrote:
Primaris should be scaled to be taller then no?

Given that they are depicted as taller than standard space marines.

Well, that's the awkward part. Thankfully it has never been said in the fluff how much bigger the Primaris are, so maybe it just a tiny bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

That depends tremendously on what models you are putting side by side to one another, because GWs "human" scale is all over the place.

No, not really. Unless we're talking about some ancient metals.

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

That depends tremendously on what models you are putting side by side to one another, because GWs "human" scale is all over the place.

No, not really. Unless we're talking about some ancient metals.

Current models are weird scales. Those Eschers are pretty big, yo. If I recall, Greyfax is super tall, too.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yep, they are scaled to be about seven and half feet tall, which is good size for Space Marines.

We're supposed to assume that a Catachan guardsman is just as strong as an 8 foot tall genetically engineered super soldier. Size matters when determining strength. Primaris are nonsense in size.

Space marines are 7ft tall.

Chimps are way stronger than humans, pound for pound. Catachans could have a muscle mutation that makes human muscles as effective as chimp muscles, and S4 would be totally plausible.

Only in a world where space marines are str 6.

Explain?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Current models are weird scales. Those Eschers are pretty big, yo. If I recall, Greyfax is super tall, too.

Greyfax has like 6" power-heels. She absolutely needs an extra attack for those!

The SoS are pretty tall, though and have fairly modest wedges.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

That depends tremendously on what models you are putting side by side to one another, because GWs "human" scale is all over the place.

No, not really. Unless we're talking about some ancient metals.

Current models are weird scales. Those Eschers are pretty big, yo. If I recall, Greyfax is super tall, too.

I'd say it's a little unfair to use necromunda models as an example.

Greyfax appears tall do to her hat and massive boots. But her head(not hat) comes up to roughly top of a Primaris shoulder pad. So she's probably about 6'2" or 4" without heels/boots.

All the humans got a bit taller around the time non-Primaris marines started getting taller, it just want quite as noticeable until more tall humans arrived. Stuff like greyfax, SoS, necromunda humans, all the humans from Rogue Trader and Blackstone fortress are taller than previous that humans came out before 2015/2016 sort of time. Compare any of the above to a relatively recent scion (2014 release) and you will see what I mean.

I'm really curious as to how large the new Sisters are going to be. Will they look gigantic in comparison to the metals?

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm really curious as to how large the new Sisters are going to be. Will they look gigantic in comparison to the metals?

Thy will probably be about the size of the Escher.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm really curious as to how large the new Sisters are going to be. Will they look gigantic in comparison to the metals?

I am betting on being re-based to 32mm bases like all other Power Armor units. That said, New!Celestine isn't particularly taller than Old!Celestine, though her little friends are a taller than Canonii.

All the various model kits for the standard space marines are "free money" for GW: no new dies to be made, just pound out plastic.
I would agree that a terribly slow phase-out with "non-optimal" rules for them will help point people to the new hotness of any Primarus Marine models to help pay off those expensive new dies for the models.
I heard the rumor that the "plan" is like with 30k of having entire units with the same weapon to make gameplay easy/fast than sprinkling in special and heavy weapons in a squad and that is how Primarus seems to function.

My Black Templar ancient mainly metal army is not quite ready to become Squat, my plan is I have other armies and all spare Primarus I have are Deathwatch for now.
They just do not have enough variety at this time to be all that useful other than DW gave them a bit of a leg-up.

The way I look at it: Primaris will need new everything, in particular I am thinking vehicles.
This may take a very long time.

 Crimson wrote:
I mean, I really don't think that Catachans should be S4, but that's kinda another discussion.

The Marines have been described as seven feet (or a bit more) tall in the fluff for ages, so now that we finally have models that are actually scaled to be that tall compared to the normal humans, it is a bit weird that some people think it looks 'wrong.'

thing is even if we ignore catachans, S4 has some marked variation, Primaris Marines are noticably stronger, with implants that enhance their strength, but are STILL S4 so... yeah. granted I think the enhanced STR is, oddly, designed to justify the INCREASED ATTACKS primaris get

Anyone happen to have a pic of a metal SOB next to a Sisters of Silence model?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Anyone happen to have a pic of a metal SOB next to a Sisters of Silence model?

