Hi people. I hate and wouldn't want to be another one of ''those guys'', but since the release of 8ed, I've been mostly silent, and I just feel like I need to talk about it (who knows, maybe other people's perspective could change my mindset in a positive way).
So, when GW released their primaris SM, I was like "oh, a super SM", okay, guesse that's "original". I didn't thought much about it. After all, super space marines should be quite rare on the battlefield compared to regular space marines, right ? They should cost way more in points and thus constitute a small part of a space marine army list. Hell, since they are so super, they would probably be non-troop choice, right ? I got it all wrong of course.
All primaris list is way more common that I expected. Hell, I hardly even see regular marines (except smash captains and bikers). But hey, it's okay, people get to play what they want. Playing an army of super super humans isn't any different than playing custodes or GK (at least during 5th edition).
But then... came the vanguard...
I must confess, I discovered w40k when I was in high school in the early 2000's. I was at a gaming store and saw the Mythic Dawn of War game. The cover looked interesting. But then I got a look at the back. And this is when I fell in love with 40k. There was a bloodthirster. And space marines. Seeing this blend of fantasy and sci-fi at the same time, that was unimaginable for the uncultured naive young teenager I was back then. And the gothic look if it all.
I couldn't buy the game, of course. Back then, parents didn't bought every last tech gadget or game their children wanted (as opposed to today where kids not even in high school already have an Xbobx account, a cellphone, and all that other *$**).
However, I got a cd for the demo (which only covered the first mission). What a glorious experience it was ! Gabriel Angelos swinging his sword, the grim look of the fortress monastery, the sinister dreadnought (the concept was morbid as a teenager), the religious catchphrase the units would shout. It was all perfect.
To make it short, I fell in love with the grimdark and the gothic vibe.
Now let's look at today. Can anyone tell me what is grimdark or gothic about a phobos captain model ? Hell, the servo-skull coming with him is more gothic and grim than the marine himself. The primaris invictor warsuit and the redemptor dreadnought look like villains from a bad Robocop movie. Hell, the SM are becoming more tacticool and vanilla sci-fi than the T'au.
I feel like the game is changing in a drastic way. Maybe not rulewise (I actually like the 8ed format), but in its fluff. This isn't the grimdark setting I knew. This is just some regular space odyssey with giant supermen with starcraft-esque armours battling inferior monstrous enemies.
To most competitive players, this doesn't matter. They play to win. Hell, I even know a few who never bothered learning about the fluff of their SM army. I told myself to just adapt to the changing times and stop being so immature, and that maybe this evolution of things would grew on me.
However, GW tacticool ghost recon SM fetish finally hammered the last nail in the coffin for me when they remade Shrike.
I know some people might find him cool, and I am not here to argue about your tastes. Bt this clearly told me that it was the end. There is nothing remotely W40k about this model in my eyes. It's just some emo dude wearing a vanilla powered suit that could have been seen in an Avengers movie.
Since GW clearly wants to make pre-8ed marines and the overall grimdark fade in the background, I sincerely think about just scrapping it all up. I might wait to see how the sisters of battle will be (since they seem to still fit the old vibe), but besides that, w40k seriously dropped in my list of favorite game (setting-wise).
I think that GW has released a new cool space marine model for marine players. I don't read all that far into it - also I note that whilst many keep saying that the "grimdark is gone" its also at a time that a new Crusade has launched; Cadia has fallen; the Imperium is torn in half and everything is steadily slipping to Hell.
Tyranids have been driven back once again, but only just and the result is still a second marine chapter almost totally annihilated in the war. Meanwhile Tiamat is building some kind of superplanet construct for purposes totally unknown at present. Then you've got the Genestealer Cults arising on many worlds to the point where they are no longer a background distraction, but now organised powerful military forces capable of overthrowing worlds far in advance of the swarms approach.
Orks are making rumblings that they might be building toward a mega-WARGH with hints that we might see primal/ancient/prime orks arise to lead it.
Tau are striking out and gaining more and more territories and growing as a new threat to the solidarity of the Imperium.
Eldar are running around and partly uniting; a fragmented shattered race steadily gaining some power even in these dark times and that could easily rise up to manipulate the Imperium in ways that they've never done before.
Honestly I think the real difference is that some mature fans ahve build a mental image of the grimdark that was SO grimdark it was never actually true. Even back in the early days the Imperium had hope. It had a chance to win. It had insurmountable odds against it that it overcame. And yet for all that they are still losing the war at large; they are still only treding water. Heck they've brought back one of the great lords of the Marines to help respark the engine of war and unleash primaris marines and even that hasn't actually turned the tide of war (in fact since they've appeared Cadia fell, the Imperium got cut in half and such).
Yeah, maybe it's just me getting old and having this whole ''back in my days everything was better'' mentality. I guess we must all go throught it at some point.
Still, I think I'll stay away from SM armies for a while (or at least the newer models). I'll stick with necrons and CSM (at least they still fit my tastes). Hell, maybe even go the extra mile and start a Slaanesh army.
Khornate25 wrote: Yeah, maybe it's just me getting old and having this whole ''back in my days everything was better'' mentality. I guess we must all go throught it at some point.
Still, I think I'll stay away from SM armies for a while (or at least the newer models). I'll stick with necrons and CSM (at least they still fit my tastes). Hell, maybe even go the extra mile and start a Slaanesh army.
As someone building a Slaanesh force I'd say go for it!
Chaos have had some really fantastic models released as of late and if I were into building another 40K army I'd be very interested in building a Chaos force with all those new warp beast machines they've got!
Or you could even jump ship and come to AoS - the new Bone Construct army is out; or you can go REALLY slaanesh with a Slaanesh demons army. Deamonettes, vast keepers of secrets, fiends and all! In AoS the 4 Chaos gods can field their own whole army force not just be one cog of a unity. With the base changes only the Seekers are on different bases between the two games (and honestly the bike-bases are odd looking on seekers and the cavalry bases from AoS are better).
But yeah chances are you've build a mental image and are running on a nostalgic view that isn't quite true. You might even try some of the Black Library works, reading some classic stories and reading some newer ones. It might be a fresh injection of actual lore and writing could help you.
Inhate how the Xenos are getting the short stick. Even more then usual. The IoM got Primaries and TWO whole new entire fething armys. The Custodes and SoS not to mention a god damn Primarch. Chaoa actually had a succusful Black Crusade for the first time ever and managed to assualt freaking Terra itself. Meanwhile what have ANY of the xenos done during that time? What new Xenos armys or major fluff devolpments. I mean the focus has always been on Choas and IoM but the Xenos got shafted even more then usual this time. And that doesnt aeem to be changing. There doesnt seem to be any major plot devlopements for any of the xen0s OTHER then the Eldar in the future.
chimera0205 wrote: Inhate how the Xenos are getting the short stick. Even more then usual. The IoM got Primaries and TWO whole new entire fething armys. The Custodes and SoS not to mention a god damn Primarch. Chaoa actually had a succusful Black Crusade for the first time ever and managed to assualt freaking Terra itself. Meanwhile what have ANY of the xenos done during that time? What new Xenos armys or major fluff devolpments. I mean the focus has always been on Choas and IoM but the Xenos got shafted even more then usual this time. And that doesnt aeem to be changing. There doesnt seem to be any major plot devlopements for any of the xen0s OTHER then the Eldar in the future.
Didn't the GSC get triggered into a fullblown Revolution attempt?
I think the thing is that you've developed a set of habits in relation to 40k and now that you're done with it the habits remain. When those sour and you need to tell everyone how bad it is or where GW went wrong that's when you need to work on building new habits. At least that's how I'm thinking about it right now. I think the people who enjoy it should enjoy it and I need to figure out how to move on.
chimera0205 wrote: Inhate how the Xenos are getting the short stick. Even more then usual. The IoM got Primaries and TWO whole new entire fething armys. The Custodes and SoS not to mention a god damn Primarch. Chaoa actually had a succusful Black Crusade for the first time ever and managed to assualt freaking Terra itself. Meanwhile what have ANY of the xenos done during that time? What new Xenos armys or major fluff devolpments. I mean the focus has always been on Choas and IoM but the Xenos got shafted even more then usual this time. And that doesnt aeem to be changing. There doesnt seem to be any major plot devlopements for any of the xen0s OTHER then the Eldar in the future.
new xenos army? we got Genestealer cults. thing is that in 40k we have a lot of Imperial stuff in the background that can easily be spun into it's own army. with xenos we got..... help me out here, is there a single xenos race GW could make a new army out of? xenos races with considerable background development IN THE MATERIAL ALREADY?
the answer is "not really" Tau I suppose could be expanded easily eneugh. but...
The lore isn't really changing. In Dark Imperium we see Guilliman try to introduce this tacticool, reasonable attitude to the Imperium and facing huge resistance, having to compromise and accepting some amount of grimdark into his program in order to keep the Imperium together.
And if you look at the model range, the Sisters of Battle look plenty gothic. New chaos is plenty grimdark aesthetically, and looks fantastic IMHO. Genestealer cults are plenty grimdark. Reading the fluff recently we've got suicide bombers on every side, a horrific plague war which is in line with Vraks and other depictions of guard life, etc.
Yes, the primaris space marines are aesthetically distinct from the oldmarines, particularly they are less gothic and more sleek (except the tanks which are derpy overgunned monstrosities). That is perfectly in line with what they are in-lore, and in-lore they are an anomaly which has not moved the needle all that much for the rest of the setting in terms of grimdarkness.
Yes Primaris are less aesthetically gothic than some previous generations of marines, but if you're worried that the overall model range is avoiding grimdark, here's a model they revealed a couple days ago:
Danielle Rae wrote: The lore isn't really changing. In Dark Imperium we see Guilliman try to introduce this tacticool, reasonable attitude to the Imperium and facing huge resistance, having to compromise and accepting some amount of grimdark into his program in order to keep the Imperium together.
And if you look at the model range, the Sisters of Battle look plenty gothic. New chaos is plenty grimdark aesthetically, and looks fantastic IMHO. Genestealer cults are plenty grimdark. Reading the fluff recently we've got suicide bombers on every side, a horrific plague war which is in line with Vraks and other depictions of guard life, etc.
Yes, the primaris space marines are aesthetically distinct from the oldmarines, particularly they are less gothic and more sleek (except the tanks which are derpy overgunned monstrosities). That is perfectly in line with what they are in-lore, and in-lore they are an anomaly whiich has not moved the needle all that much for the rest of the setting in terms of grimdarkness.
Yeah, maybe it's just me that needs to look at the bigger picture.
The CSM and Sisters do indeed keep the whole grimdark gothic vibe alive. I'll probably pick up the new sister set upcoming in the future.
BrianDavion wrote: new xenos army? we got Genestealer cults. thing is that in 40k we have a lot of Imperial stuff in the background that can easily be spun into it's own army. with xenos we got..... help me out here, is there a single xenos race GW could make a new army out of? xenos races with considerable background development IN THE MATERIAL ALREADY?
the answer is "not really" Tau I suppose could be expanded easily eneugh. but...
The Q'orl could be made into a playable xenos faction. With their semi-willingness to make alliances with other races, their connection to Chaos, and the fluff about them possibly acquiring warp travel, there's alot that could be done with them.
Danielle Rae wrote: The lore isn't really changing. In Dark Imperium we see Guilliman try to introduce this tacticool, reasonable attitude to the Imperium and facing huge resistance, having to compromise and accepting some amount of grimdark into his program in order to keep the Imperium together.
And if you look at the model range, the Sisters of Battle look plenty gothic. New chaos is plenty grimdark aesthetically, and looks fantastic IMHO. Genestealer cults are plenty grimdark. Reading the fluff recently we've got suicide bombers on every side, a horrific plague war which is in line with Vraks and other depictions of guard life, etc.
Yes, the primaris space marines are aesthetically distinct from the oldmarines, particularly they are less gothic and more sleek (except the tanks which are derpy overgunned monstrosities). That is perfectly in line with what they are in-lore, and in-lore they are an anomaly whiich has not moved the needle all that much for the rest of the setting in terms of grimdarkness.
Yeah, maybe it's just me that needs to look at the bigger picture.
The CSM and Sisters do indeed keep the whole grimdark gothic vibe alive. I'll probably pick up the new sister set upcoming in the future.
It's not an uncommon sentiment, and I can see why it would suck to see your faction moving away from the aesthetic you prefer. But yeah the new sisters are legiiiiit
After I'm done my night lords they're my next pick. Mine are gonna look prett yweird tho cuz I'm gonna kitbash them with some Escher bitz to make an undisciplined frontier order stuck in the dark imperium.
I started disliking new lore around the time necrons were revamped into space tomb kings. And then things continued to get worse from there. I definitely think the initial Dawn of War era is my idea of iconic 40k. Things feel different now, on one hand we are getting things I despise like primaris, primarchs returning etc. But on the other hand we are getting aeronautica imperialis and other stuff like sisters of battle which distinctly capture the feel I had been looking for.
Thargrim wrote: Things feel different now, on one hand we are getting things I despise like primaris, primarchs returning etc. But on the other hand we are getting aeronautica imperialis and other stuff like sisters of battle which distinctly capture the feel I had been looking for.
I genuinely think they are trying to appeal to both camps. It makes sense that 40k space marines are the ones getting the most generic styling with the widest possible mainstream appeal. Space marines are their most popular line and if they can appeal to kids with the Primaris aesthetic, it gives them a good chance at potentially securing some lifelong customers.
On the other hand, the more expensive, less accessible specialist stuff like Titanicus or the niche factions like Sisters both definitely retain the baroque, gothic aesthetic, which might appeal more to an older crowd.
I don't think you're wrong really. Marines are much less grimdark/gothic with the new models and more tacticool especially with the phobos models but even the other marines are basically very clean cut.
Now, I don't think that's wrong per say, I actually kinda like the tacticool but its there. I actually think the new scion models for guard look a bit more gothic with their armor and set up. So could just be an evolution for Marines, we'll need to keep an eye how the line keeps progressing.
Thargrim wrote: Things feel different now, on one hand we are getting things I despise like primaris, primarchs returning etc. But on the other hand we are getting aeronautica imperialis and other stuff like sisters of battle which distinctly capture the feel I had been looking for.
I genuinely think they are trying to appeal to both camps. It makes sense that 40k space marines are the ones getting the most generic styling with the widest possible mainstream appeal. Space marines are their most popular line and if they can appeal to kids with the Primaris aesthetic, it gives them a good chance at potentially securing some lifelong customers.
