I'm a big fan of the new Primaris models. They look lovely, they give me a bigger canvas to paint on, and they were a properly imposing semi-truescale update of the classic Tactical Marines. However, I've become slightly less enamoured with overall Primaris designs, and it's only recently that I've figured out why. The increasing prevalence of a "clean sci-fi" or "modern military" aesthetic has chipped away a little at the anachronistic knightly appeal of the Space Marines, but that's simple enough to ignore or convert around. Just look at the Sons of the Phoenix. Ultimately, I think what's denting my enthusiasm is silhouetting.
For those not familiar, silhouettes are why you can tell classes and teams apart in Team Fortress 2 at a glance from across the map. If you reduce a character purely down to a single blob, a monochrome outline, are they still recognisable? In terms of silhouetting, classic Marines were... Marines. A Tactical Marine, an Assault Marine, and a Devastator Marine all had the same armour, proportions, and even gear, right down to the basic loadout; a boltgun was a boltgun, a bolt pistol was a bolt pistol.
This meant that they all shared the same silhouette, which unified the "look" of the army even from a distance, and meant that deviations from that silhouette really stood out; a special/heavy weapon looked wildly different to a boltgun, and the Librarian's looming hood or the Apothecary's bulky surgery-arm popped out at a glance, as did the Assault Marine's jump pack. Broad standardisation helped emphasise the differences. The only guys who totally broke the general Marine mould were Scouts and Terminators, which were specialized units whose design offered a clear signal that they were really important and tough, or flimsy and sneaky, respectively.
With Primaris you now have a much greater variety of Marine "looks", which come in greater numbers. The lightly/heavily armoured Scout/Terminator, plus the Space Marine... plus the Primaris, plus the Phobos, plus the Gravis, plus the bigger-Gravis Aggressors, plus the pseudo-Gravis Suppressors. And the wildly different, very obviously different weapon options have been shifted toward modular guns; does your boltgun have a scope, in which case this squad is static long-ranged gunners, or does it have an extra magazine, in which case this squad is fast-moving anti-infantry? Each unit looks unique, which is cool... but it makes the army seem less unified, to me, and within each unit they look much the same, making it harder for me to distinguish roles.
Yep. Exactly.
Also I don't feel many of the newer ones succeed in looking like space marines due to how different their silhouette is. Phobos armour has weird ankle cuffs and uneven shoulders. It's all wrong. Which is weird because Jes specifically talked about how important the silhouette is!
You say that, but I don't see the silhouette of Primaris Space Marines in Tacticus armor being all that radically different than a tactical space marine. As for the other configurations, you shouldn't be comparing Phobos to a Tactical Marine but to a scout, and I would say the the silhouette is that much different. Maybe you did, but I kinda doubt you made ever made this kinda of argument about scouts which to have a very different silhouette from anything else in the Marine line looking more like IG. I think the silhouette of Phobos armor still has enough elements that it is not going to be easily confused with any other broad 40k faction.
So to me, this hypothesis sounds more like you are looking for something concrete to hang on your 'I don't like Primaris' than anything else. Here's the thing, you don't have to has a reason to not like Primaris marines. Lots of players don't even after 2 years. I honestly think most that don't like Primaris (talking models not lore) don't really have a reason other than Primaris weren't a thing during the hey day of when they played. Which is fine. They certainly could be a reminder that those days are gone, probably long gone at this point, and never coming back. But I do think the silhouette hypothesis is kinda a weak as a reason simply because I think I could show the silhouettes to a number of 40k units to someone that doesn't know much at all about 40k and be confident they will still match Primaris to space marines. At least better than scouts in any event.
Zustiur wrote: Yep. Exactly.
Also I don't feel many of the newer ones succeed in looking like space marines due to how different their silhouette is. Phobos armour has weird ankle cuffs and uneven shoulders. It's all wrong. Which is weird because Jes specifically talked about how important the silhouette is!
I tell every one to look at the lower legs like fantasy high boots with the cuff rolled over (see Exalted Champion of Chaos or Blood Warriors in AoS for reference) and look at the armor as something a fantasy ranger or rogue might wear that is stripped down to the bare amount of protection to maximize stealth with a whole bunch of sci-fi techy bits to make it look futuristic. I personally think Phobos armor pulls of the fantasy game in space which 40k very much is.
It seems like it would be a failure of design to have same silhouette for a line infantry unit and a stealth recon unit. The differences are suppose to help the viewer differentiate how the unit functions but share enough elements that they could still place them in the faction they are from. I don't see Phobos patterns doing anything but that as they sell the idea these are recon troops and they belong to the space marine faction.
Give it some time. Eventually they'll discontinue Terminators, Scouts, and Marines and you'll have your cohesion back.
But on a more serious note, my complaint is more with branding and less with overall army cohesion. Is there a reason this bothers you more for Marines and not for another army? Eldar for example where nearly every unit is unique in appearance?
Branding on the other hand is a significant issue. More people know what a Space Marine is than know they are part of Warhammer 40k or that Games Workshop makes them. Fortunately the stock Primaris Intercessor and, to a lesser extent, Hellblasters at least retain much of the original Space Marine aesthetic. But the rest of the line kind of jumped the shark. They just aren't Space Marines anymore.
I am really crossing my fingers that they find some lore reason to remove a lot of these things. A falling out with Mars, or Mars outright blows up and they can no longer fund things like flying rhinos and predators, or weird floaty marines. Ideally they'd lose the ability to make centurions and aggressors as well as new knees for dreadnaughts.
I actually like that different units have their own visual identity instead of the old way when most things were the same power armour dudes with weapon swaps.
I’m with saturmorn on this. The argument doesn’t stack up. The mess of silhouettes you describe is because you list non primaris units in there. If you look at the primaris army as only that and no mini marines the silhouettes work fine. As for abandoning the aesthetic of knightly warriors the primaris marines are much more similar to the actual original concept and appearance for marines than the old range had become over the years. Primaris is more like a reboot than a redesign.
As it is you have standard armour, stealth armour with a distinct silhouette and then gravis and jump infantry all with very distinct silhouettes. All very distinctly marine. Your argument really boils down to “I don’t like the change in the range”.
To my mind the lack of visual cohesion is a symptom of a growing flaw in GW's designs where they don't release armies that can be built in flexible ways anymore, they release one-dimensional mono-builds and occasionally cram them together in one book despite them not actually interacting. It's a bigger issue in Sigmar (where if you buy, for instance, the Stormcast Eternals battletome you're actually getting four armies (Warrior, Extremis, Vanguard, and Sacrosanct) whose synergies, formations, and command abilities barely interact with each other) but the release of the Primaris Vanguard as a complete set of new units built with Primaris Vanguard faction synergy in mind and little to no interaction with existing Space Marines has me worried the same design philosophy is migrating over to 40k.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:You say that, but I don't see the silhouette of Primaris Space Marines in Tacticus armor being all that radically different than a tactical space marine. As for the other configurations, you shouldn't be comparing Phobos to a Tactical Marine but to a scout, and I would say the the silhouette is that much different. Maybe you did, but I kinda doubt you made ever made this kinda of argument about scouts which to have a very different silhouette from anything else in the Marine line looking more like IG. I think the silhouette of Phobos armor still has enough elements that it is not going to be easily confused with any other broad 40k faction.
So to me, this hypothesis sounds more like you are looking for something concrete to hang on your 'I don't like Primaris' than anything else. Here's the thing, you don't have to has a reason to not like Primaris marines. Lots of players don't even after 2 years. I honestly think most that don't like Primaris (talking models not lore) don't really have a reason other than Primaris weren't a thing during the hey day of when they played. Which is fine. They certainly could be a reminder that those days are gone, probably long gone at this point, and never coming back. But I do think the silhouette hypothesis is kinda a weak as a reason simply because I think I could show the silhouettes to a number of 40k units to someone that doesn't know much at all about 40k and be confident they will still match Primaris to space marines. At least better than scouts in any event.
Zustiur wrote: Yep. Exactly.
Also I don't feel many of the newer ones succeed in looking like space marines due to how different their silhouette is. Phobos armour has weird ankle cuffs and uneven shoulders. It's all wrong. Which is weird because Jes specifically talked about how important the silhouette is!
I tell every one to look at the lower legs like fantasy high boots with the cuff rolled over (see Exalted Champion of Chaos or Blood Warriors in AoS for reference) and look at the armor as something a fantasy ranger or rogue might wear that is stripped down to the bare amount of protection to maximize stealth with a whole bunch of sci-fi techy bits to make it look futuristic. I personally think Phobos armor pulls of the fantasy game in space which 40k very much is.
It seems like it would be a failure of design to have same silhouette for a line infantry unit and a stealth recon unit. The differences are suppose to help the viewer differentiate how the unit functions but share enough elements that they could still place them in the faction they are from. I don't see Phobos patterns doing anything but that as they sell the idea these are recon troops and they belong to the space marine faction.
Agreed 100%.
I genuinely don't understand all the comments of "they don't look like Space Marines" - they couldn't be more similar.
They’re more like marines than marines were in my opinion.
I think eventually they’ll bring back some of the gothic and knightly aspects to some of the chapters, (possibly namely Dark Angels and Blood Angels, and maybe bring some of the Viking back to Wolves).
Otherwise I think that the different silhouettes help more than they hinder. Pointing at the same game you reference, Team Fortress 2 has drastically different silhouettes for each class, so you can tell them apart. Similarly for the new Primaris, it’s so much nicer to be able to see at a glance where it’ll be a tough gravis dude, a nimble Phobos dude or a typical Mk X duder, especially for your opponent who doesn’t have to ask who, “that other dude in power armour,” is. Doing this all while keeping to the recognisable marine aesthetic of big shoulders, big guns and flairs.
Andykp wrote:I’m with saturmorn on this. The argument doesn’t stack up. The mess of silhouettes you describe is because you list non primaris units in there. If you look at the primaris army as only that and no mini marines the silhouettes work fine. As for abandoning the aesthetic of knightly warriors the primaris marines are much more similar to the actual original concept and appearance for marines than the old range had become over the years. Primaris is more like a reboot than a redesign.
As it is you have standard armour, stealth armour with a distinct silhouette and then gravis and jump infantry all with very distinct silhouettes. All very distinctly marine. Your argument really boils down to “I don’t like the change in the range”.
The silhouetting problem isn’t between units, it’s within them. This is something OP mentioned but should have made a bigger point. It’s hard to tell apart the different intercessor loadouts at a glance, it’s the same with hellblasters and it will probably be the same with infiltrators and incursors. I don’t think it’s a deal breaking issue, but it is something I don’t like.
Regardless of what original marines were like, if you came to love marines because they are a mix of gothic knights and sci-fi spec-ops then there is no debate primaris marines skew that relation. Just look at eliminators. Sure they have their reliquary bits, but they’re also holding thinly veiled G36s. Not that one is worse than the other or that 40k doesn’t have plenty of gothic to go around (look at CSM), but primaris marines do not have the same feel as normal marines and there is no reason to assume someone who loves normal marines would also love primaris marines.
Eipi10 wrote:The silhouetting problem isn’t between units, it’s within them. This is something OP mentioned but should have made a bigger point. It’s hard to tell apart the different intercessor loadouts at a glance, it’s the same with hellblasters and it will probably be the same with infiltrators and incursors. I don’t think it’s a deal breaking issue, but it is something I don’t like.
No harder than telling the difference between what weapons a Tactical Squad has, or Veteran Squads, or Terminators or Scouts.
The only slightly difficult distinction is between bolt rifle and stalker bolt rifle (purely because they both have a scope, but if you know to look for the magazine instead, it's not so bad).
Hellblasters are easy to tell apart due to the backpack cabling on the heavy plasma incinerators, and incursors have different backpacks and helmets to infiltrators.
The real issues on this regard are xenos armies, who's weapons rarely have an intuitive design that reflects their effect, unlike most human armies.
Regardless of what original marines were like, if you came to love marines because they are a mix of gothic knights and sci-fi spec-ops then there is no debate primaris marines skew that relation. Just look at eliminators. Sure they have their reliquary bits, but they’re also holding thinly veiled G36s.
And? They're not the core of the Primaris line, are they? That would be like complaining that sniper scouts aren't proper marines, because they have lots of cloth bits. At least the Eliminators are still heavily armoured and even the monopose Shadowspear ones have purity seals and trinkets, unlike Scouts.
I don't see what about the Primaris skews the idea of "gothic knights and sci-fi spec-ops".
Not that one is worse than the other or that 40k doesn’t have plenty of gothic to go around (look at CSM), but primaris marines do not have the same feel as normal marines and there is no reason to assume someone who loves normal marines would also love primaris marines.
Except that, as far as I'm concerned, no-one has actually given me a rational answer why they look any different. I've seen plenty of people say "the Primaris Marines don't look like Space Marines any more", which I simply cannot see. A Primaris Marine is still, compared to every other fictional supersoldier, quintessentially 40k. I've seen people claiming they look more like Halo's Spartans, or other generic sci-fi soldiers, but I genuinely cannot see that. They're clearly still Space Marines, and I don't see how they have a different feel at all.
Note this is all my opinion, but it's made as a counter to your statement of "primaris marines do not have the same feel as normal marines", which comes across like you phrased it as a fact.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Except that, as far as I'm concerned, no-one has actually given me a rational answer why they look any different. I've seen plenty of people say "the Primaris Marines don't look like Space Marines any more", which I simply cannot see. A Primaris Marine is still, compared to every other fictional supersoldier, quintessentially 40k. I've seen people claiming they look more like Halo's Spartans, or other generic sci-fi soldiers, but I genuinely cannot see that. They're clearly still Space Marines, and I don't see how they have a different feel at all.
Primaris Marines are still very 40k and they are still marines, but they aren't the same marines. Maybe it's the sharp straight lines an extra armor plate layers, but they look more like halo spartans than normal marines look like halo spartans.
The new direction for modern space marines is tacticool. I don't like it either but at this point we might as well get used to it.
For whatever reason GW has decided that tacticool is the look that's going to expand their audience so that's what we're getting. RIP, gothic space knights.
slave.entity wrote: The new direction for modern space marines is tacticool. I don't like it either but at this point we might as well get used to it.
For whatever reason GW has decided that tacticool is the look that's going to expand their audience so that's what we're getting. RIP, gothic space knights.
intercessors have more of a knightly look then the god damned MK 7 Marines. the helmet grill is actually more in line with some medieval knight helms for example
Too bad the rest of the intercessor design is dressed up in generic sci-fi video game styling.
Actually OP has a good point. The silhouettes of units in relation to other units in the faction are also less distinct and more cluttered with excessive bits.
Nice side by side picture. The only unit on that list I like more than the original range are the Aggresors. Though they always struck me as the new Centurion unit that actually looks like it can walk.
I much prerfer the phobos to scouts, but that just might be the part of me that finds it annoying so many marine lists don't use power armor troops for their troops
BrianDavion wrote: I much prerfer the phobos to scouts, but that just might be the part of me that finds it annoying so many marine lists don't use power armor troops for their troops
Phobos are pretty decent looking but I just can't buy a sneaky power armor unit. The scout kit is definitely showing it's age but scouts at least look like they can sneak up on someone. The new stealth dread that GW ripoff from avatar is even sillier.
Even If the thing is some how totally silent, good luck moving a multi ton vehicle across any type of terrain with out someone noticing, especially when it's paint job is a bright color
AnomanderRake wrote: To my mind the lack of visual cohesion is a symptom of a growing flaw in GW's designs where they don't release armies that can be built in flexible ways anymore, they release one-dimensional mono-builds and occasionally cram them together in one book despite them not actually interacting. It's a bigger issue in Sigmar (where if you buy, for instance, the Stormcast Eternals battletome you're actually getting four armies (Warrior, Extremis, Vanguard, and Sacrosanct) whose synergies, formations, and command abilities barely interact with each other) but the release of the Primaris Vanguard as a complete set of new units built with Primaris Vanguard faction synergy in mind and little to no interaction with existing Space Marines has me worried the same design philosophy is migrating over to 40k.
I noticed that with AoS and it's really confusing and I hope beyond hope this doesn't happen with 40k factions. I just want one faction, not sub factions splintering one whole faction. Like in guard, you have Scions and core guard, I'd hate for them to further break it into armored companies and air forces and auxilla of ab human types, all that don't interact with each other but somehow are the same army. In part it already is like that but I don't want it to go further it makes the core game hyper frustrating for army list construction.
Personally, the reason I dislike primaris designs is they don't fit aesthetically with the rest of the line. Marines are angry churches, each one a hero in their own right wielding a relic of a weapon and armour forged millenia ago in ways now unknown. Primaris marines are generic supersoldiers who have been mass produced and use standardised weapons and armour. And they look it. Which is to say, they don't look very 40k. I dunno,, I guess I've just always thought of 40k as being Blanche's version, not the digital deviantart stuff on the front of codexes now that wouldn't be out of place in any other sci-fi setting, even though 40k is fantasy in space.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: Personally, the reason I dislike primaris designs is they don't fit aesthetically with the rest of the line. Marines are angry churches, each one a hero in their own right wielding a relic of a weapon and armour forged millenia ago in ways now unknown. Primaris marines are generic supersoldiers who have been mass produced and use standardised weapons and armour. And they look it.
Which is to say, they don't look very 40k. I dunno,, I guess I've just always thought of 40k as being Blanche's version, not the digital deviantart stuff on the front of codexes now that wouldn't be out of place in any other sci-fi setting, even though 40k is fantasy in space.
Marines are not fighting churches, that’s they way have gone over the years but it isn’t what makes a spacemarine. Primaris share the same lines but stripped off all the gothic BS that had cluttered up recent kits. It will be back where appropriate on certain models but not on all. That might be what you like about marines but it is only one aspect of what they are. For me it drove me away from marines as it wasn’t what I associated with every marine. Because they weren’t always like that.
The argument still seems to be people don’t like primaris because they are new and different. They are really just truescale mk4 marines.
Andykp wrote: The argument still seems to be people don’t like primaris because they are new and different. They are really just truescale mk4 marines.
Without the ability to mix weapons in the squad. Without Rhinos or Drop Pods. Buffed beyond relative parity with Aspect Warriors/Necron Troops. And I don't think I've noticed a single Chainswrod among them.
Primaris are the first marines I ever liked. I just don't like the look of mini marines so I've never owned any. I have a small force of purely primaris deathwatch now. I therefore totally get not liking them as it's just the way I feel about the oldmarines.
Drager wrote: Primaris are the first marines I ever liked. I just don't like the look of mini marines so I've never owned any. I have a small force of purely primaris deathwatch now. I therefore totally get not liking them as it's just the way I feel about the oldmarines.
See, this I can get. The two collections are aesthetically different, and it makes sense that one might appeal to you more than the other. Primaris imo are more "modern-techy".
Marines are not fighting churches, that’s they way have gone over the years but it isn’t what makes a spacemarine.
Yep. Original space marines (Rogue Trader) were convicted felons that were augmented and brainscrubbed and reprogrammed. Many of the current space marine chapters recruit from the most feral, aggressive and savage human tribes possible, subject them to the involuntary torture that is gene seed implantation, and brainscrub and reprogram them. The original person has been effectively murdered and you're left with a program of what a Space Marine should be and the battle brother is left from there to grow a real personality of his own, which will never stray too far because he's constantly monitored (Chaplains) and is brain damaged (brain altered to feel emotions differently than humans).
Andykp wrote: They are really just truescale mk4 marines.
They really aren't. Their armour is much more similar to mk7 and 8. The only similarity with mk4 is the helmet front, thats about it.
They aren't truescale either. Their head to body ratio is closer to ideal art proportions, but that is about it. They are still heroically proportioned.
People who dislike them dont dislike them because they are 'new and different' either. They dislike them because they don't like their particular aesthetic, its really that simple, it shouldn't be hard for you to comprehend.
The way I see it, Oldmarines no longer have a reason to exist. There are Primaris equivalents for pretty much every unit and battlefield role at this point, so it makes little in-universe sense to raise new standard marine troops.
Personally, I decided my own chapter went renegade when they were offered reinforcements from the Indomitus Crusade, seeing them as a heretical abomination designed to supercede and exterminate them (needless to say, they do not consider Rowboat Guilliman as their spiritual liege). This saves me money, too, as I can buy all my minis from the secondhand market now (I do not expect GW to ever release a non-Primaris marine model ever again).
Andykp wrote: They are really just truescale mk4 marines.
They really aren't. Their armour is much more similar to mk7 and 8. The only similarity with mk4 is the helmet front, thats about it.
They aren't truescale either. Their head to body ratio is closer to ideal art proportions, but that is about it. They are still heroically proportioned.
People who dislike them dont dislike them because they are 'new and different' either. They dislike them because they don't like their particular aesthetic, its really that simple, it shouldn't be hard for you to comprehend.
It’s not hard to comprehend and that’s my point, let’s not pretend it’s some issue with GW overall strategy and silhouettes and stuff. It’s because you don’t like them. Any model isn’t going to appeal to some people and it doesn’t make it wrong. They aren’t a huge shift or radical change from the past they are just different and if you don’t like then you don’t. They are still “spacemarines”. Just ones you don’t like. They were designed by the same people who designed the originals, so they are what marines are.
As for truescale etc, I was of course generalising but they are more true scale than the gangly legged horrors people used to convert and feel very smug about.
The argument still seems to be people don’t like primaris because they are new and different. They are really just truescale mk4 marines.
Primaris aren't limited to Intercessors and Hellblasters, and those other kits are definitely not just "truescale Mk4."
I don't like the Intercessors and Hellblasters because their scale looks weird with my old collection. I don't dislike them because they are "new and different".
I dislike the other units because the aesthetics are different and I find the execution lacking. It's not unlike me not buying a Storm Raven because it's ugly. I didn't avoid the purchase because it was new, I avoided the purchase because it was ugly. Plus, as mentioned, I already have units that perform roughly the same role.
So because the scale is different, because many of the units aren't compatible with my current Marines (transport-wise), and because the majority of the models I find rather ugly. The Primaris line on the whole doesn't interest me.
But it's not because they're new. If Marines had gotten a sweet looking hover tank compatible with my current collection, I could have been all over that.
For years I scraped all the skulls and purity seals of my Space Marines' armour, and generally went for the hi-tech sci-fi approach. Heck, I removed all the chainswords from my Assault Marines and Sgts, and replaced them with the knives that game with the various kits.
My loyalists all got Mk. VI helmets (and any other bits of Mk VI armour I could scrounge up), and my traitors got the Khorne Berzerker corinthian Mk V heads, or Chaos Space Marine Champion heads, basically all [T]-visors. Bunny Ears and Beakies all around.
In theory I should love the Primaris marines, and in person I agree they look fantastic. What I think is off about them is that they're not the Space Marines that I coveted in my childhood of Rogue Trader and 2nd edition.Give me Primaris-sized Mk VI armour with a gritty lo-tech look, and without all the skulls and purity seals and silly flair, and I'd probably have a 3rd army by now. The Mk III and Mk IV kits really nailed it for how to do it.
The irony is that the new Chaos Space Marines, Havocs, and Chaos Terminators have really nailed how to update CSM. Particularly the proportions on the Terminators.
Actually it is pretty much true. Primaris designs came from a variety of Jes Goodwin's old sketchbooks. Some of the underlying aesthetic features were drawn up over a decade ago. Now, how much of a sketch becomes a figure? Not nearly as much as when Jes was sculpting his own stuff, but there is a strong influence from a while back. Once the line launched though, it's likely they expanded the sources of inspiration, etc. Jes Goodwin discussed and showed some of these sketches around the launch of 8th edition etc.
Elbows wrote: Actually it is pretty much true. Primaris designs came from a variety of Jes Goodwin's old sketchbooks. Some of the underlying aesthetic features were drawn up over a decade ago. Now, how much of a sketch becomes a figure? Not nearly as much as when Jes was sculpting his own stuff, but there is a strong influence from a while back. Once the line launched though, it's likely they expanded the sources of inspiration, etc. Jes Goodwin discussed and showed some of these sketches around the launch of 8th edition etc.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Nice side by side picture. The only unit on that list I like more than the original range are the Aggresors. Though they always struck me as the new Centurion unit that actually looks like it can walk.
This is the same for me, I see the Reivers. And i cannot think of a model i hate more that GW have done. Old school scouts all the way there, Aggresors i kinda like. And Intersessors i kinda like.
But the tank is a meh, and the floaty ones look like a baby that has been picked up by surprise. The names Hurt D; So i gave up.
The names are a bit weird. Many of them are derived from obscure words and are a bit in conflict with the no-nonsense aesthetics of the models with their emphasis on technology over baroque flourish. In fact, I think Intercessors look more like a "Tactical squad" than a Tactical squad does.
The new sculpts have a markedly different aesthetic from the old ones. It's really quite obvious to anyone working in a professional character design capacity that these have been executed by different people. Maybe Jes oversaw the project and even advocated this shift in art direction, who knows. What we do know is that many people agree that generally the execution of the new marine sculpts has been lacking.
Even if you're on board with the shift from gothic sci-fi to generic, high-tech Call of Duty/Halo sci-fi (which I am definitely not on board with btw), the blobby silhouettes and abundance of random, non-committal "high tech shapes" across most units leave a lot to be desired.
barboggo wrote: What we do know is that many people agree that generally the execution of the new marine sculpts has been lacking.
We do not know that. 'The many people' you refer to is a handnful of whiners Dakka. Overwhelming majority of people with even a bare modicum of aesthetic sensibilities agree that the new models are a drastic improvement.
barboggo wrote: What we do know is that many people agree that generally the execution of the new marine sculpts has been lacking.
We do not know that. 'The many people' you refer to is a handnful of whiners Dakka. Overwhelming majority of people with even a bare modicum of aesthetic sensibilities agree that the new models are a drastic improvement.
Something something "no accounting for taste" something something.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote:Personally, the reason I dislike primaris designs is they don't fit aesthetically with the rest of the line. Marines are angry churches, each one a hero in their own right wielding a relic of a weapon and armour forged millenia ago in ways now unknown. Primaris marines are generic supersoldiers who have been mass produced and use standardised weapons and armour. And they look it.
No more so than 5th edition Tacticals that I remember.
Primaris Marines still look like Marines. They still look just as unique individually as old Marines, their gear looks just the same, just longer. The only discernible difference to me is that they're taller. That's literally it. If I collected every 40k army, and painted them all in the same way, with the same colour scheme, it would still be easy to identify the old Marines and Primaris as being cut from the same cloth. Hell, you'd find it easier to match a Tactical Marine to an Intercessor than a Tactical Marine to a Scout.
Insectum7 wrote:Without the ability to mix weapons in the squad.
Eliminators can. And one guy per squad can take an Auxiliary Grenade Launcher.
30k Marines also couldn't mix weapons. Are they not Marines too?
Without Rhinos or Drop Pods.
We didn't have Drop Pods before 5th. Were Marines only Marines after 5th?
Buffed beyond relative parity with Aspect Warriors/Necron Troops.
Or alternatively, buffed to what they *should* feel like.
And I don't think I've noticed a single Chainswrod among them.
The Intercessor Veteran Sergeant, the Blood Angel, White Scars and Space Wolves upgrade packs, and the new Store Birthday models all have chainswords.
But I will agree there should have been chainswords in the Intercessor kit. But saying they don't have any is a bit strange - hell, the new Codex has one right on the front cover.
barboggo wrote:The new sculpts have a markedly different aesthetic from the old ones.
Do they? I don't think so.
Big pauldrons? Check.
Blocky rifle with the same barrel type? Check.
Purity seals, eagles and skulls? Check.
Helmet with the same faceplate/cranial covering split? Check.
Backpack with big vents on each shoulder? Check.
It's really quite obvious to anyone working in a professional character design capacity that these have been executed by different people. Maybe Jes oversaw the project and even advocated this shift in art direction, who knows.
According to Voxcast, and his own admission, hasn't Jes been confirmed to be behind a lot of these?
What we do know is that many people agree that generally the execution of the new marine sculpts has been lacking.
Many have. Many others have thought the Primaris to be excellent sculpts.
Even if you're on board with the shift from gothic sci-fi to generic, high-tech Call of Duty/Halo sci-fi (which I am definitely not on board with btw),
Show me anyone who would sooner think a Primaris Marine is closer aesthetically to CoD or Halo or any other sci-fi universe when compared to a Mark VII Astartes.
They have far too much in common with the tried and true Space Marine design to be mistaken for any other universe.
the blobby silhouettes and abundance of random, non-committal "high tech shapes" across most units leave a lot to be desired.
He pretty much does. People should really listen the Voxcast where he talks about the Primaris design.
Spielberg's had some rough ones, too. Even if it is the same artist/sculptor/musician/director/architect/businessman/politician/human, output quality can vary.
Insectum7 wrote:Without the ability to mix weapons in the squad.
Eliminators can. And one guy per squad can take an Auxiliary Grenade Launcher.
30k Marines also couldn't mix weapons. Are they not Marines too?
Without Rhinos or Drop Pods.