Metal SoB are pretty short, SoS are really tall. I own both, but no pictures for you, since my SoS are currently on the other side of the nation [also, they haven't been out of their box since the edition dropped].

Sisters of Silence are taller than other models by like a head, though. Like, almost absurdly tall.


I don't have a picture of them standing next to Sisters of Battle but I do have one standing next to a Custodian from back when I was doing them up:


It's not the best angle, but it's the only picture I could find in my records of one standing with another model. A guardsman comes up to the Custodian's chest, she comes up to his shoulder, and SoB are about as big as Guardsmen, so she's about a head taller than other models. She stands over Space Marines.

 aka_mythos wrote:

Spoiler:

 Crimson wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yep, they are scaled to be about seven and half feet tall, which is good size for Space Marines.

We're supposed to assume that a Catachan guardsman is just as strong as an 8 foot tall genetically engineered super soldier. Size matters when determining strength. Primaris are nonsense in size.

How are they nonsense in size when the models are finally scaled to the size the marines are in the fluff?

This is ultimately an issue of the granularity of the game system. Strength runs within a certain scale, that scale is all whole numbers, and the strength scale really doesn't represent all the aspects of strength in a real world context.

You have Strength 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc... Where strength 3 is a typical human and strength 4 is the typical space marine. There is however a spectrum of human strength in between. Where do characters portrayed in cinema by Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sylvester Stallone fall on this spectrum? - Because that's ultimately what Catachans are suppose to be. Their portrayed strength is more than average, being fictional, their fictional characters' strength is arguably on the edge human possibility, but just inside superhuman. For GW that's enough to justify it. There are however living individuals stronger than Arnold Schwarzenegger was at his peak, who could also be regarded similarly as Strength 4 humans.

Your hang up though is ultimately a question of what does strength 4 mean when a space marine and a Schwarzenegger analogue are both strength 4? And then what does it mean to be a space marine, if they are "only strength 4"?

To put it in a different context... you have two military jets... both capable of Mach 1.2, this is like our strength value, a threshold line in the sand. One of those jets has to fly with afterburners to achieve that speed, the other can do it just cruising and without afterburners. The aircraft with afterburners will typically have to slow down and turn off their afterburners after an amount of time or risk permanent damage. This is our Catachan. The aircraft flying in cruise can do it until it runs out of fuel or gets shot down. This is our marine... although to continue the analogy this jet not only super cruises its an armored tank with a nearly infinite fuel supply and that is ultimately as much of what makes a space marine super human.


The average soldier performs all the different weight lifting in the ball park of 125lbs to 150lbs; that is what strength 3 represents. Arnold Schwarzenegger at his peak was performing all the different lifts in a weight range of 525lbs to 750lbs. He could be kitted as a fully equipped soldier and additionally carry an average sized soldier equally equipped without necessarily hitting his peak strength. This is easily in the realm of picking up an unladen person and throwing them or knocking them so hard they're catching some air. His workouts were typically 5 hours a day, which speaks to his level of endurance to perform in this generally high domain. The man generally regarded as the strongest man in the world, Björnsson, the man who played "the Mountain" in the Game of Thrones tv show... he is our closest human analogue to a Space Marine, where he's 440lbs 6ft-9in and he performs many of his lifts and challenges at 900lbs+, but deadlifts 1000lbs+ and performs a log carry at 1400lbs+. I will use him as a baseline to ultimately compare how far removed in "strength" a space marine might be.

Space Marines, like normal people vary in size and capabilities, and through fiction have run the gambit... so any comparison has to keep that in mind, and assume much of the most over the top descriptions of marines are extreme outliers. GW's most often stated stats on a space marine is that unarmored they are minimally 7ft tall and weigh in at 700lbs. The weight difference to Bjornsson is 260lbs, but that includes the generally larger scale, their black carapace and other implants, 20 extra organs, their increased bone density, and only after the extra muscle they have over Bjornsson.