On the other hand, the more expensive, less accessible specialist stuff like Titanicus or the niche factions like Sisters both definitely retain the baroque, gothic aesthetic, which might appeal more to an older crowd.
Ok but here's the thing. Was Games Workshop really having trouble selling Space Marines? Everything I've heard points to "No." Apparently they've outsold everything else, since like, forever. I'm not sure Space Marines needed a redesign in order to capture new audiences. It feels more like they needed to redesign Space Marines to sell them again to the same audience.
thing iis Primaris Marines aren't THAT aesteticly differant. and it's not like Primaris Marnes have no grimdark. the redemptor dread fluff is pretty grimdark, for example.
I don't know I'm not a huge fan of the redemptor fluff, feels more OMG the power !!. Putting your vets into a promised death machine. I mean I guess knowing they'll melt into goo is grim but I'd say a regular dread is more grim dark with knowing how they degrade and basically could live almost forever seemingly like the emperor trapped in their own personal throne to protect humanity.
Just opinion on that front though seems a dumb waste of experience all things considered. Though it does match the dune crawler fluff for how they change out their engine, which is a vanguard skittari.
BrianDavion wrote: thing iis Primaris Marines aren't THAT aesteticly differant.
Different enough, obviously.
they are but they're not noticably more or less gothic then normal marines. they still have sculpted eagles on their armor, and have relic boxes dangling from their belts. they're differant but not because GW "removed the gothic"
Ok but here's the thing. Was Games Workshop really having trouble selling Space Marines? Everything I've heard points to "No." Apparently they've outsold everything else, since like, forever. I'm not sure Space Marines needed a redesign in order to capture new audiences. It feels more like they needed to redesign Space Marines to sell them again to the same audience.
Notice how GW has actually been producing (some of) the things people have been asking for for more than a decade? One of those things was properly sized space marines.
They could have just made normal space marines bigger, but they'd be just as incompatible as Primaris Marines are with oldmarines, part-wise. They gave them improved rules and statlines so that people with marine armies could justify buying 'bigger, better' marines rather than 'marines that look bigger but are mechanically identical to the ones I own and have already painted'. Truescaling old marines also would have taken years to get every kit through the production schedule and would have tanked the sales of old marines as people probably would have just waited for truescale to come for their favorite unit.
While the fluff reasons might not be to a lot of people's liking, GW's method of truescaling Space Marines was well thought out.
BrianDavion wrote: thing iis Primaris Marines aren't THAT aesteticly differant.
Different enough, obviously.
they are but they're not noticably more or less gothic then normal marines. they still have sculpted eagles on their armor, and have relic boxes dangling from their belts. they're differant but not because GW "removed the gothic"
They do have winged skulls on their armor but I do not recall them bearing the aquila on the chest. Compare any new primaris artwork to the old black templars, dark angels, sm with ultras on the cover, etc codexes from the 2000s and the difference is clear as day to me.
BrianDavion wrote: thing iis Primaris Marines aren't THAT aesteticly differant.
Different enough, obviously.
they are but they're not noticably more or less gothic then normal marines. they still have sculpted eagles on their armor, and have relic boxes dangling from their belts. they're differant but not because GW "removed the gothic"
They do have winged skulls on their armor but I do not recall them bearing the aquila on the chest. Compare any new primaris artwork to the old black templars, dark angels, sm with ultras on the cover, etc codexes from the 2000s and the difference is clear as day to me.
a slightly differant aquillia doesn't prove anything. space marine devestators lack the aquilla all together. as do mk3 and 4 armor. the decoration on marine armor tends to vary, even within the same mark. that doesn't really change anything. I'm not claiming the armor is exactly the same obviously, just that people claiming it lacks any gothic 40k elements are well.. wrong (or they don't know what gothic means)
BrianDavion wrote: thing iis Primaris Marines aren't THAT aesteticly differant.
Different enough, obviously.
they are but they're not noticably more or less gothic then normal marines. they still have sculpted eagles on their armor, and have relic boxes dangling from their belts. they're differant but not because GW "removed the gothic"
They do have winged skulls on their armor but I do not recall them bearing the aquila on the chest. Compare any new primaris artwork to the old black templars, dark angels, sm with ultras on the cover, etc codexes from the 2000s and the difference is clear as day to me.
a slightly differant aquillia doesn't prove anything. space marine devestators lack the aquilla all together. as do mk3 and 4 armor. the decoration on marine armor tends to vary, even within the same mark. that doesn't really change anything. I'm not claiming the armor is exactly the same obviously, just that people claiming it lacks any gothic 40k elements are well.. wrong (or they don't know what gothic means)
Maybe this can highlight the difference i'm seeing and feeling going on.
Spoiler:
If you ask me one of these certainly looks better than the other, and has the gritty detail I would normally associate with 40k.
BrianDavion wrote: thing iis Primaris Marines aren't THAT aesteticly differant.
Different enough, obviously.
they are but they're not noticably more or less gothic then normal marines. they still have sculpted eagles on their armor, and have relic boxes dangling from their belts. they're differant but not because GW "removed the gothic"
They do have winged skulls on their armor but I do not recall them bearing the aquila on the chest. Compare any new primaris artwork to the old black templars, dark angels, sm with ultras on the cover, etc codexes from the 2000s and the difference is clear as day to me.
a slightly differant aquillia doesn't prove anything. space marine devestators lack the aquilla all together. as do mk3 and 4 armor. the decoration on marine armor tends to vary, even within the same mark. that doesn't really change anything. I'm not claiming the armor is exactly the same obviously, just that people claiming it lacks any gothic 40k elements are well.. wrong (or they don't know what gothic means)
Maybe this can highlight the difference i'm seeing and feeling going on.
Spoiler:
If you ask me one of these certainly looks better than the other, and has the gritty detail I would normally associate with 40k.
It's funny, the baroque elements are often times still there, but just really 'cleaned up' or otherwise minimized. The Redemptor still has the aquila and the purity seal but the visual emphasis on both elements is substantially reduced compared to some of the older dreads.
BrianDavion wrote: thing iis Primaris Marines aren't THAT aesteticly differant.
Different enough, obviously.
they are but they're not noticably more or less gothic then normal marines. they still have sculpted eagles on their armor, and have relic boxes dangling from their belts. they're differant but not because GW "removed the gothic"
Ok, so that's one thing mentioned by the OP. But just one. Another one is "techy tacticool", which the OP specifically calls out with the Phobos. I'd put "techy tacticool" as decidedly "less gothic", btw.
Ok but here's the thing. Was Games Workshop really having trouble selling Space Marines? Everything I've heard points to "No." Apparently they've outsold everything else, since like, forever. I'm not sure Space Marines needed a redesign in order to capture new audiences. It feels more like they needed to redesign Space Marines to sell them again to the same audience.
Notice how GW has actually been producing (some of) the things people have been asking for for more than a decade? One of those things was properly sized space marines.
They could have just made normal space marines bigger, but they'd be just as incompatible as Primaris Marines are with oldmarines, part-wise. They gave them improved rules and statlines so that people with marine armies could justify buying 'bigger, better' marines rather than 'marines that look bigger but are mechanically identical to the ones I own and have already painted'. Truescaling old marines also would have taken years to get every kit through the production schedule and would have tanked the sales of old marines as people probably would have just waited for truescale to come for their favorite unit.
While the fluff reasons might not be to a lot of people's liking, GW's method of truescaling Space Marines was well thought out.
Ehhh, Primaris are taking years to push out, and it's possible sales for the classics has tanked during that time. Plus, they didn't simply add "truescale marines", they wrote in "marine replacements" with a dozen new units that I'm not sure anyone was asking for.
On top of that, they did truescale Chaos just fine, but to a different scale than Primaris.
To top it all off, the old kits are pretty compatable with the Primaris anyways, do just upscaling marines slightly teally shouldnt have been an issue.
BrianDavion wrote: thing iis Primaris Marines aren't THAT aesteticly differant.
Different enough, obviously.
they are but they're not noticably more or less gothic then normal marines. they still have sculpted eagles on their armor, and have relic boxes dangling from their belts. they're differant but not because GW "removed the gothic"
They do have winged skulls on their armor but I do not recall them bearing the aquila on the chest. Compare any new primaris artwork to the old black templars, dark angels, sm with ultras on the cover, etc codexes from the 2000s and the difference is clear as day to me.
a slightly differant aquillia doesn't prove anything. space marine devestators lack the aquilla all together. as do mk3 and 4 armor. the decoration on marine armor tends to vary, even within the same mark. that doesn't really change anything. I'm not claiming the armor is exactly the same obviously, just that people claiming it lacks any gothic 40k elements are well.. wrong (or they don't know what gothic means)
Maybe this can highlight the difference i'm seeing and feeling going on.
Spoiler:
If you ask me one of these certainly looks better than the other, and has the gritty detail I would normally associate with 40k.
except thats not every marine ever made is it? and it's scertainly not represented on the armor. I could selectivly choose pictures to make it look like primaris have more details etc.
watch
Spoiler:
I mean that ultramarine in the lower picture (yes I know it's from a video game) is honestly a pretty accurate depiction of what a normal MK 7 marine min looks like.
It is true that there's been a lot of IoM- there ALWAYS is at the beginning of every edition, which is why I hate new editions. The key to Xenos love is picking an edition and STICKING with it long enough to get all the IoM stuff outta the way. With the new marine supplements and sisters on the way, we have finally arrived at the sweet spot. So have faith- GW has too many interdependant games right now to do a new edition for a while, so it's coming.
I mean every faction, including the Xenos ones are going to be getting new material in Psychic Awakening. For some factions it'll be just rules; for some it will be models; for others it might be both. Either way, all Xenos get something.
But beyond that, I want to dispute the claim that it's been terrible for Xenos at all. The Genestealer Cult did technically re-emerge in 7th, but mere months before 8th dropped. Even so, 8th expanded on the GSC BIGTIME! New vehicles, new characters. And they played a HUGE role in Vigilus, getting new content out of that set of supplements.
Then Speed Freaks, right? I know, the buggies aren't as effective as the tournament players want them to be, but that's a bucket of new cool models, and the game that was their delivery system was a Xenos only club. Ork vs Ork!
Now, plastic Aspects have started up. Only Banshees so far, but there it is. This leads us to Eldar.
You may not like Ynead and all of that fluff, but damn! It was BIG content for Eldar players. The capacity to put Elder and Dark Eldar in the same army via the Ynari? That is a crazy freakin game changer.
I do feel sorry for Dark Eldar- they've lost so much, and gained nothing in return (in terms of models and content- obsessions and strategems are solid, and their special raiding force rule was really cool til GW supermaxed battalions and brigades). Again, I think it's coming in 2020.
I also feel sorry for the Tau, which brings me to my final talking point- which is the response to the earlier suggestion that there wasn't enough Xenos to just spontaneously create and army. The Tau Empire is exactly that. Kroot and Vespids are an untapped mine. I don't actually like Vespid models...
But I love Kroot. If GW released a plastic greater gnarloc model tomorrow, I'd have one before noon even if it cost as much as a freakin knight. Furthermore, it also wouldn't matter to me whether it was a competitive choice or not.
I think there actually are Imperial Armour rules from a previous edition for a fully developed Kroot army. There you go... That's the army that could be drummed up outta the ether with very little effort. And because it already has a partner in Tau, even if the army isn't top tier, SOUP will help build a player base and provide support. And again, I'm pretty sure it's coming.
Oh, and by the way, both Dayak Grehk and Amalyn Shadowguide approve of this post.
Speaking as someone who has been collecting since RT days, I don't have a problem with the Primaris marines. I'm not fond of their in-universe background, and I do wish they had simply come out as replacements for the old models - not a supplemental/supplanting force.
I do also disagree with those claiming that the grimdark isn't changing. The video below - though clearly for marketing - is clearly anti-grimdark: Space Marines are depicted as Superheroes (that kids should look up to...) fighting off humanity's bad guys. Not the psychotic, genetically engineered killing machine xenophobic fighting for a corpse emperor in a bureaucratic nightmare world.
I feel that GW has sold and split up the marine lines so much, that they cannot keep up with everything and have sold so many marines they have built a bubble of players that could easily bleed off.
Like with a lot of things, they needed to be working away from this 10 years ago.
They need the marine players buying, but they also need players of the other armys around to keep the game interesting.
So more Space marines to sell.
When looking here and other places there are already people that have spent more on primeris marines than i have had to buy in the last decade. They have not had enough products for me to spend that much for the army i want to play.
Game is going to be nothing but space marines and GW will be sitting going no one wants to buy anything else.
When I started back in 3rd edition. Space Marine models did not look at all like I imagined they would based on pictures and fluff that they had. They were too streamlined, not gothic enough, not enough bling. The dark ages of the future was what drew me into 40k, I hate sci fi gak, clean is boring to me. Which is why at the time I went with Chaos Marines, because they looked like how the fluff was described.
Then around 4th/5th. GW decided to make actually good looking marines. Super gothic/ornamented, very busy models. They looked fantastic, and for the first time, I actually wanted to buy regular space marines.
Now it looks like they've gone back to the original design and to me (besides the better proportions) they look bland and boring. I super hate the new tacticool look of the phobos stuff. If I wanted that garbage I'd play infinity.
My hope is that future releases will bring in more of the baroque/gothic look. I would love nothing more than Black Templars and Grey Knights to come back in full swing.
They knocked Custodes and Sisters out of the park so far. I want more of that.
Give me chainswords and bling. Get that sci fi gak outta my 40K.
BrianDavion wrote: thing iis Primaris Marines aren't THAT aesteticly differant.
Different enough, obviously.
they are but they're not noticably more or less gothic then normal marines. they still have sculpted eagles on their armor, and have relic boxes dangling from their belts. they're differant but not because GW "removed the gothic"
They do have winged skulls on their armor but I do not recall them bearing the aquila on the chest. Compare any new primaris artwork to the old black templars, dark angels, sm with ultras on the cover, etc codexes from the 2000s and the difference is clear as day to me.
a slightly differant aquillia doesn't prove anything. space marine devestators lack the aquilla all together. as do mk3 and 4 armor. the decoration on marine armor tends to vary, even within the same mark. that doesn't really change anything. I'm not claiming the armor is exactly the same obviously, just that people claiming it lacks any gothic 40k elements are well.. wrong (or they don't know what gothic means)
Maybe this can highlight the difference i'm seeing and feeling going on.