We didn't have Drop Pods before 5th. Were Marines only Marines after 5th?
Wow. A Grenade Launcher. Woooooow.
30K Marines are plainly not Chapter Marines, and not "classic" marines, as "classic" marines are squads organized with the RTB01 kit into the modern Tactical Squad. And 30K "Tactical Squads" of all bolters are not at all interesting to me. Doctrinally Legions and Chapters are quite different. I much prefer Chapters, which are specifically built around more independently operable squads.
Marines had rules to incorporate the idea of Drop Pods in 3rd. Drop Pods were part of Marine lore since before 2nd Edition, as part of the Epic rule set.
He pretty much does. People should really listen the Voxcast where he talks about the Primaris design.
Spielberg's had some rough ones, too. Even if it is the same artist/sculptor/musician/director/architect/businessman/politician/human, output quality can vary.
Insectum7 wrote:Without the ability to mix weapons in the squad.
Eliminators can. And one guy per squad can take an Auxiliary Grenade Launcher.
30k Marines also couldn't mix weapons. Are they not Marines too?
Without Rhinos or Drop Pods.
We didn't have Drop Pods before 5th. Were Marines only Marines after 5th?
Wow. A Grenade Launcher. Woooooow.
30K Marines are plainly not Chapter Marines, and not "classic" marines, as "classic" marines are squads organized with the RTB01 kit into the modern Tactical Squad. And 30K "Tactical Squads" of all bolters are not at all interesting to me. Doctrinally Legions and Chapters are quite different. I much prefer Chapters, which are specifically built around more independently operable squads.
Marines had rules to incorporate the idea of Drop Pods in 3rd. Drop Pods were part of Marine lore since before 2nd Edition, as part of the Epic rule set.
So they are not marines because they don’t have drop pods or special weapons in the squads? Otherwise they look exactly the same but taller. I’m not saying you have to like them to say they are a massive shift from the “marine concept” is just a falsehood.
As for them not fitting in with the old marines that is because they show up the old scale and all the flaws in the old designs. I was never a hater of old marines, had a huge dark angel army and never saw an issue with the scaling, didn’t understand why people bothered making truescale ones. Then I lined up a primaris with the old marines and I literally couldn’t unsee the tiny legs and huge heads. So I sold up the dark angels and went full primaris.
What I like about them is that they are still explicitly marines, whatever you say. They have just had all the “gothic” rubbish that didn’t belong removed. The poses of them were so much more dynamic and more movement in them. You sacrificed some customisation but really it’s just the waist joint that has gone monopose and after working with the kits I’ve found so much customisation and options with them it is as good as the old ones and compatible with all the old bits in my bits box.
I suggest to people who haven’t to do as crimson says and watch the voxcast on Jes Goodwin and the primaris range. He was in over all control, he lead from concept through to production and the goal was to re-marine the marines. Strip away the rubbish and modernise the models using the benefits of new technology.
If you look at stormcast eternal they were initially a quite bland blank canvas but they have added character and colour to it with time. We are just now seeing what they are going to be doing with primaris and the back ground and to me it looks great. I expect to see some more divergence and individual character being added to the line so that Templar’s can have more knightly look etc. Some people won’t like them and some will. As I said before it doesn’t make them wrong or badly done. It just makes them not to your taste.
Insectum7 wrote:Without the ability to mix weapons in the squad.
Eliminators can. And one guy per squad can take an Auxiliary Grenade Launcher.
30k Marines also couldn't mix weapons. Are they not Marines too?
Without Rhinos or Drop Pods.
We didn't have Drop Pods before 5th. Were Marines only Marines after 5th?
Wow. A Grenade Launcher. Woooooow.
Functions pretty much the same as a missile launcher does, just a bit weaker. That's more than can be said of 30k Marines.
30K Marines are plainly not Chapter Marines, and not "classic" marines, as "classic" marines are squads organized with the RTB01 kit into the modern Tactical Squad.
In which case, we disagree on what Space Marines are.
30k Marines are Marines. 40k Marines are Marines. Primaris are Marines. It's not about if they have an extra dude in the squad who carries a different weapon - if I built a modern Tactical Squad with only bolters, would they not be Tactical Marines?
And 30K "Tactical Squads" of all bolters are not at all interesting to me.
Yes, not interesting, perhaps, but they ARE Space Marines, they ARE Adeptus Astartes.
Doctrinally Legions and Chapters are quite different. I much prefer Chapters, which are specifically built around more independently operable squads.
But they're still both Space Marines. As I said above, if I built a Tactical Squad with no heavy or special weapons, are they not a Tactical Squad any more?
Marines had rules to incorporate the idea of Drop Pods in 3rd. Drop Pods were part of Marine lore since before 2nd Edition, as part of the Epic rule set.
And Primaris have Drop Pods, as seen in the Warhammer Adventures books. They just don't have them in game.
Insectum7 wrote:Without the ability to mix weapons in the squad.
Eliminators can. And one guy per squad can take an Auxiliary Grenade Launcher.
30k Marines also couldn't mix weapons. Are they not Marines too?
Without Rhinos or Drop Pods.
We didn't have Drop Pods before 5th. Were Marines only Marines after 5th?
Wow. A Grenade Launcher. Woooooow.
Functions pretty much the same as a missile launcher does, just a bit weaker. That's more than can be said of 30k Marines.
30K Marines are plainly not Chapter Marines, and not "classic" marines, as "classic" marines are squads organized with the RTB01 kit into the modern Tactical Squad.
In which case, we disagree on what Space Marines are.
30k Marines are Marines. 40k Marines are Marines. Primaris are Marines. It's not about if they have an extra dude in the squad who carries a different weapon - if I built a modern Tactical Squad with only bolters, would they not be Tactical Marines?
And 30K "Tactical Squads" of all bolters are not at all interesting to me.
Yes, not interesting, perhaps, but they ARE Space Marines, they ARE Adeptus Astartes.
Doctrinally Legions and Chapters are quite different. I much prefer Chapters, which are specifically built around more independently operable squads.
But they're still both Space Marines. As I said above, if I built a Tactical Squad with no heavy or special weapons, are they not a Tactical Squad any more?
Marines had rules to incorporate the idea of Drop Pods in 3rd. Drop Pods were part of Marine lore since before 2nd Edition, as part of the Epic rule set.
And Primaris have Drop Pods, as seen in the Warhammer Adventures books. They just don't have them in game.
I heard they also have land raiders in the Silver Templars book.
For the record, Jes Goodwin specifically states in the Voxcast that he stopped sculpting as soon as they moved to digital.
And honestly, it's so plain and obvious that I don't know why I even bothered to check. The new aesthetic is "space marines filtered through the hands of video game sci-fi ZBrush artists" and it really shows.
barboggo wrote: For the record, Jes Goodwin specifically states in the Voxcast that he stopped sculpting as soon as they moved to digital.
Yes, he doesn't sculpt them personally, but he leads the design process; draws the sketches and even does greenstuff mockups. They're pretty much his creation.
barboggo wrote: For the record, Jes Goodwin specifically states in the Voxcast that he stopped sculpting as soon as they moved to digital.
Yes, he doesn't sculpt them personally, but he leads the design process; draws the sketches and even does greenstuff mockups. They're pretty much his creation.
Being a lead, and being the actual sculptor is miles and miles of difference. Take it from someone who has been both lead and sculptor.
Insectum7 wrote:Without the ability to mix weapons in the squad.
Eliminators can. And one guy per squad can take an Auxiliary Grenade Launcher.
30k Marines also couldn't mix weapons. Are they not Marines too?
Without Rhinos or Drop Pods.
We didn't have Drop Pods before 5th. Were Marines only Marines after 5th?
Wow. A Grenade Launcher. Woooooow.
Functions pretty much the same as a missile launcher does, just a bit weaker. That's more than can be said of 30k Marines.
30K Marines are plainly not Chapter Marines, and not "classic" marines, as "classic" marines are squads organized with the RTB01 kit into the modern Tactical Squad.
In which case, we disagree on what Space Marines are.
30k Marines are Marines. 40k Marines are Marines. Primaris are Marines. It's not about if they have an extra dude in the squad who carries a different weapon - if I built a modern Tactical Squad with only bolters, would they not be Tactical Marines?
And 30K "Tactical Squads" of all bolters are not at all interesting to me.
Yes, not interesting, perhaps, but they ARE Space Marines, they ARE Adeptus Astartes.
Doctrinally Legions and Chapters are quite different. I much prefer Chapters, which are specifically built around more independently operable squads.
But they're still both Space Marines. As I said above, if I built a Tactical Squad with no heavy or special weapons, are they not a Tactical Squad any more?
Marines had rules to incorporate the idea of Drop Pods in 3rd. Drop Pods were part of Marine lore since before 2nd Edition, as part of the Epic rule set.
And Primaris have Drop Pods, as seen in the Warhammer Adventures books. They just don't have them in game.
There are Marines, and there are Marines. Classic Tactical, Devastator etc. are the latter. It is what it is.
^Like I said above, not every piece of work by any given artist is of consistent quality.
"So it is arbitrary baseless nonsense?"
Just because you can't tell the difference, or refuse to acknowledge a difference, doesn't mean there isn't a difference.
Insectum7 wrote: There are Marines, and there are Marines. Classic Tactical, Devastator etc. are the latter. It is what it is.
Honestly, no, I don't get it.
If I took a unit of Tactical Marines without a special or heavy weapon, are they still "Marines", as you put it?
For me, Primaris are just as much a Space Marine as the 40k ones, which are just as much Space Marines as the Legion Astartes. The armour looks fundamentally the same. Their weapons look like they have the same design cues and would be more closely related to eachother than a similar type of weapon from another fictional universe. Their whole design is still more "40k" than it is any other fictional setting.
As I've said above, if you can find me anyone who genuinely believes that this:
Cool sketches btw. Where are they from? I'd love to see more.
I'd love to see more too, but those are the only ones I've managed to find on the internet. I'm not sure where they're from. LE version of the previous marine codex maybe?
Nice find. It's always cool to see the development that goes into these models, even if we disagree on the quality of the end result.
To me, that sketch of the flying land raider looks just as goofy as the final model. Certainly a faithful translation from 2d to 3d. Not sure what happened there.
Insectum7 wrote: There are Marines, and there are Marines. Classic Tactical, Devastator etc. are the latter. It is what it is.
Honestly, no, I don't get it.
If I took a unit of Tactical Marines without a special or heavy weapon, are they still "Marines", as you put it?
In my book? No.
What I like about the true-marine Tactical Squad from the time of yore, is that it's a unit that is expected to be able to take on any sort of target/mission. And for a long time, it was pretty good at that, as the Heavy Weapon could conceivably destroy even a Land Raider in a single shot. The Tac squad has its roots in the Rogue Trader style of play, which was almost an adventure game or RPG type of thing. Except instead of a single character, you had a squad. The same this held true in 2nd Edition. I just played 2nd edition the other week, and a Tac Squad one-shotted a Hive Tyrant with a Krak missile. This gist of the TActical Squad is that it can operate independently and effectively, because each guy was a an elite trooper, and they could gear up for the mission at hand. Every other squad-of-the-line was merely a variation on that. Same armor, different gear.
Legions and Primaris don't do that. Presumably Intercessors are supposed to headbut tanks with their extra attack. Or shoot a Krak grenade at it :/. It's a fundamental doctrinal change and I hate it. They aren't designed to operate independently. They are not the marines I signed up for. They're more like Eldar.
That is really more about how the scope of the game has changed. If you just have like two squads, a character and maybe a small tank like it originally was the case, then a versatile squads composed of individuals with varied specialised equipment makes sense. In scale the game operates now it makes much more sense for each squad to have a defined role.
The old approach works better in the Killteam. (And there you can create a team of varied specialists with different equipment out of the Primaris too!)
Insectum7 wrote: There are Marines, and there are Marines. Classic Tactical, Devastator etc. are the latter. It is what it is.
Honestly, no, I don't get it.
If I took a unit of Tactical Marines without a special or heavy weapon, are they still "Marines", as you put it?
In my book? No.
What I like about the true-marine Tactical Squad from the time of yore, is that it's a unit that is expected to be able to take on any sort of target/mission. And for a long time, it was pretty good at that, as the Heavy Weapon could conceivably destroy even a Land Raider in a single shot. The Tac squad has its roots in the Rogue Trader style of play, which was almost an adventure game or RPG type of thing. Except instead of a single character, you had a squad. The same this held true in 2nd Edition. I just played 2nd edition the other week, and a Tac Squad one-shotted a Hive Tyrant with a Krak missile. This gist of the TActical Squad is that it can operate independently and effectively, because each guy was a an elite trooper, and they could gear up for the mission at hand. Every other squad-of-the-line was merely a variation on that. Same armor, different gear.
Legions and Primaris don't do that. Presumably Intercessors are supposed to headbut tanks with their extra attack. Or shoot a Krak grenade at it :/. It's a fundamental doctrinal change and I hate it. They aren't designed to operate independently. They are not the marines I signed up for. They're more like Eldar.
You seem to arguing that because they don’t operate like tactical squads of old that they aren’t marines, the initial argument was about silhouettes which is clearly a nonesense as smudge showed earlier. How they behave on a table top wasn’t what made marines look like marines, you are basically saying if they had a missile launcher they would be fine????
In first and second edition I often ran a combat squad or two with just bolters in. Something about it felt thematic. If you are getting to the point of “hate” about a change to the operating style of the toys we all love you maybe need to take a step back.
If I took a unit of Tactical Marines without a special or heavy weapon, are they still "Marines", as you put it?
In my book? No.
So in your eyes, what makes a Space Marine a Space Marine is that they have a random guy in the squad with a special weapon?
Sorry, but to me, there's WAY more than that.
What I like about the true-marine Tactical Squad from the time of yore, is that it's a unit that is expected to be able to take on any sort of target/mission.
And when were Tactical Marines every actually able to pull that off reliably? Yes, I know in lore they're capable, but in lore, so are Primaris.
The Tac squad has its roots in the Rogue Trader style of play, which was almost an adventure game or RPG type of thing.
Ay, there's the rub: because what 40k itself is has moved on from that. In 5th at the latest, we were seeing a massive departure from what Rogue Trader and early 40k were. It went from skirmish, platoon level combat to company level, and beyond.
This gist of the TActical Squad is that it can operate independently and effectively, because each guy was a an elite trooper, and they could gear up for the mission at hand.
Well, except for the other three guys in the squad who weren't the Sergeant or the random guy with something that wasn't a bolter.
Every other squad-of-the-line was merely a variation on that. Same armor, different gear.
Except Terminators and Scouts. Are they not Marines too?
Presumably Intercessors are supposed to headbut tanks with their extra attack. Or shoot a Krak grenade at it :/.
The krak grenade which is the same grenade that the Tactical Marines of old were so good at using against tanks in CQC, remember? I'm sure you also remember when Tacticals actually having krak grenades made them a genuine threat to vehicles if they got too close - Intercessors can do the same, and even at range. It's a versatile weapon in fluff - just not so much in game.
It's a fundamental doctrinal change and I hate it. They aren't designed to operate independently. They are not the marines I signed up for. They're more like Eldar.
But Marines have, in my experience, NEVER been defined solely by "they have a guy who carries an actually good weapon in their squad, nestled in behind the bolter mooks". More than anything else, it's their aesthetic and power level in lore that have defined what a Space Marine is to me. Not in game stats, because those fluctuate like the seasons.
Sorry, but I disagree strongly with the idea that Marines are only Marines if they have a special weapon guy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: The old approach works better in the Killteam. (And there you can create a team of varied specialists with different equipment out of the Primaris too!)
Exactly! In Kill Team, I can create a really fun team with lots of personality and "specialised gear" with just 5 Intercessors:
Sergeant with power sword - the leader, and champion. Fights in close combat against the toughest foes. Intercessor with bolt rifle - the all rounder, the flexible guy Intercessor with auxiliary grenade launcher - the one with the heavy firepower and massive damage Intercessor with stalker bolt rifle - the sniper, the pinpoint marksman Intercessor with auto bolt rifle - the suppressor, the hail of fire
Compare that to a 5 man Tactical Squad: The Sergeant (pretty much the same) The heavy firepower guy (same as the auxiliary grenade launcher) And then three bolter guys.
Which team has more tactical flexibility?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: You seem to arguing that because they don’t operate like tactical squads of old that they aren’t marines, the initial argument was about silhouettes which is clearly a nonesense as smudge showed earlier. How they behave on a table top wasn’t what made marines look like marines, you are basically saying if they had a missile launcher they would be fine????
In first and second edition I often ran a combat squad or two with just bolters in. Something about it felt thematic. If you are getting to the point of “hate” about a change to the operating style of the toys we all love you maybe need to take a step back.
Pretty much, yeah. Being a Space Marine is more than having a guy in your squad with a special weapon, and honestly, you don't NEED a special weapon to be Space Marines (unless apparently 5 bolter guys aren't actually Space Marines until someone hands them a flamer).
If it were truly that easy, then, well, Guardsmen would apparently be more like Space Marines than Primaris.
Crimson wrote: That is really more about how the scope of the game has changed. - - - In scale the game operates now it makes much more sense for each squad to have a defined role.
100% disagree. As do
Infantry Squads
Tyranid Warriors
Ork Boyz
Eldar Guardians
Dark Eldar Warriors
Battle Sisters
To name some other Troop Choices
If anything, 8th is even better for it now that squads can split their fire.
You seem to arguing that because they don’t operate like tactical squads of old that they aren’t marines, - - - How they behave on a table top wasn’t what made marines look like marines, you are basically saying if they had a missile launcher they would be fine????
In first and second edition I often ran a combat squad or two with just bolters in. Something about it felt thematic.
A: If Intercessors had more options for mixed weapons, they would be more "mariney", imo.
B: You're welcome to take advantage of the option to run just bolters. Be my guest and equip your marines however you see fit.
Andykp wrote: ---the initial argument was about silhouettes which is clearly a nonesense as smudge showed earlier.---
Actually, what the OP said I think is spot on, and Smudge is way off.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If I took a unit of Tactical Marines without a special or heavy weapon, are they still "Marines", as you put it?
Insectum7 wrote:
In my book? No.
So in your eyes, what makes a Space Marine a Space Marine is that they have a random guy in the squad with a special weapon?
Sorry, but to me, there's WAY more than that.
At the basics, the core identification of "Space Marine" is elite generalists. Part of being a generalist is having the equipment to handle different roles/targets.
What I like about the true-marine Tactical Squad from the time of yore, is that it's a unit that is expected to be able to take on any sort of target/mission.
And when were Tactical Marines every actually able to pull that off reliably?
Yes, I know in lore they're capable, but in lore, so are Primaris.
Yah, by what? Firing a Krak grenade at tanks? That's a joke. I'll take the . . . any one/two/three of the much better AT options available to Tac Squads.
As for the silhouette issue, I'm with the OP. 90ish% of a Chapter is marines in Power Armor, and the only difference is equipment. Bolt Pistol Chainsword? Assault Marine. Heavy Weapons? Devastator. Mix? Tacticals. Same base silhouette, different equipment. Armor doesn't change until very special cases. The Primaris line is closer to Tau in terms of armor, and limited in terms of equipment like Eldar.
I would have given them melta granades to use with the auxiliary launcher.
For me the maximum and absolute flexibility is a Deathwatch thing, for example. There I basically give a name to every single marine in a squad and I love to have them mixed, and since KT was released Deathwatch is my go-to faction for the sheer fluff.
For Marines, I much prefer the legion approach to warfare on the battlefield.
I've said it before but primaris are clearly designed in response to 7th (and earlier) edition criticisms (and suggestions for improvement) of standard Marines. the second wound? something widely suggested. an additional attack to make them a little more potent in melee? suggested. specialsit squads? likewise suggested (tac squads where kinda meh before split fire and all)
I can see why someone would prefer the tactical squad style setup over more uniform squad composition, but that is really not an essential marine thing. Legion marines were still marines, and the Primaris are organised more like them.
The underlying reason people dislike the Primaris marines can be found in my sig: "You love the T-Rex. Its both a hero and a Villain in the first two movies. It is the "king" of dinosaurs. Its the best. You love your T-rex. Then comes along the frakking Spinosaurus who kills the T-rex, and the movie says "LOVE THIS NOW! HE IS BETTER" But...in your heart, you love the T-rex, who shouldn't have lost to no stupid Spinosaurus. So you hate the movie. And refuse to love the Spinosaurus because it is a hamfisted attempt at taking what you loved, making it TREX +++ and trying to sell you it."
That said, they do still look aesthetically distinct, whoever it was that was trying to claim they're aesthetically "cut from the same cloth". Just sharing some overall characteristics does not make for a recognisably united aesthetic. You wouldn't say that about a member of the Russian military and the American military circa Vietnam/Afghanistan, even though they both have a helmet, long barrelled assault rifle, grenades, body armour, webbing, trousers, etc, etc.
barboggo wrote:The new sculpts have a markedly different aesthetic from the old ones.
Do they? I don't think so. Big pauldrons? Check. Blocky rifle with the same barrel type? Check. Purity seals, eagles and skulls? Check. Helmet with the same faceplate/cranial covering split? Check. Backpack with big vents on each shoulder? Check.
Just because they share many features does not mean they still have a different aesthetic. They're both clearly marines, true, but things from the primaris marine line are clearly part of the primaris marine line, and the same goes for real marines.
except the differance between a Primaris Marine and Spinosaurus is that the Primaris Marine really is a new and improved Marine. the Spinosaurus was however a spindly creature that obviously was not as solidly built being billed as a bigger and better critter because it's spine happened to make it a bit taller. the problem with the spinosarus was it obviously WASN'T a super T-rex.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: The underlying reason people dislike the Primaris marines can be found in my sig: "You love the T-Rex. Its both a hero and a Villain in the first two movies. It is the "king" of dinosaurs. Its the best. You love your T-rex.
Then comes along the frakking Spinosaurus who kills the T-rex, and the movie says "LOVE THIS NOW! HE IS BETTER" But...in your heart, you love the T-rex, who shouldn't have lost to no stupid Spinosaurus. So you hate the movie. And refuse to love the Spinosaurus because it is a hamfisted attempt at taking what you loved, making it TREX +++ and trying to sell you it."
I think this is accurate. This is how most who hate the Primaris seem to feel. It is an emotional reaction based on nostalgia and how the new line was presented. And it is a perfectly valid reaction. I had similar feelings regarding certain choices in the latest Star Trek iterations.
I actually think that the Primaris fluff is stupid and awkward and I certainly question many decisions GW made about introducing this new line. Nevertheless, I am not going to let that to ruin my enjoyment of the beautiful models. They're the best Space Marine models we've ever had, and I'm really glad they exist.
You seem to arguing that because they don’t operate like tactical squads of old that they aren’t marines, - - - How they behave on a table top wasn’t what made marines look like marines, you are basically saying if they had a missile launcher they would be fine????
In first and second edition I often ran a combat squad or two with just bolters in. Something about it felt thematic.
A: If Intercessors had more options for mixed weapons, they would be more "mariney", imo.
B: You're welcome to take advantage of the option to run just bolters. Be my guest and equip your marines however you see fit.
But apparently they're NOT Marines if they don't have a special weapon. That's what I'm latching onto here, the fact that apparently the 3 bolter mooks in the squad aren't "Marines" until their mate with the meltagun shows up.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So in your eyes, what makes a Space Marine a Space Marine is that they have a random guy in the squad with a special weapon?
Sorry, but to me, there's WAY more than that.
At the basics, the core identification of "Space Marine" is elite generalists. Part of being a generalist is having the equipment to handle different roles/targets.
Okay, I'll ignore the whole implication that "Marines aren't actually Marines without having their special weapon buddy tagging along", but I'll redirect to my point about the 5 man Primaris Kill Team versus the 5 man normal Marine Kill Team. Primaris Marines can be organised in such a way that EVERY Marine is unique, has a unique role in the team (by their equipment), and is tactically flexible as a result. Regular Marines have less flexibility, as they're stuck with 3 members of the squad with inflexible loadouts. Sure, ONE of them can have a larger range of options which are more efficient at it's chosen task, but the rest of the squad have less flexibility than the Primaris. Having a token guy with a fancy weapon doesn't mean the whole squad is more versatile. It just means the bolter mooks are cannon fodder for the only useful guy.
What I like about the true-marine Tactical Squad from the time of yore, is that it's a unit that is expected to be able to take on any sort of target/mission.
And when were Tactical Marines every actually able to pull that off reliably? Yes, I know in lore they're capable, but in lore, so are Primaris.
Yah, by what? Firing a Krak grenade at tanks? That's a joke. I'll take the . . . any one/two/three of the much better AT options available to Tac Squads.
Is the mark of a Tactical Squad how well they take down tanks? Because a grenade launcher wouldn't have been too bad in previous editions, all things considered. I mean, models with krak grenades in melee were a non-insignificant threat in previous editions.
And again, Tactical Marines are only as flexible as their single special weapon dude allows. That's not flexibility. That's babysitting.
As for the silhouette issue, I'm with the OP. 90ish% of a Chapter is marines in Power Armor, and the only difference is equipment.
Actually, it's <80%. There are ten companies. 10% of the Chapter is in/can wear Terminator Armour. 10% of the Chapter is Scouts in Scout Armour. Then we have Centurions (which have a VERY different silhouette), Bikes (who still have a different silhouette), and jump pack Marines (who have even MORE silhouette different to a Tactical Marine than a Reiver has to an Intercessor).
Phobos Armour and Tacticus Armour, on the other hand, while with their notable differences, still look like they're from the same baseline. From the waist up, they're pretty much identical. The biggest area of difference is the legs, which is one has slightly thinner legs. Aside from that, no difference in silhouette.
Bolt Pistol Chainsword? Assault Marine.
Or one of the many Sergeants or Veterans.
Heavy Weapons? Devastator.
Or it's a Tactical Marine or Sternguard Veteran.
Mix? Tacticals.
So a Tactical Squad with no special weapon isn't a Tactical Squad? No, wait, they're not even Space Marines!
Same base silhouette, different equipment.
Primaris do this perfectly - unlike Tactical Marines, they don't even have to worry about potential misidentification because of a random heavy weapon guy who *might* be a nearby Devastator.
Tacticus with bolt weapons? Intercessors. Tacticus with plasma weapons? Hellblasters. Flying "Tacticus"? Suppressors. Phobos with antennae? Infiltrators. Phobos with visors? Incursors. Phobos with skull masks? Reivers. Camo cloaks? Eliminators. Gravis on foot? Aggressors. Flying Gravis? Inceptors.
And yet they still all have the same basic silhouette, Phobos and Tacticus especially (come on, they're incredibly similar from the waist up, which is what you're most likely to be seeing of them). The biggest different comes from the Gravis Armour, which is no more different from Tacticus/Phobos as Terminator Armour is from Aquila pattern power armour. Hell, the old Marines have things like Cataphractii and Centurion armour, which has even less in common to Aquila plate.
The Primaris line is closer to Tau in terms of armor, and limited in terms of equipment like Eldar.
You're seriously saying that Primaris Marines look more like Tau than Space Marines?
Just to make this clear, I'm arguing that the aesthetics still LOOK like the old Marines still. Do you agree with that? Or are you saying that it would be easier to confuse a Primaris Marine with a Fire Warrior than a Tactical Marine?
CREEEEEEEEED wrote:The underlying reason people dislike the Primaris marines can be found in my sig: "You love the T-Rex. Its both a hero and a Villain in the first two movies. It is the "king" of dinosaurs. Its the best. You love your T-rex. Then comes along the frakking Spinosaurus who kills the T-rex, and the movie says "LOVE THIS NOW! HE IS BETTER" But...in your heart, you love the T-rex, who shouldn't have lost to no stupid Spinosaurus. So you hate the movie. And refuse to love the Spinosaurus because it is a hamfisted attempt at taking what you loved, making it TREX +++ and trying to sell you it."
I understand this, and get what this means: the problem is that I don't see what the Primaris do that isn't the same as the old Marines, aesthetically at least.
I can understand about the "they don't have the same embedded weapons" approach as said above, but: 1 - That doesn't mean they're not SPACE MARINES, they're just not the kind of playstyle you like. 2 - This whole thread seems to be about silhouettes, so I'm talking about the armour design here first and foremost.
And in regards to that second point, I just can't see what aesthetically is different that they're not the same.
That said, they do still look aesthetically distinct, whoever it was that was trying to claim they're aesthetically "cut from the same cloth". Just sharing some overall characteristics does not make for a recognisably united aesthetic.
Okay, but what are the differences that set them apart? Because if they share all those, and they're still not aesthetically united, what are the characteristics you can point out clearly that divide them?
You wouldn't say that about a member of the Russian military and the American military circa Vietnam/Afghanistan, even though they both have a helmet, long barrelled assault rifle, grenades, body armour, webbing, trousers, etc, etc.
Honestly, I'd say they ARE visually more similar than distinct. Clearly, they're not the same, but I'm going to lump those two under the same aesthetic bracket, instead of linking the American soldier to a Civil War era American.