Bones for a typical human compose 15% of our overall weight, for a 700lbs normal human that would be 107lbs. Space marines however have increased bone density as part of their toughness... human bone density is typically around 1.24 g/cm^3, while the largest land mammal, the elephant, is 1.7g/cm^3... this is about 30% greater and I think serves as a good approximation for a marine. This makes a space marine's bones roughly 146lbs of their weight... meaning of the 260lbs difference 78lbs of that is additional bone mass.

In a similar way we can account for the added mass of a space marines organs and skin from just being larger... you get an additional 26lbs for the additional skin and 36lbs for the larger, otherwise natural, organs. At this point you have to attempt to account for the implanted space marine organs. Going by their descriptions we can infer the mass of these different organs relative to particular analogous standard human organs; without giving you a spread sheet it ends up coming to about an additional 56lbs. From this we can assume the remaining mass difference of a space marine is pure added muscle, but its really only 64lbs.

When we take the mass of Bjornsson's constituent parts we're left with 200lbs +/-20lb of him is muscle. And if we add up the constituent parts of a space marine he ends up at 264lbs +/- 20lbs of muscle. A space marine has 30% more muscle mass than the strongest man in the world.

We know a space marine receives lots of hormones, but we don't know if their muscles aren't just bigger but different. But just going by this muscle mass a space marine can dead lift and squat a full sized sedan, completely off the ground by himself. Bjornsson can only turn that sedan over on its side. Schwarzenegger can only lift the front end while the rear wheels stay on the ground.

Of a space marine's 700lbs, beyond a normal human a good amount of what makes a marine is going into that toughness 4, but just as much does make it into that Strength 4. But I think the aspect of strength and what makes a marine a marine, isn't as much their peak strength as it is their high endurance. The average Strength 3 guardsmen, can't lift a car but compared to a body builder that soldier can perform at their modest peak level for longer. While a Schwarzenegger or Catachans might be Strength 4 realistically this represents a surge strength, an occasional and concerted effort of peak performance that can't be sustained for as long as a space marine can. So while a marines relative mass and size might make you think they should just be stronger, a lot of the gain is really their endurance and toughness. A lot of it is also peak potential and longevity; at 200 years old a space marine could likely have trained themselves even further beyond that baseline performance, even further beyond human.

So if it helps you think about it, Strength 4 is a bench mark and not a proportional measure of all aspects of strength. If we lined up everything that was Strength 4 in order of strength this Catachan is at one end of the spectrum while space marines are at the other. Strength 4 is "can what this model represent lift a car?" Where strength 5 is a higher threshold that even primaris, despite being stronger than a typical marine can't quite reach... maybe that threshold is to punch a car some distance, I don't know. Its abstract to a degree so you have to give it elbow room.

Top that off, the marine is sardined into a suit of poweredarmor that at the very least has an exoskeleton structure that offsets its weight and allows the marine to react at a speed at last matching being unarmored. I wouldn’t doubt the armor’s exoskeleton gives the marine even further enhanced strength (as well as NBC and vacuum protection). It’s also one of the most protective armor on the battlefield, beaten only by even heavier marine armor such as Gravis and Dreadnought armor. It makes me chuckle when people say the armor looks bulky - it is, considering it has the potential to stop auto cannon rounds! To me, primaris look more like they are giants inside a suit of armor whereas old marines are scaled as if they are wearing t-shirts, bell-bottoms and 80’s shoulderpads.

Personally I think this is the time to buy. Because I am having my Primaris White Scars commission painted, being able to do them a couple of boxes at a time is really making the cost far easier for me. I realize everyone may not have that in mind, but for those who do, this is a good time to get the 4-7 characters you might want and the basic troops and so on built and painted. Just like with my Stormcast, I expect in a year or two the line will be a lot more flushed out as time goes on.

As for the aesthetics, I really think it's useless to argue about something like that. Many people like them, many people don't. It doesn't really seem to matter however, as this is what they are and how they look, that's not likely to change. You cannot please everyone.