Spoiler:
If you ask me one of these certainly looks better than the other, and has the gritty detail I would normally associate with 40k.
I get what you're saying, and yeah I agree. Like that old large pic of a space marine battle company in parade rest with the chaplain walking down the line I assume looking them over and giving out some litanies before they'll perhaps board some transports. Such iconic, gritty and raw pics as opposed to the cleaner and more pretty look they seem to be pressing for. It's an opinion thing but yeah it's a stark artistic difference to be sure to hint at direction.
I feel like the game is changing in a drastic way. Maybe not rulewise (I actually like the 8ed format), but in its fluff. This isn't the grimdark setting I knew. This is just some regular space odyssey with giant supermen with starcraft-esque armours battling inferior monstrous enemies.
Fluff-wise, the dark age has been left behind and the renaissance is the new age.
This is indicated by replacing the Tactical Marines by Primaris.
Stormonu wrote: I do also disagree with those claiming that the grimdark isn't changing. The video below - though clearly for marketing - is clearly anti-grimdark: Space Marines are depicted as Superheroes (that kids should look up to...) fighting off humanity's bad guys. Not the psychotic, genetically engineered killing machine xenophobic fighting for a corpse emperor in a bureaucratic nightmare world.
GW were advertising Space Marines in that way since at least 5th edition though as well.
That video isn't exactly a "here's a detailed explanation of what a Space Marine is", it's a "here's a Space Marine talking and hyping himself and his brothers up".
Or are we supposed to believe that when GSC talk about salvation and freedom in their video ads they're also not grimdark too? Because freedom and liberty are also things kids should be looking up to.
The only real difference I see between the two is the style in which they were painted. I don't have much in the way of photo editing, but I ran the Primaris one through a couple of filters to grit it up (well make it look more like a 90's line drawing). Does that help it fit in with the old style or am I missing something?
Stormonu wrote:Speaking as someone who has been collecting since RT days, I don't have a problem with the Primaris marines. I'm not fond of their in-universe background, and I do wish they had simply come out as replacements for the old models - not a supplemental/supplanting force.
I do also disagree with those claiming that the grimdark isn't changing. The video below - though clearly for marketing - is clearly anti-grimdark: Space Marines are depicted as Superheroes (that kids should look up to...) fighting off humanity's bad guys. Not the psychotic, genetically engineered killing machine xenophobic fighting for a corpse emperor in a bureaucratic nightmare world.
You're ignoring the fact of how different the various chapters can be from each other. The Ultramarines portrayed here are very much the most 'reasonable' and 'heroic' of the SM, the poster boys for the Imperium. GW has made it plenty clear though that chapters like the Grey Knights, Flesh Tearers, Marines Malevolent, and Deathwatch are alot more uncompromising. Also, with the new emphasis on creating your own chapter, GW has given official sanction to create chapters that are as noblebright or grimdark as one likes.
Ehhh, Primaris are taking years to push out, and it's possible sales for the classics has tanked during that time. Plus, they didn't simply add "truescale marines", they wrote in "marine replacements" with a dozen new units that I'm not sure anyone was asking for.
On top of that, they did truescale Chaos just fine, but to a different scale than Primaris.
To top it all off, the old kits are pretty compatable with the Primaris anyways, do just upscaling marines slightly teally shouldnt have been an issue.
The fact that the Primaris units don't actually 'replace' existing units on a 1:1 basis seems pretty much intentional to NOT tank sales of regular marines. Obviously regular marines are going to decline in sales, but units of Lascannon Devastators or squads jumping out of Drop Pods (especially now) still have uses.
They could 'truescale' CSM fairly easily because there are way fewer CSM kits and way fewer CSM players - that and Chaos has an easy justification for bigger CSM (Chaos gifts).
As to compatibility, it's mostly arms that are compatible, and even then regular marine arms look out of place on Primaris without some work. It would have been less of an issue for proper truescales, but again you're still looking at re-creating dozens of SM kits to true-scale everything, and throwing out molds that are still selling units to do it.
That video isn't exactly a "here's a detailed explanation of what a Space Marine is", it's a "here's a Space Marine talking and hyping himself and his brothers up".
Or are we supposed to believe that when GSC talk about salvation and freedom in their video ads they're also not grimdark too? Because freedom and liberty are also things kids should be looking up to.
Exactly, this video is meant to look like hype and propaganda, nothing more. It is what the Imperium wants its people to believe what the Space Marines are all like.
I certainly dislike the trend of making marines into shiny noble heroes instead of grim psychotic killers, but that has nothing to do with the Primaris and the trend has been going on much, much longer. The Black Library is a big contributor to that, but it has been pretty apparent in the GW material too.
BrianDavion wrote: thing iis Primaris Marines aren't THAT aesteticly differant.
Different enough, obviously.
they are but they're not noticably more or less gothic then normal marines. they still have sculpted eagles on their armor, and have relic boxes dangling from their belts. they're differant but not because GW "removed the gothic"
They do have winged skulls on their armor but I do not recall them bearing the aquila on the chest. Compare any new primaris artwork to the old black templars, dark angels, sm with ultras on the cover, etc codexes from the 2000s and the difference is clear as day to me.
a slightly differant aquillia doesn't prove anything. space marine devestators lack the aquilla all together. as do mk3 and 4 armor. the decoration on marine armor tends to vary, even within the same mark. that doesn't really change anything. I'm not claiming the armor is exactly the same obviously, just that people claiming it lacks any gothic 40k elements are well.. wrong (or they don't know what gothic means)
Maybe this can highlight the difference i'm seeing and feeling going on.
Spoiler:
If you ask me one of these certainly looks better than the other, and has the gritty detail I would normally associate with 40k.
The one above hasn’t done anything worth mentioning and his clean armour shows it, the one below is covered in trophies and reminders of centuries of service, the difference is a bits box away. Problem is you are expecting a grim dark sprue of chains, fetishes and other trinkets(one of these days I’ll make that sound less like something to look for in a sex shop)...the fact GW hasn’t reboxed one for 40k is kind of surprising.
The Primaris chapter upgrade sprues are bland, embossed shoulder pads are great and all but I’ve been raiding Age of Sigmar Chaos kits to make my Space Wolves look like Space Wolves.
Crimson wrote: I certainly dislike the trend of making marines into shiny noble heroes instead of grim psychotic killers, but that has nothing to do with the Primaris and the trend has been going on much, much longer. The Black Library is a big contributor to that, but it has been pretty apparent in the GW material too.
I would say that is more a factor of GW focusing on the more noble chapters, as well as; hyping up their honorable aspects while downplaying their flaws. Which i just chalk up to marketing to them making their product more appealing to a wider audience. That is completely understandable. All the vile stuff is still there just hidden behind the scenery. Which is in some ways even more grimdark. It is starting to get a little tiring that fewer and fewer people are looking behind the scenery to see that all that grime is still there though.
I think there is pretty much a chapter for any sort of warrior disposition from knightly paragons, boisterous sci-fi vikings, stoic warrior poets, self-reflective fighting monks, professional soldiers, imperialistic bullies, mercenary cutthroats, despicable antiheroes, noble savages and even insane psychopaths. And that is just the loyalists. In terms of making your chapter your own, this works really well. If you want to infuse your local area with more grim psychotic killers make your chapter that way. There might be a meta story now that the players can't control, but at a local level they still get to dictate how good or evil their little corner of the galaxy is in the way they think about their army.
I think the Imperium 'bigging up' and misrepresenting Space marines as infallible heroes, when they are out there committing mass atrocious is far more grim-dark than the 2 dimensional "They are bad, this is bad, everything is bad all the time" approach, that some seem to think is "better" (it's also a satirical take on how the military is presented by national governments to their populous in real life)
40k has always had a darkly comic streak. It is steeped in irony and what better way to satirise the age we currently live in, of constant superheroes, than having the biggest, most awesome superheroes ever? I just hope they keep pushing it, making them seem so unbelievably noble and "good" before having them eventually split and turn traitor, to really show just how susceptible humans are to corruption, to mirror the Horus Heresy and show that history repeats itself.
BrianDavion wrote: new xenos army? we got Genestealer cults. thing is that in 40k we have a lot of Imperial stuff in the background that can easily be spun into it's own army. with xenos we got..... help me out here, is there a single xenos race GW could make a new army out of? xenos races with considerable background development IN THE MATERIAL ALREADY?
the answer is "not really" Tau I suppose could be expanded easily eneugh. but...
The Q'orl could be made into a playable xenos faction. With their semi-willingness to make alliances with other races, their connection to Chaos, and the fluff about them possibly acquiring warp travel, there's alot that could be done with them.
Rak'Gol, Hrud, Barghesi, Slaugth, K'nib, Loxatl, Tarellians, Thyruss, Stryxis. Fair few right there off of the top of my head. So stop being obtuse Brian, there are literally loads they can use.
Rak'Gol, Stryxis and the Slaugth all have plenty of background material written for them in the Dark Heresy RPG books. More than enough to expand upon. All of the others have been mentioned in numerous places in the background but never expanded upon. Whole races have been built up from less, such as the Kroot and C'tan.
Barghesi could so easily be brought into the fray it's just laughable. They are such a threat that several SM chapters are stationed around the system they originate in just to keep them contained there (this is all the info there is on them right now) The Great Rift opens. Boom! In the ensuing chaos (ahem...) they are able to capitalise on this and break free. And it doesn't just go for them. Surely other species other than the GSCs have taken advantage of the instability the rift has caused?
Tarellians can be rolled into Tau (they work for them anyway), just give them some minis. Going this route you can even expand on the Vespid and Kroot or even any number of the Tau's client races that are mentioned in the background. They have a lot.
BrianDavion wrote: new xenos army? we got Genestealer cults. thing is that in 40k we have a lot of Imperial stuff in the background that can easily be spun into it's own army. with xenos we got..... help me out here, is there a single xenos race GW could make a new army out of? xenos races with considerable background development IN THE MATERIAL ALREADY?
the answer is "not really" Tau I suppose could be expanded easily eneugh. but...
The Q'orl could be made into a playable xenos faction. With their semi-willingness to make alliances with other races, their connection to Chaos, and the fluff about them possibly acquiring warp travel, there's alot that could be done with them.
Rak'Gol, Hrud, Barghesi, Slaugth, K'nib, Loxatl, Tarellians, Thyruss, Stryxis. Fair few right there off of the top of my head. So stop being obtuse Brian, there are literally loads they can use.
Rak'Gol, Stryxis and the Slaugth all have plenty of background material written for them in the Dark Heresy RPG books. More than enough to expand upon. All of the others have been mentioned in numerous places in the background but never expanded upon. Whole races have been built up from less, such as the Kroot and C'tan.
Barghesi could so easily be brought into the fray it's just laughable. They are such a threat that several SM chapters are stationed around the system they originate in just to keep them contained there (this is all the info there is on them right now) The Great Rift opens. Boom! In the ensuing chaos (ahem...) they are able to capitalise on this and break free. And it doesn't just go for them. Surely other species other than the GSCs have taken advantage of the instability the rift has caused?
Tarellians can be rolled into Tau (they work for them anyway), just give them some minis. Going this route you can even expand on the Vespid and Kroot or even any number of the Tau's client races that are mentioned in the background. They have a lot.
Hmm. These Barghesi seem interesting. Just read on them after seeing your post. I also saw some fanarts depicting them. Is there an official source for their physical appearance ? I've also read that Drukhari beastmasters use them in the arenas for their death matches.
BrianDavion wrote: new xenos army? we got Genestealer cults. thing is that in 40k we have a lot of Imperial stuff in the background that can easily be spun into it's own army. with xenos we got..... help me out here, is there a single xenos race GW could make a new army out of? xenos races with considerable background development IN THE MATERIAL ALREADY?
the answer is "not really" Tau I suppose could be expanded easily eneugh. but...
The Q'orl could be made into a playable xenos faction. With their semi-willingness to make alliances with other races, their connection to Chaos, and the fluff about them possibly acquiring warp travel, there's alot that could be done with them.
Rak'Gol, Hrud, Barghesi, Slaugth, K'nib, Loxatl, Tarellians, Thyruss, Stryxis. Fair few right there off of the top of my head. So stop being obtuse Brian, there are literally loads they can use.
Rak'Gol, Stryxis and the Slaugth all have plenty of background material written for them in the Dark Heresy RPG books. More than enough to expand upon. All of the others have been mentioned in numerous places in the background but never expanded upon. Whole races have been built up from less, such as the Kroot and C'tan.
Barghesi could so easily be brought into the fray it's just laughable. They are such a threat that several SM chapters are stationed around the system they originate in just to keep them contained there (this is all the info there is on them right now) The Great Rift opens. Boom! In the ensuing chaos (ahem...) they are able to capitalise on this and break free. And it doesn't just go for them. Surely other species other than the GSCs have taken advantage of the instability the rift has caused?
Tarellians can be rolled into Tau (they work for them anyway), just give them some minis. Going this route you can even expand on the Vespid and Kroot or even any number of the Tau's client races that are mentioned in the background. They have a lot.
I'm not being obtuse, I said "considerable background material" *sighs* ok, it's like this.. before Admech even came out, how much information did we have about the admech? we had TONS. Also just as importantly.. how much ART etc did we have of them? TONS. the admech where developed as a faction well before they got their codex. sure they invented new things but a lot of the leg work was already done. Likewise with Custodes, we already knew a fair bit (largely thanks to the excellent referance material from the Horus Heresy). Likewise with Genestealer cults, the new Xenos faction, we had tons of information, art etc about them out in the wild. We knew who they where, and GW knew who they where.
These armies where, comparitvly low hanging fruit to design. And just as importantly where widely known. Which is my point. GW seems mostly intreasted in making new factions of stuff that already exists, so It seems unreasonable to expect them to take an alien race mentioned once or twice and make an entire 40k army out of it. I'd love to see it, but I don't see it as a realistic expection. of course I also didn't think 40k would ever get a new army back when I started in 5th
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormonu wrote: Speaking as someone who has been collecting since RT days, I don't have a problem with the Primaris marines. I'm not fond of their in-universe background, and I do wish they had simply come out as replacements for the old models - not a supplemental/supplanting force.