Yes, there's a difference, but I can clearly see that they're two soldiers from the same time period, fighting at the same kind of technological peak. Same as I can see that a Primaris Marine is part of the same organisation as an old Marine.
Big pauldrons? Check. Blocky rifle with the same barrel type? Check. Purity seals, eagles and skulls? Check. Helmet with the same faceplate/cranial covering split? Check. Backpack with big vents on each shoulder? Check.
Just because they share many features does not mean they still have a different aesthetic. They're both clearly marines, true, but things from the primaris marine line are clearly part of the primaris marine line, and the same goes for real marines.
I'm not arguing they don't have a difference, obviously. But I am arguing that Primaris Marines look MORE LIKE Marines than they do different. I'm saying that it would be practically impossible to mistake a Primaris Marine are being from any other 40k army, or belonging to any other sci-fi army. They're clearly Space Marines.
With regards to comparing Primaris to Tau, I think he's clearly equating the way each Tau unit wears different armour for a different role, just as the Primaris do, rather than the particulars of the armour.
I actually think that the Primaris fluff is stupid and awkward and I certainly question many decisions GW made about introducing this new line. Nevertheless, I am not going to let that to ruin my enjoyment of the beautiful models. They're the best Space Marine models we've ever had, and I'm really glad they exist.
I agree with you about the fluff but disagree about the models. The tacticus are great, and the helm mirrors the same late Mk4 aesthetic that communicates high tech. But this goes back to the fluff- the aquila pattern helms communicated the brutal antihero status of the marines. That's lost in the new minis by design and its a fundamental shift in how people see the marines.
Unlike other armour marks or aesthetic updates (RTB01 beakies to MkVII 2nd ed, 3rd ed plastic MKVII including updated MkVI, DV Chosen) the Primaris release is given different rules and a fluff reason that doesnt allow you to opt out of using them. They're not centurions, which were an alternate way to field devastators. They are the new guard, and that's where the rancour comes from.
For marine fans, what ideally should have happened is that Cawl resupplied chapters with MKX armour and stylish bolt guns from his forges. The indomitus crusade could have been a massive founding of marines in response the 13th black crusade - drawing on much of the Adeptus Terra's geneseed vault. Armed at Terra and led by the returned Gulliman, they reunited the marines with their chapters and shared the new equipment.
Mechanically, MkX armour and the marines of that crusade don't need to be any different to codex marines. It would make more sense that the writer of the codex was suddenly handed a vast army of marines trained and armed in line with that codex. If GW were dead set on giving marines 2w, and 2A, give it to them.
What did happen was that we got legion style units in 40k.
What some people above have been saying about primaris not feeling mariney enough is that the base unit of the marines was the tactical squad. It makes sense for a battle game (and a miniatures company) to have squads kitted with the same weapon. Reducing options makes bookkeeping simpler and is easier for GW to produce. All the options are in the box, because the options are boltguns or different boltguns.
However, in the lore, the tactical squad was equipped to deal with all threats- a special weapon and a heavy weapon gave it flexibility to hunt tanks, mow down infantry at range, burn hordes or even take out heavy infantry. The classic flamer and missile launcher loadout, combined with the combat squad rule allowed the tactical squad to be its own fire support and close range assault team and threaten every unit in the game. With squad frag and krak grenades and sergeant meltabombs, and the option for sergeants to take pistol or combi weapons, the jack of all trades unit was than supported by specialists like the assault squads or devastator squads in open battle.
But In theory, a tac squad had all the weapons it needed to win a battle single handedly.
Within the squad, there were 3 roles with 'model support' beyond the standard bolter marine: Sergeant, heavy and special. But in the lore there was a second squad leader, and a marksman for each combat squad. optional copes and iron halo transfers allowed you to model this, if you chose. This brought the total number of roles to 6- 3 for each combat squad and 2 battle brothers with standard loadout to accompany them.
None of this needed rules support, just like MkVI armour didn't need rules support and crusade era armour didn't need rules support. It was abstracted away like all the different bolter models, magazines, scopes, chainsaw bayonets and wolfpelts that added character but not rules. The primaris release flies in the face of this- telling us that these bolters are meaningfully different from the ground up- not because of special ammo.
Stealth chapters infiltrated for years in MKVII (or mark VI when they could get it) but now there's a new armour for that. Captains have reliably communicated with the fleet to co-ordinate precision lance strikes, but now you'll need giant aerials sticking out of your armour to communicate effectively. Every new bit they attach to phobos armour reduces what MKVII/MKX armour must be capable of. The sensors protruding from the latest sneak peeks are symptomatic of this.
Nurglitch wrote:With regards to comparing Primaris to Tau, I think he's clearly equating the way each Tau unit wears different armour for a different role, just as the Primaris do, rather than the particulars of the armour.
I see - but regular Astartes are just as guilty of this.
Devastators have different armour to Tactical Marines, with helmets bristling with enhanced optics and increased leg plating. Assault Marines have a great big jump pack. Bikers have, well, bikes. We have three different types of Terminator Armour. We have Centurion suits, which, while definitely Space Marine equipment, are far more removed from the standard Astartes aesthetic than Primaris are. Scouts wear a whole different type of armour.
It's not just as simple as "each Primaris unit has a different suit of armour and THAT'S what makes each unit special". Infiltrators, Incursors, Eliminators and Reivers all share the same base armour type. Intercessors and Hellblasters also do. In fact, you can see in their armour designs that Phobos and Tacticus plates share a common core armour set, which was intentionally designed. The entire idea of this, and the fluff that many Primaris Marines switch between Phobos and Tacticus plate as per the mission at hand, is to double down on the idea of Astartes being modular, being tactically flexible, just like how people worship the old Marines for.
Yes, one of their squad members can't carry a special weapon (or, at least, ignoring the grenade launcher), but they're clearly capable of equipping different types of bolter to meet the task at hand. As my Kill Team example shows, 5 Intercessors have more potential for flexibility than 5 Tactical Marines.
The entire Primaris faction has more design synergy than the regular 40k Marines, and even in doing so, are also still easily identifiable as Adeptus Astartes. Yes, they have aesthetic designs that show how they're not the same as old Marines, but to say they're not Astartes at all (as some people argue) is baffling.
Basically I haven’t heard an argument that stands up to anything smudge has had to say. I get people don’t like the change but it’s not because of some fundamental design shift. There hasn’t been one. Comparing primaris to the last version of the tactical squad is no different from comparing lastest tactical marines to RTB01 marines. Clearly all marines. To say otherwise is just being deliberately awkward.
The only thing that bothers me about Primaris is the cost of the boxes. I already have 12,000+ points of power armor and now I want to get more. I may have a problem.
barboggo wrote: You guys realize it's possible for people to have differing aesthetic taste right?
Yes, absolutely.
If people were just saying "I don't like the look of Primaris", I'd have no issue, same as someone saying "I don't like the look of Orks". Aesthetic preference. If people were saying "I don't like the look of Primaris compared to normal Marines", I'd question why, because they have lots of similarities between the two.
But when people say things like "The new sculpts have a markedly different aesthetic from the old ones." or "...shift from gothic sci-fi to generic, high-tech Call of Duty/Halo sci-fi", then that's not taste, that's not opinion, that's them claiming a fact. And no-one has been able to factually provide me with evidence that Primaris Marines look more like CoD or Halo soldiers than 40k ones. No-one's been able to show me how Primaris Marines don't share nearly ALL the hallmarks of what makes a Space Marine.
The ONLY argument that I've seen about why old marines are different to Primaris is the helmet grille, creating some Darth Vader vibes showcasing their more menacing nature. However, this argument falls flat when you factor in: Unhelmed Marines Mark III helmets Mark IV helmets Mark VI helmets who DON'T have mouth grilles. Do Astartes not wearing those helmets not count as Space Marines? Are the Raven Guard, who often wear Mark VI helms, not actually true Astartes?
Again, I'd have no issues with people saying "I don't like the look of Mark VI helmets", and there's "many people who find them lacking", but no-one's calling them "a markedly different aesthetic".
This brings me to my main argument - it's fine not to like how they look. But nearly every argument which has tried to argue factually that "they don't look like normal Marines" has failed under this scrutiny.
I think people forget something. There is no such thing as any one 'classic' marine. Marines have been around since the 80s and have grown and changed immensely over the years.
When I see how model ranges ‘change’ over the years, I’m reminded of stuff I learned in school about genetic ‘drift’ and genetic ‘shift’. Briefly, in the case in the former, it is a slow, gradual accumulation of changes in a population that over a certain period of time (or even geographical distance) result in an entirely different species. In the case of the latter, it is generally a sudden sharp, (typically environmental in nature) pressure that forces a sudden change in a population (typically in terms of ‘attractive’ traits, that were up to this point marginal, or irrelevant, but all of a sudden, are now suddenly useful – an example most people are familiar with being the black and white moths and the industrial revolution).
I use the terms ‘drift’ and ‘shift’ loosely with regard to 40k, with the slow, gradual accumulations in the SM line as ‘drift’ and the sudden change/introduction of Primaris as a ‘shift’.
I remember as a kid being intrigued by 40k for years before I was finally able to get into it properly. This was 3rd ed 40k by the way. When I did, it was with Space Wolves. Back then, it was the ‘classic’ SM tactical box, and the ‘classic’ Space Wolves pack box. Both felt to me to be no-nonsense kits. Nothing over the top. Space Wolves felt like Marines with a Viking/barbarian flavour. Marines were marines. And then, over the years, things started to change, and the new SM models were slowly, but subtly blinged up. More and more so with every new release. First time I noted it was thr 4th ed tyrannic war veterans, and veteran SM. With robes and greebles. Still felt more ‘marine’ than ‘ornament’ though. But over time, for me, the sense of ‘ornament’ began to eclipse the ‘marine’. Sternguard and vanguard were the 'this is getting over the top' point for me. It got ridiculous by the time 5th ed was around, with Space Wolves changing from Marines with a Viking/barbarian flavour to becoming a barbarian/wolf cartoon, with a tiny amount of Space Marine flavour. Blood Angels were ‘blood-nouns’. And for me, the high (or rather low point of this) was Marneus Calgar and his honour guard. Specifically, the model I refer to as ‘wing-face’. For me, by this point Marines had ‘drifted’ to the point where they had gotten silly. Very silly. There was nothing that said 'marine' about them. It was all about the bling. And the ornaments. They stopped being Marines and started being walking chalices. There was nothing 'no-nonsense' about them. They were a cartoon parody of what they’d been. Lumier from beauty and the beast had a stronger space marine aesthetic than some of the walking tabernackles that gw were producing.
It became all too clear to me when I came across an awesome model company called Anvil Industry and their sublime ‘Exo-lord’ range. Specifically, the black ops ‘ahem, totally-not-marines’ range. Here were no-nonsense 'marines'. No bling. No ornaments. No faff. No silly crap. Just pouches, grenades, knives, spare magazines. Thry felt and looked like geared up badasses ready to go and crack some skulls. They were Maybe a tiny bit ‘tacti-cool’ but all of a sudden I had the ‘look’ that I wanted. And as I saw them, I knew gw marines had completely lost that 'look' and I wished gw marines were more like anvil exo-lords.
So then a wee bit later and GW releases Primaris, and the long genetic ‘drift’ that had, for me, defined and undermined marines for too long suddenly ended with a decisive ‘shift’ to a model that was, again, no-nonsense marines. No bling. No ornaments. No faffs. Just perfectly, what id always wanted marines to be.
Truth be told, marines had stopped being marines for me a long time ago. Primaris ended the foolishness and brought them back in line with what id always wanted them to be.
To illustrate my points, lets look at how marines have changed over the years, through thirty odd years of ahem, "classic"..
Edit: can't get the pics. Please accept a link to a dakka gallery!
When you compare these guys to the RTB01 guys, you can see the lineage and the heritage there, along with constant subtle and not so subtle changes that goes all the way through the current oldstartes through to primaris though the RTB01 marines really do show their age at this point.
Now, By the time you have 7th edition rolling around and marines have evolves from 'clean' rtb01s to the likes of
Ultramarine honour guard, and the despised 'wing-face'.
Spoiler:
Santa Grimnar.
Spoiler:
Rolling around, and as far as I’m concerned, the shark has been jumped. Those guys are more ‘ornament’ than ‘marine’. Hell, there is more of a Space Marine aesthetic in Lumiere or Cogsworth from the Beauty and the Beast movie than those ornaments – its like Where’s Wally, but for Space Marines.
Now, compared to the likes of these guys?
Black Ops.
Spoiler:
I know who I want in my army.
Now, to be fair, I am probably more on the extreme end. When I got back into 40k with primaris (and death guard), I went with Raptors (Raven Guard successors) for their pragmatic, practical, utterly no-nonsense approach to things.
I actively avoid anything even remotely looking like an embellishment on my guys armour. It annoys me to have lieutenants with the greebled up legs and fancy ornate shoulder pads – I even refuse to paint gold or any ‘fancy’ coulours on my guys. The most I’ll accept on my guys is a Primaris head or shoulder pad with a wee skull on it to denote rank, for the sergeants. Lieutenants might get a tiny bit extra, but frankly, that’s it. No bling. Loads of 3rd party anvil bits - every one gets loaded up with grenades, pouches, spare clips of ammo on their belts, thighs and chest/torso. And everyone gets a holstered sidearm. It’s a war, not a damned fashion show.
For the death guard, I actively avoid any embellishments. Dusk Raiders and pre-heresy Death Guard were notorious for the utterly crude functionality of their armour and complete and utter disregard for any embellishments or fanciness. Which makes 'modern' death guard the complete opposite of what they were. Most of my Death Guard Mk3 ‘undersuits’ are unpainted metallic, with only the main plate ‘slabs’ being ivory, and accents (knee, elbow and shoulder pads) being green. Tentacles are fine. Horns are fine. Any OTT greebles (any design, really!) or silly bug heads just get filed off. As weird as it sounds, I want 'clean' Death Guard ((so I can paint their armour with centuries of grime and contempt).
People pointed out that the Intercessors are the most "classic" models and other Primaris models are way different...
The comparison is again and again done with Intercessors.
At this point, it even stopped to be amusing, to be honest.
Nurglitch wrote:With regards to comparing Primaris to Tau, I think he's clearly equating the way each Tau unit wears different armour for a different role, just as the Primaris do, rather than the particulars of the armour.
I see - but regular Astartes are just as guilty of this.
Devastators have different armour to Tactical Marines, with helmets bristling with enhanced optics and increased leg plating.
Assault Marines have a great big jump pack.
Bikers have, well, bikes.
We have three different types of Terminator Armour.
We have Centurion suits, which, while definitely Space Marine equipment, are far more removed from the standard Astartes aesthetic than Primaris are.
Scouts wear a whole different type of armour.
After assembling ~ 1000 models of space marine infantry models I am pretty sure there were just 3 Types of Armor at the reboot ( 3rd ed. ) onwards:
- Scout Armor , Power Armor , Tactical Dreadnaugt Armor ( Terminator ).
Sure, we didn't have a lot of the FW and HH variants all the time. But, seriously the idea of Space Marine with a backpack beeing something different than the same marine on a bike or piloting a land-speeder ? Thats not a point.
Only Veterans got access to TDA. Only Scouts used Scout armor ( because access to Power Armor had to be earned ) and every regular battlebrother and his dog ran around in a suit of Power armor. All that bling someone may have added and burying the space marine beneath purity seals or any other gear doesn't matter that much if the Subject is the general design of the Space Marines that was.
The Space Marines Power Armor was always compatible with a lot of equipment and pieces of different Marks interchangable. You Didn't need a "special devastator body" to build a devastator space marine for example. Basically just 1 general type of armor for the majority of the chapter.
Now, the plan GW seems to be on is to offer Figures with limited Options and recognizable Names, so each box is something of its own and you are not meant to take those Power Armor bodys and add some gear to have tactical role A or tactical role B or C or D or F etc pp.
And that is a change IMHO.
The Primaris Design isn't: "a suit of Power Armor granted when the Marine advanced from beeing a scout to full battlebrother". Its more of "equipment according to mission" style and cannot be the same so people are free to like or dislike it.
GW is actively changing their most iconic property. The very property that has made Warhammer 40,000 what it is today. The very property that has made GW what it is today.
Like it or not, Warhammer 40,000 in its entirety (lore, game(s), etc.) is built around the Imperium and its Space Marines and GW is fundamentally changing what Space Marines are.
Primaris is NOT a revision of an existing model line. It IS the outright replacement of an existing property.
Space Marines are so deeply rooted into the core of what Warhammer 40,000 is and even who GW is, that changing Space Marines is going to have such far reaching effects that W40K as we know it; GW as we know it, the Community as we know it...
Will change.
And this change... whatever it ends up being... will have unpredictable and unprecedented collateral damage.
1hadhq wrote:After assembling ~ 1000 models of space marine infantry models I am pretty sure there were just 3 Types of Armor at the reboot ( 3rd ed. ) onwards: - Scout Armor , Power Armor , Tactical Dreadnaugt Armor ( Terminator ).
Devastator armour is noticeably different now. Centurion suits too. And two more types of Terminator.
Sure, we didn't have a lot of the FW and HH variants all the time. But, seriously the idea of Space Marine with a backpack beeing something different than the same marine on a bike or piloting a land-speeder ? Thats not a point.
I don't see why that's any different to anyone suggesting that Reivers, Incursors and Infiltrators are different units. Or Intercessors and Hellblasters. They're based on the same core, Phobos or Tacticus. In my eyes, Primaris have about 4 types: Tacticus (Intercessor/Hellblaster), Phobos (Infiltrator, Incursor, Reiver, Eliminator*), Gravis (Aggressor, Inceptor), Omnis (Suppressor - I would personally call it Tacticus, but it IS more armoured). Compare to old Marines, and that's really not too different.
*Unless you want to argue that sniper Scouts are different to regular Scouts.
The Space Marines Power Armor was always compatible with a lot of equipment and pieces of different Marks interchangable. You Didn't need a "special devastator body" to build a devastator space marine for example. Basically just 1 general type of armor for the majority of the chapter.
Except now Devastators now DO have different armour. If we're talking about "power armour was compatible with other gear" - so is Primaris armour. Jes' notes indicate that Primaris armour is modular - an Astartes can wear whatever armour is required for the task at hand, be that increased durability, flexibility, or stealth.
Now, the plan GW seems to be on is to offer Figures with limited Options and recognizable Names, so each box is something of its own and you are not meant to take those Power Armor bodys and add some gear to have tactical role A or tactical role B or C or D or F etc pp. And that is a change IMHO.
Is it? Where were the Astartes carrying bolters with jump packs? Where were the Captains with plasma guns or missile launchers? Could I put terminator arms on Devastator Marines and give them storm bolters and power fists?
There have always been limits between boxes. Primaris are no less hampered by this than old Marine kits.
The Primaris Design isn't: "a suit of Power Armor granted when the Marine advanced from beeing a scout to full battlebrother". Its more of "equipment according to mission" style and cannot be the same so people are free to like or dislike it.
Isn't that LITERALLY the whole point of tactical flexibility though? It's still a suit of power armour. It's just more modular. It still LOOKS like Marine power armour: even the Phobos armour looks like power armour still. It's clearly different, but so is Devastator armour now.
oni wrote: GW is fundamentally changing what Space Marines are.
No they're not. They're still genetically enhanced, brainwashed and fanatical supersoldiers that wear power armour and eradicate xenos and heretics with bolt weapons.
oni wrote: GW is actively changing their most iconic property. The very property that has made Warhammer 40,000 what it is today. The very property that has made GW what it is today.
Like it or not, Warhammer 40,000 in its entirety (lore, game(s), etc.) is built around the Imperium and its Space Marines and GW is fundamentally changing what Space Marines are.
Primaris is NOT a revision of an existing model line. It IS the outright replacement of an existing property.
Space Marines are so deeply rooted into the core of what Warhammer 40,000 is and even who GW is, that changing Space Marines is going to have such far reaching effects that W40K as we know it; GW as we know it, the Community as we know it...
Will change.
And this change... whatever it ends up being... will have unpredictable and unprecedented collateral damage.
It’s the revision of an existing model line, the most iconic one with a line that looks remarkably similar to the old one. And that’s my point, my sole argument here, primaris look just like marines.
And lore wise what has really changed. The great rift and marines have got some new stuff. Marines have had new stuff every edition and it hasn’t broken the game. I’ve played since 1st edition and primaris only armies feel more like classic marine armies since any I’ve played since 2nd edition. After third marines became too cheap and expendable and lost a feeling of a tough elite force. Primaris has brought that back.
Andykp wrote: I’ve played since 1st edition and primaris only armies feel more like classic marine armies since any I’ve played since 2nd edition. After third marines became too cheap and expendable and lost a feeling of a tough elite force. Primaris has brought that back.
Honestly the real issue I have with the primaris designs is the tacticool stuff, lack of a medieval knight feel. Also the loss of the vader esque helmets. The primaris look like mk IV knock offs. There is also less variety in the armor pattern, it's too standardized. Marine armor used to have subtle variants, embellishments etc. I'd consider the current tactical marine kit superior to intercessors in this regard. I also liked the WW1/WW2 inspired vehicles, you can imagine them being loud and belching smoke and just being obnoxious. The grav vehicles are just bleh in comparison.
Thargrim wrote: Honestly the real issue I have with the primaris designs is the tacticool stuff, lack of a medieval knight feel. Also the loss of the vader esque helmets. The primaris look like mk IV knock offs. There is also less variety in the armor pattern, it's too standardized. Marine armor used to have subtle variants, embellishments etc.
Whilst subjective, these are all valid complaints. They're also easy and fun to fix if you have decent bitsbox.
oni wrote: GW is fundamentally changing what Space Marines are.
No they're not. They're still genetically enhanced, brainwashed and fanatical supersoldiers that wear power armour and eradicate xenos and heretics with bolt weapons.
This is correct
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thargrim wrote: Honestly the real issue I have with the primaris designs is the tacticool stuff, lack of a medieval knight feel. Also the loss of the vader esque helmets. The primaris look like mk IV knock offs. There is also less variety in the armor pattern, it's too standardized. Marine armor used to have subtle variants, embellishments etc. I'd consider the current tactical marine kit superior to intercessors in this regard. I also liked the WW1/WW2 inspired vehicles, you can imagine them being loud and belching smoke and just being obnoxious. The grav vehicles are just bleh in comparison.
And this is a man giving a personal opinion. It doesn't appeal to you great. It doesn't to me either. That's why I'm using a different army. There is nothing saying you have to give them anything more.
ok first of all, the differance between a MK 6 marine (the original RTB01 box) and a modern MK 7 marine is honestly visually as much or more of a major aestetic differance from a MK 7 marine and a intercessor.as for the modular armor, marine armor has always been described as being module, MK X armor is actually a fairly logical outgrowth of this.
Agamemnon2 wrote: Well, we've all agreed to be hostile and condescending about it all, that's the main thing.
It's genuinely difficult when the basic point raised by one side (this change reminds me X / is supposed to recall Y) is dismissed so quickly while there is obviously way more to say.
Especially considering the fact that design is something complex and other than the concept, there are details in the general execution, the proportions and so on. For some people the proportions can be something so off-putting to completely estrange you from the line because - surprise surprise - people have different tastes and priorities.
But no, it must be sheer negativity.
oni wrote: GW is fundamentally changing what Space Marines are.
No they're not. They're still genetically enhanced, brainwashed and fanatical supersoldiers that wear power armour and eradicate xenos and heretics with bolt weapons.
What is your opinion on Space Marines now having specialized units and hover tanks then?
There used to be lines that other armies simply did not cross because the goal was to ensure every army had a distinct identity. We've been seeing that line blurred a lot with Space Marines while they also monopolize the lion's share of development and growth we've seen in this game.
oni wrote: GW is fundamentally changing what Space Marines are.
No they're not. They're still genetically enhanced, brainwashed and fanatical supersoldiers that wear power armour and eradicate xenos and heretics with bolt weapons.
What is your opinion on Space Marines now having specialized units and hover tanks then?
There used to be lines that other armies simply did not cross because the goal was to ensure every army had a distinct identity. We've been seeing that line blurred a lot with Space Marines while they also monopolize the lion's share of development and growth we've seen in this game.
I really don’t see the issue with hover tanks and marines. No one complained when marines found a new rhino chassis variant or landraider variant every edition or new armour or guns to carry. Imperial grab tanks and vehicles have been a thing since year one and have always been around. The tanks still look decidedly marine like and share a lot of common design features. They hover that is all. Yes I know some won’t like them and others will but to say that it was a rule that all space marine tanks had to have tracks isn’t true. By having a hovering brick of a tank they aren’t treading on eldar a toes, the two races are still fundamentally different. Read the fluff on the repulsor and it is a brutish thing that shatters the ground as goes along and is noisy and inelegant. A marked difference from the falcon or wave serpent. And definitely not new technology. One of the opponents I play my primaris against most often is craftworld eldar and trust me, our tanks don’t feel the same on the battle field and our squads don’t play similar either.
As for specialist squads, they always have had specialist squads. A marine army isn’t all tactical squads it always had Devastator and assault squads with specialist roles. Bike squads and jump pack squads. Even back in the day there was marines doing covert recon work in power armour. None of this is new.
Having massive hover tanks, such as the hover rhino, hover landraider and the FW hover super tank is it fundamentally changes the setting. One of the things I liked about 40k or several other fiction settings is the sense of loss and decay. The best days of the IOM were behind them, the empire holds together despite itself and humanity is slow but surely losing ground.
Now we have a Cawl Ex Machina and suddenly there is innovation out the ass. I liked that the best the IOM could do before was something small like a bike or a land speeder, now I'm waiting for the day when guard get hover tech cause apparently it's easy to make now.
I think what we can all agree on is that people that played marines but don’t like Primaris should all come over to the 30k forum and have fun with us “oldest” marine folks
You seem to arguing that because they don’t operate like tactical squads of old that they aren’t marines, - - - How they behave on a table top wasn’t what made marines look like marines, you are basically saying if they had a missile launcher they would be fine????
In first and second edition I often ran a combat squad or two with just bolters in. Something about it felt thematic.
A: If Intercessors had more options for mixed weapons, they would be more "mariney", imo.
B: You're welcome to take advantage of the option to run just bolters. Be my guest and equip your marines however you see fit.
But apparently they're NOT Marines if they don't have a special weapon. That's what I'm latching onto here. . .
You are "latching" in error. I would put it as "The essence of the Tactical Squad is the capacity to effectively engage a variety of targets, with a variety of methods, without support." Each unit can operate independently, and can be equipped appropriately. I'd go so far as to call it a pervasive doctrinal philosophy among Marine units, in fact.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So in your eyes, what makes a Space Marine a Space Marine is that they have a random guy in the squad with a special weapon?
Sorry, but to me, there's WAY more than that.
At the basics, the core identification of "Space Marine" is elite generalists. Part of being a generalist is having the equipment to handle different roles/targets.
Okay, I'll ignore the whole implication that "Marines aren't actually Marines without having their special weapon buddy tagging along", but I'll redirect to my point about the 5 man Primaris Kill Team versus the 5 man normal Marine Kill Team.
Primaris Marines can be organised in such a way that EVERY Marine is unique, has a unique role in the team (by their equipment), and is tactically flexible as a result.
Regular Marines have less flexibility, as they're stuck with 3 members of the squad with inflexible loadouts. Sure, ONE of them can have a larger range of options which are more efficient at it's chosen task, but the rest of the squad have less flexibility than the Primaris. Having a token guy with a fancy weapon doesn't mean the whole squad is more versatile. It just means the bolter mooks are cannon fodder for the only useful guy.
Which squad was the inflexible one again?
The options available to add resolution to your Primaris Kill team is functionally a non-point, different bolters changes little regarding their limited strategic scope. I like how you breeze past the Sergeant in the squad and his loadout potential, too. If you're not trying to be disingenuous, why are you cherry-picking?
Chainsword (or two)
Power Sword
Power Axe
Power Maul
Power Fist
Thunder Hammer
Lightning Claw (or two)
What I like about the true-marine Tactical Squad from the time of yore, is that it's a unit that is expected to be able to take on any sort of target/mission.
And when were Tactical Marines every actually able to pull that off reliably?
Yes, I know in lore they're capable, but in lore, so are Primaris.
Yah, by what? Firing a Krak grenade at tanks? That's a joke. I'll take the . . . any one/two/three of the much better AT options available to Tac Squads.
Is the mark of a Tactical Squad how well they take down tanks? Because a grenade launcher wouldn't have been too bad in previous editions, all things considered. I mean, models with krak grenades in melee were a non-insignificant threat in previous editions.
And again, Tactical Marines are only as flexible as their single special weapon dude allows. That's not flexibility. That's babysitting.