 Stormonu wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

Spoiler:

 Crimson wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yep, they are scaled to be about seven and half feet tall, which is good size for Space Marines.

We're supposed to assume that a Catachan guardsman is just as strong as an 8 foot tall genetically engineered super soldier. Size matters when determining strength. Primaris are nonsense in size.

How are they nonsense in size when the models are finally scaled to the size the marines are in the fluff?

This is ultimately an issue of the granularity of the game system. Strength runs within a certain scale, that scale is all whole numbers, and the strength scale really doesn't represent all the aspects of strength in a real world context.

You have Strength 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc... Where strength 3 is a typical human and strength 4 is the typical space marine. There is however a spectrum of human strength in between. Where do characters portrayed in cinema by Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sylvester Stallone fall on this spectrum? - Because that's ultimately what Catachans are suppose to be. Their portrayed strength is more than average, being fictional, their fictional characters' strength is arguably on the edge human possibility, but just inside superhuman. For GW that's enough to justify it. There are however living individuals stronger than Arnold Schwarzenegger was at his peak, who could also be regarded similarly as Strength 4 humans.

Your hang up though is ultimately a question of what does strength 4 mean when a space marine and a Schwarzenegger analogue are both strength 4? And then what does it mean to be a space marine, if they are "only strength 4"?

To put it in a different context... you have two military jets... both capable of Mach 1.2, this is like our strength value, a threshold line in the sand. One of those jets has to fly with afterburners to achieve that speed, the other can do it just cruising and without afterburners. The aircraft with afterburners will typically have to slow down and turn off their afterburners after an amount of time or risk permanent damage. This is our Catachan. The aircraft flying in cruise can do it until it runs out of fuel or gets shot down. This is our marine... although to continue the analogy this jet not only super cruises its an armored tank with a nearly infinite fuel supply and that is ultimately as much of what makes a space marine super human.


The average soldier performs all the different weight lifting in the ball park of 125lbs to 150lbs; that is what strength 3 represents. Arnold Schwarzenegger at his peak was performing all the different lifts in a weight range of 525lbs to 750lbs. He could be kitted as a fully equipped soldier and additionally carry an average sized soldier equally equipped without necessarily hitting his peak strength. This is easily in the realm of picking up an unladen person and throwing them or knocking them so hard they're catching some air. His workouts were typically 5 hours a day, which speaks to his level of endurance to perform in this generally high domain. The man generally regarded as the strongest man in the world, Björnsson, the man who played "the Mountain" in the Game of Thrones tv show... he is our closest human analogue to a Space Marine, where he's 440lbs 6ft-9in and he performs many of his lifts and challenges at 900lbs+, but deadlifts 1000lbs+ and performs a log carry at 1400lbs+. I will use him as a baseline to ultimately compare how far removed in "strength" a space marine might be.

Space Marines, like normal people vary in size and capabilities, and through fiction have run the gambit... so any comparison has to keep that in mind, and assume much of the most over the top descriptions of marines are extreme outliers. GW's most often stated stats on a space marine is that unarmored they are minimally 7ft tall and weigh in at 700lbs. The weight difference to Bjornsson is 260lbs, but that includes the generally larger scale, their black carapace and other implants, 20 extra organs, their increased bone density, and only after the extra muscle they have over Bjornsson.

Bones for a typical human compose 15% of our overall weight, for a 700lbs normal human that would be 107lbs. Space marines however have increased bone density as part of their toughness... human bone density is typically around 1.24 g/cm^3, while the largest land mammal, the elephant, is 1.7g/cm^3... this is about 30% greater and I think serves as a good approximation for a marine. This makes a space marine's bones roughly 146lbs of their weight... meaning of the 260lbs difference 78lbs of that is additional bone mass.

In a similar way we can account for the added mass of a space marines organs and skin from just being larger... you get an additional 26lbs for the additional skin and 36lbs for the larger, otherwise natural, organs. At this point you have to attempt to account for the implanted space marine organs. Going by their descriptions we can infer the mass of these different organs relative to particular analogous standard human organs; without giving you a spread sheet it ends up coming to about an additional 56lbs. From this we can assume the remaining mass difference of a space marine is pure added muscle, but its really only 64lbs.