I do also disagree with those claiming that the grimdark isn't changing. The video below - though clearly for marketing - is clearly anti-grimdark: Space Marines are depicted as Superheroes (that kids should look up to...) fighting off humanity's bad guys. Not the psychotic, genetically engineered killing machine xenophobic fighting for a corpse emperor in a bureaucratic nightmare world.
err those aren't kids looking up to space marines adoringly. those are INITIATES. even their propaganda video, outright tells us that space marines take CHILDREN and forge them into living weapons. IMHOGW still does the grimdark thing, they're just more subtle about it.
It is true that there's been a lot of IoM- there ALWAYS is at the beginning of every edition, which is why I hate new editions. The key to Xenos love is picking an edition and STICKING with it long enough to get all the IoM stuff outta the way. With the new marine supplements and sisters on the way, we have finally arrived at the sweet spot. So have faith- GW has too many interdependant games right now to do a new edition for a while, so it's coming.
I mean every faction, including the Xenos ones are going to be getting new material in Psychic Awakening. For some factions it'll be just rules; for some it will be models; for others it might be both. Either way, all Xenos get something.
But beyond that, I want to dispute the claim that it's been terrible for Xenos at all. The Genestealer Cult did technically re-emerge in 7th, but mere months before 8th dropped. Even so, 8th expanded on the GSC BIGTIME! New vehicles, new characters. And they played a HUGE role in Vigilus, getting new content out of that set of supplements.
Then Speed Freaks, right? I know, the buggies aren't as effective as the tournament players want them to be, but that's a bucket of new cool models, and the game that was their delivery system was a Xenos only club. Ork vs Ork!
Now, plastic Aspects have started up. Only Banshees so far, but there it is. This leads us to Eldar.
You may not like Ynead and all of that fluff, but damn! It was BIG content for Eldar players. The capacity to put Elder and Dark Eldar in the same army via the Ynari? That is a crazy freakin game changer.
I do feel sorry for Dark Eldar- they've lost so much, and gained nothing in return (in terms of models and content- obsessions and strategems are solid, and their special raiding force rule was really cool til GW supermaxed battalions and brigades). Again, I think it's coming in 2020.
I also feel sorry for the Tau, which brings me to my final talking point- which is the response to the earlier suggestion that there wasn't enough Xenos to just spontaneously create and army. The Tau Empire is exactly that. Kroot and Vespids are an untapped mine. I don't actually like Vespid models...
But I love Kroot. If GW released a plastic greater gnarloc model tomorrow, I'd have one before noon even if it cost as much as a freakin knight. Furthermore, it also wouldn't matter to me whether it was a competitive choice or not.
I think there actually are Imperial Armour rules from a previous edition for a fully developed Kroot army. There you go... That's the army that could be drummed up outta the ether with very little effort. And because it already has a partner in Tau, even if the army isn't top tier, SOUP will help build a player base and provide support. And again, I'm pretty sure it's coming.
Oh, and by the way, both Dayak Grehk and Amalyn Shadowguide approve of this post.
Honestly what we need is a Mercenary Codex for the Tau. With new Kroot and Vespids. Along Guevesa Models and models for other Tau client races mentioned in the lore like Demiurg and Tallerians.
I'd say it's better to take something that exists in the background and expand on it than to take something existing and reverse their lore to make a small army.
GW aren't really subtle about their grimdark just confused about it.
I'm not being obtuse, I said "considerable background material" *sighs* ok, it's like this.. before Admech even came out, how much information did we have about the admech? we had TONS. Also just as importantly.. how much ART etc did we have of them? TONS. the admech where developed as a faction well before they got their codex. sure they invented new things but a lot of the leg work was already done. Likewise with Custodes, we already knew a fair bit (largely thanks to the excellent referance material from the Horus Heresy). Likewise with Genestealer cults, the new Xenos faction, we had tons of information, art etc about them out in the wild. We knew who they where, and GW knew who they where.
These armies where, comparitvly low hanging fruit to design. And just as importantly where widely known. Which is my point. GW seems mostly intreasted in making new factions of stuff that already exists, so It seems unreasonable to expect them to take an alien race mentioned once or twice and make an entire 40k army out of it. I'd love to see it, but I don't see it as a realistic expection. of course I also didn't think 40k would ever get a new army back when I started in 5th
I repeat. Kroot and C'tan. Both of which either came from a single drawing in the 3rd ed rulebook or from scant mentions in various pieces (such as the Callidus' weapon) of 40k background. Rick Priestley mentions a bit referring to the "Gates of C'tarn" (IIRC) which was retroactively fitted into the background of the blank slate of the C'tan.
So, using your criteria we have Kroot (which can easily be expanded into a stand alone codex (again) a la Chaos Daemons), Rak'Gol, Slaugth, Stryxis, Vespid, Loxatl, Hrud, Thyruss, Umbra. There is a LOT of artwork and/or background material for all of these that can easily be used. And don't say "Well some of those are from the RPG. Joe Bloggs isn't going to know them!" firstly, who cares? GW have arse pulled something for various races all the time. Secondly, some of them are mentioned in BL fiction numerous times, like they're easing people in to their existence. Rak'Gol are mentioned in the first Bile novels for example. Loxatl are a key ally to Chaos forces in the Gaunt's Ghosts novels.
There is a whole wealth of untapped material out there that GW just doesn't dwell into, despite them being fairly important movers and shakers in the 40k galaxy.
Rak'gol and Barghesi are both awesome candidates for new playable alien races. Also, it's high time we get a xenos faction that is tied to Chaos, which both of these species have.
Khornate25 wrote: Hi people.
I feel like the game is changing in a drastic way. Maybe not rulewise (I actually like the 8ed format), but in its fluff. This isn't the grimdark setting I knew. This is just some regular space odyssey with giant supermen with starcraft-esque armours battling inferior monstrous enemies.
To most competitive players, this doesn't matter. They play to win. Hell, I even know a few who never bothered learning about the fluff of their SM army. I told myself to just adapt to the changing times and stop being so immature, and that maybe this evolution of things would grew on me.
However, GW tacticool ghost recon SM fetish finally hammered the last nail in the coffin for me when they remade Shrike.
The aptly named Repulser wan't enough on its own,
but when I saw those Restartes with flight-packs and auto cannons,
it all went over the edge...
And totally agree with the not so grim setting.
If Sly Marbo was Sylvester Stallone's Rambo,
the new Shrike is Jared Leto's Punisher.
Khornate25 wrote: Yeah, maybe it's just me getting old and having this whole ''back in my days everything was better'' mentality. I guess we must all go throught it at some point.
I don't know when you got started in the hobby, but if you got started at an early age I can promise that the feeling of grimdark lies most likely in entirely how you were as a person then being introduced to something new and fresh. If you were getting into the hobby now, but at the same age as you originally got into it, you'd probably feel the entire setting to be very grimdark.
There is a great deal of emotional nostalgia that reinforces a lot of our viewpoints regarding things. I would say that a lot of people's feelings on old 40k are reinforced by such emotional nostalgia.
Khornate25 wrote: Yeah, maybe it's just me getting old and having this whole ''back in my days everything was better'' mentality. I guess we must all go throught it at some point.
I don't know when you got started in the hobby, but if you got started at an early age I can promise that the feeling of grimdark lies most likely in entirely how you were as a person then being introduced to something new and fresh. If you were getting into the hobby now, but at the same age as you originally got into it, you'd probably feel the entire setting to be very grimdark.
There is a great deal of emotional nostalgia that reinforces a lot of our viewpoints regarding things. I would say that a lot of people's feelings on old 40k are reinforced by such emotional nostalgia.
I'll push back on this and say when I started in the hobby, the Horus Heresy novels didn't exist, Lexicanum didn't exist, digital photography wasn't a thing, video game graphics werent any competition, and a lot more about the 40k universe had to be filled in with your own imagination.
There's a case to be made for the horror-movie technique of "the less you know, the more powerful the effect."
Khornate25 wrote: Yeah, maybe it's just me getting old and having this whole ''back in my days everything was better'' mentality. I guess we must all go throught it at some point.
I don't know when you got started in the hobby, but if you got started at an early age I can promise that the feeling of grimdark lies most likely in entirely how you were as a person then being introduced to something new and fresh. If you were getting into the hobby now, but at the same age as you originally got into it, you'd probably feel the entire setting to be very grimdark.
There is a great deal of emotional nostalgia that reinforces a lot of our viewpoints regarding things. I would say that a lot of people's feelings on old 40k are reinforced by such emotional nostalgia.
I'll push back on this and say when I started in the hobby, the Horus Heresy novels didn't exist, Lexicanum didn't exist, digital photography wasn't a thing, video game graphics werent any competition, and a lot more about the 40k universe had to be filled in with your own imagination.
There's a case to be made for the horror-movie technique of "the less you know, the more powerful the effect."
I agree with that point. 40k was very much just a mystery at that point for many. However, I would add that the mystery usually looks bigger the younger you are compared to an aging cynic like myself.
Khornate25 wrote: Yeah, maybe it's just me getting old and having this whole ''back in my days everything was better'' mentality. I guess we must all go throught it at some point.
I don't know when you got started in the hobby, but if you got started at an early age I can promise that the feeling of grimdark lies most likely in entirely how you were as a person then being introduced to something new and fresh. If you were getting into the hobby now, but at the same age as you originally got into it, you'd probably feel the entire setting to be very grimdark.
There is a great deal of emotional nostalgia that reinforces a lot of our viewpoints regarding things. I would say that a lot of people's feelings on old 40k are reinforced by such emotional nostalgia.
I'll push back on this and say when I started in the hobby, the Horus Heresy novels didn't exist, Lexicanum didn't exist, digital photography wasn't a thing, video game graphics werent any competition, and a lot more about the 40k universe had to be filled in with your own imagination.
There's a case to be made for the horror-movie technique of "the less you know, the more powerful the effect."
Insectum7 wrote:^I agree that age (or just lack of time) has that effect.
But for an IP which was built upon wild imagination, it sure stinks to see the company not encourage it as much. (No model-no rules)
Unfortunately, it is the younger market that hasnt grown up with imagination at the forefront since everything is CGI and over commercialized.
I really liked filling in the blanks with gameplay. Tyranids invading, Orks Pillaging, Chaos chaos-ing, were all fodder for prelude to next battle or consequences of the last. My squad of Salamanders had epic battles both on tabletop and creating stories to solve a riddle left in the rulebook/codex/army list.
This thread is really just becoming - "It was way better back in my day, kids these days don't know how to do it properly!" (Never mind that GW is bigger, more popular and successful than ever before)
Hollow wrote: This thread is really just becoming - "It was way better back in my day, kids these days don't know how to do it properly!" (Never mind that GW is bigger, more popular and successful than ever before)
More like GW nearly killed itself with the original AOS release and the mess that was late 6th/most of 7th and managed to turn things around by rebooting it's most popular line and at release having a rule set that wasn't terrible.
Since then 8th has slowly drifted back to the rules bloat and while I appreciate GW being more active with fixing things, I really wish they would do a lot more play testing and get their head out of their ass over losing the chapter house fight.
I started at the end of 4th and while it had problems 5th edition to me is still the gold standard as far as being able to have a pick up game.
8th like 7th at this point requires a lot of pregame discussion for a fun game and is feeling more and more like a ccg that's about who can stack the most strats, traits and relics to get some insane combo rather than a war game about positioning, tactics and in game decisions.
Hollow wrote: This thread is really just becoming - "It was way better back in my day, kids these days don't know how to do it properly!" (Never mind that GW is bigger, more popular and successful than ever before)
Do you think the lack of unit options because of kit limitations has made the game more popular? If so, I'd like to know why you think that.
There's no denying that 40K is popular and profitable, and nobody is saying it shouldn't be. What is being said is that some part of it have perhaps been unnecessarily sacrificed along the way. Like, how is Games Workshop so afraid of 3rd party bits that they feel the need to limit rules designers to strictly what can be packaged in a neat box?
I definitely agree marines are losing all the grimdark that made them cool, but on the flip side admech may be one of the most grim Imperium armies they've ever released, and sisters are shaping up that way too.
I think it's more of cleaning up marines to appeal to today's modern aesthetic, much like Tau were meant to do, while sisters and admech are more "fan service" armies, ones meant to appeal to the hardcore playerbases.
It absolutely sucks for marines, I can't stand how Primaris are being handled like some bastardized overwatch/masseffect/cawlofduty genre trope, but as long as I'm allowed to run old style marines and other armies keep the grimdark, I'm happy.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I definitely agree marines are losing all the grimdark that made them cool, but on the flip side admech may be one of the most grim Imperium armies they've ever released, and sisters are shaping up that way too.
I think it's more of cleaning up marines to appeal to today's modern aesthetic, much like Tau were meant to do, while sisters and admech are more "fan service" armies, ones meant to appeal to the hardcore playerbases.
It absolutely sucks for marines, I can't stand how Primaris are being handled like some bastardized overwatch/masseffect/cawlofduty genre trope, but as long as I'm allowed to run old style marines and other armies keep the grimdark, I'm happy.
not sure why old marines are any moire grimdark then primaris. Primaris run arouind carrying little boxes of bones which is about as grimdark as the Marine MINIS ever got.
and if you think Primaris means everything's hunky dory and perfect, I've a reccomendation for you.
seriously go read that, it features primaris p[retty heavily but isn't all light and shinyness. (the fact is, the Emperor's Spears chapter is proably doomed. and I'd argue their existance is typical of a chapter caught in Imperium Nohlus)
The heroic proportions make them less Grimdark, as do the Tau flight fins. Chunky proportions come across as more 'primitive'.
The stats make them less grimdark, 2W and 2A when most other factions have 1W 1A base makes our 'heroes' less desperate.
The tacticool stuff makes them less Grimdark. Grimdark problem solving favors simplicity and brutality, rather than a batman belt. A rusty AK is more grimdark than a clean AR-15 with a dozen attachments on the rails.
The lack of Chainswords in less grimdark.
The flying tanks are less grimdark. When humanity has to rumble along on primitive designs against technologically superior foes, that is more grimdark.
You can say to read the stories to make the grimdark come across, but I think that's a bit of a failure. Grimdark is imagery, and should be apparent in the actual imagery, of which the models are the focus.