Sgt. Smudge, if you're going to suggest that a Lascannon isn't a good AT weapon in prior arguments above, don't then turn around and claim that a Grenade Launcher firing Krak is at all sufficient for the task. Your squad is going to be babysitting a lot longer if you're relying on Krak Grenades to do your AT work a range. A Krak Grenade was not a quarter the threat of a Lascannon in earlier editions. The Grenade Launcher is still a joke of an AT weapon, and doesn't come close to qualifying in this regard.
As for the silhouette issue, I'm with the OP. 90ish% of a Chapter is marines in Power Armor, and the only difference is equipment.
Actually, it's <80%. There are ten companies. 10% of the Chapter is in/can wear Terminator Armour. 10% of the Chapter is Scouts in Scout Armour. Then we have Centurions (which have a VERY different silhouette), Bikes (who still have a different silhouette), and jump pack Marines (who have even MORE silhouette different to a Tactical Marine than a Reiver has to an Intercessor).
I said 90ish% because the 10th company size is variable, and it's notably rare for a Chapter to be able to field it's entire 1st company in Terminator Armor. Then you add in the characters and other various super numaries that potentially include Command Squads.
As for the rest, you either misunderstood the argument, or are simply trying to avoid it. The point is that all the personal armor is virtually identical/interchangeable. Bikes are essentially just "guy in Mk5-8 riding a bike", Assault marine is "guy in Mk5-8 with a Jump Pack and CC weapons" for example. All major roles are filled by marines in Mk5-8.
I'd wager that nobody making the argument for "traditional marines" gives any care about the Centurion. Centurions are Primaris before Primaris. I could be wrong.
The Primaris line is closer to Tau in terms of armor, and limited in terms of equipment like Eldar.
You're seriously saying that Primaris Marines look more like Tau than Space Marines?
Just to make this clear, I'm arguing that the aesthetics still LOOK like the old Marines still. Do you agree with that? Or are you saying that it would be easier to confuse a Primaris Marine with a Fire Warrior than a Tactical Marine?
I'm saying they're poor impressions of Space Marines having been given the characteristics of Tau and Eldar. Flying Battlesuits with no Chainswords, Squads of Battlesuits with Missile Pods/multiple simultaneous weapons systems, or squads all armed with the same weapon. Some of them even have those little anime-fins.
Andykp wrote: Comparing primaris to the last version of the tactical squad is no different from comparing lastest tactical marines to RTB01 marines. Clearly all marines. To say otherwise is just being deliberately awkward.
RTB01 Tacticals: 10 Marines. 1 Sergeant with upgrade choices. 1 Special weapon, 1 Heavy Weapon.
8th Ed Tactical Squad: 10 Marines. 1 Sergeant with upgrade choices. 1 Special weapon, 1 Heavy Weapon.
And the majority of the options is the same. Transports are the same. You can field the same Tac Squad 30(?) years later. There are a few options (Like a 3% chance of having a Lasgun, or a 10% chance of having a D-Cannon) that were quickly phased out in those days, but the squad is otherwise virtually identical.
Intercessors: 10 Primaris Marines. Big difference in statline compared to the contemporaries of other races (2W in particular)
Completely different weapons options. Different transport options.
To illustrate my points, lets look at how marines have changed over the years, through thirty odd years of ahem, "classic"..
Fixed that for you:
Spoiler:
Second ed marines.
8th Ed Marines
After the end of 1st edition there's like. . . zero drift, dude. The moulds got cleaner and the heavy weapons changed at the start of 3rd Ed. The overall amount of change in the core line is exceedingly minimal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: ok first of all, the differance between a MK 6 marine (the original RTB01 box) and a modern MK 7 marine is honestly visually as much or more of a major aestetic differance from a MK 7 marine and a intercessor.
It's worthwhile to acknowledge this. . . however. . . it's important to also acknowledge that the line stabilized shortly afterwards, and has remained stable for 20+ years since. Additionally, "Brand new" Mk 7 Marines could mix squads with Mk6, carry the same weapons, ride the same transports. The difference was purely aesthetic and no other mechanics or "pressures" were involved.
To illustrate my points, lets look at how marines have changed over the years, through thirty odd years of ahem, "classic"..
Fixed that for you:
Spoiler:
Second ed marines.
8th Ed Marines
After the end of 1st edition there's like. . . zero drift, dude. The moulds got cleaner and the heavy weapons changed at the start of 3rd Ed. The overall amount of change in the core line is exceedingly minimal.
And the marines from 2nd ed onwards can be freely mixed in squads with 3rd ed onwards. I have 2nd ed metal assault sergeants leading 3rd ed plastic assault squads with 5th ed weapon options grafted in, and forgeword resin armour components scattered for flavour.
All of the below show design changes from metal to resin/plastic but none of them are invalidated in any (classic)space marine squad.
You'll notice that the 2nd ed metals have modern style boltguns and arms, despite being made for 2nd ed plastics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: ok first of all, the differance between a MK 6 marine (the original RTB01 box) and a modern MK 7 marine is honestly visually as much or more of a major aestetic differance from a MK 7 marine and a intercessor.
It's worthwhile to acknowledge this. . . however. . . it's important to also acknowledge that the line stabilized shortly afterwards, and has remained stable for 20+ years since. Additionally, "Brand new" Mk 7 Marines could mix squads with Mk6, carry the same weapons, ride the same transports. The difference was purely aesthetic and no other mechanics or "pressures" were involved.
Right. Beakie marines were not retconned as lesser marines when the MkVII marines dropped. New models arrived to update the marine aesthetic, comnplete with updated MkVI but RTB01 remain valid for tactical squads today.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Having massive hover tanks, such as the hover rhino, hover landraider and the FW hover super tank is it fundamentally changes the setting. One of the things I liked about 40k or several other fiction settings is the sense of loss and decay. The best days of the IOM were behind them, the empire holds together despite itself and humanity is slow but surely losing ground.
Now we have a Cawl Ex Machina and suddenly there is innovation out the ass. I liked that the best the IOM could do before was something small like a bike or a land speeder, now I'm waiting for the day when guard get hover tech cause apparently it's easy to make now.
This is a very valid point. I don't like the decay theme being lost either. I just think that that ship sailed in a major way when loyalist Primarchs started returning, so some new tank is small beans compared to that. This is really about how the new stuff was introduced. I don't mint it existing, but I would have preferred if they would have just retconned it in instead of making it all new in the setting as well. After all, the marines had hover tanks in Rogue Trader already.
To add my few bits, I like how Primaris look, generally, mainly the Intercessors. The old marines were iconic, yet tall as a guardsman and were bit silly too.
New marines being tacticool is not a big issue, unless it's too over the top. The thing that I dislike on the old marines were their distinct lack of pouches. Even the guardsmen have a belt with a spare mag or two along with grenades, but marines had very little if nothing.
A marine would (logically assuming) go into battle with at least 4 spare magazines, if not more.
The thing that bugs me more is the silly and ridiculous designs GW produces.
Inceptors - Silly bouncy marines. Their jump-pack is the worst on them.
Aggressors - Too bulky to my taste, they look like baby Contemptor dreadnoughts.
Suppressors - Does this really need a commentary? Just ridiculous.
Gravis armor - Not sure what is specifically wrong with it, but... it just looks off to me.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Having massive hover tanks, such as the hover rhino, hover landraider and the FW hover super tank is it fundamentally changes the setting. One of the things I liked about 40k or several other fiction settings is the sense of loss and decay. The best days of the IOM were behind them, the empire holds together despite itself and humanity is slow but surely losing ground.
Now we have a Cawl Ex Machina and suddenly there is innovation out the ass. I liked that the best the IOM could do before was something small like a bike or a land speeder, now I'm waiting for the day when guard get hover tech cause apparently it's easy to make now.
This is a very valid point. I don't like the decay theme being lost either. I just think that that ship sailed in a major way when loyalist Primarchs started returning, so some new tank is small beans compared to that. This is really about how the new stuff was introduced. I don't mint it existing, but I would have preferred if they would have just retconned it in instead of making it all new in the setting as well. After all, the marines had hover tanks in Rogue Trader already.
This is what bothered me the most also. I like the design of the intercessors and the scale of the primaris is more fitting for a space marine, but like has already been said, their introduction changes the setting. The imperium of man in 40k has always been described as a technologically stagnant and bureaucratically inefficient moloch, where old tech from the glory days was almost always better and had to be rediscovered first. If they had written the introduction of the primaris more in that framework, it would have been more coherent with the long lasting established lore and also more elegant.
I think someone at GW said that they need to update the scale of the space marine line because they looked kinda tiny compared to recent releases (Custodes for example) and it seems that somehow the best idea they could come up with was to create an entirely new space marine out of thin air, who is just bigger, better and stronger....which is a bit lame from a storytelling perspective.
Also I have to agree with my previous poster that many of the new primaris models are a bit silly. Though again, I like the intercessors and the sculpts of most "upgraded" characters look great, but everything else from the primaris line does not fit into the faction very well in my opinion.
There is nothing fundamentally changed about Primaris Marines. They are still indoctrinated children turned super soldiers with bolt weapons.
Visually the faction is being made to look more distinctive from other Imperial factions - and that is a good thing. The Grav vehicles are perfectly fine - they look very similar to established Astartes designs but more futuristic. I'm also a big fan of Aggressors as they have a more human-like shape beneath the heavy armour, compared to the odd shape of Terminators, and yes - I know they are iconic because they've been around for so long.
The setting changed and primaris were added. Primaris didn’t change the setting. They no more changed it than them finding a new stc variants of rhinos and land raiders. Than adding centurions and new dreadnought types. Adding marines riding wolves or immortal saints to a marine army. There had been change every edition and update. Cawl no more understands what he’s made than they did old marines. He didn’t invent anti grav technology, it was one lots of imperial stuff, look at the space wolf flyer, that shares design cues with the repulsor. He bolted existing tech onto an existing chassis.
I’ve said this before, people would have been up in arms if they had just made bigger marines that replaced everyone’s old marines. The marine range was bloated and done, every variant of every thing was over done. All they could do was add more crap detail onto each model. Primaris reset the clock design wise and gave them Scope to expand the range and go in new directions. They could have said cawl just found all this stuff. People still would be sulking.
And finally I’m sorry, the setting changing isn’t new, what’s been done to the HH by blacklibrary is a devastation of the setting that has more impact on it than any of this. If you don’t think it’s happened before ask my mates old squat army and the 1st/2nd edition ORK army of mine they used to fight. They were invalidated over night and the background changed massively.
Ishagu wrote: There is nothing fundamentally changed about Primaris Marines. They are still indoctrinated children turned super soldiers with bolt weapons.
Visually the faction is being made to look more distinctive from other Imperial factions - and that is a good thing. The Grav vehicles are perfectly fine - they look very similar to established Astartes designs but more futuristic. I'm also a big fan of Aggressors as they have a more human-like shape beneath the heavy armour, compared to the odd shape of Terminators, and yes - I know they are iconic because they've been around for so long.
See, I look at the picture and completely dislike the aesthetic. Marnus Calgar was one guy with underslung bolters on powerfists. It was cool but impractical to fire heavy assault rifles from beneath your giant mechanised hands, but it was one guy, made him unique and he had an army of guys backing him up with rifles aimed normally.
The Greyknights had theirs atop the wrist, with the visual justification that they needed two hands to fight daemons with their halberds.
Similarly , bloodangels got gauntlet weapons on jump troops so they could hold weapons double handed.
That suit doesnt have the ancient warrior aestheic of a lightning claw/hammer and shield terminator- but it does have a ton of bulk. Its an entire squad of guys with short range weapons and clunky suits and no riflemen. They have no movement mechanism like jump packs, or teleportation, so their plan is to waddle into range.
They are neither futuristic versions of modern soldiers or futuristic version of ancient soldiers- they only look like they could exist in Warhammer 40,000 as a short range firepower unit.
In short they look like they are designed for the game-system and not the universe they inhabit.
Its entirely possible to like one thing aesthetically, and not like something similar but with notable changes.
The suggestion you can't is absurd.
I love classic marines and their aethesetic (for the most part).
I don't like the primaris aethsetic. The changes from the preceding classic marine aethesetic **are what makes me not like it**. Stuff like the over abundance of extra platting, huge boots, buckets over helmets, abundance of tacticool features, the size increase etc.
The infantry anyway, the vehicles are fine (except for the stubbers, but those can easily be removed )
robbienw wrote: Its entirely possible to like one thing aesthetically, and not like something similar but with notable changes.
Of course it is. People are just contesting the idea that this is some drastic and unprecedented visual change on a fundamental level. One can like RT beakies and not later Mk VII models or vice versa. One can like HH armour types but not 40K era ones or vice versa. And the Primaris models are just one more thing on that list.
Likewise, I really like the intercessors, hellblasters and even the new infiltrators as a scout esque type.
I strongly dislike the Inceptors, Suppressors, and all of the tanks/transports.
Aggressors I'm OK with, same with the Dreads.
I can do without Inceptors and Suppressors, but it's hard to do a Primaris army without the tanks and in my eyes, they are abominations. I haven't dropped cash on any of them yet, and I'm hoping I don't have to.
bullyboy wrote: Likewise, I really like the intercessors, hellblasters and even the new infiltrators as a scout esque type.
I strongly dislike the Inceptors, Suppressors, and all of the tanks/transports.
Aggressors I'm OK with, same with the Dreads.
I can do without Inceptors and Suppressors, but it's hard to do a Primaris army without the tanks and in my eyes, they are abominations. I haven't dropped cash on any of them yet, and I'm hoping I don't have to.
If you don’t like them of course you don’t “have” to. That’s the beauty of this is that the old stuff is all valid. Run primaris with predators and the like, run old marines, run primaris bodies with old marine arms and helmets on to make better proportioned tactical squads etc. It all works fine.
Me I love the basic infantry types. Love Phobos armour, less keen on inceptions but they are ok in a heavy duty kind of way. Have converted my suppressors into something more sensible luckily for I love the tanks. But I’ve also made some primaris terminators, and written rules and fluff for them.
robbienw wrote: Its entirely possible to like one thing aesthetically, and not like something similar but with notable changes.
Of course it is. People are just contesting the idea that this is some drastic and unprecedented visual change on a fundamental level. One can like RT beakies and not later Mk VII models or vice versa. One can like HH armour types but not 40K era ones or vice versa. And the Primaris models are just one more thing on that list.
I see what you are saying, but i still think primaris are fundamentally different in the respect that they have an overall changed design paradigm compared to the current classic range, that is fairly consistent across the range.
There have always been a few classic models i'm not fond of, such as mk2 armour and centurions, but i don't like the whole primaris infantry range because of said changed design paradigm.
The vehicles i quite like, in part because their design is changed less from classic vehicles, they look like they are part of the space marine vehicle family.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Having massive hover tanks, such as the hover rhino, hover landraider and the FW hover super tank is it fundamentally changes the setting. One of the things I liked about 40k or several other fiction settings is the sense of loss and decay. The best days of the IOM were behind them, the empire holds together despite itself and humanity is slow but surely losing ground.
And yet, when primaris designs replace storm bolters and heavy bolters with low tech heavy stubbers people whine prime example of decay and expediency forcing replacement of high tech with something cheaper and easier to make is somehow backwards and archaic. Go figure.
Now we have a Cawl Ex Machina and suddenly there is innovation out the ass. I liked that the best the IOM could do before was something small like a bike or a land speeder, now I'm waiting for the day when guard get hover tech cause apparently it's easy to make now.
Yup, it's not like SM had land speeders or anything... Oh wait.
You know in fluff some Imperial worlds have mass produced grav cars? How making a single grav transport is supposed to be difficult then, especially when your faction had always used grav vehicles? If anything, grav plates in SM flyers are larger than the ones in primaris tanks, so I fail to see the problem here.
agurus1 wrote: I think what we can all agree on is that people that played marines but don’t like Primaris should all come over to the 30k forum and have fun with us “oldest” marine folks
Yeah, because people who don't like Mk IV lookalikes with tacticool gear will love this:
Spoiler:
Oh wait
You can literally use primaris units 1:1 with zero modifications in HH, they literally copied legion organization, design language, armour, and special bolter variants. Whenever I see HH player complaining about primaris I just wonder if doublethink and bias can ever get any stronger...
HoundsofDemos wrote: Having massive hover tanks, such as the hover rhino, hover landraider and the FW hover super tank is it fundamentally changes the setting. One of the things I liked about 40k or several other fiction settings is the sense of loss and decay. The best days of the IOM were behind them, the empire holds together despite itself and humanity is slow but surely losing ground.
Now we have a Cawl Ex Machina and suddenly there is innovation out the ass. I liked that the best the IOM could do before was something small like a bike or a land speeder, now I'm waiting for the day when guard get hover tech cause apparently it's easy to make now.
This is a very valid point. I don't like the decay theme being lost either. I just think that that ship sailed in a major way when loyalist Primarchs started returning,
GW went to great lengths for more than a decade teasing that several loyalist primarchs were still alive or could make a return someday. Nobody should be surprised that they finally pulled the trigger on that, especially given how Forge World was happily selling HH primarchs left right and center.
GW hasn't changed the setting, they've just upped the ante. The Imperium was in a state of slow, inevitable decay. That decay took a HUGE jump when Cadia fell, now half the galaxy is warp storms and basically the only way for the Imperium to cling to the status quo (i.e. slow decay) was to do something like bring back the Primarchs, because the bad guys just got so much worse. Even if all the (unconfirmed dead) primarchs return and halt the decay of the Imperium, it's still in a way worse state than before Cadia fell. That galaxy is that badly fethed up, and with the Necrons waking up and the Tyranids eating their way across the galaxy the Imperium is so, so much worse off that the first few thousand years after the Emperor was installed into the Golden Throne looks like a golden age.
Hawky wrote: The thing that I dislike on the old marines were their distinct lack of pouches. Even the guardsmen have a belt with a spare mag or two along with grenades, but marines had very little if nothing.
I agree with that. The sprues came with pouches, but for a long time they were pretty spare. Pretty easy to remedy though, personally I made moulds and puddied a couple up. I also traded/inherited some from other people. But each of my marines has pouches, holstered Bolt Pistol, grenades + occasional doodads.
Over all, I'm fond of the new line. I don't really care for Phobos armor as it looks clunky on what should be the sleekest design. The Intercessor armor looks great and keep the shoulderpads the same size looks a lot better, IMO. The Gravis armor didn't appeal to me at first, but I think some of that is just that I don't care for the blue paint and notice it makes them look a little flatter than they are. Seeing them in person greatly improved my opinion, though some of the arm options come out much better than others and I would have liked to see the jump packs stay a little closer to the old style.
BrianDavion wrote: I much prerfer the phobos to scouts, but that just might be the part of me that finds it annoying so many marine lists don't use power armor troops for their troops
Phobos are pretty decent looking but I just can't buy a sneaky power armor unit. The scout kit is definitely showing it's age but scouts at least look like they can sneak up on someone. The new stealth dread that GW ripoff from avatar is even sillier.
Even If the thing is some how totally silent, good luck moving a multi ton vehicle across any type of terrain with out someone noticing, especially when it's paint job is a bright color
Too bad MkVI was basically the stealth power armour then.
That's not even touching on the Heresy where we had MkIV Snipers:
Andykp wrote: The argument still seems to be people don’t like primaris because they are new and different. They are really just truescale mk4 marines.
Without the ability to mix weapons in the squad. Without Rhinos or Drop Pods. Buffed beyond relative parity with Aspect Warriors/Necron Troops. And I don't think I've noticed a single Chainswrod among them.
Tryhard Marines.
MkIV was Heresy era, which these guys fit into pretty well in terms of organization and level of "bling".
Yes. He's in charge of the model design studio at the time and told the designers to -remove- some of the stuff they'd planned to put on the models so that said models wouldn't be too cluttered and more stuff could be added more naturally later (source was him talking about the models on Voxcast).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: Over all, I'm fond of the new line. I don't really care for Phobos armor as it looks clunky on what should be the sleekest design. The Intercessor armor looks great and keep the shoulderpads the same size looks a lot better, IMO. The Gravis armor didn't appeal to me at first, but I think some of that is just that I don't care for the blue paint and notice it makes them look a little flatter than they are. Seeing them in person greatly improved my opinion, though some of the arm options come out much better than others and I would have liked to see the jump packs stay a little closer to the old style.
I feel like the studio's modern paint style is too low contrast to do models proper justice. It shows off the details, but visually it's bland and flat.
robbienw wrote: Its entirely possible to like one thing aesthetically, and not like something similar but with notable changes.
Of course it is. People are just contesting the idea that this is some drastic and unprecedented visual change on a fundamental level. One can like RT beakies and not later Mk VII models or vice versa. One can like HH armour types but not 40K era ones or vice versa. And the Primaris models are just one more thing on that list.
I see what you are saying, but i still think primaris are fundamentally different in the respect that they have an overall changed design paradigm compared to the current classic range, that is fairly consistent across the range.
There have always been a few classic models i'm not fond of, such as mk2 armour and centurions, but i don't like the whole primaris infantry range because of said changed design paradigm.
The vehicles i quite like, in part because their design is changed less from classic vehicles, they look like they are part of the space marine vehicle family.
People on here have given so many examples of how the primaris isn’t a fundemental change in anything but a continuation of the design. Designed by the same people with the same in world technology and same shapes and everything. The only actual difference people can come up with is that they don’t have special weapons in squads and have new fluff. No paradigm shift at all.
If I was to point to the one detail that seems to fit in with the OP's point is any kit that has a small scope/ammo bit that fits in the middle of the gun.
That completely changes the behavior of the weapon but with very little to affect the silhouette (Intercessors/Reivers (Drum mag, vs sickle mag vs straight mag)/Hellblasters (In-line mag vs across mag vs cable-backpack)).
The other unit types seem to make a big difference between weapons.
The differing shoulderpads seem to be the main indication of a "light" unit Reivers or Phobos armor types so that is consistent as well as the leg/boot "cuff" pointed out.
The Inceptors and Aggressors seem to have a similar heavy look that is reminiscent of the Terminator recessed head.
The Primaris Tanks have much of the same shape and panel lines of the Land Raider.
I think the theme and styling is VERY consistent, just those swappable middle of the gun bits require a second look during a game.
ClockworkZion wrote: Yes. He's in charge of the model design studio at the time and told the designers to -remove- some of the stuff they'd planned to put on the models so that said models wouldn't be too cluttered and more stuff could be added more naturally later (source was him talking about the models on Voxcast).
Don't know what to say other than "maybe he lost a bit of touch".
ClockworkZion wrote: Yes. He's in charge of the model design studio at the time and told the designers to -remove- some of the stuff they'd planned to put on the models so that said models wouldn't be too cluttered and more stuff could be added more naturally later (source was him talking about the models on Voxcast).
Don't know what to say other than "maybe he lost a bit of touch".
Considering that the models are better than ever, that clearly is not the case.
ClockworkZion wrote: Yes. He's in charge of the model design studio at the time and told the designers to -remove- some of the stuff they'd planned to put on the models so that said models wouldn't be too cluttered and more stuff could be added more naturally later (source was him talking about the models on Voxcast).
Don't know what to say other than "maybe he lost a bit of touch".
Clearly you're reaching to justify your dislike of something new.
If Primaris has shown me anything, it's clear that people will find any reason they can to hate something regardless of the evidence against them, to the point I've seen people have gone after older parts of the lore that no one had problems with before.
I'll admit I haven't read the whole thread so not sure if someones mentioned this already, but I think the primary reason for the silhouette differences is to create unique kits to sell.
In the old range you could conceivably mix and match weapons or wargear to make varying squads, so for example some of your tactical marines could be fielded as devs or vets or command squads or assault squads without jump packs.
GW wants to create as many unique units to buy that don't just differ by whatever gun the model is holding. Your intercessor squad contains no models that could directly stand in for a hellblaster or suppressor or inceptor. It's a design philosophy ensuring they don't lose sales or make kits that are redundant in the eyes of the hobbyists.
If Primaris has shown me anything, it's clear that people will find any reason they can to hate something regardless of the evidence against them, to the point I've seen people have gone after older parts of the lore that no one had problems with before.
If Primaris has shown me anything, it's clear that people will find any reason they can to hate something regardless of the evidence against them, to the point I've seen people have gone after older parts of the lore that no one had problems with before.
Yeah, no.
Spoiler:
Devastator Sergeant renders your arguement invalid about the backpack camera:
Spoiler:
And scouts already have goggles so that's invalid too.
If Primaris has shown me anything, it's clear that people will find any reason they can to hate something regardless of the evidence against them, to the point I've seen people have gone after older parts of the lore that no one had problems with before.
Yeah, no.
Spoiler:
Devastator Sergeant renders your arguement invalid about the backpack camera:
Spoiler:
And scouts already have goggles so that's invalid too.
The specific reference to the backpack camera is from CthuluIsSpy. Perhaps you mixed up the posts. Secondly, I seriously hope you are not comparing the two. Note how clunkier the one you posted is. That alone evokes a completely different relationship with technology. Note how more archaic the eye camera is, and how at the same time evokes some older concept like a monocle. Look at the context, like the servo skull. Look at the imperious pose compared to the tacticool one. Don't be deliberately obtuse and tone deaf, please.
If Primaris has shown me anything, it's clear that people will find any reason they can to hate something regardless of the evidence against them, to the point I've seen people have gone after older parts of the lore that no one had problems with before.
Yeah, no.
Spoiler:
Devastator Sergeant renders your arguement invalid about the backpack camera:
Spoiler:
That still looks weird. It actually looks worse than the Primaris version, as its bulkier and stands out more.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I think that does look pretty cool though. Well, except for the camera thing on his backpack, that looks weird.
The execution of the concept is very good.
But that's not an Imperium of Mankind model. That's a Tau Gue'vesa.
The concept is flawed.
I'm sorry but I don't see how this ties into Tau at all. it's not their aestetic remotely.
What makes the Tau.. Tau, except from being blue, compared to the imperium? two main elements.
The first is that the Xenos is kinda allowed to live. What's the second?
Now think about the whole concept behind the primaris. EVERY aspect of the primaris, included their creation.
Have people completely forgotten that these are multipart plastic models that are easy to customise? Like if you think that the Incursors have too much tacticool crap just don't glue all of it on them. If you think the Intercessors are not gothic enough, glue some religious bling on them. It's not rocket surgery, in fact I'd argue that doing that sort of thing is one of the core elements of the whole hobby.
Crimson wrote: Have people completely forgotten that these are multipart plastic models that are easy to customise? Like if you think that the Incursors have too much tacticool crap just don't glue all of it on them. If you think the Intercessors are not gothic enough, glue some religious bling on them. It's not rocket surgery, in fact I'd argue that doing that sort of thing is one of the core elements of the whole hobby.
Or you know, I just don't buy the model. It's simpler.
I find amusing the fact that it's implied over and over that one is going to buy these models.
Crimson wrote: Have people completely forgotten that these are multipart plastic models that are easy to customise? Like if you think that the Incursors have too much tacticool crap just don't glue all of it on them. If you think the Intercessors are not gothic enough, glue some religious bling on them. It's not rocket surgery, in fact I'd argue that doing that sort of thing is one of the core elements of the whole hobby.
People who never actually handle one of the kits but feel the the need.to complain about stuff they won't buy anyways can't know that because they refuse to give any of the stuff a chance.
Crimson wrote: Have people completely forgotten that these are multipart plastic models that are easy to customise? Like if you think that the Incursors have too much tacticool crap just don't glue all of it on them. If you think the Intercessors are not gothic enough, glue some religious bling on them. It's not rocket surgery, in fact I'd argue that doing that sort of thing is one of the core elements of the whole hobby.
People who never actually handle one of the kits but feel the the need.to complain about stuff they won't buy anyways can't know that because they refuse to give any of the stuff a chance.
As stated in another thread, not only by me 1) Many that criticize these models have actually bought some, me included. Is after buying few intercessors that I actually realized how messed up their legs are. 2) Actually no, not really. You can judge the whole concept of the miniature just looking at the picture. The messed up legs are an execution problem, the Gue'vesa is a concept problem. Both are problems. 3) I find absolutely mind-boggling the fact that is implied over and over that the models MUST be bought regardless.
Crimson wrote: You don't need to buy them. But just stop spamming the forums with idiotic reasons for that.
it'd be like me spamming a half dozen eldar threads when the eldar (finally) get something new saying how aweful they are. I might not find the aestetic intreasting but there's no reason to rain on others parades
Crimson wrote: You don't need to buy them. But just stop spamming the forums with idiotic reasons for that.
At this point, I can point out at the title of the thread, and also wait for actual arguments. Because I have yet to see an actual rebuttal to the fact that every aspect of the primaris incarnate the "new" attitude of the empire toward tech and innovation, therefore killing what made it interesting and peculiar and made the Tau their "foil". But I suppose some throwaway statement is less difficult to come up with, am I right?
At this point, I can point out at the title of the thread, and also wait for actual arguments.
Because I have yet to see an actual rebuttal to the fact that every aspect of the primaris incarnate the "new" attitude of the empire toward tech and innovation, therefore killing what made it interesting and peculiar and made the Tau their "foil".