When we take the mass of Bjornsson's constituent parts we're left with 200lbs +/-20lb of him is muscle. And if we add up the constituent parts of a space marine he ends up at 264lbs +/- 20lbs of muscle. A space marine has 30% more muscle mass than the strongest man in the world.

We know a space marine receives lots of hormones, but we don't know if their muscles aren't just bigger but different. But just going by this muscle mass a space marine can dead lift and squat a full sized sedan, completely off the ground by himself. Bjornsson can only turn that sedan over on its side. Schwarzenegger can only lift the front end while the rear wheels stay on the ground.

Of a space marine's 700lbs, beyond a normal human a good amount of what makes a marine is going into that toughness 4, but just as much does make it into that Strength 4. But I think the aspect of strength and what makes a marine a marine, isn't as much their peak strength as it is their high endurance. The average Strength 3 guardsmen, can't lift a car but compared to a body builder that soldier can perform at their modest peak level for longer. While a Schwarzenegger or Catachans might be Strength 4 realistically this represents a surge strength, an occasional and concerted effort of peak performance that can't be sustained for as long as a space marine can. So while a marines relative mass and size might make you think they should just be stronger, a lot of the gain is really their endurance and toughness. A lot of it is also peak potential and longevity; at 200 years old a space marine could likely have trained themselves even further beyond that baseline performance, even further beyond human.

So if it helps you think about it, Strength 4 is a bench mark and not a proportional measure of all aspects of strength. If we lined up everything that was Strength 4 in order of strength this Catachan is at one end of the spectrum while space marines are at the other. Strength 4 is "can what this model represent lift a car?" Where strength 5 is a higher threshold that even primaris, despite being stronger than a typical marine can't quite reach... maybe that threshold is to punch a car some distance, I don't know. Its abstract to a degree so you have to give it elbow room.

Top that off, the marine is sardined into a suit of poweredarmor that at the very least has an exoskeleton structure that offsets its weight and allows the marine to react at a speed at last matching being unarmored. I wouldn’t doubt the armor’s exoskeleton gives the marine even further enhanced strength (as well as NBC and vacuum protection). It’s also one of the most protective armor on the battlefield, beaten only by even heavier marine armor such as Gravis and Dreadnought armor. It makes me chuckle when people say the armor looks bulky - it is, considering it has the potential to stop auto cannon rounds! To me, primaris look more like they are giants inside a suit of armor whereas old marines are scaled as if they are wearing t-shirts, bell-bottoms and 80’s shoulderpads.

The way I've thought of it when it comes to power armor and its "strength enhancement".... because of the black carapace and how the power armor interfaces with the marines, they have a lot of control over the armor. They've been described as using that control to lock the joints and servos to brace themselves when shooting particularly heavy weapons.

To think about the advantage this controlled rigidity gives them... we can use Bruce Lee as an example, in addition to being strong much of his personal training was to control his muscles so that even when he punched you from an inch away, he was using all the muscles throughout his body to drive that punch. So a space marine is basically able to use his power armor to assist him to do something akin to that... but not only when punching. Additionally in punching and everything else, the rigidity means there wouldn't be any bounce back... a marine fist hits and connects and delivers 100% of the force behind it. So while power armor compensates for its weight, and allows a space marine to take full advantage of their reflexes, it wouldn't need to supplement his strength much if at all if it instead makes the force he applies that much more efficient.

Currently Scouts un-powered are also S4. However they are also plenty lighter. I think the Marine-in-armor bonus strength is because they have that power-supply backpack+armor, and more notably they can easily carry their heavy weapons with lots of extra ammunition or requisite power supplies. Compare the Scout with a Heavy Bolter and small box of ammo to the Marine with a Heavy Bolter and the piles of extra ammo and chain feed. One could assume that a power armored marine can more easily lug more supplies around.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Anyone happen to have a pic of a metal SOB next to a Sisters of Silence model?