However, I got a cd for the demo (which only covered the first mission). What a glorious experience it was ! Gabriel Angelos swinging his sword, the grim look of the fortress monastery, the sinister dreadnought (the concept was morbid as a teenager), the religious catchphrase the units would shout. It was all perfect.
To make it short, I fell in love with the grimdark and the gothic vibe.
Same here. The old-style crusading and religious zealotry combined with highly advanced (albeit regressing) technology is really what hit it off for me. So much of the new stuff... It looks too new an efficient for something the Imperium would put out, and seems like it'd upset many of the traditionalists within the Imperium (think Ecclesiarchy.)
I always thought that it'd be cool for Guilliman's return to be more controversial within the Imperium. One side embraces him as their savior, an avenging angel blessed by the Emperor himself. The other side (Aministratum, Ecclesiarchy, elements of the Mechanicus) revolt at the idea, fearing that their places of power and status will be usurped, and/or the erasure of the old ways.
The tacticool stuff makes them less Grimdark. Grimdark problem solving favors simplicity and brutality, rather than a batman belt.
A curious example when many would consider quite a lot of Batman to be quite grimdark.
Batman's a useful example, actually. Because we've seen cornball Batman as well as Grimdark Batman. Same character, he's got a mask, a cape, gadgets and the rest. . . but it's all about the tone and presentation.
"Whut? He's Batman, you can tell because he has a bat on his chest." Like, obviously the tone can change even though the same elements are present.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I definitely agree marines are losing all the grimdark that made them cool, but on the flip side admech may be one of the most grim Imperium armies they've ever released, and sisters are shaping up that way too.
I think it's more of cleaning up marines to appeal to today's modern aesthetic, much like Tau were meant to do, while sisters and admech are more "fan service" armies, ones meant to appeal to the hardcore playerbases.
It absolutely sucks for marines, I can't stand how Primaris are being handled like some bastardized overwatch/masseffect/cawlofduty genre trope, but as long as I'm allowed to run old style marines and other armies keep the grimdark, I'm happy.
not sure why old marines are any moire grimdark then primaris. Primaris run arouind carrying little boxes of bones which is about as grimdark as the Marine MINIS ever got.
and if you think Primaris means everything's hunky dory and perfect, I've a reccomendation for you.
seriously go read that, it features primaris p[retty heavily but isn't all light and shinyness. (the fact is, the Emperor's Spears chapter is proably doomed. and I'd argue their existance is typical of a chapter caught in Imperium Nohlus)
I'll definitely look it up. I should also note that I've heard snippets of lore claiming everything isn't hunky dory. Stuff like the curse of the wulfen and the red rage showing up in Primaris, and then there's apparently some falling out the dark angels had with their Primaris (it's a joke, because of the fallen, get it? Yeah I'll stop )
On the looks department, take one look at a classic black Templar or Dark Angels model and tell me in what world does any Primaris match that. They're on a whole other level. I'm not saying all the primaris are bad (a lot are, but some look good) but it's pretty objectively proven that they're nowhere near as grimdark as old marines. I mean for Pete's sake they don't even really have chainswords, that's grimdark 101
BrianDavion wrote: new xenos army? we got Genestealer cults. thing is that in 40k we have a lot of Imperial stuff in the background that can easily be spun into it's own army. with xenos we got..... help me out here, is there a single xenos race GW could make a new army out of? xenos races with considerable background development IN THE MATERIAL ALREADY?
the answer is "not really" Tau I suppose could be expanded easily eneugh. but...
The Q'orl could be made into a playable xenos faction. With their semi-willingness to make alliances with other races, their connection to Chaos, and the fluff about them possibly acquiring warp travel, there's alot that could be done with them.
Rak'Gol, Hrud, Barghesi, Slaugth, K'nib, Loxatl, Tarellians, Thyruss, Stryxis. Fair few right there off of the top of my head. So stop being obtuse Brian, there are literally loads they can use.
Rak'Gol, Stryxis and the Slaugth all have plenty of background material written for them in the Dark Heresy RPG books. More than enough to expand upon. All of the others have been mentioned in numerous places in the background but never expanded upon. Whole races have been built up from less, such as the Kroot and C'tan.
Barghesi could so easily be brought into the fray it's just laughable. They are such a threat that several SM chapters are stationed around the system they originate in just to keep them contained there (this is all the info there is on them right now) The Great Rift opens. Boom! In the ensuing chaos (ahem...) they are able to capitalise on this and break free. And it doesn't just go for them. Surely other species other than the GSCs have taken advantage of the instability the rift has caused?
Tarellians can be rolled into Tau (they work for them anyway), just give them some minis. Going this route you can even expand on the Vespid and Kroot or even any number of the Tau's client races that are mentioned in the background. They have a lot.
Thank you. I was beginning to question if this was a 40k forum for a second the fact that it took so long for someone to call that out.
The tacticool stuff makes them less Grimdark. Grimdark problem solving favors simplicity and brutality, rather than a batman belt.
A curious example when many would consider quite a lot of Batman to be quite grimdark.
Speaking on Batman, Gotham, is pretty grim dark. Batman himself can have aspects but by and large he's tacticool, some of his enemies are pretty grimdark. You could say it was the Grimdark of Gotham that made bat man but Batman himself in the traditional sense isn't as Grimdark as he is tacticool.
BrianDavion wrote: new xenos army? we got Genestealer cults. thing is that in 40k we have a lot of Imperial stuff in the background that can easily be spun into it's own army. with xenos we got..... help me out here, is there a single xenos race GW could make a new army out of? xenos races with considerable background development IN THE MATERIAL ALREADY?
the answer is "not really" Tau I suppose could be expanded easily eneugh. but...
The Q'orl could be made into a playable xenos faction. With their semi-willingness to make alliances with other races, their connection to Chaos, and the fluff about them possibly acquiring warp travel, there's alot that could be done with them.
Rak'Gol, Hrud, Barghesi, Slaugth, K'nib, Loxatl, Tarellians, Thyruss, Stryxis. Fair few right there off of the top of my head. So stop being obtuse Brian, there are literally loads they can use.
Rak'Gol, Stryxis and the Slaugth all have plenty of background material written for them in the Dark Heresy RPG books. More than enough to expand upon. All of the others have been mentioned in numerous places in the background but never expanded upon. Whole races have been built up from less, such as the Kroot and C'tan.
Barghesi could so easily be brought into the fray it's just laughable. They are such a threat that several SM chapters are stationed around the system they originate in just to keep them contained there (this is all the info there is on them right now) The Great Rift opens. Boom! In the ensuing chaos (ahem...) they are able to capitalise on this and break free. And it doesn't just go for them. Surely other species other than the GSCs have taken advantage of the instability the rift has caused?
Tarellians can be rolled into Tau (they work for them anyway), just give them some minis. Going this route you can even expand on the Vespid and Kroot or even any number of the Tau's client races that are mentioned in the background. They have a lot.
Thank you. I was beginning to question if this was a 40k forum for a second the fact that it took so long for someone to call that out.
Hrud would be an amazing race ruleswise!
ANd even then, putting in some hints, some little lore tidbits, and other bits for a new race is not that hard. Expanding on a race for release is probably the easy part, the issue is GW is fairly uncreative with this sorta stuff.
I think they just not really interested in making 40k feel expansive, or giving players ideas at things.
Creativity within the box of our minis and not much further from there seems to be the order.
Joker is about as grimdark psychotic killer as you can get. I mean The Killing Joke is, to put it mildly, pretty fu*k'd up. Gotham as a setting is definitely grimdark, just not 40k grimdark. Gotham City is probably at the bottom of one of the hives on terra and there is an actual bat-man fighting crime down there for BiggiE. With All'frrdd as his butler servitor and Chris McDonnell as his trusty sidekick, Kill Career.
Racerguy180 wrote: Joker is about as grimdark psychotic killer as you can get. I mean The Killing Joke is, to put it mildly, pretty fu*k'd up. Gotham as a setting is definitely grimdark, just not 40k grimdark. Gotham City is probably at the bottom of one of the hives on terra and there is an actual bat-man fighting crime down there for BiggiE. With All'frrdd as his butler servitor and Chris McDonnell as his trusty sidekick, Kill Career.
except the joker ISN'T Grimdark, not always, the Joker varies from slapstick criminal just having fun to lunitic psyko to mob boss and variations of all those extremes.
which actually makes a fair point for those who compare Batman to 40k Batman can be 4 colour, grim dark or a whole wide varity of flavors depending on whose telling the story. (Batman TAS did a great episode that actually exlored that it was called Legends of the Dark Knight) 40k is really much the same, what it is can sometimes vary from author to author, source to source, artist to artist.
Khornate25 wrote: Hi people. I hate and wouldn't want to be another one of ''those guys'', but since the release of 8ed, I've been mostly silent, and I just feel like I need to talk about it (who knows, maybe other people's perspective could change my mindset in a positive way).
So, when GW released their primaris SM, I was like "oh, a super SM", okay, guesse that's "original". I didn't thought much about it. After all, super space marines should be quite rare on the battlefield compared to regular space marines, right ? They should cost way more in points and thus constitute a small part of a space marine army list. Hell, since they are so super, they would probably be non-troop choice, right ? I got it all wrong of course.
All primaris list is way more common that I expected. Hell, I hardly even see regular marines (except smash captains and bikers). But hey, it's okay, people get to play what they want. Playing an army of super super humans isn't any different than playing custodes or GK (at least during 5th edition).
But then... came the vanguard...
I must confess, I discovered w40k when I was in high school in the early 2000's. I was at a gaming store and saw the Mythic Dawn of War game. The cover looked interesting. But then I got a look at the back. And this is when I fell in love with 40k. There was a bloodthirster. And space marines. Seeing this blend of fantasy and sci-fi at the same time, that was unimaginable for the uncultured naive young teenager I was back then. And the gothic look if it all.
I couldn't buy the game, of course. Back then, parents didn't bought every last tech gadget or game their children wanted (as opposed to today where kids not even in high school already have an Xbobx account, a cellphone, and all that other *$**).
However, I got a cd for the demo (which only covered the first mission). What a glorious experience it was ! Gabriel Angelos swinging his sword, the grim look of the fortress monastery, the sinister dreadnought (the concept was morbid as a teenager), the religious catchphrase the units would shout. It was all perfect.
To make it short, I fell in love with the grimdark and the gothic vibe.
Now let's look at today. Can anyone tell me what is grimdark or gothic about a phobos captain model ? Hell, the servo-skull coming with him is more gothic and grim than the marine himself. The primaris invictor warsuit and the redemptor dreadnought look like villains from a bad Robocop movie. Hell, the SM are becoming more tacticool and vanilla sci-fi than the T'au.
I feel like the game is changing in a drastic way. Maybe not rulewise (I actually like the 8ed format), but in its fluff. This isn't the grimdark setting I knew. This is just some regular space odyssey with giant supermen with starcraft-esque armours battling inferior monstrous enemies.
To most competitive players, this doesn't matter. They play to win. Hell, I even know a few who never bothered learning about the fluff of their SM army. I told myself to just adapt to the changing times and stop being so immature, and that maybe this evolution of things would grew on me.
However, GW tacticool ghost recon SM fetish finally hammered the last nail in the coffin for me when they remade Shrike.
I know some people might find him cool, and I am not here to argue about your tastes. Bt this clearly told me that it was the end. There is nothing remotely W40k about this model in my eyes. It's just some emo dude wearing a vanilla powered suit that could have been seen in an Avengers movie.
Since GW clearly wants to make pre-8ed marines and the overall grimdark fade in the background, I sincerely think about just scrapping it all up. I might wait to see how the sisters of battle will be (since they seem to still fit the old vibe), but besides that, w40k seriously dropped in my list of favorite game (setting-wise).
What's your take on the subject ?
Ive been into 40k since around 2002/3 and the primaris models style match up with how i always felt about the marines. Efficient, disciplined and deadly killers. Angels of death. [dont get me wrong, i also love the classic marines, they still look awesome and badass as well]. Also with the boosted stats they feel more "space mariney" on the table top as well. So im loving them.
The grimdarkness comes from the setting, not how many skulls fetishes a space marine has attached to him.
Insectum7 wrote:The heroic proportions make them less Grimdark, as do the Tau flight fins. Chunky proportions come across as more 'primitive'.
So any correctly proportioned models in 40k would ruin that faction? I disagree.
Also, Tau flight fins? I don't see it - what Tau units have the same "flight fins"? And I'm talking ones that, if cut off from the Tau and Space Marine alike, would be practically identical, with no way of determining who it belonged to.
The stats make them less grimdark, 2W and 2A when most other factions have 1W 1A base makes our 'heroes' less desperate.
Guess Space Marines having that extra strength and toughness and armour stats were also making them less grimdark! After all, can't have them being the hyper-lethal massively durable killing machines they're presented as, because that's too hopeful!
Space Marines being powerful doesn't change that they're vastly outnumbered, barely holding back the endless swarms of aliens and daemons and their own kind. If anything, Space Marines being more powerful and still not succeeding is testament to the grimdarkness itself - that even superhuman soldiers more powerful than nearly any other universes' elite troops are still struggling in the fight.
The tacticool stuff makes them less Grimdark. Grimdark problem solving favors simplicity and brutality, rather than a batman belt. A rusty AK is more grimdark than a clean AR-15 with a dozen attachments on the rails.
Funny, I seem to remember nearly all bolters having that little slide on the top - it might not have been designed with all the teeth on a normal tactical rail, but it clearly looks like it fills the role of one. I mean, we do see plenty of scopes and other such things attached on bolters - look at Deathwatch bolters, and the amount of fire selectors and targeting gear on them.
The aesthetic of the bolter, however, in it's over-large muzzle, it's blocky rectangular design, and the flavour text of it's ammunition - that's not changed from the old to the new.
Yes, the Primaris have pouches and holsters and all of that - but so did the old Marines.
Literally, I can't see anything about the Primaris that the old Marines didn't also have which would make them "tacticool".
The lack of Chainswords in less grimdark.
It's a good thing then that there's not a lack of chainswords. The rules and model line support having chainswords on Primaris Marines.
The flying tanks are less grimdark. When humanity has to rumble along on primitive designs against technologically superior foes, that is more grimdark.
Custodes. AdMech. Sisters of Silence. Land Speeders.
Sorry, you were saying that humanity loses it's grimdark when it has hover tech? (It's actually quite funny that two of the most grimdark factions of the Imperium, the Admech and Sisters of Silence, are the ones to have the hover tanks that are apparently so anti-grimdark)
You can say to read the stories to make the grimdark come across, but I think that's a bit of a failure.