But I suppose some throwaway statement is less difficult to come up with, am I right?
That's fluff. We're talking about aesthetic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: "Messed up legs"? Now you have my attention since I haven't heard this complaint. What's wrong with the legs exactly?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I think that does look pretty cool though. Well, except for the camera thing on his backpack, that looks weird.
The execution of the concept is very good.
But that's not an Imperium of Mankind model. That's a Tau Gue'vesa.
The concept is flawed.
I'm sorry but I don't see how this ties into Tau at all. it's not their aestetic remotely.
Tau design has a strong emphasis on sleek looking tech.
"Hi tech" Imperial stuff tends to look anachronistic, crude or even baroque-geigeresque. Emphasis on slick engineering is a Tau domain.
And by emphasis, I mean proportionally. A sleek visor on one scout head isnt an emphasis. The ugly "Signum box" is certainly not sleek, and comes in a package including 4 servo skulls, the epitome of Imperial technological and cultural idiosyncrasies.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I think that does look pretty cool though. Well, except for the camera thing on his backpack, that looks weird.
The execution of the concept is very good.
But that's not an Imperium of Mankind model. That's a Tau Gue'vesa.
The concept is flawed.
I'm sorry but I don't see how this ties into Tau at all. it's not their aestetic remotely.
Tau design has a strong emphasis on sleek looking tech.
"Hi tech" Imperial stuff tends to look anachronistic, crude or even baroque-geigeresque. Emphasis on slick engineering is a Tau domain.
And by emphasis, I mean proportionally. A sleek visor on one scout head isnt an emphasis. The ugly "Signum box" is certainly not sleek, and comes in a package including 4 servo skulls, the epitome of Imperial technological and cultural idiosyncrasies.
I disagree. Tau engineer to suit the solution, thr Imperium engineers to brute force one.
Look at the differences in how grav tech works as an example. The Repulsor is basically punching the ground to stay up.
Insectum7 wrote: @ClockworkZion: The model presented for this section of the thread was a techy looking phobos marine. If were going to critique it, stay on point.
Repulsors have different issues, imo.
Also, power suits with tapering legs is a tau thing.
I hadn't heardbthis complaint so I was confused what we were talking about.
And Tau don't do power suits like Astartes do. Even their stealth suits are more like form fitting armour plates. Any heavier suits don't have the pilots legs inside of the legs of the armour.
Considering Jes' historical influences, the bucket boot makes sense as a influencer. I assumed it was some kind of combat boot, but the bucket boot makes more sense.
It does for me because I've looked at Phobos armour from the back and seen the soft armour knee joint that cleanly defines the boot from the upper leg. The kneepad is seperste from that.
ClockworkZion wrote: "Messed up legs"? Now you have my attention since I haven't heard this complaint. What's wrong with the legs exactly?
The Capri shorts look is whats wrong with the legs.
man you'd think phobos armor was suddenly replacing the entire primaris range
Nah. It's clearly replacing scouts and expanding the role scouts play in the army, but it's only so prominent right now because they're the new release.
That said I wish people would stop beating a dead horse about how much they hate Primaris every release. I mean I don't like Tau (too much Mech, not enough mixed aliens for my tastes) but I just shrug and move on when it gets something new. This constant Primaris bashing is just toxic behavior that is poisoning the well for others and could even chase off new players.
ClockworkZion wrote: "Messed up legs"? Now you have my attention since I haven't heard this complaint. What's wrong with the legs exactly?
The Capri shorts look is whats wrong with the legs.
man you'd think phobos armor was suddenly replacing the entire primaris range
Nah. It's clearly replacing scouts and expanding the role scouts play in the army, but it's only so prominent right now because they're the new release.
That said I wish people would stop beating a dead horse about how much they hate Primaris every release. I mean I don't like Tau (too much Mech, not enough mixed aliens for my tastes) but I just shrug and move on when it gets something new. This constant Primaris bashing is just toxic behavior that is poisoning the well for others and could even chase off new players.
I agree. I mean in the last week in addition to the Primaris Hate train hijacking all the threads trying to discuss the new stuff, we've also got something like 4 or 5 sepooerate "I DON'T LIKE PRIAMRIS MARINES AND YOU SHOULDN'T EAITHER" threads. it's beyond rediculas,
Insectum7 wrote: @ClockworkZion: The model presented for this section of the thread was a techy looking phobos marine. If were going to critique it, stay on point.
Repulsors have different issues, imo.
Also, power suits with tapering legs is a tau thing.
I hadn't heardbthis complaint so I was confused what we were talking about.
And Tau don't do power suits like Astartes do. Even their stealth suits are more like form fitting armour plates. Any heavier suits don't have the pilots legs inside of the legs of the armour.
Considering Jes' historical influences, the bucket boot makes sense as a influencer. I assumed it was some kind of combat boot, but the bucket boot makes more sense.
Fair enough @ specific subject of critique. Maybe it was my bad, but there was a picture of a Phobos guy just upthread.
It doesn't really matter whether the power suit is "in-leg" or not, it's the overall aesthetic impression that's being reacted to.
As for Historical influences, maybe. I'll take another look at it with this is mind. That said, the intent of an influence can get lost in execution. Intent is important but the final product is where the rubber hits the road, obviously.
It'a true that a lot of things can be list in translation, especially when translation is through the lens of 40k.
Tau vary from pants with armour to something akin to carapace over the legs to a clearly mechanical leg that has no organic leg inside. I don't agree the look is the same because Astartes have always leaned into western warfare and kit designs while the big influencers for Tau have been anime and Mech designs.
Basically the outputs of the two are widly different (to me at least) because the stuff that feeds into that are different. They both aim for a form fitting look, but Tau has a sleeker look with smaller (or no) gaps while Astartes feel like it leans into a soldier look that is built for function over form.
ClockworkZion wrote: "Messed up legs"? Now you have my attention since I haven't heard this complaint. What's wrong with the legs exactly?
The Capri shorts look is whats wrong with the legs.
man you'd think phobos armor was suddenly replacing the entire primaris range
Nah. It's clearly replacing scouts and expanding the role scouts play in the army, but it's only so prominent right now because they're the new release.
That said I wish people would stop beating a dead horse about how much they hate Primaris every release. I mean I don't like Tau (too much Mech, not enough mixed aliens for my tastes) but I just shrug and move on when it gets something new. This constant Primaris bashing is just toxic behavior that is poisoning the well for others and could even chase off new players.
Yes lets label valid criticism and discussion of models as ‘hate’ and ‘toxic’ because people have an opinion I disagree with. Yes that’s always a good idea...
I see a lot of repetitive criticism of classic marines compared to Primaris about, but you don’t see me complaining about that. If you are willing to point out what you see as flaws in something, don’t be surprised that people start pointing out flaws in things you like.
ClockworkZion wrote: "Messed up legs"? Now you have my attention since I haven't heard this complaint. What's wrong with the legs exactly?
The Capri shorts look is whats wrong with the legs.
man you'd think phobos armor was suddenly replacing the entire primaris range
Nah. It's clearly replacing scouts and expanding the role scouts play in the army, but it's only so prominent right now because they're the new release.
That said I wish people would stop beating a dead horse about how much they hate Primaris every release. I mean I don't like Tau (too much Mech, not enough mixed aliens for my tastes) but I just shrug and move on when it gets something new. This constant Primaris bashing is just toxic behavior that is poisoning the well for others and could even chase off new players.
Yes lets label valid criticism and discussion of models as ‘hate’ and ‘toxic’ because people have an opinion I disagree with. Yes that’s always a good idea...
I see a lot of repetitive criticism of classic marines compared to Primaris about, but you don’t see me complaining about that. If you are willing to point out what you see as flaws in something, don’t be surprised that people start pointing out flaws in things you like.
how many threads have you seen on dakka dakka in the last 6 MONTHS devoted to "old marines suck primaris look better"? maybe 1 or 2. we've gotten a half dozen "PRIMARIS LOOK BAD" salt threads in the past week
ClockworkZion wrote: "Messed up legs"? Now you have my attention since I haven't heard this complaint. What's wrong with the legs exactly?
The Capri shorts look is whats wrong with the legs.
man you'd think phobos armor was suddenly replacing the entire primaris range
Nah. It's clearly replacing scouts and expanding the role scouts play in the army, but it's only so prominent right now because they're the new release.
That said I wish people would stop beating a dead horse about how much they hate Primaris every release. I mean I don't like Tau (too much Mech, not enough mixed aliens for my tastes) but I just shrug and move on when it gets something new. This constant Primaris bashing is just toxic behavior that is poisoning the well for others and could even chase off new players.
Yes lets label valid criticism and discussion of models as ‘hate’ and ‘toxic’ because people have an opinion I disagree with. Yes that’s always a good idea...
I see a lot of repetitive criticism of classic marines compared to Primaris about, but you don’t see me complaining about that. If you are willing to point out what you see as flaws in something, don’t be surprised that people start pointing out flaws in things you like.
There is a difference between saying you don't like something and the bashing I've witnessed since they announced this release.
It's been two frikkin' years since they announced Primaris as a thing. It's time to stop trying to complain them away and accept them as a part of the setting. You can like them or them but this constant five threads bashing on Primaris is beyond played out at this point.
No one wants to deal with people who complain about things all the time, and they're less.likely to believe that you're right when you spend all your time bashing something.
Insectum7 wrote:You are "latching" in error. I would put it as "The essence of the Tactical Squad is the capacity to effectively engage a variety of targets, with a variety of methods, without support." Each unit can operate independently, and can be equipped appropriately.
But I can also take them without a special weapon. 30k "Tactical" Marines only have bolters too. And as per my original question, I asked if they were still MARINES, not just Tacticals.
Are they not Space Marines? Is a Space Marine only a Space Marine if they have a friend with a special weapon?
I'd go so far as to call it a pervasive doctrinal philosophy among Marine units, in fact.
I disagree. If Astartes doctrine was all about every unit being tactically flexible, then we wouldn't have a variety of units.
The Tactical Squad IS designed to be flexible, but they're not the benchmark of the entire Astartes doctrine, nor what it means to be a Space Marine. Otherwise, what were the Legions made up of?
The options available to add resolution to your Primaris Kill team is functionally a non-point, different bolters changes little regarding their limited strategic scope.
So adding a flamer is amazing tactical versatility alongside similar strength bolters, but adding snipers and high ROF automatic weapons is "non-point" "limited strategic scope"?
Again, the Tactical Squad is only flexible around the fact they have a guy lugging around a single weapon, and three guys with bolters doing nothing unique. The Primaris team has every member contributing something new - or as I see it, flexibility.
I like how you breeze past the Sergeant in the squad and his loadout potential, too. If you're not trying to be disingenuous, why are you cherry-picking?
Chainsword (or two)
Power Sword
Power Axe
Power Maul
Power Fist
Thunder Hammer
Lightning Claw (or two)
Can't Primaris Sergeants have all of these? The power weapons are, at the end of the day, functionally the same, and the only thing on that list they can't take are lightning claws. Is that a deal breaker?
Heavy Bolter
Missile Launcher
Multimelta
Lascannon
Plasma Cannon
Grav Cannon
All fair points - but it's only on ONE guy. They guy goes down, and now you've got three guys with identical weapons. Such flexibility, huh?
Scouts have more meaningful options than Intercessors.
Scouts are FAR more tactically varied than Tacticals AND Intercessors, yes! So are they the true exemplars of what Space Marines are then?
Sgt. Smudge, if you're going to suggest that a Lascannon isn't a good AT weapon in prior arguments above, don't then turn around and claim that a Grenade Launcher firing Krak is at all sufficient for the task.
I'm saying that in game, both are inadequate as single unit AT weapons. In lore, both are sufficient, although the lascannons is superior.
You were arguing from a game perspective, of prior editions, of course, but right now, lascannons aren't what they used to be.
I said 90ish% because the 10th company size is variable, and it's notably rare for a Chapter to be able to field it's entire 1st company in Terminator Armor. Then you add in the characters and other various super numaries that potentially include Command Squads.
As for the rest, you either misunderstood the argument, or are simply trying to avoid it. The point is that all the personal armor is virtually identical/interchangeable. Bikes are essentially just "guy in Mk5-8 riding a bike", Assault marine is "guy in Mk5-8 with a Jump Pack and CC weapons" for example. All major roles are filled by marines in Mk5-8.
But they're still making changes to their core armour base - which is exactly what the Primaris are doing. You can't praise the old marines for being based on the same base model and adapting around it, and then criticise the Primaris for doing the same.
Phobos, Tacticus, and Gravis are all based on the same core armour set, as per Jes Goodwin.
Centurions are Primaris before Primaris.
"Oldmarines are all the same basic model! Except these ones. And these ones. And these ones."
I'm saying they're poor impressions of Space Marines having been given the characteristics of Tau and Eldar. Flying Battlesuits with no Chainswords
Terminators don't have chainswords. Are they Tau? Sanguinary Guard? Legion Destroyers?
squads all armed with the same weapon.
But Legion Space Marines had that too. Are they not Space Marines?
Some of them even have those little anime-fins.
Anime-fins? You mean the grav-chutes? Should I criticise the large jump jets on Assault Marines are being anime-inspired too?
Andykp wrote: Comparing primaris to the last version of the tactical squad is no different from comparing lastest tactical marines to RTB01 marines. Clearly all marines. To say otherwise is just being deliberately awkward.
RTB01 Tacticals: 10 Marines. 1 Sergeant with upgrade choices. 1 Special weapon, 1 Heavy Weapon.
8th Ed Tactical Squad: 10 Marines. 1 Sergeant with upgrade choices. 1 Special weapon, 1 Heavy Weapon.
And the majority of the options is the same. Transports are the same. You can field the same Tac Squad 30(?) years later. There are a few options (Like a 3% chance of having a Lasgun, or a 10% chance of having a D-Cannon) that were quickly phased out in those days, but the squad is otherwise virtually identical.
Okay - but are Legion Tactical Squads Space Marines?
I'm not arguing "are Intercessors Tactical Squads?" I'm arguing "are Intercessors Space Marines?". According to you, all Space Marines are Tactical Marines, and Tactical Marines are only Tacticals if they still have a guy with special weapons.
It's worthwhile to acknowledge this. . . however. . . it's important to also acknowledge that the line stabilized shortly afterwards, and has remained stable for 20+ years since. Additionally, "Brand new" Mk 7 Marines could mix squads with Mk6, carry the same weapons, ride the same transports. The difference was purely aesthetic and no other mechanics or "pressures" were involved.
And again, what about 30k?
The only thing I can see clearly here is that we can't even agree what a Space Marine is.
robbienw wrote:Its entirely possible to like one thing aesthetically, and not like something similar but with notable changes.
The suggestion you can't is absurd.
No-one'se saying you can't. However, the issue is with the idea of "notable changes" - if there's people who genuinely can see very little difference, they're not really notable, are they?
I love classic marines and their aethesetic (for the most part).
I don't like the primaris aethsetic.
Absolutely reasonable.
The changes from the preceding classic marine aethesetic **are what makes me not like it**. Stuff like the over abundance of extra platting, huge boots, buckets over helmets, abundance of tacticool features, the size increase etc.
As I said above, there are so few changes to the core Astartes aesthetic, it's difficult to find a lot of these differences.
Extra plating - where? The gorget or leg armour? Deathwatch have this too. But perhaps you also don't like their armour?
Their feet aren't much larger than normal Marines - except Gravis, but they're not really "normal Primaris", like how Terminators aren't normal Marines.
Only the Inceptors have bucket helms, and they're totally optional.
I don't see any additional "tacticool features" that aren't also present on normal marines (including 30k, because they're still Marines).
The size increase I'll agree with, and it's why I haven't done any Primaris Ultramarines in 2nd Company colours, because they would stand out too much against them. It's not that they don't have the Space Marine aesthetic, they're just bigger. If I had a normal 5th edition Marine, scaled up to Primaris size, I still wouldn't take them, purely because of the size.
Therefore, while I understand not liking them because of their size, I wouldn't call it a change of aesthetic.
robbienw wrote:I see what you are saying, but i still think primaris are fundamentally different in the respect that they have an overall changed design paradigm compared to the current classic range, that is fairly consistent across the range.
Not really. The core design philosophy of the old Astartes is relatively unchanged - you still have the helmet with a central vent and faceplate, the oversized pauldrons with a trim, the same backpack style (vents on the back and on two over-shoulder orbs), the chest aquila and segmented torso plate, the kneepads, the undersuit visible under the joints, the codpiece - they're not too different.
The vehicles i quite like, in part because their design is changed less from classic vehicles, they look like they are part of the space marine vehicle family.
This is true. The vehicles are still very much more Space Marine aesthetic over anything else - aside from the floaty part, which isn't exactly unheard of in Astartes vehicles (Land Speeders).
Kaiyanwang wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I think that does look pretty cool though. Well, except for the camera thing on his backpack, that looks weird.
The execution of the concept is very good.
But that's not an Imperium of Mankind model. That's a Tau Gue'vesa.
The concept is flawed.
It's a good thing that no other Space Marine unit has a backpack scanner device.
Oh, yeah, the Devastator Sergeant's Signum.
And how many Tau units have cyclops-esque visors? None?
To get this straight, he's wearing Space Marine looking power armour, carrying a Space Marine's bolter, with a Space Marine-style signum, and with a visor that's unfamiliar to any other faction.
That said I wish people would stop beating a dead horse about how much they hate Primaris every release. I mean I don't like Tau (too much Mech, not enough mixed aliens for my tastes) but I just shrug and move on when it gets something new. This constant Primaris bashing is just toxic behavior that is poisoning the well for others and could even chase off new players.
I agree. I mean in the last week in addition to the Primaris Hate train hijacking all the threads trying to discuss the new stuff, we've also got something like 4 or 5 sepooerate "I DON'T LIKE PRIAMRIS MARINES AND YOU SHOULDN'T EAITHER" threads. it's beyond rediculas,
Ok, but for about two years now there's been a general sentiment that Primaris are the replacements for my army, and I should like them if I want to play marines. There's no denying that as a product, they have been pushed haaaard. That Primaris are the only option for Marines in the future is an opinion that has been the voiced sentiment of many on this forum.
We have some bizarre misinformation about the history/tone of the classics. Like that weird post upthread talking about aesthetic drift, when the core units look almost exactly the same after 20 years. There was just another thread not too long ago talking about "scale-creep" in the line, and that's shown to be totally overblown.
We also have a thread where the OP is actively calling for the removal of my army from the game.
Truth be told, I'm fine with you liking and purchasing Primaris. I will happily fight against them using my classics/true/legacy marines. But if a thread is going to start up about how the aesthetics are a turn-off, I'm going to be all over that, because it's really interesting to me, as design is part of my profession. I want to correct the misinformation. Plus the obvious "Space Marines" are something that I'm passionate about.
robbienw wrote:Yes lets label valid criticism and discussion of models as ‘hate’ and ‘toxic’ because people have an opinion I disagree with. Yes that’s always a good idea...
There's nothing wrong with having an opinion. Nor is there anything wrong with discussing and critiquing - but if you're going to discuss and critique you:
A - Don't need 6+ threads dedicated for it
B - Need to actually have facts to back up criticism if you want it to be the basis of the argument, such as claiming things along the lines of "Primaris Marines are a drastic departure from Traditional Space Marine Aesthetic TM", and then ignoring both 30k Marines and/or not elaborating on exactly what it is about Primaris Marines *in general* that make them a drastic departure. The only ones I can see is that their guns are longer and they're taller. Neither of which I see is particularly important to "being a Space Marine".
I see a lot of repetitive criticism of classic marines compared to Primaris about, but you don’t see me complaining about that.
Whereabouts? I see 6+ threads criticising Primaris, but none on old Marines. If you have a link, I'd be interested to see what people are saying.
If you are willing to point out what you see as flaws in something, don’t be surprised that people start pointing out flaws in things you like.
At the same time, I'd expect people who point out flaws and try to back them up with what sound like factual claims (like my example above) to actually HAVE factual arguments that are well quantifiable.
As I've said - opinion is fine. Making up facts to support those opinions is not.
Ok, but for about two years now there's been a general sentiment that Primaris are the replacements for my army, and I should like them if I want to play marines. There's no denying that as a product, they have been pushed haaaard. That Primaris are the only option for Marines in the future is an opinion that has been the voiced sentiment of many on this forum.
exceptg the vast majority of the "primaris are the future" claims I see comes from the critics. are primaris being pushed? the intercessor DOES seem to be taking the tac marines place as the cover art marine yes but other then that, I don't see it, unless you mean the advertising for codices etc. and thats just GW advertising new minis. they're not going to advertise the tac squad when they have a new release of other stuff.
That said I wish people would stop beating a dead horse about how much they hate Primaris every release. I mean I don't like Tau (too much Mech, not enough mixed aliens for my tastes) but I just shrug and move on when it gets something new. This constant Primaris bashing is just toxic behavior that is poisoning the well for others and could even chase off new players.
I agree. I mean in the last week in addition to the Primaris Hate train hijacking all the threads trying to discuss the new stuff, we've also got something like 4 or 5 sepooerate "I DON'T LIKE PRIAMRIS MARINES AND YOU SHOULDN'T EAITHER" threads. it's beyond rediculas,
Ok, but for about two years now there's been a general sentiment that Primaris are the replacements for my army, and I should like them if I want to play marines. There's no denying that as a product, they have been pushed haaaard.
Because they're a new product that many designers at GW are genuinely passionate about.
GSC and the new Chaos stuff were all pushed hard, but that's because they were new models, and clearly the designers were passionate over them. With Primaris essentially springing out of nowhere in 8th edition model-wise, of course they'll push them hard. They're a new sub-army, they're Space Marines, and they're clearly passionate about them.
That Primaris are the only option for Marines in the future is an opinion that has been the voiced sentiment of many on this forum.
There's also people on this forum who thought that GW would never bring back a Primarch. I'd rather not take the opinions of people on this forum as gospel as to what GW intend to do.
We have some bizarre misinformation about the history/tone of the classics. Like that weird post upthread talking about aesthetic drift, when the core units look almost exactly the same after 20 years.
Seriously? You're telling me that a Space Marine Veteran 20 years ago looks the same as one now?
We also have a thread where the OP is actively calling for the removal of my army from the game.
And there's many more about how "Primaris are the worst thing ever". So that's what, 1 against 5? 6?
But if a thread is going to start up about how the aesthetics are a turn-off, I'm going to be all over that, because it's really interesting to me, as design is part of my profession. I want to correct the misinformation.
By all means. But as I've said, saying things like "Primaris aren't true Space Marines because they don't have special weapons in their squads" is also misinforming - because that's exactly the same as Legion Astartes, who, like it or not, I'm sure most people will say are Space Marines.
Insectum7 wrote:You are "latching" in error. I would put it as "The essence of the Tactical Squad is the capacity to effectively engage a variety of targets, with a variety of methods, without support." Each unit can operate independently, and can be equipped appropriately.
But I can also take them without a special weapon. 30k "Tactical" Marines only have bolters too. And as per my original question, I asked if they were still MARINES, not just Tacticals.
Are they not Space Marines? Is a Space Marine only a Space Marine if they have a friend with a special weapon?
I'd go so far as to call it a pervasive doctrinal philosophy among Marine units, in fact.
I disagree. If Astartes doctrine was all about every unit being tactically flexible, then we wouldn't have a variety of units.
The Tactical Squad IS designed to be flexible, but they're not the benchmark of the entire Astartes doctrine, nor what it means to be a Space Marine. Otherwise, what were the Legions made up of?
The options available to add resolution to your Primaris Kill team is functionally a non-point, different bolters changes little regarding their limited strategic scope.
So adding a flamer is amazing tactical versatility alongside similar strength bolters, but adding snipers and high ROF automatic weapons is "non-point" "limited strategic scope"?
Again, the Tactical Squad is only flexible around the fact they have a guy lugging around a single weapon, and three guys with bolters doing nothing unique. The Primaris team has every member contributing something new - or as I see it, flexibility.
I like how you breeze past the Sergeant in the squad and his loadout potential, too. If you're not trying to be disingenuous, why are you cherry-picking?
Chainsword (or two)
Power Sword
Power Axe
Power Maul
Power Fist
Thunder Hammer
Lightning Claw (or two)
Can't Primaris Sergeants have all of these? The power weapons are, at the end of the day, functionally the same, and the only thing on that list they can't take are lightning claws. Is that a deal breaker?
Heavy Bolter
Missile Launcher
Multimelta
Lascannon
Plasma Cannon
Grav Cannon
All fair points - but it's only on ONE guy. They guy goes down, and now you've got three guys with identical weapons. Such flexibility, huh?
Scouts have more meaningful options than Intercessors.
Scouts are FAR more tactically varied than Tacticals AND Intercessors, yes! So are they the true exemplars of what Space Marines are then?
Sgt. Smudge, if you're going to suggest that a Lascannon isn't a good AT weapon in prior arguments above, don't then turn around and claim that a Grenade Launcher firing Krak is at all sufficient for the task.
I'm saying that in game, both are inadequate as single unit AT weapons. In lore, both are sufficient, although the lascannons is superior.
You were arguing from a game perspective, of prior editions, of course, but right now, lascannons aren't what they used to be.
I said 90ish% because the 10th company size is variable, and it's notably rare for a Chapter to be able to field it's entire 1st company in Terminator Armor. Then you add in the characters and other various super numaries that potentially include Command Squads.
As for the rest, you either misunderstood the argument, or are simply trying to avoid it. The point is that all the personal armor is virtually identical/interchangeable. Bikes are essentially just "guy in Mk5-8 riding a bike", Assault marine is "guy in Mk5-8 with a Jump Pack and CC weapons" for example. All major roles are filled by marines in Mk5-8.
But they're still making changes to their core armour base - which is exactly what the Primaris are doing. You can't praise the old marines for being based on the same base model and adapting around it, and then criticise the Primaris for doing the same.
Phobos, Tacticus, and Gravis are all based on the same core armour set, as per Jes Goodwin.
Centurions are Primaris before Primaris.
"Oldmarines are all the same basic model! Except these ones. And these ones. And these ones."
I'm saying they're poor impressions of Space Marines having been given the characteristics of Tau and Eldar. Flying Battlesuits with no Chainswords
Terminators don't have chainswords. Are they Tau? Sanguinary Guard? Legion Destroyers?
squads all armed with the same weapon.
But Legion Space Marines had that too. Are they not Space Marines?
Some of them even have those little anime-fins.
Anime-fins? You mean the grav-chutes? Should I criticise the large jump jets on Assault Marines are being anime-inspired too?
Andykp wrote: Comparing primaris to the last version of the tactical squad is no different from comparing lastest tactical marines to RTB01 marines. Clearly all marines. To say otherwise is just being deliberately awkward.
RTB01 Tacticals: 10 Marines. 1 Sergeant with upgrade choices. 1 Special weapon, 1 Heavy Weapon.
8th Ed Tactical Squad: 10 Marines. 1 Sergeant with upgrade choices. 1 Special weapon, 1 Heavy Weapon.
And the majority of the options is the same. Transports are the same. You can field the same Tac Squad 30(?) years later. There are a few options (Like a 3% chance of having a Lasgun, or a 10% chance of having a D-Cannon) that were quickly phased out in those days, but the squad is otherwise virtually identical.
Okay - but are Legion Tactical Squads Space Marines?
I'm not arguing "are Intercessors Tactical Squads?" I'm arguing "are Intercessors Space Marines?". According to you, all Space Marines are Tactical Marines, and Tactical Marines are only Tacticals if they still have a guy with special weapons.
It's worthwhile to acknowledge this. . . however. . . it's important to also acknowledge that the line stabilized shortly afterwards, and has remained stable for 20+ years since. Additionally, "Brand new" Mk 7 Marines could mix squads with Mk6, carry the same weapons, ride the same transports. The difference was purely aesthetic and no other mechanics or "pressures" were involved.
And again, what about 30k?
The only thing I can see clearly here is that we can't even agree what a Space Marine is.
That's such a ****ing mess of disingenuous argumentation I'm going to let it die. You're plainly not here for a real discussion.
I will summarize my response by saying: The iconic Space Marine unit is the Tactical Squad, and Intercessors aren't it, primarily because they lack the options to meaningfully engage a wide variety of targets, with a wide variety of tactics.
Nearly all of the traditional units were similarly equippable to handle a wide variety of targets. Primaris units are generally not.
30K Space Marines, like Primaris, are of 0 interest to me. I don't think of them as "real Space Marines" because doctrinally they are vastly different. They're a "historical" curiosity.
Ok, but for about two years now there's been a general sentiment that Primaris are the replacements for my army, and I should like them if I want to play marines. There's no denying that as a product, they have been pushed haaaard. That Primaris are the only option for Marines in the future is an opinion that has been the voiced sentiment of many on this forum.
exceptg the vast majority of the "primaris are the future" claims I see comes from the critics. are primaris being pushed? the intercessor DOES seem to be taking the tac marines place as the cover art marine yes but other then that, I don't see it, unless you mean the advertising for codices etc. and thats just GW advertising new minis. they're not going to advertise the tac squad when they have a new release of other stuff.