Metal SoB are pretty short, SoS are really tall. I own both, but no pictures for you, since my SoS are currently on the other side of the nation [also, they haven't been out of their box since the edition dropped].

Sisters of Silence are taller than other models by like a head, though. Like, almost absurdly tall.


I don't have a picture of them standing next to Sisters of Battle but I do have one standing next to a Custodian from back when I was doing them up:

Spoiler:

It's not the best angle, but it's the only picture I could find in my records of one standing with another model. A guardsman comes up to the Custodian's chest, she comes up to his shoulder, and SoB are about as big as Guardsmen, so she's about a head taller than other models. She stands over Space Marines.

Not quite what I was looking for but the given description is good enough for now. Thanks!

Maybe I can dig up a SOB and get lucky with what people bring this weekend. Sometimes the SOS make an appearance.

Aren't Escher like, giant women, just like Goliats? They are taller than normal necromunda humans like Orlocks.

If you want modern "normal human" GW scale, just look at things like Skitarii and Genestealer Cultists, both for male and female. Things like Goliaths from Necromunda or various chaos miniatures from AoS are not "Normal slim humans", but "ultra muscular taller humans"

 Insectum7 wrote:
Currently Scouts un-powered are also S4. However they are also plenty lighter. I think the Marine-in-armor bonus strength is because they have that power-supply backpack+armor, and more notably they can easily carry their heavy weapons with lots of extra ammunition or requisite power supplies. Compare the Scout with a Heavy Bolter and small box of ammo to the Marine with a Heavy Bolter and the piles of extra ammo and chain feed. One could assume that a power armored marine can more easily lug more supplies around.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Anyone happen to have a pic of a metal SOB next to a Sisters of Silence model?

Metal SoB are pretty short, SoS are really tall. I own both, but no pictures for you, since my SoS are currently on the other side of the nation [also, they haven't been out of their box since the edition dropped].

Sisters of Silence are taller than other models by like a head, though. Like, almost absurdly tall.


I don't have a picture of them standing next to Sisters of Battle but I do have one standing next to a Custodian from back when I was doing them up:

Spoiler:

It's not the best angle, but it's the only picture I could find in my records of one standing with another model. A guardsman comes up to the Custodian's chest, she comes up to his shoulder, and SoB are about as big as Guardsmen, so she's about a head taller than other models. She stands over Space Marines.

Not quite what I was looking for but the given description is good enough for now. Thanks!

Maybe I can dig up a SOB and get lucky with what people bring this weekend. Sometimes the SOS make an appearance.

Here's a Sister and Custodian picture I just took.



You can see, her head is about chest high on him, and the SoS in the earlier picture isn't too much shorter. Unfortunately, I don't bring my SoS with me everywhere, since they're pretty bad, so I can't take a side-by-side SoB and SoS.

^ Sweet. ty!

I think the real answer to the question posed in the thread title is, 'do you want support for old marines to continue?' If you do, keep buying them, show GW that the market still wants them. I expect a lull in new boxes of them until GW has time to gauge the long term sales response to the introduction of primaris.

 Galas wrote:
Aren't Escher like, giant women, just like Goliats? They are taller than normal necromunda humans like Orlocks.

If you want modern "normal human" GW scale, just look at things like Skitarii and Genestealer Cultists, both for male and female. Things like Goliaths from Necromunda or various chaos miniatures from AoS are not "Normal slim humans", but "ultra muscular taller humans"

No, they're just modeled on tippy-toes and they're all wearing heels.

I want to see the continuation of classic marines, I think the Space Marines as a faction are more interesting with the distinctive division of old marines vs Primaris.

If GW phases out old marines in favor of just Primaris I think it would really narrow the way Space Marines play, for the worse. On the other hand there have always been those players that wanted space marines to feel more overtly high tech and Primaris fill that desire. If that’s something you want, great.

I’ve always had one issue with GWs approach to SM the last couple of editions... unit bloat... things like the centurions and some of the other units that feel forced and like someone going down a checklist of things that make other armies distinctive and designing the space marine equivalent. Marines have ended up with a lot of redundancy and could stand to phase out some units... so replacing things with Primaris is a good thing.