Why? What makes the stories less important than the model representations of it?
Grimdark is imagery, and should be apparent in the actual imagery, of which the models are the focus.
Personally, I think that the new models are just as grimdark as the old ones. Can't see any difference between them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FEARtheMoose wrote: The grimdarkness comes from the setting, not how many skulls fetishes a space marine has attached to him.
Exactly. And even if we *were* judging grimdarkness by how many skulls and relics and scrolls and aquilas were plastered on our Space Marines, Primaris Marines really aren't far from the old standard.
OP interesting view from someone who has been around for a while.
I started around the tail end of 2nd edition and was shown Rogue Trader by my friends and tried a bit.
I think the Primaris Marines are an adjustment where the fluff always maintained they were some 7' tall and this does not scale well with an Imperial Guard / AM.
There were many builds made by others to "true-scale" marines so the push was there.
The metal Grey Knights (after the original metal terminators) and then the newer plastic terminators addressed that a bit.
So, we need the grim-dark.
Right now these guys are brand new from the factory.
Bit too soon in the fluff to list them as veterans and then to retcon the old marines like thunderwarriors.
Scar up those suits a bit and add dirt and they can look scary enough.
They have been rather restrained with the number of skulls on the hardware.
I do admit, it would have been more interesting if they went for a more organic look, a nod of the head to the original concept drawings
But then again, the first Batman suit has evolved a fair bit to the current one (however you interpret what is current).
Sometimes a degree of minimalism can also be dark:
When you think a space marine went through extensive gene therapy, got a whole bunch of organs implanted in them, got basically mind-wiped and reprogrammed and force-fed knowledge (as well as mental "patterns" to regulate the implants), then gets his skin peeled off and a layer of armor put on underneath with a nerve trunk grafted into his nervous system so he can plug into a suit directly he is stuffed in for months at a time that can be operated with a thought. Nothing grim there at all...
I think the new Sisters PERFECTLY represent what the OP is going for with the grimdark. The sisters are not here to be your friend. They are here to do one thing, and that is to purge the unclean. And look BAMFAAH doing it. Think of the difference in presentation between the new Invictor (Matrix Revolutions) bot, and the new Penitent Engine. One looks like a Child's toy, and the other looks like an Ozzy Ozbourne fever dream had sex with a VHS copy of Event Horizon.
Now, you can say, the new Space Marines OBVIOUSLY come from a different designer, different theme, and different ideas going forward. And that is fine. But you can't say they are in keeping with the theme 40k has laid out.
I have to agree with the OP, WH40k lost it's edge with the Primaris brand re-design. But that Sisters release, that restored my faith. Pun intended.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I think the new Sisters PERFECTLY represent what the OP is going for with the grimdark. The sisters are not here to be your friend. They are here to do one thing, and that is to purge the unclean. And look BAMFAAH doing it.
Now, look at the new Space Marines. OBVIOUSLY come from a different designer, different theme, and different ideas going forward.
I have to agree with the OP, WH40k lost it's edge with the Primaris brand re-design. But that Sisters release, that restored my faith. Pun intended.
Yeah I feel the same way with the sisters. Definetively going to pick them up. The primaris look like if Buzz LigthYear merged with Infinity.
I think those two pictures further support AnomanderRake's statement. You could bounce a quarter of those.
I am just not seeing this sudden lack of Grimdark. Especially not visually. I do find it kinda funny that people suddenly-ish want Grimdark in 40k to stay too. I thought Grimdark was supposed to be an incredibly silly concept that only edgy teenagers and Herknes Dragonblades of the world truly took seriously. I guess it takes all kinds.
I really hope that none of the people who are now lamenting the lack of grimdark in the Primaris were cheering when GW brought Guilliman back or were among those who were wishlisting for returning Primarchs. Because that's a grimdark killer of several magnitudes more powerful than the Primaris.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: I think those two pictures further support AnomanderRake's statement. You could bounce a quarter of those.
I am just not seeing this sudden lack of Grimdark. Especially not visually. I do find it kinda funny that people suddenly-ish want Grimdark in 40k to stay too. I thought Grimdark was supposed to be an incredibly silly concept that only edgy teenagers and Herknes Dragonblades of the world truly took seriously. I guess it takes all kinds.
Where have you been? Most people have hated on the Primaris model lines since they were first created. It was a 2W model with meh shooting and zero melee ability. But hey, it was new and unseen before. Jump cut to 1-2 years later, and now there are all new "rules" for the primaris, with new tanks and transports, and a complete re-build of the codex in the last two months. People still hate the models, but love the rules and are drooling all over the new possibilities.
But all of that has been completely over shadowed by the literal truth that their lore is complete garbage, and they were shoe-horned into a dead lore to sell new models. NO one loved the lore these idiots came from. No one. Oh, Cawl was hiding over 100k soldiers in a bunker, while TERRA was being attacked? K. No, wait, QUE?
It wasn't the "lack of grimdark" it was just the way they were foisted upon us that stung. The lack of grim dark was just noticeable in comparison to all the other stellar releases. Sisters, GSC, Orks, Chaos, etc. These are MODERN or Post Modern even level sci-fi marines, while the entire rest of the lore universe is using fossil fuel vehicles, batteries, and pure chaos. They just don't belong. They stick out like sore thumbs, and it's obvious.
But all of that has been completely over shadowed by the literal truth that their lore is complete garbage, and they were shoe-horned into a dead lore to sell new models. NO one loved the lore these idiots came from. No one. Oh, Cawl was hiding over 100k soldiers in a bunker, while TERRA was being attacked? K. No, wait, QUE?
It wasn't the "lack of grimdark" it was just the way they were foisted upon us that stung. The lack of grim dark was just noticeable in comparison to all the other stellar releases. Sisters, GSC, Orks, Chaos, etc. These are MODERN or Post Modern even level sci-fi marines, while the entire rest of the lore universe is using fossil fuel vehicles, batteries, and pure chaos. They just don't belong. They stick out like sore thumbs, and it's obvious.
Just because you think the lore is "total garbage" does not make that "the literal truth" so quit trying to pass off your opinions as fact.
when primaris came out people took the 1 paragraph of text we got for them and screamed it was abd lore. others held off until we got more info. and TBH... in the 2 years GW's had to develop the lore? I actually LIKE what I've seen. there's room for improvement but it's not the flaming dumpster fire the reactionary hate brigade makes them out to be
Honestly when I look at Primaris I just see more space marines. It still somewhat amazes me that GW got away (sort of) releasing an updated sculpt that in any other army would have replaced the old sculpts; yet just called them Primaris and is now running them alongside the regular marines.
Honestly I'd wager a lot of the hate is more that GW is "making me buy two lines of marine models" instead of just one line of marine models.
As for the whole gothic thing the primaris are still the very same design ethos. Asides lets not forget a lot of the "grimdark" design people want is a lot of insane high detail stuff which, eventually, reaches a point where its far too much bling on the model to actually paint it. That has to be a consideration for an army that GW is going to market as the entry point into their game for many gamers.
Just because you think the lore is "total garbage" does not make that "the literal truth" so quit trying to pass off your opinions as fact.
when primaris came out people took the 1 paragraph of text we got for them and screamed it was abd lore. others held off until we got more info. and TBH... in the 2 years GW's had to develop the lore? I actually LIKE what I've seen. there's room for improvement but it's not the flaming dumpster fire the reactionary hate brigade makes them out to be
Are there any good primaris books to read, only one I read was spears of the emperor and was horrible?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:Where have you been? Most people have hated on the Primaris model lines since they were first created. It was a 2W model with meh shooting and zero melee ability.
And that's still largely unchanged on the standard profile. The only changes have really been that the auto and stalker bolt rifles got a bit of a buff and the Sergeants can take thunder hammers and power fists. They're still not drastically changed from their first incarnation, which wasn't even too different from the standard Space Marine (in fact, they had more melee ability, due to the extra attack).
Jump cut to 1-2 years later, and now there are all new "rules" for the primaris
Why the quotation marks? They got new units, and those unit got new rules.
the literal truth that their lore is complete garbage
Incorrect. That's not a "literal truth" by any stretch of the imagination. There's nothing wrong with owning up to hating Primaris because of your own biases and preferences, but don't try and pretend it's a "literal truth".
NO one loved the lore these idiots came from. No one. Oh, Cawl was hiding over 100k soldiers in a bunker, while TERRA was being attacked? K. No, wait, QUE?
Again, demonstrably false.
If you want to make a compelling argument about something and expect people to take it seriously, try to avoid hyperbole and just flat out lying.
These are MODERN or Post Modern even level sci-fi marines, while the entire rest of the lore universe is using fossil fuel vehicles, batteries, and pure chaos. They just don't belong. They stick out like sore thumbs, and it's obvious.
They really don't. If you've actually read any of the lore about the Primaris in recent books, you'll be happy to note that they fit in just fine with the setting. They're no more broken than anything else that's come before.
Karol wrote:Are there any good primaris books to read, only one I read was spears of the emperor and was horrible?
Spears was pretty good, imo. Aside from that, I can recommend Knights of Macragge (the Primaris plot isn't the main focus of it, but it does tackle the division between the First-Born and Primaris, and it especially good in the second half of the book), or Apocalypse.
Oh thank goodness. I tire of the complaints of updates to the setting that I enjoy.
Khornate25 wrote: Bt this clearly told me that it was the end. There is nothing remotely W40k about this model in my eyes. It's just some emo dude wearing a vanilla powered suit that could have been seen in an Avengers movie.
Okay. . . I mean like a hundred people already cried about that model in its own thread so you made a new one?
Khornate25 wrote: Since GW clearly wants to make pre-8ed marines and the overall grimdark fade in the background,
Hmm that's yet to be determined. They even gave lots of updates rules to old marines in the newest codex. I don't doubt that Primaris is the way forward from here, but I suspect sometime down the road we'll get some more gothic looking veteran or dark angels units that have all kinds of bits and bobs and stuff for those who refuse to add them themselves.
Khornate25 wrote: I sincerely think about just scrapping it all up. I might wait to see how the sisters of battle will be (since they seem to still fit the old vibe), but besides that, w40k seriously dropped in my list of favorite game (setting-wise).
That's a shame. But I have to ask: are you actually reading any of the recent fluff? I can assure you the setting is as grim and dark as ever. Or is it just the look of primaris space marines that bugs you? They're still releasing lots of other stuff that's plenty grimdark like chaos marines, death guard, knights, chaos knights, Mechanicum and of course the upcoming sisters of battle you mentioned.
Spears was pretty good, imo. Aside from that, I can recommend Knights of Macragge (the Primaris plot isn't the main focus of it, but it does tackle the division between the First-Born and Primaris, and it especially good in the second half of the book), or Apocalypse.
I will look around for those two, thank you . Although it is kind of a scary if Spears is a good book.
Are there any good primaris books to read, only one I read was spears of the emperor and was horrible?
Unlikely. Space Marines make terrible protagonists for a novel, and making them Primaris does not make them any more interesting.
I didn't read many books from GW, but I did read two that were about space marines. One was about space wolfs, don't remember the name of it though, and the other was about a Night Lord raptor. Both were okey in their own way. Spears was strange to read to be honest, some parts of it I didn't understand at all. And I don't mean a languge barrier.
Dark Imperium
Dark Imperium 2: Plague War
Devastation of Baal
Spears of the Emperor
Knights of Macragge
People who think the Primaris are bad lore haven't read many or any of the BL books that involve them. Many of them are excellent, and Primaris add an extra layer of drama in regards to the place the classic Astartes have.
Some of the best 40k fiction has been written in the post gathering storm setting.
Dark Imperium 1,2 and Devastation of Ball are essential lore for the current 40k setting. If you've not read them you can't comment on what is or isn't good.
Ishagu wrote: Dark Imperium 1,2 and Devastation of Ball are essential lore for the current 40k setting. If you've not read them you can't comment on what is or isn't good.
There is nothing offensive about the lore in the new Astartes Codex.
So what exactly is your complaint again?
Sounds like some people don't know what they're talking about. If you're limiting yourself to the brief outlines of plot points in a codex or rulebook then clearly you don't care much for the lore in the first place, and thus have no ground to stand on and complain.
"Oh the lore is so crap. I don't actually care enough to look into it but I'll complain about things I don't understand" - typical complainer
Dark Imperium was ok but suffered heavily from the shoe horned drama that Primaris marines represent. You could have told the exact same story without marines 2.0 (the money grab) and had the essentially the same tale.
Devastion of Baal was boring to me and felt like a retread of lets wipe out a founding chapter to next to nothing, something that has happened to the blood angels multiple times over the years.
Also can you please stop saying that anyone who doesn't like Primaris haven't read up on them. Many of us have and dislike that they, along with some of Cawl's other nonsense is changing the fundamental tone of the setting and that is a valid reason to dislike them.
BL books rarely improve the lore. They're one of the main sources of inanity for the setting. There of course are some decent books as well.
The codex lore is good, or at least as good as it can be in this butchered post-gathering-storm version of the setting. Showing how the primaris fit in the chapters is quite nicely done.
Ishagu wrote: As long as you admit that your dislike is a subjective opinion and not one based on any objective problem that is all well and good.
Lots of whingers who don't make that distinction
I love your intensity for the game and the current background.
I love less how you tend to just not be able to accept people can not like primaris background for legitimate reasons. Your love of them is subjective opinion as much as anyone who hates them in the background. At their very birth onto the scene they came in as super miracle babies to save the imperium from the edge of darkness, that alone is a reason to kind of dislike their roll out.
No one is wrong for loving them, or hating them, they are both opinions. Unless you can tell me how its a fact that everyone should love them, if you can I'd love to hear it. If you can't, it's ok to accept people may dislike them and feel they detract from the setting.
It's a setting we all love, but we don't all have to love how it changes or new inclusions to it. In fact I think it'd be pretty boring if we all agreed all the time. That's just me though.
No one is wrong for loving them, or hating them, they are both opinions. Unless you can tell me how its a fact that everyone should love them, if you can I'd love to hear it. If you can't, it's ok to accept people may dislike them and feel they detract from the setting.
yeah except some people ARE wrong in how they express that dislike dude. Let's examine an actual quote on this very thread.