I'm open to that possibility, that'd be fine by me. I think that creating a bunch of uncertainty about the future of "classic" marines was potentially a mishandling of company PR. I don't know.
Insectum7 wrote: I will summarize my response by saying: The iconic Space Marine unit is the Tactical Squad, and Intercessors aren't it, primarily because they lack the options to meaningfully engage a wide variety of targets, with a wide variety of tactics.
But they're not the ONLY Space Marine unit, are they?
Can a Tactical Squad with a flamer and heavy bolter "meaningfully engage a wide variety of targets with a wide variety of tactics"? Or are they similarly hampered?
Nearly all of the traditional units were similarly equippable to handle a wide variety of targets.
Assault Marines were anti-tank? Devastators handling melee? Marine units were hardly any more versatile than Guardsmen in what they could do. Their versatility wasn't unique to them being Astartes. And again, 30k units are Astartes, who also lack that kind of versatility. Are you going to argue that they're not Space Marines?
30K Space Marines, like Primaris, are of 0 interest to me. I don't think of them as "real Space Marines" because doctrinally they are vastly different. They're a "historical" curiosity.
Then that's not my fault. Factually, 30k Astartes are just as much Space Marines as their 40k descendants, and Primaris too.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Seriously? You're telling me that a Space Marine Veteran 20 years ago looks the same as one now?
This is what I mean by disingenuous. You're not showing up to the table.
First, is a Veteran a core unit? Maybe it is. But maybe it's not. But you can make a Vet out of anything you like, you don't have to use the Sternguard kit. The Sternguard kit exists to make fancy space marines, and just gives reason to sell another kit. But the core units? The unit that the decoration is added on top of? Tactical, Assault, Devastator, Terminators, etc. no drift.
BTW, the thread asking for removal of the old marines was a martyr thread by a Primaris hater. It was not Primaris fans asking for that.
As for what GW will do, we don't know. The old marines are still relatively prominent in the new codex. The fluff sections heavily hint to them being phased out though. It talks about more and more old marines accepting the Primaris conversion. Like it or not, at least in the background the old marines are a dying breed.
Insectum7 wrote: I will summarize my response by saying: The iconic Space Marine unit is the Tactical Squad, and Intercessors aren't it, primarily because they lack the options to meaningfully engage a wide variety of targets, with a wide variety of tactics.
But they're not the ONLY Space Marine unit, are they?
Can a Tactical Squad with a flamer and heavy bolter "meaningfully engage a wide variety of targets with a wide variety of tactics"? Or are they similarly hampered?
Again, a disingenuous counter. TWO strawmans in the first response.
A: I never said Tactical Squads were the only Space Marine unit. I've said they were the iconic Space Marine unit. I may have said they were the original Space Marine unit. But never the only Space Marine unit.
B: I never made the assertion that every possible load-out for Tacticals is viable in every circumstance.
Insectum7 wrote: First, is a Veteran a core unit? Maybe it is. But maybe it's not.
Can't see why they aren't.
But you can make a Vet out of anything you like, you don't have to use the Sternguard kit. The Sternguard kit exists to make fancy space marines, and just gives reason to sell another kit.
Sure, and you could make "Intercessors" out of whatever you like, you could kitbash the Tactical kit. But there IS a dedicated kit for them.
The Sternguard kit exists to make Sternguard Veterans, just like how the Tactical Squad kit exists to make Tactical Marines. You can kitbash them to create other units, but you can't argue with what's on the front cover of the box.
But the core units? The unit that the decoration is added on top of? Tactical, Assault, Devastator, Terminators, etc. no drift.
So there's been NO difference between the upblinged Tactical Marines and the more spartan looking 2nd edition ones?
Crimson wrote: BTW, the thread asking for removal of the old marines was a martyr thread by a Primaris hater. It was not Primaris fans asking for that.
As for what GW will do, we don't know. The old marines are still relatively prominent in the new codex. The fluff sections heavily hint to them being phased out though. It talks about more and more old marines accepting the Primaris conversion. Like it or not, at least in the background the old marines are a dying breed.
I don't care too much about that thread. But you sorta make my point in acknowleging that the threat of me losing the ability to play my favorite army in 40K is a real threat.
Insectum7 wrote: I will summarize my response by saying: The iconic Space Marine unit is the Tactical Squad, and Intercessors aren't it, primarily because they lack the options to meaningfully engage a wide variety of targets, with a wide variety of tactics.
But they're not the ONLY Space Marine unit, are they?
Can a Tactical Squad with a flamer and heavy bolter "meaningfully engage a wide variety of targets with a wide variety of tactics"? Or are they similarly hampered?
Again, a disingenuous counter. TWO strawmans in the first response.
A: I never said Tactical Squads were the only Space Marine unit. I've said they were the iconic Space Marine unit. I may have said they were the original Space Marine unit. But never the only Space Marine unit.
Great - so why, when I asked if Tacticals without special weapons were still "Marines", you said they weren't?
That said I wish people would stop beating a dead horse about how much they hate Primaris every release. I mean I don't like Tau (too much Mech, not enough mixed aliens for my tastes) but I just shrug and move on when it gets something new. This constant Primaris bashing is just toxic behavior that is poisoning the well for others and could even chase off new players.
I agree. I mean in the last week in addition to the Primaris Hate train hijacking all the threads trying to discuss the new stuff, we've also got something like 4 or 5 sepooerate "I DON'T LIKE PRIAMRIS MARINES AND YOU SHOULDN'T EAITHER" threads. it's beyond rediculas,
Ok, but for about two years now there's been a general sentiment that Primaris are the replacements for my army, and I should like them if I want to play marines. There's no denying that as a product, they have been pushed haaaard. That Primaris are the only option for Marines in the future is an opinion that has been the voiced sentiment of many on this forum.
We have some bizarre misinformation about the history/tone of the classics. Like that weird post upthread talking about aesthetic drift, when the core units look almost exactly the same after 20 years. There was just another thread not too long ago talking about "scale-creep" in the line, and that's shown to be totally overblown.
We also have a thread where the OP is actively calling for the removal of my army from the game.
Truth be told, I'm fine with you liking and purchasing Primaris. I will happily fight against them using my classics/true/legacy marines. But if a thread is going to start up about how the aesthetics are a turn-off, I'm going to be all over that, because it's really interesting to me, as design is part of my profession. I want to correct the misinformation. Plus the obvious "Space Marines" are something that I'm passionate about.
regarding the thread about stuff being removed from the game. if you're refering to the "can GW just hurry up and get rid of old Marines" thread, not sure you READ the OP in that but it's actually (yet another) Primaris complaint thread. Now I'm not a GW employee so I can't say for sure what their plan is, but my general suspicion is they intend to double dip for a long time to come. the core of a Marine army is the tac squad, devestator squad, and assault squad. and these are all pretty new kits right now, (if you include the HH armor varients as tac squad kits the tac squad is only 3 years old. the assault and vestator kits are only 4) I suspect GW intends to double dip for the forseeable future.
B: I never made the assertion that every possible load-out for Tacticals is viable in every circumstance.
No, but you did claim they were more flexible, which is only as true as the weapons they happen to have at the time.
Only if you consciously decide to narrow the definition of "flexible" because you don't have an argument otherwise.
If we're talking the definition of flexible, Intercessors are also flexible, as I outlined with my kill team example.
Tactical Marines are only flexible with their lonesome special weapon guy. That's just as flexible as a whole squad of Intercessors with a variety of bolt weapons, in my eyes.
In this thread: people that complain that in a thread titled "Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs" people report what bothers them about Primaris design.
Amazing.
Bonus: again comparison with the intercessors that, disproportioned legs aside, are universally considered the least offensive models of the line.
regarding the thread about stuff being removed from the game. if you're refering to the "can GW just hurry up and get rid of old Marines" thread, not sure you READ the OP in that but it's actually (yet another) Primaris complaint thread. Now I'm not a GW employee so I can't say for sure what their plan is, but my general suspicion is they intend to double dip for a long time to come. the core of a Marine army is the tac squad, devestator squad, and assault squad. and these are all pretty new kits right now, (if you include the HH armor varients as tac squad kits the tac squad is only 3 years old. the assault and vestator kits are only 4) I suspect GW intends to double dip for the forseeable future.
Yeah, I suspect they'll double-dip too. In all honestly, making Primaris was a brilliant marketing move on GWs part. It's like a new Chapter of marines, except they're available to every existing collector to add to their chapter.
I just really don't want them to toss out the old ones, for a whole host of reasons.
But I also really, REALLY disagree with the game design fundamentals of the Primaris, too. The 2W, 2A thing bugs me something huge. I don't wan't the default heroes of the setting to just be flatly superior to the basics of other factions. I liked it when there were competing "elite troops" on the tabletop.
Now I'm not a GW employee so I can't say for sure what their plan is, but my general suspicion is they intend to double dip for a long time to come.
And all the problems stem from that. If GW just updated the marines set by set with new proportions without revolutionizing the whole aesthetics, a lot of these complain would not have happened. But you gotta squeeze ALL from the greatest section of your fanbase, amrite?
Anyhow, on the long term I am actually optimistic. They perhaps will relegate the old fashioned aesthetics to the Dark Angels, differentiating them even more. Optimistically, everyone will win so if you want the tacticool, you go Smurfs if you want the kinghts in space you get the DA. The issues of the conflict with the setting remain but that is done. The setting is just less interesting, and the Imperium worse characterized, because the Primaris exist. But what is done is done.
Kaiyanwang wrote: In this thread: people that complain that in a thread titled "Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs" people report what bothers them about Primaris design.
Amazing.
I made it clear - there is nothing wrong with people saying what they don't like. But when people make "facts" to support their opinions, I think it's completely fine to question those "facts".
Essentially - opinions are fine. Just don't use facts to support them if they're not exactly factual.
B: I never made the assertion that every possible load-out for Tacticals is viable in every circumstance.
No, but you did claim they were more flexible, which is only as true as the weapons they happen to have at the time.
Only if you consciously decide to narrow the definition of "flexible" because you don't have an argument otherwise.
If we're talking the definition of flexible, Intercessors are also flexible, as I outlined with my kill team example.
Tactical Marines are only flexible with their lonesome special weapon guy. That's just as flexible as a whole squad of Intercessors with a variety of bolt weapons, in my eyes.
Putting you on Ignore, because you don't respect the the thread of argument. You've just supplied two literal non-answers.
For a post about "design drift" you posted two functionally identical models and tried to make a point about Intercessors that nobody is talking about.
For a post about "flexibility", you ignored the definition of "flexible" provided by my earlier posts.
right, it's when you make a statement like "Primaris design aestetics are objectively terriable" (a statement I've seen made) that the issue is. you can't claim your subjective opinion is an objective fact
Kaiyanwang wrote: In this thread: people that complain that in a thread titled "Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs" people report what bothers them about Primaris design.
Amazing.
Bonus: again comparison with the intercessors that, disproportioned legs aside, are universally considered the least offensive models of the line.
It is absolutely hilarious that you think that Intercessors have disproportionate legs. Look that tactical on the post above yours. Look at it! The lower body in completely different scale than the upper body. It looks utterly bizarre.
Kaiyanwang wrote: In this thread: people that complain that in a thread titled "Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs" people report what bothers them about Primaris design. Amazing. Bonus: again comparison with the intercessors that, disproportioned legs aside, are universally considered the least offensive models of the line.
It is absolutely hilarious that you think that Intercessors have disproportionate legs. Look that tactical on the post above yours. Look at it! The lower body in completely different scale than the upper body. It looks utterly bizarre.
I have to really question your ability to interpret a short passage of text and think logically if you assume that if I say that the legs proportion of primaris intercessors are wonky it automatically means the squatmarines are ok.
Kaiyanwang wrote: In this thread: people that complain that in a thread titled "Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs" people report what bothers them about Primaris design. Amazing.
I made it clear - there is nothing wrong with people saying what they don't like. But when people make "facts" to support their opinions, I think it's completely fine to question those "facts".
Essentially - opinions are fine. Just don't use facts to support them if they're not exactly factual.
Can you point where I said my opinions are fact? We are discussing aesthetics, is kinda implied they cannot be. I could say the same about those that don;t agree with me, but I prefer to attack their points, not their ability to raise them.
Insectum7 wrote:Putting you on Ignore, because you don't respect the the thread of argument.
By all means. Still waiting on an answer to my questions about "are 30k Marines, or regular bolter Marines in a vacuum real Space Marines".
For a post about "design drift" you posted two functionally identical models and tried to make a point about Intercessors that nobody is talking about.
Nobody? You're claiming that nobody in this thread has claimed that Intercessors look aesthetically distinct from old Marines?
Wow.
For a post about "flexibility", you ignored the definition of "flexible" provided by my earlier posts.
And you completely ignored my questions.
I also gave my point about flexibility. Tactical Marines are only as flexible as the 1 guy out of 5 who carries a specific unique weapon. Without him, the squad is full of bolter mooks.
That is LESS flexible than Primaris Marines.
I also want to add that you don't even consider Legion Space Marines to be Space Marines. Claiming that Primaris aren't Space Marines is one thing, but 30k Marines? That's impressively audacious.
BrianDavion wrote:right, it's when you make a statement like "Primaris design aestetics are objectively terriable" (a statement I've seen made) that the issue is. you can't claim your subjective opinion is an objective fact
Exactly. There's nothing wrong with saying "I think Primaris aesthetics are terrible". But saying something like "they're objectively bad" or "they look massively different to old marines" requires some backing up, and if you don't have the facts to prove that, you probably shouldn't make that point.
BrianDavion wrote: right, it's when you make a statement like "Primaris design aestetics are objectively terriable" (a statement I've seen made) that the issue is. you can't claim your subjective opinion is an objective fact
For the record, I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I think most people are pretty ok with the general look of Intercessors. I don't like their changing of scale and proportions, but that's more subjective.
Exactly. There's nothing wrong with saying "I think Primaris aesthetics are terrible". But saying something like "they're objectively bad" or "they look massively different to old marines" requires some backing up, and if you don't have the facts to prove that, you probably shouldn't make that point.
But this is impossible, because you ignore everything from "the pose and the tech" to "capri shorts". You actual arguing strategy is to repeat the same things, re-post the same intercessors, ignore any actual criticism, and label the critics as whiners.
BrianDavion wrote: right, it's when you make a statement like "Primaris design aestetics are objectively terriable" (a statement I've seen made) that the issue is. you can't claim your subjective opinion is an objective fact
For the record, I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I think most people are pretty ok with the general look of Intercessors. I don't like their changing of scale and proportions, but that's more subjective.
never said you where, but I've actually seen that exact quote before belive it or not. not here but..
BrianDavion wrote: right, it's when you make a statement like "Primaris design aestetics are objectively terriable" (a statement I've seen made) that the issue is. you can't claim your subjective opinion is an objective fact
For the record, I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I think most people are pretty ok with the general look of Intercessors. I don't like their changing of scale and proportions, but that's more subjective.
never said you where, but I've actually seen that exact quote before belive it or not. not here but..
1) Many that criticize these models have actually bought some, me included. Is after buying few intercessors that I actually realized how messed up their legs are.
You claim that Intercessor legs are messed up - not "I think they are", but "realised they are". That's your opinion, not a fact.
Unless I am mistaken, a lot of these read like you're stating facts, not opinions. Of course, if I am mistaken, please correct me, and I'll retract my comments.
Again, many other people have done the same.
It's a "Gue'vesa" is an hyperbole to show the disconnect between the tech of the Primaris and what the Imperium is supposed to be (both in fluff and aesthetics).
The fact that I state that the legs are messed up is still my opinion. You are implying that unless I state EVRY SINGLE TIME we discuss something similar HEY GUYS IS MY OPINION PLEASE DON'T GET OFFENDED the whole observation and argument is invalid.
What I think? I think that you are doing this in order to do not address any of the above points, from the tech to the capri.
Spoiler: is not going to work.
Exactly. There's nothing wrong with saying "I think Primaris aesthetics are terrible". But saying something like "they're objectively bad" or "they look massively different to old marines" requires some backing up, and if you don't have the facts to prove that, you probably shouldn't make that point.
But this is impossible, because you ignore everything from "the pose and the tech" to "capri shorts". You actual arguing strategy is to repeat the same things, re-post the same intercessors, ignore any actual criticism, and label the critics as whiners.
I have never called anyone who has said "I don't like the look of Primaris" a whiner. I HAVE, however, called out people when they've made claims like "Intercessors aren't TRUE Space Marines because they don't have special weapons", because that's got nothing to do with being a Space Marine, or when people call out "they look like Tau" when they're wearing clearly Space Marine power armour, with their unique feature being a modified Space Marine scanner device and a helmet visor that Tau units don't have.
The capri shorts comment is fine, because it's phrased as an opinion. However, I do take issue with it being used as a blanket argument against ALL Primaris. Argue it against all Phobos, by all means, I'll tell you I disagree, but if it reminds you of capri shorts, I can see what you mean. However, arguing that Incursors have a Tau aesthetic is completely unfounded.
BrianDavion wrote: right, it's when you make a statement like "Primaris design aestetics are objectively terriable" (a statement I've seen made) that the issue is. you can't claim your subjective opinion is an objective fact
For the record, I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I think most people are pretty ok with the general look of Intercessors. I don't like their changing of scale and proportions, but that's more subjective.
never said you where, but I've actually seen that exact quote before belive it or not. not here but..
As has been noted, the language surrounding aesthetic/design criticism is sorely lacking. It can be very difficult to communicate these things even among professionals. There's a LOT of slop.
If one were to be generous, a case could be made that Primaris objectively did not match the previous styling of 40K models, and because they don't match the established style, they are terrible. This may have been the context from which that quote came from. With proper context, the statement could be perfectly viable. On a forum where an honest grappling with context is hard to come by, it's not a useful snippet. Or, the poster could just be flatly misguided!
I just really don't want them to toss out the old ones, for a whole host of reasons.
I am again optimistic in this regard. There will be a moment, a Bardo if you wish, in which the old marines will be dead. Once the new marine's take over will be complete, all the old collections will be fine again, "reincarnate" in part of the Primaris line with minimal effort. Unless you play with people that will be bothered by few mm. But why lose your time with these?
Kaiyanwang wrote: It's a "Gue'vesa" is an hyperbole to show the disconnect between the tech of the Primaris and what the Imperium is supposed to be (both in fluff and aesthetics).
Gue'vesa isn't even the correct term for an Astartes fighting for the Tau.
And again, I don't think at all that the Incursor looks any different to what the Imperium is "supposed to be". The only thing that looks new is the visor. However, I don't think that's enough personally for me to say it violates the entire idea of the IoM.
I have never called anyone who has said "I don't like the look of Primaris" a whiner. I HAVE, however, called out people when they've made claims like "Intercessors aren't TRUE Space Marines because they don't have special weapons", because that's got nothing to do with being a Space Marine, or when people call out "they look like Tau" when they're wearing clearly Space Marine power armour,
The "Tau" part concerns their concept, their sheer aesthetics and the implied relationship with technology that is not true to what the Imperium is supposed to be. And frankly? I can in fact state this is indeed a fact, because is the premise of their existence.
I have never called anyone who has said "I don't like the look of Primaris" a whiner. I HAVE, however, called out people when they've made claims like "Intercessors aren't TRUE Space Marines because they don't have special weapons", because that's got nothing to do with being a Space Marine, or when people call out "they look like Tau" when they're wearing clearly Space Marine power armour,
The "Tau" part concerns their concept, their sheer aesthetics and the implied relationship with technology that is not true to what the Imperium is supposed to be. And frankly? I can in fact state this is indeed a fact, because is the premise of their existence.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Gue'vesa isn't even the correct term for an Astartes fighting for the Tau.
Irrelevant for something written as a mocking hyperbole.
And again, I don't think at all that the Incursor looks any different to what the Imperium is "supposed to be". The only thing that looks new is the visor. However, I don't think that's enough personally for me to say it violates the entire idea of the IoM.
You ignore again the capri I guess. And the pose. Again, compare with that devastator posted above. Compare with the new CSM that still have that mix of noble fallen knight but with an hint of gansta/arrogant pose. it's an ensemble of things.
You like it? Fine. But you are the one being dismissive and blind of other's opinion.
Kaiyanwang wrote: The "Tau" part concerns their concept, their sheer aesthetics and the implied relationship with technology that is not true to what the Imperium is supposed to be. And frankly? I can in fact state this is indeed a fact, because is the premise of their existence.
Yes, but I fail to see what that has to do with the Incursors.
The Incursor is no different to what has already appears in pre-Primaris Space Marine models. The only new thing is the helmet visor, but again, is that really all it takes to say "this is not an Imperial model"?
They look different, but they don't take away from the power armour aesthetic common to Space Marines, in my opinion.
And the pose.
The pose on the multipose model?
You like it? Fine. But you are the one being dismissive and blind of other's opinion.
I'm not blind to opinion. I am dismissive of people posing opinions as facts, however.
I like it, you don't. That's all fine, and I'd be happy to leave it at that. But when there's 6+ threads of "I don't like this, and this is my justification why" and their "facts" start to sound flimsier and flimsier every time (such as 'Space Marines who don't have special weapons in their squads aren't real Space Marines' or 'Primaris jumped the gun with camo cloaked/tacticool Space Marines'), I'm sure you can understand how a lot of people's opinions start to sound like them masking them as facts.
Intercessors ain't Space Marines and I stand by it. Space Marines get access to mixed weapon squads to handle a variety of targets and operate independently. They ride in Rhinos and Land Raiders, and don't greatly out-stat the "Elite Troops" of other major factions. They wear Mk 4-8 Power Armor, some with bling, some without. If they're really lucky, they get to wear Terminator Armor. They carry Chainswords because this is Warhammer ****ing 40K, and they don't dual wield anything except for pistols, unless it's a prize taken off a Chaos Champion. They use superior training, discipline and doctrinal regimen/(brainwashing) to get the job done, instead of an extra wound.
And these are facts.
/Rant
Primaris are called Space Marines because it tests well in focus group testing. But it's a lie.
Look Smudge, in order to have a discussion, you have to first to accept that for some people, the differences between models, even subtle, that you ignore are relevant. Since this is not going to happen, and/or you come up with absolutely surreal stuff like "in a multipose model" while it goes without saying that a multipose model is not going to have infinite poses (and the acceptable poses could all communicate something different from the expected), I suppose we can end it here because this is going nowhere.
I understand that 6+ threads can upset you because you seem like a primaris fan, but maybe maybe maybe there are 6 threads because many consider the primaris badly executed and/or conceived, and are finally speaking out.
But since you are not even going to accept this, have a nice rest of your day.
This picture perfectly encapsulates everything I dislike about Primaris.
Every marine in this picture looks bad. I thought the taurox was in the running for worst vehicle design but the new rhino is the heavyweight champion. If it wasn't cheap with 4+ invul upgrade, no one would ever add this to their collection.
Insectum7 wrote:Intercessors ain't Space Marines and I stand by it. Space Marines get access to mixed weapon squads to handle a variety of targets and operate independently. They ride in Rhinos and Land Raiders, and don't greatly out-stat the "Elite Troops" of other major factions. They wear Mk 4-8 Power Armor, some with bling, some without. If they're really lucky, they get to wear Terminator Armor. They carry Chainswords because this is Warhammer ****ing 40K, and they don't dual wield anything except for pistols, unless it's a prize taken off a Chaos Champion. They use superior training, discipline and doctrinal regimen/(brainwashing) to get the job done, instead of an extra wound.
And these are facts.
No, they're not. Why? Because those criteria would mean that 30k Space Marines aren't Space Marines. It would mean that Razorbacks aren't actually Space Marines units. Primaris carry chainswords (At least one model is modelled with one, and Intercessor Sergeants can be armed with them), modern Vanguard Veterans can dual wield chainswords, plenty of models can dual wield lightning claws, and if the "superior training, discipline, and doctrinal regimen" were enough to get the job done and extra wounds weren't, why do Captains, Lieutenants, and ever special character have them?*
*unless obviously, the extra wounds were a gameplay mechanic to show their resilience/plot armour - which the Primaris have, and which the old marines have, in the form of their increased Toughness stat.
Suffice to say, that is not "factually" correct. But I am grateful for the effort.
Kaiyanwang wrote:Look Smudge, in order to have a discussion, you have to first to accept that for some people, the differences between models, even subtle, that you ignore are relevant.
Yes, they may be. I understand that, so long as they don't try and pull some "these are objectively bad" trick. Opinion is opinion, taste is taste, I get that, and encourage that. Just don't try and make it any more than that - I'm not going to try and say things like "actually Primaris are the best because they are taller and bigger and have not-squatting legs" - that doesn't make them objectively, well, anything.
I understand that 6+ threads can upset you because you seem like a primaris fan, but maybe maybe maybe there are 6 threads because many consider the primaris badly executed and/or conceived, and are finally speaking out.
Honestly, if it had been these 6+ thread only now, I really wouldn't have an issue.
But "finally" speaking out? No offence intended, but these people have been "finally" speaking out since they first saw Primaris, let alone the latest release. I get it. Some people don't like Primaris. Do we need 6+ threads EVERY TIME there's a new unit, a new Space Marine release? It's not really an "upset" thing, like 'how dare you not like them?!' - it's more of an 'okay, we've heard your opinion, maybe we can give it a break, and we don't need to hear you try and rationalise it?'
And, as I said, stating opinion = fine. Using "facts" to support them? Of course people will come in and disagree, and call out the "facts".
But since you are not even going to accept this, have a nice rest of your day.
Agreed. I've made my points clear. Opinions = fine. "Facts" and misinformation? Not quite so cool.
The main thing I dislike about the Primaris range is the massive increase in both anti grav tech and having large infantry being able to fly around freely. It is a massive change in the background and changes both what I liked about both the IOM in general and space marines in particular.
SM's were the cream of the crop and even they on average keep a handful of land speeders in service at any given time. It made that tech for humanity feel special and set the human factions apart from the xenos.
I would have rather GW doubled down on the decay and slow push towards lower tech for the Imperium versus Cawl figured it all out now we have hover land raiders.
seriously though the Impulsor is clearly a light weight, lightly armed cousin of the repulsor. I don't have an issue with it at all. as it is it lacks the thing people claimed was the repulsor's biggest issue (excessive guns)
It's boxy and clunky in a bad way, rather than boxy and clunky in a good way.
Disagree. It’s boxy and clunky in the good way. Your opinions are bad and you should feel bad.
Unlikely. Simple is more iconic, generally speaking. Star Destroyer, Borg Cube, etc.
I could like the idea of a Flying Rhino. I even designed one myself and got half-through building the thing in 4th edition with the vehicle design rules at the time. I'll wait to see this one in person, but so far it's got too much stuff on it. It looks like a Rhino had a threesome between a Land Speeder and a GSC Goliath Truck.
It's boxy and clunky in a bad way, rather than boxy and clunky in a good way.
Insightful design critique from a professional.
You claim that what makes a marine is tactical squads and load out but that is just your opinion not a fact. One of the reasons marines have been a success over the decades is that they appeal to so many people by being many things at once. Some like the gothic knightly business, some warrior monks, some military elites, some even werewolves on dogs. Marines can be it all and each person will have their own image of what a marine is. To you it’s the noble tactical squad but I bet many black Templar fans don’t see that when they think about marines or space wolf fans. What I have always seen about marines is perfectly captured by the new range, they are the essence of 1st edition marines to me, and load out doesn’t come into it.
So your whole argument is based around an opinion presented as a fact. So doesn’t stand up sorry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kaiyanwang wrote: In this thread: people that complain that in a thread titled "Finally realized what bothers me about Primaris designs" people report what bothers them about Primaris design.
Amazing.
Bonus: again comparison with the intercessors that, disproportioned legs aside, are universally considered the least offensive models of the line.
I’m pretty sure you are just a troll in this discussion. You seem totally unable to to have a reasoned discussion. You have set your stall out and are sticking to your ridiculous assumptions. Crack on mate and enjoy your nonsense.
seriously though the Impulsor is clearly a light weight, lightly armed cousin of the repulsor. I don't have an issue with it at all. as it is it lacks the thing people claimed was the repulsor's biggest issue (excessive guns)
Which is my main complaint about the Repulsor and it taking up a big chunk of my list. I mean, I love lots of guns but I just don't care for how the Repulsor does it. And then outside the Inceptors and the weird Autocannon dudes, none of the Primaris models are bad whatsoever.
Commissar Benny wrote: This picture perfectly encapsulates everything I dislike about Primaris.
Every marine in this picture looks bad. I thought the taurox was in the running for worst vehicle design but the new rhino is the heavyweight champion. If it wasn't cheap with 4+ invul upgrade, no one would ever add this to their collection.
I will be adding one and not for the reasons above. I will be adding because I like it. And that picture captures for me a lot of what I like about the new range. But that is only my opinion. If I was to say that everyone will have one of these because it’s such a cool vehicle and if you don’t it’s because you have medical problems that would be claiming that opinions are facts.