Ultimately I’d like to see classic marines kept in game, with some units phased out, but a narratively driven and game play driven intent to elevate SM... For example as time goes on if a greater proportion of marines are Primaris some chapters may see all their conventional marines gradually becoming veterans without as many conventional marines being created... for such an SM chapter basic Tactical/Assault/Devastator Squads might not be available any more but Sternguard/Vanguard/Centurion are... or a chapter that only bestow Primaris enhancements on their veterans retain Tactical/Assault/Devastator but not Sternguard/Vanguard/Centurions... the point is it’s a choice that needs to have a clearly articulated idea behind it.

Zustiur wrote:
I think the real answer to the question posed in the thread title is, 'do you want support for old marines to continue?' If you do, keep buying them, show GW that the market still wants them. I expect a lull in new boxes of them until GW has time to gauge the long term sales response to the introduction of primaris.

My answer would be “switch everything to Primaris, already”. And that is coming from someone who has some 400+ Oldmarines, with models stretching back to the RT01 marines, vehicles and even a handful of 3rd party marines.

 Stormonu wrote:

Zustiur wrote:
I think the real answer to the question posed in the thread title is, 'do you want support for old marines to continue?' If you do, keep buying them, show GW that the market still wants them. I expect a lull in new boxes of them until GW has time to gauge the long term sales response to the introduction of primaris.

My answer would be “switch everything to Primaris, already”. And that is coming from someone who has some 400+ Oldmarines, with models stretching back to the RT01 marines, vehicles and even a handful of 3rd party marines.

My answer would be to keep the two lines running. And that's from someone with 30+ years in The Hobby. I have from RTB01 to Dark Vengeance marines. The models have gotten demonstrably better. I do have Primaris as well, and they are excellent models but suck on the table.

What would really hurt is if GW "Thunderwarriors" the older marines - the real Space Marines and primaris marines are written into the fluff to co-exist, so GW would have to resolve the two factions in the fluff if they intend to quit production of one or the other.

Damn, dude.

#theydidthemath

Just picked up a command squad and a tactical squad yesterday, so there shorties aren't going anywhere in my collection yet.

https://m.imgur.com/a/OpJx7yg

After looking over the leaked stuff for the next box-set I'm suddenly inclined to say "No, don't stop buying old marines until GW figures out what the heck it's going for with Primaris marines. Those are some schizophrenic unit designs."

The Newman wrote:
https://m.imgur.com/a/OpJx7yg

After looking over the leaked stuff for the next box-set I'm suddenly inclined to say "No, don't stop buying old marines until GW figures out what the heck it's going for with Primaris marines. Those are some schizophrenic unit designs."

what' schitzo about it?

I just pinched a few more metal scouts with sniper rifles off ebay so I can feild two full squads of 10.

BrianDavion wrote:

The Newman wrote:
https://m.imgur.com/a/OpJx7yg

After looking over the leaked stuff for the next box-set I'm suddenly inclined to say "No, don't stop buying old marines until GW figures out what the heck it's going for with Primaris marines. Those are some schizophrenic unit designs."

what' schitzo about it?

I mean, deep strikers with heavy weapons, a second wave of primaris releases and they still don't have a dedicated anti-tank unit but they have FOUR count em FOUR units if you want infantry armed with nothing but S4 bolt weapons.

I will grant eliminators seem pretty solid tbh. I like the flexibility there. don't know the point costs, but assuming you can get 4 for 80 points, they do solidly more damage than a vindicare against most targets with executioner rounds, and the option to ignore cover and - to hit instead is a nice little bit of flexibility.

infiltrators are just scouts but bad. libby will entirely depend on the obscuration discipline, but, I suspect, it will be the new meta for space marine HQs simply because he is simply equipped and most probably has some kind of -1 to hit power (literally annot be worse than librarius discipline and SMs really need a viable 3rd cheap HQ. he's not mobile but he deep strikes which is nice.)