But all of that has been completely over shadowed by the literal truth that their lore is complete garbage, and they were shoe-horned into a dead lore to sell new models. NO one loved the lore these idiots came from. No one. Oh, Cawl was hiding over 100k soldiers in a bunker, while TERRA was being attacked? K. No, wait, QUE?
.
that's not an opinion that is a completely incorrect non factual statement. an attempt to present personal opinion as fact. a degeneration of those who actually dolike Primaris (for the record, as GW fleshes out their background I actually am warming to even the lore for Primaris)
So no it's not just Ishuga coming in and putting down anyone who dislikes Primaris. it's the anti-Primaris Hate train saying everyone hates them (which is an outright lie and they know it) in an attempt to shout down those who like them.
If he gets short well... how often can you correct the same ill informed statement time and time again from people who basicly say absurd stuff like they've not read any of the lore but that they know the "real story" of primaris marines and that it's crap.
Ishagu wrote: You've not read many, by your own admission, so you have no valid opinion on the matter.
In my opinion, based on reading many BL books, some serve to greatly improve my outlook on the lore and enhance my understanding.
Some are bad (Some novels are not worth reading at all), but the general quality of the current team is solid.
well I read spears of the emperor and it was bad, and this night I read devastation of baal, because it was the only one I could find. And devastation has a horrible ending, they kill of all blood angels and replace them with primaris, it is just like the white scare supplement. Almost all marines get killed off, and replaced with primaris.
I will maybe try to read some non imperial stuff, or maybe not marine stuff. Because if the two books are considered good, I don't know what is a bad w40k one.
Ishagu wrote: You've not read many, by your own admission, so you have no valid opinion on the matter.
In my opinion, based on reading many BL books, some serve to greatly improve my outlook on the lore and enhance my understanding.
Some are bad (Some novels are not worth reading at all), but the general quality of the current team is solid.
well I read spears of the emperor and it was bad, and this night I read devastation of baal, because it was the only one I could find. And devastation has a horrible ending, they kill of all blood angels and replace them with primaris, it is just like the white scare supplement. Almost all marines get killed off, and replaced with primaris.
I will maybe try to read some non imperial stuff, or maybe not marine stuff. Because if the two books are considered good, I don't know what is a bad w40k one.
if your entire issue with devestation of Baal is "OMHG! THEY REPLACE BLOOD ANGELS WITH PRIAMRIS" then yeah.. you're not going to have a good time with any post GS marine books. seriously if you judge a book bad because it has primaris marines you're basicly a lost cause
Okay, since the pro-primaris are kinda spiteful and childhish (ironic since they are the ones calling other people immature and lost causes), I think this thread needs to stop. Visibly this subject is too sensitive for some people around here.
BrianDavion 779789 10560296 wrote:
if your entire issue with devestation of Baal is "OMHG! THEY REPLACE BLOOD ANGELS WITH PRIAMRIS" then yeah.. you're not going to have a good time with any post GS marine books. seriously if you judge a book bad because it has primaris marines you're basicly a lost cause
No not really, I don't understand why they didn't kill off all the BA. Then it would at least make sense to replace them. The way the book ends and how easy the tyranids are beaten by the primaris, makes the whole fight that happen before make no sense at all. It is as if you tried to dig a ditch for 2 days, did 2 meters, and your step brother comes with an excavator does the whole 40m in 30 min. Makes whole your work pointless. Same with devastation of baal. Now if primaris came in to baal, because to make neew primaris you would need parts of the old BA. And they came too late or when there was not much of any genetic material to harvest. The it would at least have been tragic. A big opportunity lost. But we get a deus ex machina ending where khorn demon and gulliman wipe out a tyranid fleet, in like last few pages of the book.
Am readin what I think is a SoS or SoB book right now, called Faith and Fire, seems to be a lot better then the spears and baal book. Stuff in it makes more sense.
Ishagu wrote: Dark Imperium 1,2 and Devastation of Ball are essential lore for the current 40k setting. If you've not read them you can't comment on what is or isn't good.
Silly.
He’s right. U should really be a bit more tolerant.
Khornate25 wrote: Okay, since the pro-primaris are kinda spiteful and childhish (ironic since they are the ones calling other people immature and lost causes), I think this thread needs to stop. Visibly this subject is too sensitive for some people around here.
Given your original post, this quoted statement feel very biased toward those you call spiteful and childish. Strange, how often it is the opposing view is the one that is in the wrong.
I like Primaris models. Well most of them. I can understand others not liking them. I certainly don't like all the models or even all the factions in 40k. But you don't see me, or I doubt anyone, going into the new Eldar (or Sisters of Battle) thread and raising the same kind of ruckus that that model is bad and not an aspect warrior or whatever. How many months would you like your army to be literally be called out for not being what it is? There are people of Dakka Dakka that have stated with no mirth that Primaris are not space marines and they don't even aesthetically look like space marines rather are from Halo or Infinity.
I can agree that Primaris are like the Tau in that a very vocal group like to bag on them at every opportunity. And like the Tau, their biggest crime seems to be they didn't exist since the beginning of 3rd edition. And bagging has gone on way too long to be considered gentle ribbing of someone's favorite faction. To me, if very much feels that the anti-Primaris are being spiteful. Not that they don't have some cause as Primaris have locked up a large number of the new 40k models releases and have called into question the continued existence of non-Primaris space marines among other issues. I don't know how much concern I would put into those issues. Even without Primaris, there would be no guarantee GW would put out models these players would have wanted, and GW has going well out of their way to not remove feasibility of non-Primaris space marines in both terms of model releases and codex rules. However, I don't really have an old space marine army in which to worry about said things. I have a few Dark Angels painted as fallen that would work well enough as CSM (which is usually how they get used anyways). I suppose that lack interchangeability of parts could be a fair criticism of Primaris, but I don't have much of bits collection anyways and don't bother too much with it. I can see how that would be an irritation though.
Even the fairly recent non-scientific poll here on Dakka revealed that fewer people would bother replacing their old models with new ones last time I saw the results. Honestly, that surprised me since it was anonymous, it is easy enough say yes when you aren't actually spending the money and I suspect the average Dakkanaut spends more on 40k models than the average 40k player. That definitely suggests that 'true scale' marines wouldn't have sold as well as Primaris. It certainly angered some people with this introduction, but I really do think those people should step back and take a look at their metal state if this kind of thing is eliciting that strong of emotions. And it is merely internet hyperbole, perhaps refrain from such strong language such as hate or even reconsider giving your opinion if all it really is going to be is negative or a thread crap post.
I am fine with other not liking my Primaris army. There are literally more than a dozen factions to pick from and nothing is stopping a person from playing space marines without them. Yeah, a space marine army is going to be weaker without Primaris. Just like a Primaris army is going to be weaker without non-Primaris marine units. I play 40k for the spectacle of miniatures gaming and to have fun. I always try my best to win with the army I have even if it isn't the best, but I certainly don't have to win to have fun. If I did, I would have given up miniatures wargaming long ago since even at by best I was an okay player and have become a much worst player since then.
No one has to like the direction that GW is going. They don't even need to be quite about it. However, I do think it is important for anti-Primaris posters to remember there are people like me that have put a pretty penny into buying my collection and a couple of minutes building and painting them. I certainly don't appreciate the vitriol toward that. Doubly so as I really like Phobos armor which seems to be the biggest target. I have must explained half-a-dozen times or more their feet look like fantasy bucket boots (doubly so after looking at a fair number of GW fantasy models after the fact) and they look like sci-fi version of fantasy light armor to me like what you would see a ranger/rouge wear. They certainly don't look like crocs and Bermuda shorts to me having only a slight passing resemblance in my opinion. So my replies are less about spite and more about bewildered confusion as many of the criticisms. Primaris don't look like space marines? Primaris aren't real space marines because they lack weapon flexibilty? Primaris don't look grimdark/gothic? Primaris look cartoonish compared to real space marines? Primaris vehicles don't look like space marine vehicles? The assault of strange and sometime seemingly outlandish critiisms of Primaris often look like someone is taking a molehill and turning it into a mountain.
Others can have these criticisms. I doubt I am going to change their minds since they have had two years to grapple with it. At the same time, I find in no way Primaris not be superior in terms of their technical aspects and proportions compared to the old model style. As mentioned, I never found the interchangeability of parts a highly valued aspect of the old models to outweigh the new kits improved over all appearance. However, that I could see someone lamenting as a valid concern. Just not one I share.
Simply put you are not going to find me dumping on non-Primaris space marines. I certainly won't be slinging the same kinda of negativity about them that I see in nearly every thread mentioning Primaris. I don't doubt for a minute that this will be the end of bagging on Primaris on Dakka. I am sure every new release or even mention of Primaris will have the same old vitriol, that is becoming cliche at this point, leveled at them. But I guess I am the one being spiteful and childish.
This is the Dakka forums. In the year of Trump/Boris/Balanaro. If you are not solidly in one binary camp, you are instantly turned into a subject for mockery until you delete your comments.
Seriously, it's Dakka. Everyone here is, or has at one time been, hyperbolic and irrational. It's the nature of the internet through a pair of binoculars under a microscope. It's pure distilled internet here, on the Dakka forums.
We went through 20 or so pages of this with the RAW/RAI mess that was the Rule of 3 thread.
Or the Guardsmen should cost X thread.
Or the Primaris Repulsor is trash thread.
Or the X is Y thread. It's just Dakka. Right now it's The Primaris Goods vs. The Primaris Bads. I'm gonna go see if OTB will take bets on who'll win.
I think if you're not into Primaris the easiest thing is to just not talk about them. It's okay not to talk about them. Let other people enjoy them and move on. For the most part I'm not into them (lovely models, just not interested in their fluff/owning them/talking about them) and I think it improves my quality of life to let the people that enjoy them get on with enjoying them.
Of course, it's hard not to point out that you don't like something. There's even a meme about it. I think it's just another bad habit to break. I advise finding something you like to talk about (and I should take that advise too).
I honestly do not quite understand what all the fuzz is about when it comes to primaris. Now this is just my opinion, but to me the most logical explanation for their inception was that GW wanted to rescale the space marine line, but they didn't just want to upgrade everything from the old marine line. Instead they wanted to create something new and shiny for new players to pick up.
Now whether the release of a new kind of better, stronger space marine is a good thing is a matter of personal opinion, but how they were presented in the lore is not a matter of opinion, because we can obviously read up on how said lore was presented by GW in their codices and black library books.
They are a giant deus ex machina for the imperum of man: the new shiny, bigger, better marines that cawl has been working on for the past millennia and that appeared seemingly out of nowhere when the imperium needed them most.
Now it's obviously perfectly fine if someone loves the primaris, loves their models and their fluff, but I think any self reflecting person would have to agree that they have objectively been somewhat shoehorned in into the lore of 40k.
The main thing that irks some people in my opinion though is that the old chapters all had a very ancient backstory, with traditions and characters linked to that (often) rich backstory and I think for some people the primaris were not recieved as an addition to this chapter historia or a completely new thing in their own right, but rather a slow but definitive replacement....I think that is where some of the core issue lies.
In a perfect world I think they should have updated the old marine range slowly but steadily while ceeping size creep going with those old models until they reached reasonable proportions and in addition release the primaris as their own thing completely. Akin to the officio assassinorum (with bigger model range though) where they could have been used as very specialized allied forces, that would make them unique in purpose and lore. Because if those newer, better space marines were fewer in number, they also would not come off as a replacement.
Edit: but as someone from GW basically said: we basement dwelling nerds should best keep our mouths shut and buy whatever GW releases, no matter the price and if its in concordance with decades old established lore
Insectum7 wrote: ^agree. If they werent billed as replacements, I'd have much less dislike for them.
right now GW is billing them as REINFORCEMENTS. Maybe in the future they'll be replacements but right now the evidance suggests they're going to operate side by side
Insectum7 wrote: ^agree. If they werent billed as replacements, I'd have much less dislike for them.
right now GW is billing them as REINFORCEMENTS. Maybe in the future they'll be replacements but right now the evidance suggests they're going to operate side by side
BrianDavion 779789 10560296 wrote:
if your entire issue with devestation of Baal is "OMHG! THEY REPLACE BLOOD ANGELS WITH PRIAMRIS" then yeah.. you're not going to have a good time with any post GS marine books. seriously if you judge a book bad because it has primaris marines you're basicly a lost cause
No not really, I don't understand why they didn't kill off all the BA. Then it would at least make sense to replace them. The way the book ends and how easy the tyranids are beaten by the primaris, makes the whole fight that happen before make no sense at all. It is as if you tried to dig a ditch for 2 days, did 2 meters, and your step brother comes with an excavator does the whole 40m in 30 min. Makes whole your work pointless. Same with devastation of baal. Now if primaris came in to baal, because to make neew primaris you would need parts of the old BA. And they came too late or when there was not much of any genetic material to harvest. The it would at least have been tragic. A big opportunity lost. But we get a deus ex machina ending where khorn demon and gulliman wipe out a tyranid fleet, in like last few pages of the book.
Am readin what I think is a SoS or SoB book right now, called Faith and Fire, seems to be a lot better then the spears and baal book. Stuff in it makes more sense.
I think you misunderstoof the book then tyranids where effectively defeated by time Gulliman arrived. all that was left was mop up work.
Insectum7 wrote: ^agree. If they werent billed as replacements, I'd have much less dislike for them.
Personally, almost all my complaints would go away if they'd made Primaris equipment upgrades given to Chapters and the new models just being explained as a chance to make a more appropriate size.
Insectum7 wrote: ^agree. If they werent billed as replacements, I'd have much less dislike for them.
right now GW is billing them as REINFORCEMENTS. Maybe in the future they'll be replacements but right now the evidance suggests they're going to operate side by side
I welcome any literature you can find that explicitly supports your statement. Last reference I heard had Custodes going around and enforcing the adoption of Primaris at gunpoint.
Insectum7 wrote: ^agree. If they werent billed as replacements, I'd have much less dislike for them.
right now GW is billing them as REINFORCEMENTS. Maybe in the future they'll be replacements but right now the evidance suggests they're going to operate side by side
I welcome any literature you can find that explicitly supports your statement. Last reference I heard had Custodes going around and enforcing the adoption of Primaris at gunpoint.
"84. Most Chapters now have the means and technology to create Primaris Space Marines of their own (drawn from their usual recruitment worlds), though many still choose to create standard Space Marines as well for their more flexible and readily available equipment and combat doctrines."