ClockworkZion wrote: "Messed up legs"? Now you have my attention since I haven't heard this complaint. What's wrong with the legs exactly?
The Capri shorts look is whats wrong with the legs.
man you'd think phobos armor was suddenly replacing the entire primaris range
I thought it was Phobos legs being discussed because of the Incursor picture. I can tell you what’s wrong with Tacticus and Gravis legs as well if you like
ClockworkZion wrote: "Messed up legs"? Now you have my attention since I haven't heard this complaint. What's wrong with the legs exactly?
The Capri shorts look is whats wrong with the legs.
man you'd think phobos armor was suddenly replacing the entire primaris range
Nah. It's clearly replacing scouts and expanding the role scouts play in the army, but it's only so prominent right now because they're the new release.
That said I wish people would stop beating a dead horse about how much they hate Primaris every release. I mean I don't like Tau (too much Mech, not enough mixed aliens for my tastes) but I just shrug and move on when it gets something new. This constant Primaris bashing is just toxic behavior that is poisoning the well for others and could even chase off new players.
Yes lets label valid criticism and discussion of models as ‘hate’ and ‘toxic’ because people have an opinion I disagree with. Yes that’s always a good idea...
I see a lot of repetitive criticism of classic marines compared to Primaris about, but you don’t see me complaining about that. If you are willing to point out what you see as flaws in something, don’t be surprised that people start pointing out flaws in things you like.
There is a difference between saying you don't like something and the bashing I've witnessed since they announced this release.
It's been two frikkin' years since they announced Primaris as a thing. It's time to stop trying to complain them away and accept them as a part of the setting. You can like them or them but this constant five threads bashing on Primaris is beyond played out at this point.
No one wants to deal with people who complain about things all the time, and they're less.likely to believe that you're right when you spend all your time bashing something.
It’s been 2 years, yes. But of course a major change to GWs main line of models is going to be discussed for a long time. Also new additions to the line have been released and their is going to be discussion around them - some of it may be critical.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
robbienw wrote:Its entirely possible to like one thing aesthetically, and not like something similar but with notable changes.
The suggestion you can't is absurd.
No-one'se saying you can't. However, the issue is with the idea of "notable changes" - if there's people who genuinely can see very little difference, they're not really notable, are they?
They are to me. You thinking they don't have notable differences doesn't change my opinion they do.
The changes from the preceding classic marine aethesetic **are what makes me not like it**. Stuff like the over abundance of extra platting, huge boots, buckets over helmets, abundance of tacticool features, the size increase etc.
As I said above, there are so few changes to the core Astartes aesthetic, it's difficult to find a lot of these differences.
Extra plating - where? The gorget or leg armour? Deathwatch have this too. But perhaps you also don't like their armour?
Their feet aren't much larger than normal Marines - except Gravis, but they're not really "normal Primaris", like how Terminators aren't normal Marines.
Only the Inceptors have bucket helms, and they're totally optional.
I don't see any additional "tacticool features" that aren't also present on normal marines (including 30k, because they're still Marines).
Its really not difficult to find the differences. The tacticus armour guys have extra plating to the forearm, thighs and backpack compared to your classic mk7 look for example. Gravis have an armour plates on extra armour plates all over the place look. Most infantry have the tyre tread flexible stomach armour. The sigmar style kneepad rims. There are many changes, and they are relatively consistent across the range. They dont apply to every single primaris model though of course - nobody said they did. Yes they still look like space marines. But the aethsetic has been changed.
I didnt say bucket helms either, lets not try to wilfully misinterpret what i am saying for argumentative purposes. I'm talking about the bucket shaped areas that link to the collar armour that Gravis models have that go around the helmet.
The tacticool features would be stuff like picatinny style rails on guns, abundance of lenses on guns, large wrist computers, soft knee pads, rifles that look like G36's etc. Its mainly confined to phobos armour.
At the same time, I'd expect people who point out flaws and try to back them up with what sound like factual claims (like my example above) to actually HAVE factual arguments that are well quantifiable.
As I've said - opinion is fine. Making up facts to support those opinions is not.
Its all subjective opinion. A flaw to me may not be a flaw to you. No one is making anything up. The problem seems to be you can't accept other people have a differing opinion on a subject to you. People don't like something you do - accept it. Also realise that when there is a new release for an army, there is likely to be a spike in topics discussing said army. Some of those may be negative.
I didn't personally create 6+ threads about it, people are able to individually create threads as they wish.
I do find it hard to believe though that you haven't seen any of the criticism and slurs against classic marines over the last 2 years. Terms such as mini-marines, squat marines, shorties, stunted mini-men, deformed legs etc have been flying about all over the place
robbienw wrote: Its really not difficult to find the differences. The tacticus armour guys have extra plating to the forearm, thighs and backpack compared to your classic mk7 look for example. Gravis have an armour plates on extra armour plates all over the place look. Most infantry have the tyre tread flexible stomach armour. The sigmar style kneepad rims. There are many changes, and they are relatively consistent across the range.
Yes, and along with the improved proportions, this is another major thing that makes the Primaris look much better than the old marines. There is all this added detail which makes tre armour look much more real and interesting. The old marines had plain armour because of the technological limitations of the time. When they were first designed, no such detail was possible. Later when the tech improved they started to add all sort of superfluous bling. Jes Goodwin pretty much said that this is how he always wanted marines to be, and finally they have the tech to do it.
robbienw wrote: Its really not difficult to find the differences. The tacticus armour guys have extra plating to the forearm, thighs and backpack compared to your classic mk7 look for example. Gravis have an armour plates on extra armour plates all over the place look. Most infantry have the tyre tread flexible stomach armour. The sigmar style kneepad rims. There are many changes, and they are relatively consistent across the range.
Yes, and along with the improved proportions, this is another major thing that makes the Primaris look much better than the old marines.
I'm listing the things that i think make them look worse than classics. Proportions don't even come into it when the aethesetic is bad. I'd rather have classics at current proportions (or deathwatch/heroes proportions), than any kind of primaris due to aethsetic preferences.
As for what jes goodwin says, i'm not sure he said exactly that, I think you may be misinterpreting him. I seriously doubt he originally intended marines to look like primaris way in 1987. Especially not the tacticool elements, thing which came into prominence in the real world in the 2000's
Plus the designer intending something to be someway doesn't automatically mean you have to like it. Your can say it is your best work, your fans are under no obligation to agree with that. I prefer his earlier work
Sure, you don't have to like it. I just see those details you mention as a result of better resolution, rather than a drastic thematic change. If you put a Mk VII helmet on an intercessor, to me it will look like a better proportioned and more detailed classic marine. The old ones are just a low res version.
robbienw wrote: Its really not difficult to find the differences. The tacticus armour guys have extra plating to the forearm, thighs and backpack compared to your classic mk7 look for example. Gravis have an armour plates on extra armour plates all over the place look. Most infantry have the tyre tread flexible stomach armour. The sigmar style kneepad rims. There are many changes, and they are relatively consistent across the range.
Yes, and along with the improved proportions, this is another major thing that makes the Primaris look much better than the old marines.
I'm listing the things that i think make them look worse than classics. Proportions don't even come into it when the aethesetic is bad. I'd rather have classics at current proportions (or deathwatch/heroes proportions), than any kind of primaris due to aethsetic preferences.
As for what jes goodwin says, i'm not sure he said exactly that, I think you may be misinterpreting him. I seriously doubt he originally intended marines to look like primaris way in 1987. Especially not the tacticool elements, thing which came into prominence in the real world in the 2000's
Plus the designer intending something to be someway doesn't automatically mean you have to like it. Your can say it is your best work, your fans are under no obligation to agree with that. I prefer his earlier work
You may not like those things you have listed but it doesn’t mean that they marked shift in design that fundamentally changed the whole setting as has been claimed here. Mk3 armour is just mk2 with more forward facing armour panels, are the fundamentally different and is mk3 unrecognisable as a space marine. No. Obviously not. This is the difference between fact and opinion. You don’t like those changes but they don’t stop them being marines.
Most current marine kits (and pretty much everything else made in the last 7 or 8 years) are the same 'resolution' as primaris ones. They have been made with the same technology and have the same crispness of surface detail.
Sure there are some older kits from before the era of laser cut mold detail, but they are few now.
To me, putting a mk7 helm on an intercessor would result in an intercessor with a mk7 helm. Still with all the design elements on his body that i dislike.
robbienw wrote: Its really not difficult to find the differences. The tacticus armour guys have extra plating to the forearm, thighs and backpack compared to your classic mk7 look for example. Gravis have an armour plates on extra armour plates all over the place look. Most infantry have the tyre tread flexible stomach armour. The sigmar style kneepad rims. There are many changes, and they are relatively consistent across the range.
Yes, and along with the improved proportions, this is another major thing that makes the Primaris look much better than the old marines.
I'm listing the things that i think make them look worse than classics. Proportions don't even come into it when the aethesetic is bad. I'd rather have classics at current proportions (or deathwatch/heroes proportions), than any kind of primaris due to aethsetic preferences.
As for what jes goodwin says, i'm not sure he said exactly that, I think you may be misinterpreting him. I seriously doubt he originally intended marines to look like primaris way in 1987. Especially not the tacticool elements, thing which came into prominence in the real world in the 2000's
Plus the designer intending something to be someway doesn't automatically mean you have to like it. Your can say it is your best work, your fans are under no obligation to agree with that. I prefer his earlier work
You may not like those things you have listed but it doesn’t mean that they marked shift in design that fundamentally changed the whole setting as has been claimed here. Mk3 armour is just mk2 with more forward facing armour panels, are the fundamentally different and is mk3 unrecognisable as a space marine. No. Obviously not. This is the difference between fact and opinion. You don’t like those changes but they don’t stop them being marines.
I never said they aren't marines!
They do have a slightly different design paradigm though.
The fluff changed the whole setting, not the design shift.
I’m pretty sure you are just a troll in this discussion. You seem totally unable to to have a reasoned discussion. You have set your stall out and are sticking to your ridiculous assumptions. Crack on mate and enjoy your nonsense.
If this was the case, people would have offered some actual rebuttal to what has been pointed out concerning primaris, especially poses, proportions, and tech (in light of what the Imperium actually is), but this did not happen, and I think is not going to happen.
But I suppose is way more convenient to call someone a troll rather than address his points. Or state that those "are just opinions that should not proposed as facts" which is completely inane.
And no, post the same intercessor the 287632th time is not "addressing the points".
I already said it to you. You have a very poor grasp of what logic and arguments are.
That embarrassing post above concerning the orcs it's another dead giveaway.
Kaiyanwang wrote: I already said it to you. You have a very poor grasp of what logic and arguments are.
That embarrassing post above concerning the orcs it's another dead giveaway.
I am engaging with the content of your posts, you're hurling ad hominems. You probably shouldn't be critiquing of the argumentation methods of anyone.
I get it. For some bizarre reason you like your space marines being deformed dwarfs. I don't know why, but you are of course free to have that opinion. I really do not expect most players, especially not new players without nostalgia fuelled hangups to share your opinion on the matter though.
BTW, do you think that the current classic marines have better poses and proportions than the RT beakies? Because I think we're talking about similar step in the design evolution here.
I get it. For some bizarre reason you like your space marines being deformed dwarfs
I have at this point ask if you are doing this purposefully. It's kinda a wish actually, because the opposite is not very flattering for you.
Again, stating that Primaris have weird leg proportions does not mean the old legs are ok. I just think that the proportions used for the new CSM are way better.
Also please show me the ad hominems. I only attacked you directly out of your (hopefully) willing ignorance. Because I want to believe you are being intentionally obtuse here, and you are able to understand that in a given situation there can be more than two options.
Right?
Kaiyanwang wrote: I already said it to you. You have a very poor grasp of what logic and arguments are.
That embarrassing post above concerning the orcs it's another dead giveaway.
I am engaging with the content of your posts, you're hurling ad hominems. You probably shouldn't be critiquing of the argumentation methods of anyone.
You clearly don't get it. Claiming there is as great a difference between RT beakies and current classics, to current classic and primaris is absurd, and pure hyperbole. Like your high resoloution ork nonsense Primaris just have different dimensions and styling, they were designed with the same technology as most recent classic kits. They arent any crisper or sharper. RT marines were designed in the late 80's without computer assistance, laser molds, the current type of plastics used, the current method of plastic injection used, etc.
Classic marines are not deformed dwarfs, no more than Primaris are deformed giants. They are both still within the theroically scaled range. GW would not have sold millions if they were as terrible as you claim.
The reason i like classic more is because i prefer they way they look. Primaris look chunky and toylike, with ridculously large lower legs. Being a bit closer to ideal art proportions is not enough. I need to like the style as well. Dark Eldar for example are very well proportioned, but that doesnt make me want them more than classic marines either, because they dont meet my design preferences.
I think if you gave a primaris and a classic marine to the art scale/big marine fans, with both being identically scaled and proportioned, i think you'd find most would go for the classic.
You are also confusing a stylistic difference with more advanced modelling technology. Miniature companies have been producing models with 'better' proportions (as in closer to real life human proportions) for many many years, before CAD and laser molds came in for sure.
I just think that the proportions used for the new CSM are way better.
They're overall a bit smaller. I actually think that their legs are still a tiny bit underscaled. I did a couple of test conversions where I extended their legs by a mm, and they ended up looking better to me. But when we're talking about one mmm on a 36 mm model then it is getting pretty subjective.
What is the pose that the Primaris marine is doing here? It looks like it's wiggling its hips as it walks like a model in high heels strutting down a catwalk.
I just think that the proportions used for the new CSM are way better.
They're overall a bit smaller. I actually think that their legs are still a tiny bit underscaled. I did a couple of test conversions where I extended their legs by a mm, and they ended up looking better to me. But when we're talking about one mmm on a 36 mm model then it is getting pretty subjective.
And your opinion is as valid as mine because is based on aesthetics. In a thread titled "Finally realized what bothers me about CSM designs" it would be a valid criticism. "I think they did not go far enough with the legs, I prefer the Primaris approach". I would answer "I think the legs are fine, the Primaris feel weird to me". Get it now? No need to police people about it.
You clearly don't get it. Claiming there is as great a difference between RT beakies and current classics, to current classic and primaris is absurd, and pure hyperbole. Like your high resoloution ork nonsense Primaris just have different dimensions and styling, they were designed with the same technology as most recent classic kits. They arent any crisper or sharper. RT marines were designed in the late 80's without computer assistance, laser molds, the current type of plastics used, the current method of plastic injection used, etc.
I was talking about the shift in proportions, style and posing in this example, not the technical level of detail.
When I said earlier that the simpleness of the armour plates in the classic (mk VII marines) was due the technical limitations of the time, I was referring to the time when that design was first created decades ago, not the latest iteration of it.
What is the pose that the Primaris marine is doing here? It looks like it's wiggling its hips as it walks like a model in high heels strutting down a catwalk.
What is the pose that the Primaris marine is doing here? It looks like it's wiggling its hips as it walks like a model in high heels strutting down a catwalk.
He looks like he has been shot in the back and is just about to pitch forward.
robbienw wrote:I thought it was Phobos legs being discussed because of the Incursor picture. I can tell you what’s wrong with Tacticus and Gravis legs as well if you like
No-one really specified what legs they were talking about, seeing as most people just tend to have a blanket grievance with "Primaris", when oftentimes, they might mean a single unit.
Now, if someone said "I don't like the legs on PHOBOS marines because they look different to Tacticals/Intercessors", I'd be cool with that opinion and logic, because they factually ARE visually distinct in a meaningful way (that's not to say they're 'objectively bad', but that there is a clear and obvious difference). However, very rarely do people actually point out specific things and units and just say "Primaris look bad", when perhaps it's not even the main units that they're talking about.
I mean, if I hated the Centurion design with a passion, would you think it was cool for me to say "Space Marines look terrible!" when I'm only actually talking about the Centurions?
It’s been 2 years, yes. But of course a major change to GWs main line of models is going to be discussed for a long time. Also new additions to the line have been released and their is going to be discussion around them - some of it may be critical.
Yes, but do the same points that were brought up at release and have had no further elaboration beyond "it's new and I don't like it*" need to be brought up again and again?
robbienw wrote:
No-one's saying you can't. However, the issue is with the idea of "notable changes" - if there's people who genuinely can see very little difference, they're not really notable, are they?
They are to me. You thinking they don't have notable differences doesn't change my opinion they do.
They aren't THAT notable then, are they?
I'm just pointing out that you saying and having the opinion that they're these massive changes conflicts with the fact that many other people don't think there's anything new here at all.
Therefore, if there's a significant amount of people who can't see a large difference, it's not widely notable, is it? It's not like the difference between black and white, where one is clearly notably different from the other.
Perhaps it's more like a dark grey and a normal grey. Maybe some people think they're distinct, and others don't - in that situation, I don't think it would be fair to say that one grey is "notably different" from the other, because a significant group of people cannot see that.
Its really not difficult to find the differences. The tacticus armour guys have extra plating to the forearm, thighs and backpack compared to your classic mk7 look for example.
Deathwatch have the same too. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen you complain about them.
Gravis have an armour plates on extra armour plates all over the place look.
As do Terminators.
Most infantry have the tyre tread flexible stomach armour.
Do they? Only the Phobos Marines do, and that's hardly any different to the exposed wiring and cables that Mark 7 has.
The sigmar style kneepad rims.
This is true, yes. Is that rim enough to make them an entirely new aesthetic though? If I put one on a Deathwatch Marine with a Mark IV helmet, would they suddenly be completely different?
There are many changes, and they are relatively consistent across the range. They dont apply to every single primaris model though of course - nobody said they did.
I don't know, the constant "PRIMARIS LOOK DIFFERENT" without many people actually specifying the specific things and specific units sounds more just like people having a problem with anything with the Primaris keyword, not specific features and units.
Again, not accusing you of this, but there are many who do this.
Yes they still look like space marines. But the aethsetic has been changed.
Again, has it? Deathwatch have many of the same things you say Primaris introduced as changed aesthetics.
I didnt say bucket helms either, lets not try to wilfully misinterpret what i am saying for argumentative purposes. I'm talking about the bucket shaped areas that link to the collar armour that Gravis models have that go around the helmet.
Oh, I see - that wasn't a wilful misinterpretation, that was a misunderstanding - I thought you were talking about the dome helmets that can be put on Inceptors, not the Gravis suits as a whole. Even so, don't both Librarians and Terminators have similar coverings?
Here's a really nice example:
Spoiler:
The tacticool features would be stuff like picatinny style rails on guns, abundance of lenses on guns, large wrist computers, soft knee pads, rifles that look like G36's etc. Its mainly confined to phobos armour.
I see your point about the toothed gun rails, that's new. But it's hardly like older bolter didn't have gun rails at all. The deathwatch bolters are just as egregious with lenses and sights. Deathwatch also boast wrist computers. Don't know what you mean about the soft knee pads, actually. The bolt sniper rifles are on one unit, and the only real thing that evokes that is the raised tactical rail thing. Remove that, and it looks no different from other 40k weaponry. And yes, it mostly is on the Phobos units.
Again, with how much of it is already present or different in the slightest of ways, I don't think I could call that a drastic change.
Its all subjective opinion. A flaw to me may not be a flaw to you.
Agreed.
No one is making anything up.
Disagree. Come on, does "Tactical Marines without special weapons aren't Space Marines" sound like 'subjective opinion'?
There's a difference between "I don't like the look of Primaris" and "Primaris CLEARLY look different and have undergone a drastic new change of aesthetic" - the latter one is phrased in a very assured and as if stating facts, sounding more like the speaker is announcing facts, rather than personal opinions. A lot of it is in the phrasing.
The problem seems to be you can't accept other people have a differing opinion on a subject to you. People don't like something you do - accept it. Also realise that when there is a new release for an army, there is likely to be a spike in topics discussing said army. Some of those may be negative.
Again, have you actually be reading what I'm saying?
Different opinions are fine. Just don't phrase them like it's some kind of fact or truth that applies widely. I don't exactly agree with people saying things like "Primaris are the best because they're bigger and more well proportioned" - being bigger doesn't necessarily make them better to everyone, and well proportioned is subjective. A better statement would be "I think Primaris are better because they're bigger and more well proportioned according to my tastes".
I didn't personally create 6+ threads about it, people are able to individually create threads as they wish.
Yes, but don't you find it, or at least understand, how that's a tad excessive?
I do find it hard to believe though that you haven't seen any of the criticism and slurs against classic marines over the last 2 years. Terms such as mini-marines, squat marines, shorties, stunted mini-men, deformed legs etc have been flying about all over the place
Only one of them is a slur, and that's "deformed legs". Mini-marines is hardly used in the same context that people use when they insult Primaris, and you know it.
There's also not 6+ threads talking about how they're the worst thing ever and are terrible design and so on, so forth.
robbienw wrote:As for what jes goodwin says, i'm not sure he said exactly that, I think you may be misinterpreting him. I seriously doubt he originally intended marines to look like primaris way in 1987. Especially not the tacticool elements, thing which came into prominence in the real world in the 2000's
I'll rewatch the Voxcast interview, but I'm pretty sure he was saying that.
Plus the designer intending something to be someway doesn't automatically mean you have to like it. Your can say it is your best work, your fans are under no obligation to agree with that. I prefer his earlier work
Absolutely, but there were people in this thread who were, again, making up things by saying "Jes clearly didn't have a hand in this, this is blasphemous to his name" or words to that effect.
Kaiyanwang wrote:If this was the case, people would have offered some actual rebuttal to what has been pointed out concerning primaris, especially poses, proportions, and tech (in light of what the Imperium actually is), but this did not happen, and I think is not going to happen.
It has. Or at least, just pointing out that many people's "facts" aren't so.
As above - haven't got a problem with people making opinions, but when they start to sound like claiming facts, that's a different matter.
And no, post the same intercessor the 287632th time is not "addressing the points".
When the "points" made are lacking in matter, a single Intercessor is more than enough.
What is the pose that the Primaris marine is doing here? It looks like it's wiggling its hips as it walks like a model in high heels strutting down a catwalk.
He looks like he has been shot in the back and is just about to pitch forward.
The arm pose might be to blame there. I tend to use different bits for that body which makes him look more like he's turning to check a threat.
robbienw wrote:You clearly don't get it. Claiming there is as great a difference between RT beakies and current classics, to current classic and primaris is absurd, and pure hyperbole.
Is it hyperbolic?
In my opinion, there is absolutely more difference between beakies and modern Tacticals than there is between modern Tacticals and Primaris.
I think if you gave a primaris and a classic marine to the art scale/big marine fans, with both being identically scaled and proportioned, i think you'd find most would go for the classic.
But that relies on the classic marines being scaled and proportioned correctly. For many people, they prefer Primaris because of that superior scaling and proportion.
Personally, if I had both the Tactical and Primaris, both scaled and proportioned correctly, I don't think there would be enough difference for me to actually choose one over the other.
What is the pose that the Primaris marine is doing here? It looks like it's wiggling its hips as it walks like a model in high heels strutting down a catwalk.
He looks like he has been shot in the back and is just about to pitch forward.
Personally, I think it looks better than the old marines who look as if they're about to use their armour's 'recycling' functions.
Sgt Smudge, i'm getting massive TLDR and hurting eyes from all the mini quotes in your last post. Just assume i disagree with most of what you said, especially the whataboutery
robbienw wrote: Sgt Smudge, i'm getting massive TLDR and hurting eyes from all the mini quotes in your last post. Just assume i disagree with most of what you said, especially the whataboutery
robbienw wrote: Sgt Smudge, i'm getting massive TLDR and hurting eyes from all the mini quotes in your last post. Just assume i disagree with most of what you said, especially the whataboutery
Lame
There is objectively no reason to bother answering.
Nemesis Chapter - Ultramarine 2nd Founding successors, descended from the 22nd Chapter, who were predominantly known for their use of Destroyer Squads.
Agamemnon2 wrote: The way I see it, Oldmarines no longer have a reason to exist. There are Primaris equivalents for pretty much every unit and battlefield role at this point, so it makes little in-universe sense to raise new standard marine troops.
Personally, I decided my own chapter went renegade when they were offered reinforcements from the Indomitus Crusade, seeing them as a heretical abomination designed to supercede and exterminate them (needless to say, they do not consider Rowboat Guilliman as their spiritual liege). This saves me money, too, as I can buy all my minis from the secondhand market now (I do not expect GW to ever release a non-Primaris marine model ever again).
Problem with that is we are still missing the majority of the equalivents.
Except :
Assault Marines (Close Assault Jump-pack) Vanguard Marines (Close Assault Jump-pack Elite) Assault Terminators (Close Assault Elite Unit specializing in either anti vehicle or anti-infantry) Land Raider (Large Space Marine Tank with large unit capacity) Fellblade (Heavy Anti-Tank Role) Levithian Dreadnought (Heavy Assault Walker) Captain with Jump Pack (Captain that fights with a jet pack) Captain on Bike (Captain that fights on a mount) Biker Marines (Close Assault bikers) Landspeeder (Scouting Vehicle) Neophyte Unit (Recruits) Tactical Marines with support weapons (Multi-purpose tactical unit) Techmarines (Mechanic) Sternguard Elite Marines (Elite Infantry) Terminators with elite role (Elite Heavy Infantry) Attack bike (Fast Attack) Whirlwind (artillery) Thunderfire Cannon (Artillery) Rhino (Transport only vehicle)
My issue with the design is the lack of cohesive design that ties it to the era of 40k. While much of the lore has changed away from "Degrading technology." That particular aesthetic is very flavorful in a galaxy where: Humanity is surrounded, their golden days are gone, they are fighting for survival, resources are thinning. Primaris armor is easily produced and is everywhere which makes it look bland, there are no differences in helmet design between any of them, no smooth grooves, or different marks of armor. The personalization is very rare it seems and leaves the design boring. As we don't have any examples of very ornate armor, skulls, for example, were common on marines (the ratio was higher on older marines), armor worn by champions, etc was always highly decorated especially in comparison to the rest of the model. The armor doesn't feel lived in compared to the older models. Especially with Captains and SGTs, purity seals are always on the models, the shoulder pads should be engraved with runes, or words of the imperium, and implied grandeur. There is currently a lot of empty space on most of the models which leave a pretty 'blank slate' on most of the marines. Which I get its for people to convert them.
Too much tacticool takes away from the aesthetic of space marines as they are supposed to be gothic in overall design, which is rigid lines, and rigid armor plates. Smoothness is a bit too modern sci-fi and seems more like a starting 3d artist.
Their helmets are almost universally the same in design and have the same feel which I think distracts from their design. Which can be easily fixed with head swaps with older marines. The older marine helmet has this 'grim' face to it and is quite scary compared to the primaris helmets which just look like helmets and not faces (which most marines are emblematic of).
If we are going to discuss the issue of the marines currently it is that their helmets are too 'round' and 'sleek'. Rigidness is the cornerstone of most of the marine army, often people would laugh at marine stuff for being 'boxy' but that's sorta the point of their design. Very few of the marines roster had any roundness to its overall design.
robbienw wrote: Sgt Smudge, i'm getting massive TLDR and hurting eyes from all the mini quotes in your last post. Just assume i disagree with most of what you said, especially the whataboutery
Lame
There is objectively no reason to bother answering.
True, but making a "I can't be bothered to even read part of your argument, so I'm going to assume you made no valid points" is a bit immature. Just saying "I don't have time/I don't care/I can't be bothered to discuss this any more" would be preferable to saying "I haven't read it, but I'll assume you said nothing important".
slave.entity wrote: The new direction for modern space marines is tacticool. I don't like it either but at this point we might as well get used to it.
For whatever reason GW has decided that tacticool is the look that's going to expand their audience so that's what we're getting. RIP, gothic space knights.
You should all go and listen to the episodes of Voxcast with Jed Goodwin. Among other things, the Primaris we’re seeing now are deliberately light on the bling so there’s somewhere to go with Chapter-specific models, officers, characters and elite units without ending up overburdened like the Vanguard and Seternguard Marines are.
Plus if you read the novels most Primaris have the feel of 'kid lost at the grocery store', a lot of naivety that detracts from the characters and story overall. Though this seems to be an issue throughout all the new stories.
Yes they are the 'new kid' at the block, but they aren't idiots. They are still superhumans.
slave.entity wrote: The new direction for modern space marines is tacticool. I don't like it either but at this point we might as well get used to it.
For whatever reason GW has decided that tacticool is the look that's going to expand their audience so that's what we're getting. RIP, gothic space knights.
You should all go and listen to the episodes of Voxcast with Jed Goodwin. Among other things, the Primaris we’re seeing now are deliberately light on the bling so there’s somewhere to go with Chapter-specific models, officers, characters and elite units without ending up overburdened like the Vanguard and Seternguard Marines are.
Cool idea but in practice very hard to make your own when there is very few compatible kits that can make them look 'ancient' or 'gothic' or fitting in a theme. With items or bits swap being so far and few in between like you can with the mini marines set. the blankness on them just makes them look boring as every single model in their range is quite blank and bland. But that would require so much work to make them feel 'unique' yeah a gold mine for converters with oodles and oodles of green stuff but for the bit mixers and kitbashers its a nightmare as their armor and legs are not compatible with others, as they are almost all monopose. Scratch that all of them are monopose leading to them all having the same look.
The multipart kits come out as very stiff and very bland, as almost every primaris squad looks the same because you can't mess with their legs, or with their torso without having to use greenstuff. (having built forty of them you really need greenstuff to give them any unique look)
robbienw wrote: Sgt Smudge, i'm getting massive TLDR and hurting eyes from all the mini quotes in your last post. Just assume i disagree with most of what you said, especially the whataboutery
robbienw wrote: Sgt Smudge, i'm getting massive TLDR and hurting eyes from all the mini quotes in your last post. Just assume i disagree with most of what you said, especially the whataboutery
It's boxy and clunky in a bad way, rather than boxy and clunky in a good way.
Insightful design critique from a professional.
You claim that what makes a marine is tactical squads and load out but that is just your opinion not a fact. One of the reasons marines have been a success over the decades is that they appeal to so many people by being many things at once. Some like the gothic knightly business, some warrior monks, some military elites, some even werewolves on dogs. Marines can be it all and each person will have their own image of what a marine is. To you it’s the noble tactical squad but I bet many black Templar fans don’t see that when they think about marines or space wolf fans. What I have always seen about marines is perfectly captured by the new range, they are the essence of 1st edition marines to me, and load out doesn’t come into it.
So your whole argument is based around an opinion presented as a fact. So doesn’t stand up sorry.
Some opinions are better than others. For example, some opinions are more informed. When things are said like "The current Tactical Squad is significantly different then the original Tactical Squad", that's ill informed. When people say the styling of basic marines has drifted, that's ill informed.
If you want to have a real discussion, then argue in good faith and correct misinformation.
I assert that the Tactical squad is the core unit of the flagship faction of the flagship product of GW, and that it has been consistent for decades. I also assert that the other core/iconic units are primarily just variations on the Tactical Squad format. Primaris upends this.
I'd argue that the tactical squad isn't the "core unit of marines" rather the "core unit of marines" is a suit of pwoer armor, with large pauldrons, a backpack, and a bolter
BrianDavion wrote: I'd argue that the tactical squad isn't the "core unit of marines" rather the "core unit of marines" is a suit of pwoer armor, with large pauldrons, a backpack, and a bolter
in other words the core of space marines isn't
it's
This is exactly my point. The argument of "if a 'Tactical' Squad doesn't have a special weapon guy in it, then they're not even Space Marines" would mean that that lone model there can't be a Space Marine, when he clearly is.
I honestly don't know how someone can look at an Intercessor or any Primaris unit and not think "oh, they're a Space Marine unit".
EDIT: Also, I didn't realise just how similar that auto bolt rifle Intercessor and that lone Space Marine look.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's clearly not a Space Marine though because it can't take a single ineffective weapon at 5 dudes OR two mismatched ineffective weapons at 10 dudes.
They can do the first! Auxiliary grenade launcher is a thing! GW needs to add an auxiliary flamer so the Intercessors can finally be real marines!
robbienw wrote: Sgt Smudge, i'm getting massive TLDR and hurting eyes from all the mini quotes in your last post. Just assume i disagree with most of what you said, especially the whataboutery
Lame
There is objectively no reason to bother answering.
True, but making a "I can't be bothered to even read part of your argument, so I'm going to assume you made no valid points" is a bit immature. Just saying "I don't have time/I don't care/I can't be bothered to discuss this any more" would be preferable to saying "I haven't read it, but I'll assume you said nothing important".
Then stop breaking people's posts apart line by line. I don't read anyone's posts who does this and you're no exception.
BrianDavion wrote: I'd argue that the tactical squad isn't the "core unit of marines" rather the "core unit of marines" is a suit of pwoer armor, with large pauldrons, a backpack, and a bolter
in other words the core of space marines isn't
Spoiler:
it's
and there are plenty of variations on that
such as
etc. but yeah it's all the core identity.
Superficially, yes I agree. And I'd point out again that very few people are complaining about Primaris because of Intercessors.
Superficially.
If GW is deciding that "superficial" is enough. Fair enough. They have every right to do so. But that doesn't mean there are other things that are being lost with that. And that's what I'm concerned about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's clearly not a Space Marine though because it can't take a single ineffective weapon at 5 dudes OR two mismatched ineffective weapons at 10 dudes.
It's not my fault you're ineffective with your weapons
BrianDavion wrote: I'd argue that the tactical squad isn't the "core unit of marines" rather the "core unit of marines" is a suit of pwoer armor, with large pauldrons, a backpack, and a bolter
in other words the core of space marines isn't
Spoiler:
it's
and there are plenty of variations on that
such as
etc. but yeah it's all the core identity.
Superficially, yes I agree. And I'd point out again that very few people are complaining about Primaris because of Intercessors.
Superficially.
If GW is deciding that "superficial" is enough. Fair enough. They have every right to do so. But that doesn't mean there are other things that are being lost with that. And that's what I'm concerned about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's clearly not a Space Marine though because it can't take a single ineffective weapon at 5 dudes OR two mismatched ineffective weapons at 10 dudes.
It's not my fault you're ineffective with your weapons
Yeah because a single ML and Flamer at 145 points is core identity and SUPER effective.
Or you can get your head out of your ass and realize it was never good to begin with.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: True, but making a "I can't be bothered to even read part of your argument, so I'm going to assume you made no valid points" is a bit immature. Just saying "I don't have time/I don't care/I can't be bothered to discuss this any more" would be preferable to saying "I haven't read it, but I'll assume you said nothing important".
Then stop breaking people's posts apart line by line. I don't read anyone's posts who does this and you're no exception.
And what, leave a giant wall of text at the bottom, with no quotes and context to what part I'm replying to? Sounds like that would just lead to confusion as people scroll up and downwards trying to find which specific line and point I'm commenting on.
My apologies if you don't want to read comments like that, but I'm not going to change. I find it more annoying to read posts that don't make an effort to highlight which comments are in response to which. I remove previous comments from people who aren't the person I'm responding to, to reduce this bloat, but I think that breaking a person's argument down and tackling each part makes a far more detailed and comprehensive argument than a big block at the end.
There is literally no reason to pick apart people's posts line by line and respond to everyone. You do that, I don't read your posts, it's that simple.
Insectum7 wrote: Superficially, yes I agree. And I'd point out again that very few people are complaining about Primaris because of Intercessors.
Superficially.
If GW is deciding that "superficial" is enough. Fair enough. They have every right to do so. But that doesn't mean there are other things that are being lost with that. And that's what I'm concerned about.
If those things aren't to do with the aesthetic of the Space Marines, then it's not for this thread.
As far as aesthetic design goes, I think the Primaris *as a whole* fit just fine. Yes, there are some units which look more distinct from others, but that's also the same in the regular "core" lineup. Hell, Necromunda Palanites look more like Space Marines than the Scouts do. Of course, we all know that a Scout has lots of cloth and less armour, but they look more removed from the image of the Tactical Marine. Compare this to the Intercessor (the standard unit of the Primaris) and a Phobos unit like Infiltrators. They have far more in common stylistically, both wearing power armour, even though you can clearly see one is designed for stealth. Their designs are more closely linked, and still distinct enough to tell us what their role is.
Scouts and Tacticals have this, but look far less cohesive together.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimtuff wrote: There is literally no reason to pick apart people's posts line by line and respond to everyone.
Why not? If someone makes a point that I want to address, I will. I don't address EVERY point for the sake of it, of course, but there's no reason I *shouldn't*.
You do that, I don't read your posts, it's that simple.
I don't think what I do is asking much, but hey, not my problem. You do you.
BrianDavion wrote: I'd argue that the tactical squad isn't the "core unit of marines" rather the "core unit of marines" is a suit of pwoer armor, with large pauldrons, a backpack, and a bolter
in other words the core of space marines isn't
Spoiler:
it's
and there are plenty of variations on that
such as
etc. but yeah it's all the core identity.
Superficially, yes I agree. And I'd point out again that very few people are complaining about Primaris because of Intercessors.
Superficially.
If GW is deciding that "superficial" is enough. Fair enough. They have every right to do so. But that doesn't mean there are other things that are being lost with that. And that's what I'm concerned about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's clearly not a Space Marine though because it can't take a single ineffective weapon at 5 dudes OR two mismatched ineffective weapons at 10 dudes.
It's not my fault you're ineffective with your weapons
Yeah because a single ML and Flamer at 145 points is core identity and SUPER effective.
Or you can get your head out of your ass and realize it was never good to begin with.
Up until 8th edition a single Meltagun had a significantly non-zero chance of taking out most vehicles.
BrianDavion wrote: I'd argue that the tactical squad isn't the "core unit of marines" rather the "core unit of marines" is a suit of pwoer armor, with large pauldrons, a backpack, and a bolter
in other words the core of space marines isn't
Spoiler:
it's
and there are plenty of variations on that
such as
etc. but yeah it's all the core identity.
Superficially, yes I agree. And I'd point out again that very few people are complaining about Primaris because of Intercessors.
Superficially.
If GW is deciding that "superficial" is enough. Fair enough. They have every right to do so. But that doesn't mean there are other things that are being lost with that. And that's what I'm concerned about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's clearly not a Space Marine though because it can't take a single ineffective weapon at 5 dudes OR two mismatched ineffective weapons at 10 dudes.
It's not my fault you're ineffective with your weapons
Yeah because a single ML and Flamer at 145 points is core identity and SUPER effective.
Or you can get your head out of your ass and realize it was never good to begin with.
Up until 8th edition a single Meltagun had a significantly non-zero chance of taking out most vehicles.
LOL no it didn't. You still needed a good amount of them and in Melta range too, which doesn't mesh with the heavy weapon they're supposed to carry!
LOL no it didn't. You still needed a good amount of them and in Melta range too, which doesn't mesh with the heavy weapon they're supposed to carry!
8+2D6 take the highest armor penetration with a +2 on the damage table, delivered by Pods to close range and using Doctrines for re-rolls to hit. Combat squadded out to get two 5-man Tacticals in a Pod, redundancy with two Squads with Meltagun/Combi-melta each, and the Heavy Weapon Combat Squads in the backfield holding objectives.
"Git Gud" seems like the appropriate response here.
"Missile Launcher/Flamer" assumption is the epitome of strawmanning/bad faith. If you want a serious discussion you have to do better. If you don't want a serious discussion, as you were I guess, but don't expect a serious response.
Whether the setup is effective is besides the point. I find it hard to grasp that someone would see the exact gear setup being part of the core identity, to me it certainly isn't. Bolt weapons and power armour sure, but those optional other weapons certainly not. But this is pretty much 'agree to disagree' territory.
robbienw wrote: Sgt Smudge, i'm getting massive TLDR and hurting eyes from all the mini quotes in your last post. Just assume i disagree with most of what you said, especially the whataboutery
Lame
A wild Cartman appears.
Your horridly rude response warranted it.
Not really. A post with all the quotes broken up like that is extremely time consuming to properly reply to and in itself is poor etiquette. Now come down off your high horse.
LOL no it didn't. You still needed a good amount of them and in Melta range too, which doesn't mesh with the heavy weapon they're supposed to carry!
8+2D6 take the highest armor penetration with a +2 on the damage table, delivered by Pods to close range and using Doctrines for re-rolls to hit. Combat squadded out to get two 5-man Tacticals in a Pod, redundancy with two Squads with Meltagun/Combi-melta each, and the Heavy Weapon Combat Squads in the backfield holding objectives.
"Git Gud" seems like the appropriate response here.
"Missile Launcher/Flamer" assumption is the epitome of strawmanning/bad faith. If you want a serious discussion you have to do better. If you don't want a serious discussion, as you were I guess, but don't expect a serious response.
AKA you buy 4 separate 5 man groups or just use Command Squads.
Yeah you didn't help yourself dude. It isn't iconic so get over it
LOL no it didn't. You still needed a good amount of them and in Melta range too, which doesn't mesh with the heavy weapon they're supposed to carry!
8+2D6 take the highest armor penetration with a +2 on the damage table, delivered by Pods to close range and using Doctrines for re-rolls to hit. Combat squadded out to get two 5-man Tacticals in a Pod, redundancy with two Squads with Meltagun/Combi-melta each, and the Heavy Weapon Combat Squads in the backfield holding objectives.
"Git Gud" seems like the appropriate response here.
"Missile Launcher/Flamer" assumption is the epitome of strawmanning/bad faith. If you want a serious discussion you have to do better. If you don't want a serious discussion, as you were I guess, but don't expect a serious response.
AKA you buy 4 separate 5 man groups. . .
In other words: "The flexibility of the squad loadout allows you to appropriately arm them for the mission."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: "there's a power armored squad of men with bolters and a back up special weapon.. they must be space marines" said no one ever.
LOL no it didn't. You still needed a good amount of them and in Melta range too, which doesn't mesh with the heavy weapon they're supposed to carry!
8+2D6 take the highest armor penetration with a +2 on the damage table, delivered by Pods to close range and using Doctrines for re-rolls to hit. Combat squadded out to get two 5-man Tacticals in a Pod, redundancy with two Squads with Meltagun/Combi-melta each, and the Heavy Weapon Combat Squads in the backfield holding objectives.
"Git Gud" seems like the appropriate response here.
"Missile Launcher/Flamer" assumption is the epitome of strawmanning/bad faith. If you want a serious discussion you have to do better. If you don't want a serious discussion, as you were I guess, but don't expect a serious response.
AKA you buy 4 separate 5 man groups. . .
In other words: "The flexibility of the squad loadout allows you to appropriately arm them for the mission."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: "there's a power armored squad of men with bolters and a back up special weapon.. they must be space marines" said no one ever.
You're taking this surprisingly hard.
Grenade Launcher is more flexible than a single Flamer in a Tactical Squad. Are they not Space Marines if they don't carry something like that or a Missile Launcher?
Some opinions are better than others. For example, some opinions are more informed. When things are said like "The current Tactical Squad is significantly different then the original Tactical Squad", that's ill informed. When people say the styling of basic marines has drifted, that's ill informed.
Basic marines =/= the space marine faction. They represent one unit.
Marine design has drifted over the years, from rtb01 to the old 2nd ed and third ed tac squad, and onwards. Drift is slow, incremental changes. It's not something sudden and sharp. It's little things added one at a time, that over a period of time add up.
Marines have gotten far more stylistic and ornate since third ed, to the point where often the 'marine' element has been lost under a whole mountain of superfluous accessories and bells and whistles. There is a huge drift from the likes of the older designs to the likes of the current vanguard and sternguard for example. Or marneus' honour guard. Look at third ed space wolf grey hunts to the current space wolf pack. You could be less thankind to the sons of Russ and say it's a lot more 'cartoony' than it used to be. Personally, I much preferred their older kits.
I am not saying this is wrong. At all. Some people love this evolution and adore the 'walking reliquary' look. Fair play. Personally, I don't. But I don't think it's fair to say, with regard to the current chat on Primaris. when looking at what marine design has evolved into prior to their introduction, that it hasn't changed over the years.
I assert that the Tactical squad is the core unit of the flagship faction of the flagship product of GW, and that it has been consistent for decades. I also assert that the other core/iconic units are primarily just variations on the Tactical Squad format. Primaris upends this.
Again, tactical squads are not the space marine faction. They are often a first buy, but they only represent one kit out of the entire range.
And if I may - Terminators and scouts are variations on the tactical squad format? Please, can you explain.
robbienw wrote: Try replying to it, you will have a hard time then.
All I hear is apologetics for donkey-caveyness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimtuff wrote: There is literally no reason to pick apart people's posts line by line and respond to everyone. You do that, I don't read your posts, it's that simple.
This one says more about you and how you approach a discussion about proportions on a plastic space man than anything else.
It was hard to think of another term that was allowed for you when all you have basically added to the discussion is “I don’t like them” then been awkward and childish to any reasonable rebuttal. So all that word says about me is that I find your contribution to the discussion to be of no actual use.
This one says more about you and how you approach a discussion about proportions on a plastic space man than anything else.
It was hard to think of another term that was allowed for you when all you have basically added to the discussion is “I don’t like them” then been awkward and childish to any reasonable rebuttal. So all that word says about me is that I find your contribution to the discussion to be of no actual use.
Too bad this is not what happened. Anyone that reads the thread can read what has been posted about poses, proportions and use of tech. Which BTW have not been addressed beyond clumsy attempts to dismiss the validity of any criticism. Included your "haters" - hate is a very strong term dear boy, if one is childish for using it in this context it's you. So it's one of these two: 1) You are trying to gaslight 2) You are unable to read simple passages of text There are not other options.
Some opinions are better than others. For example, some opinions are more informed. When things are said like "The current Tactical Squad is significantly different then the original Tactical Squad", that's ill informed. When people say the styling of basic marines has drifted, that's ill informed.
Basic marines =/= the space marine faction. They represent one unit.
Marine design has drifted over the years, from rtb01 to the old 2nd ed and third ed tac squad, and onwards. Drift is slow, incremental changes. It's not something sudden and sharp. It's little things added one at a time, that over a period of time add up.
Marines have gotten far more stylistic and ornate since third ed, to the point where often the 'marine' element has been lost under a whole mountain of superfluous accessories and bells and whistles. There is a huge drift from the likes of the older designs to the likes of the current vanguard and sternguard for example. Or marneus' honour guard. Look at third ed space wolf grey hunts to the current space wolf pack. You could be less thankind to the sons of Russ and say it's a lot more 'cartoony' than it used to be. Personally, I much preferred their older kits.
I am not saying this is wrong. At all. Some people love this evolution and adore the 'walking reliquary' look. Fair play. Personally, I don't. But I don't think it's fair to say, with regard to the current chat on Primaris. when looking at what marine design has evolved into prior to their introduction, that it hasn't changed over the years.
If you look at the 2nd edition Tactical Marines alongside the 8th edition Tactical Marines (as shown earlier in this thread, if you like) you will see little difference. The same can be said for Devastators, Assault Marines, Terminators and Scouts-ish. Scouts got updated in 2nd edition to the aesthetic of their current incarnation. The plastics are basically plastic versions of the 2nd Ed. metals. These units together represent the stock organization of the vast majority of Space Marine chapters.
There is a bunch of optional stylization available, depending on your chapter or kits, the point however is that the defaults are unchanged. I'd also point out that stylization isn't new either. There are plenty of examples of very decorated ancient models. Sometimes this was done on the model itself, like the old Chapter Captains prior to 2nd Edition (OG Captain Tycho and Sicarius, for example). But a lot of times this was done in the paint job, checkers and stripes.
I assert that the Tactical squad is the core unit of the flagship faction of the flagship product of GW, and that it has been consistent for decades. I also assert that the other core/iconic units are primarily just variations on the Tactical Squad format. Primaris upends this.
Again, tactical squads are not the space marine faction. They are often a first buy, but they only represent one kit out of the entire range.
And if I may - Terminators and scouts are variations on the tactical squad format? Please, can you explain.
Scouts and Terminators follow the basic format of sergeant, troopers, heavy weapon. Scouts have a number of other options, but the core is present/available. The major deviation among the original units would be the assault units. Assault Squads and Terminator Squads. But, these squads both have/had options for engaging a mix of heavy and light targets. Terminators with their Thunder Hammer or Lighting Claws, Assault Squads with Plasma Pistols (admittedly not really cut out for heavy work, atm), Heavy CC weapons or Meltabombs on the Sergeant. (In the past they had more robust options, like the entire unit getting Meltabombs, or the entire unit being able to use Krak Grenades in CC.) I guess now they get an Eviscerator, fwiw.
The point is that the squads can be armed with a mixture of weapons for efficacy vs. different sorts of targets. The exact usefulness of those options waxes and wanes, but the principle is constant.
Also part of the format is the 5-10 model arrangement. Bikes are the only traditional unit that break the format with a minimum of 3, but their maximum is a full 10-man squad, though the Attack Bike counts as two.
This is not just the Space Marine format, but sort of the default Imperial format. Battle Sisters and Guardsmen do the same.
*Please ignore Centurions for this discussion. Or don't, but put a big fat asterisk next to them. I ask for your generosity in this regard. We can talk about them if you want, but they're a bit of a sideshow imo. Or maybe they're like Attack Bikes and Land Speeders, which are really more like alternate ways of fielding the units that Chapter organization is built around.
Grenade Launcher is more flexible than a single Flamer in a Tactical Squad. Are they not Space Marines if they don't carry something like that or a Missile Launcher?
You're not putting in any effort here, so I won't reply with any.
guardsmen aren't able to take 5 man squads, and custodes often orginize in 3 man squads, as do Centurions and Tyranids Warriors and of course Bikes. units of three seems to be pretty common for infantry on 40mm bases
Some opinions are better than others. For example, some opinions are more informed. When things are said like "The current Tactical Squad is significantly different then the original Tactical Squad", that's ill informed. When people say the styling of basic marines has drifted, that's ill informed.
Basic marines =/= the space marine faction. They represent one unit.
Marine design has drifted over the years, from rtb01 to the old 2nd ed and third ed tac squad, and onwards. Drift is slow, incremental changes. It's not something sudden and sharp. It's little things added one at a time, that over a period of time add up.
Marines have gotten far more stylistic and ornate since third ed, to the point where often the 'marine' element has been lost under a whole mountain of superfluous accessories and bells and whistles. There is a huge drift from the likes of the older designs to the likes of the current vanguard and sternguard for example. Or marneus' honour guard. Look at third ed space wolf grey hunts to the current space wolf pack. You could be less thankind to the sons of Russ and say it's a lot more 'cartoony' than it used to be. Personally, I much preferred their older kits.
I am not saying this is wrong. At all. Some people love this evolution and adore the 'walking reliquary' look. Fair play. Personally, I don't. But I don't think it's fair to say, with regard to the current chat on Primaris. when looking at what marine design has evolved into prior to their introduction, that it hasn't changed over the years.
If you look at the 2nd edition Tactical Marines alongside the 8th edition Tactical Marines (as shown earlier in this thread, if you like) you will see little difference. The same can be said for Devastators, Assault Marines, Terminators and Scouts-ish. Scouts got updated in 2nd edition to the aesthetic of their current incarnation. The plastics are basically plastic versions of the 2nd Ed. metals. These units together represent the stock organization of the vast majority of Space Marine chapters.
There is a bunch of optional stylization available, depending on your chapter or kits, the point however is that the defaults are unchanged. I'd also point out that stylization isn't new either. There are plenty of examples of very decorated ancient models. Sometimes this was done on the model itself, like the old Chapter Captains prior to 2nd Edition (OG Captain Tycho and Sicarius, for example). But a lot of times this was done in the paint job, checkers and stripes.
I assert that the Tactical squad is the core unit of the flagship faction of the flagship product of GW, and that it has been consistent for decades. I also assert that the other core/iconic units are primarily just variations on the Tactical Squad format. Primaris upends this.
Again, tactical squads are not the space marine faction. They are often a first buy, but they only represent one kit out of the entire range.
And if I may - Terminators and scouts are variations on the tactical squad format? Please, can you explain.
Scouts and Terminators follow the basic format of sergeant, troopers, heavy weapon. Scouts have a number of other options, but the core is present/available. The major deviation among the original units would be the assault units. Assault Squads and Terminator Squads. But, these squads both have/had options for engaging a mix of heavy and light targets. Terminators with their Thunder Hammer or Lighting Claws, Assault Squads with Plasma Pistols (admittedly not really cut out for heavy work, atm), Heavy CC weapons or Meltabombs on the Sergeant. (In the past they had more robust options, like the entire unit getting Meltabombs, or the entire unit being able to use Krak Grenades in CC.) I guess now they get an Eviscerator, fwiw.
The point is that the squads can be armed with a mixture of weapons for efficacy vs. different sorts of targets. The exact usefulness of those options waxes and wanes, but the principle is constant.
Also part of the format is the 5-10 model arrangement. Bikes are the only traditional unit that break the format with a minimum of 3, but their maximum is a full 10-man squad, though the Attack Bike counts as two.
This is not just the Space Marine format, but sort of the default Imperial format. Battle Sisters and Guardsmen do the same.
*Please ignore Centurions for this discussion. Or don't, but put a big fat asterisk next to them. I ask for your generosity in this regard. We can talk about them if you want, but they're a bit of a sideshow imo. Or maybe they're like Attack Bikes and Land Speeders, which are really more like alternate ways of fielding the units that Chapter organization is built around.
Grenade Launcher is more flexible than a single Flamer in a Tactical Squad. Are they not Space Marines if they don't carry something like that or a Missile Launcher?
You're not putting in any effort here, so I won't reply with any.
1. Scouts don't take the Heavy Weapon option even when being camping Snipers so do they actually fit the format? Big think
2. I made my statement. You just can't refute it.
BrianDavion wrote: guardsmen aren't able to take 5 man squads, and custodes often orginize in 3 man squads, as do Centurions and Tyranids Warriors and of course Bikes. units of three seems to be pretty common for infantry on 40mm bases
Guardsmen start at 10 but still share the number 10 with max sizes of the organizational units. Terminators are on 40mm and are 5 base.
I think Centurions are on 50mm but Centurions and Custodes are relatively recent and arguably part of the breakdown.
@Slayer.
1: Your preference for outfitting them doesn't change the underlying format.
2: Your statement wasn't addressing the point put forth. I've defined what "flexible" means in this context. Address the context provided.
robbienw wrote: Try replying to it, you will have a hard time then.
All I hear is apologetics for donkey-caveyness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimtuff wrote: There is literally no reason to pick apart people's posts line by line and respond to everyone. You do that, I don't read your posts, it's that simple.
robbienw wrote: Try replying to it, you will have a hard time then.
All I hear is apologetics for donkey-caveyness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimtuff wrote: There is literally no reason to pick apart people's posts line by line and respond to everyone. You do that, I don't read your posts, it's that simple.
And why should anybody care?
Lame.
Some say imitation is the best form of flattery. Thanks, babe, I’ll be here all week.
This one says more about you and how you approach a discussion about proportions on a plastic space man than anything else.
It was hard to think of another term that was allowed for you when all you have basically added to the discussion is “I don’t like them” then been awkward and childish to any reasonable rebuttal. So all that word says about me is that I find your contribution to the discussion to be of no actual use.
You can’t rebut people’s views on aethsetics though, because it is subjective. All you are saying is no your opinion is wrong because it’s not the same as my opinion.
Grimtuff wrote: There is literally no reason to pick apart people's posts line by line and respond to everyone. You do that, I don't read your posts, it's that simple.
And why should anybody care?
Because individual points are part of larger arguments and therefore have context. When individual points are picked apart only by dismissing the larger context, the picking apart is in obvious bad faith. If you have to remove context in order to refute a point, your overall argument is probably weak.
There's better ways to do it. Addressing the meat of an argument is only done by acknowledging and understanding the context in which statements are made. Addressing the whole argument shows an understanding of the argument, and shows that the reader is actually 'listening,. Statements addressed only out of context show that the reader is not putting in.the effort.
Continuous willfull dismissal of context to misinterpret statements in order to score points means you have a bad actor.
Insectum7 wrote: Because individual points are part of larger arguments and therefore have context. When individual points are picked apart only by dismissing the larger context, the picking apart is in obvious bad faith. If you have to remove context in order to refute a point, your overall argument is probably weak.
But at the same time, making a throwaway comment that cannot stand on it's own in order to pad out a larger argument shows that the larger argument could have been made more concise. Every individual part of an argument is supposed to form the basis of the main point, and therefore should be expected to stand up to scrutiny.
If your argument holds water, it shouldn't matter if it gets dissected.
There's better ways to do it. Addressing the meat of an argument is only done by acknowledging and understanding the context in which statements are made. Addressing the whole argument shows an understanding of the argument, and shows that the reader is actually 'listening,. Statements addressed only out of context show that the reader is not putting in.the effort.
Less effort than literally saying "I can't be bothered to read your argument, so I'm going to assume it's worthless?"
Honestly, even if someone genuinely couldn't be bothered to respond, saying nothing at all is better than making some kind of "hah your points were stupid" jab. It's just immature. Don't want to argue? Cool. Just back off and don't say anything. There's simply no need for petty "lol I'm going to assume you said nothing worthwhile" comments, I'm sure you'll agree.
Continuous willfull dismissal of context to misinterpret statements in order to score points means you have a bad actor.
And inability to dismantle an argument in it's constituent parts shows inability to deconstruct the argument itself and get to it's real meat, as you put it.
Suggesting that someone's argument is worthless because they deconstruct your points shows an extreme contempt for actually discussing civilly, or just laziness.
Still, this is all off topic in a discussion about the aesthetic of what makes a Space Marine and why apparently Primaris do not fit this aesthetic.
marines.