Any decision of this nature should be taken under a "needs of the business" cynicism, in which nothing is permanent and anything else is to appease and placate.
Insectum7 wrote: ^agree. If they werent billed as replacements, I'd have much less dislike for them.
right now GW is billing them as REINFORCEMENTS. Maybe in the future they'll be replacements but right now the evidance suggests they're going to operate side by side
I welcome any literature you can find that explicitly supports your statement. Last reference I heard had Custodes going around and enforcing the adoption of Primaris at gunpoint.
"84. Most Chapters now have the means and technology to create Primaris Space Marines of their own (drawn from their usual recruitment worlds), though many still choose to create standard Space Marines as well for their more flexible and readily available equipment and combat doctrines."
Insectum7 wrote: ^agree. If they werent billed as replacements, I'd have much less dislike for them.
right now GW is billing them as REINFORCEMENTS. Maybe in the future they'll be replacements but right now the evidance suggests they're going to operate side by side
I welcome any literature you can find that explicitly supports your statement. Last reference I heard had Custodes going around and enforcing the adoption of Primaris at gunpoint.
When I read Knights of Macragge, I very much got the impression of reinforcement, not replacement.
Yes, characters on both sides (First-Born and Primaris) actually say how they feel that the Primaris are superior, but then we also have characters who look past the whole "them and us", and focus on getting the job done.
Crimson wrote: The fluff is bad, the models are great. Use the models, ignore the fluff. The end.
For many players, myself included that doesn't work. If I don't like the fluff on something then I will never buy or field said unit. The background is the main thing that drew me to 40k, followed by the models, with rules being a distant third.
Crimson wrote: The fluff is bad, the models are great. Use the models, ignore the fluff. The end.
For many players, myself included that doesn't work. If I don't like the fluff on something then I will never buy or field said unit. The background is the main thing that drew me to 40k, followed by the models, with rules being a distant third.
my order is a bit different but rules are not even on the list.
pretty much, right now it seems that GW is content to double dip. this could change if old space marine molds start to wear out. but the tac assault and devestator squads are pretty new. the biggest worry are the rhino chassi vehicles which are apparently pretty damn old, but a lot of those will inevitably be updated for sisters and CSMs. IMHO the old marine kits in the greatest danger of dissappering are the whirlwind and other rhino chassis units unique to loyalist marines.
Khornate25 wrote: Okay, since the pro-primaris are kinda spiteful and childhish (ironic since they are the ones calling other people immature and lost causes), I think this thread needs to stop. Visibly this subject is too sensitive for some people around here.
Yes, you can't dislike primaris they are factually the best things ever. Disagree ? We don't tolerate that kind of bad fun think here. Go read some primaris books and sound off how you love them.
Khornate25 wrote: Okay, since the pro-primaris are kinda spiteful and childhish (ironic since they are the ones calling other people immature and lost causes), I think this thread needs to stop. Visibly this subject is too sensitive for some people around here.
Yes, you can't dislike primaris they are factually the best things ever. Disagree ? We don't tolerate that kind of bad fun think here. Go read some primaris books and sound off how you love them.
it's not Primaris fans declarting their OPINIONS as "Fact"
Actually, it is, quite often that happening. Saying any dislike for them is factually wrong bad think. I've literally said how I like the models, hate the fluff and really don't care for them overall. The pro side is so hyperbolic though it's like they can't handle if someone says they don't like them.
I'm just concerned, it seems we've reached a point where someone having a contrary opinion is just not acceptable anymore and deemed categorically negative/toxic. If that doesn't concern someone, maybe it should. I also know this isn't a new thing but its gotten pretty large as of late.
I never once said primaris lovers are bad, but I've seen countless bashes on those who dislike them. Comments as to how it somehow takes away someone elses fun when they even have to read how someone dislikes something they like. That, is a problem.
Fact is, if anyone can't handle people may dislike something you love, and make that opinion known at least as often as it's put out there, maybe online discussions should be avoided.
As if I got sad, mad, downed every time someone disagreed with me things would be quite bad, I might even tear up.
Oh and lets not forget the classic, don't love primaris you should leave the hobby,or don't like everything GW better get out. As well as arguments about if you like old marines you are just dumb and you can't as they are awful.
That's all pretty over the top. When someone is claiming there is no reason to hate them but every reason to love them I begin to think one side is a bit wild in their claims.
I think you misunderstoof the book then tyranids where effectively defeated by time Gulliman arrived. all that was left was mop up work.
they were down to a few hundrad marines, fighting in once places, everything over run. From what I understand tyranids would have eaten the planet, spawned more troops and ate the rest of BAs. the moon base was already taken out. Now all moon tyranids got wiped out by khorn demons, which were suppose to be the biggest BA enemies, which makes even less sense for themt o help. And the whole fleet and planet embarked ground troops were wiped out by the ultramarines. In fact I think, that it would have been better, if all the BA and succesors were wiped out, then the ultramarines came in, and recreated the BA chapters, and the new BAs would have to deal with a legacy they were not part of. It would both give a good send off to BA marine, and characters, something thermopile style. Open space for Primaris Characters and stories. It is as if the story was driven by GW wanting to sell resing Dantes and having normal marines still in sale.
I've never been anything but polite about expressing my distate for Primaris, and I will say that I've been met with literally nothing but hostility and in some cases open toxicity in return. It definitely feels like one side of this discussion in particular is not really capable of politely sharing their perspective and feedback without, well, I can only describe it as exploding an extremely unpleasant attitude across all topics relevant to it.
Nitro Zeus wrote: I've never been anything but polite about expressing my distate for Primaris, and I will say that I've been met with literally nothing but hostility and in some cases open toxicity in return. It definitely feels like one side of this discussion in particular is not really capable of politely sharing their perspective and feedback without, well, I can only describe it as exploding an extremely unpleasant attitude across all topics relevant to it.
you might be but plenty of others aren't. it gets tiresome hearing gak like "PRIMARIS ARE FACTUALLY BAD" and "I've not read ANYTHING about the Primaris because I dislike them, but I know they're poorly written" it's one thing to have a discussion, it's another thing to have to deal with a massive number of ill informed posts from people whom have clearly already made up their mind before we got any info. It's not partiuclarly pleasent to deal with the 40k equivilant of that guy who gets all his info from fakes news websites and spews his horriably incorrect "facts" to anyone who'll listen.
they were down to a few hundrad marines, fighting in once places, everything over run. From what I understand tyranids would have eaten the planet, spawned more troops and ate the rest of BAs. the moon base was already taken out. Now all moon tyranids got wiped out by khorn demons, which were suppose to be the biggest BA enemies, which makes even less sense for themt o help.
Its was gak fluff thats all. I learned to simply gloss over it.
Anyone claiming their opinion as factual, regardless which way they lean, is obviously not being honest. But I've seen a bit of that one from both sides ill admit.
Surely you all recognise that GW is a model company first and foremost. The lore is in service to the models, not the other way around.
The classic range was truly and utterly completed and in many ways bloated. The lore that was established was also incredibly constrictive - new things can't be made, they have to be "ret-conned" into the story. It's what happened with Centurions, Stalkers, Storm-Talons and was incredibly unsatisfying and divisive.
Either something monumental happens (the return of a Primarch who enforces change on a galactic scale) or GW can't implement change. Classic Marines were also held hostage by 20+ years of design philosophy dating back to Rogue Trader, and when the game was more similar to kill team.
So, they need a lore shake up, a significant rule shake up and an army wide unit re-design.
Enter the Primaris. New and exciting kits can be released without messing with past lore, the army is designed in a more modern way with dedicated and focused units, and they look better sized and proportioned because they aren't designed with a 20yr old, established model line in mind. The lore which was very cool in the past was literally a stone wall blocking new technologies (and thus kits) from being introduced.
So yes, things have changed but Astartes are the same in spirit. Primaris are still children transformed into drug-fuelled killing machines built for defending a fascistic, dystopian hell of an Empire.
You've all now had over TWO YEARS to get used to them. Either get on board or for the love of all thing stop whinging. Primaris are a massive success. GW profits are through the roof. I myself own a 4k fully painted Primaris army. Bringing up how you dislike them over and over and over again isn't going to change anything. People have voted with their money, and the results are in favour of Primaris.
Get on board or hold your peace. No need to whinge for years - just let the model company release more cool models and if you don't like Primaris collect a different army.
The classic range was truly and utterly completed and in many ways bloated. The lore that was established was also incredibly constrictive - new things can't be made, they have to be "ret-conned" into the story. It's what happened with Centurions, Stalkers, Storm-Talons and was incredibly unsatisfying and divisive.
The classic range remains unchanged, and primaris only add to any sort of "bloat" in the SM dex, not lessen it.
Ishagu wrote: You've all now had over TWO YEARS to get used to them. Either get on board or for the love of all thing stop whinging. Primaris are a massive success. GW profits are through the roof. I myself own a 4k fully painted Primaris army. Bringing up how you dislike them over and over and over again isn't going to change anything. People have voted with their money, and the results are in favour of Primaris. Get on board or hold your peace. No need to whinge for years - just let the model company release more cool models and if you don't like Primaris collect a different army.
Welp, there's that needless hostility again.
In all the other topics around release were "give them a chance, they've only just gotten started, its a difference you're not used to yet, this is just the first models of the range they will obviously get cooler in time, etc etc". Well OP did just that. Was quiet on it and waited to see if how it settled with him. 2 years onwards he is articulating how he feels about it, and now you're telling him he missed his opportunity.
Maybe you're the one who should stop clicking on these threads if they give you such a strong, negative emotional reaction. That would seem like the smart action to take. People are allowed to express their feedback whether or not you agree with it.
AngryAngel80 wrote:Actually, it is, quite often that happening. Saying any dislike for them is factually wrong bad think. I've literally said how I like the models, hate the fluff and really don't care for them overall. The pro side is so hyperbolic though it's like they can't handle if someone says they don't like them.
Assuming that everyone on one side is out to get you and are all this singular hive mind isn't exactly a great take either.
I've made it very clear on my personal thoughts and expression - it's fine to dislike Primaris. It's not fine to attempt to justify it on flimsy reasoning. In many cases, I would genuinely prefer people to just say "yeah, I don't like them", instead of grasping for "facts" that are full of holes. And this works the other way around: people claiming that Primaris are "objectively better" because they're better proportioned* and have non-squatting poses is a bad take - even if that were factually correct that they are better proportioned, that doesn't mean they must be better models.
*Better, not perfectly. The closest I think I've seen any Space Marine model come to perfect proportion is that preview of the Bandai articulated Marine, which isn't exactly the same kind of model.
I'm just concerned, it seems we've reached a point where someone having a contrary opinion is just not acceptable anymore and deemed categorically negative/toxic. If that doesn't concern someone, maybe it should. I also know this isn't a new thing but its gotten pretty large as of late.
Perhaps, but that's not just in this. Nearly all discourse has.
And again, not all people on both sides are acting like this. It's not the contrary opinion that's the problem, it's the leaps in logic to defend those opinions, which frankly don't need to be defended. It's all subjective.
I never once said primaris lovers are bad, but I've seen countless bashes on those who dislike them. Comments as to how it somehow takes away someone elses fun when they even have to read how someone dislikes something they like. That, is a problem.
And in the same vein, the amount of comments I've seen about people being "GW shills" and the near constant barrage of anti-Primaris threads isn't a problem too?
Fact is, if anyone can't handle people may dislike something you love, and make that opinion known at least as often as it's put out there, maybe online discussions should be avoided.
In that same respect, if people voicing their opinions on why they dislike Primaris use faulty reasoning to support it, is it not appropriate to call out and correct their misuse of facts? You can't cry "let people express their feelings!" and simultaneously say "hey, stop expressing your opinion and feelings about this!" - I'd personally be more than happy if people stopped making so many anti-Primaris threads, because then there'd be no need for people to voice their counter-opinions.
Oh and lets not forget the classic, don't love primaris you should leave the hobby,or don't like everything GW better get out. As well as arguments about if you like old marines you are just dumb and you can't as they are awful.
That's all pretty over the top. When someone is claiming there is no reason to hate them but every reason to love them I begin to think one side is a bit wild in their claims.
Yes, those arguments are pretty poor, in my eyes. I don't support them. But you can't deny that there's also people out there who will jump to claim things like "Primaris are objectively bad" or "if you like Primaris, you're just a kid who doesn't respect the old lore" or similarly ridiculous things.
As I'm sure I've made it clear, I don't support those kinds of arguments on either side of the debate, but you can't really deny that both sides *are* doing it, and in my experience, it's more often the people who are anti-Primaris who are the ones who feel the need to try and justify their dislike, even if they're making up facts.
Of course, not to belabour the point, but it's not all of them, nor is it exclusive to just the anti-Primaris folk.
Karol wrote:they were down to a few hundrad marines, fighting in once places, everything over run. From what I understand tyranids would have eaten the planet, spawned more troops and ate the rest of BAs. the moon base was already taken out. Now all moon tyranids got wiped out by khorn demons, which were suppose to be the biggest BA enemies, which makes even less sense for themt o help.
Khorne saw a chance for slaughter, and took it. However, Khorne's daemons wiping out the Tyranids is supposed to be a mystery. Trying to pin smart tactical and strategic decision on a Chaos god isn't really 40k's thing - they're capricious, practically uncaring of realspace save for gaining more followers. In this case, we can guess that perhaps Khorne wants to keep the BA alive so he might corrupt them later down the line.
And the whole fleet and planet embarked ground troops were wiped out by the ultramarines.
I believed that there were still not that many Tyranids left - certainly not the majority that Khorne wiped out.
In fact I think, that it would have been better, if all the BA and succesors were wiped out, then the ultramarines came in, and recreated the BA chapters, and the new BAs would have to deal with a legacy they were not part of. It would both give a good send off to BA marine, and characters, something thermopile style.
The problem is that you're killing off one of the Big Four, and removing them completely from having old Marines. Say what you will about Primaris, but GW ensuring that Primaris don't make up the whole of every old Chapter and even having wiggle room for why an army might have none is a good move - it doesn't invalidate anyone's armies. If you have an old Blood Angels mini-marine army, and they get wiped out and all replaced by Primaris - well, that's not exactly a good message, is it? It would be annoying to anyone who had an army made up of a more obscure Chapter, but when it's one of the First Founders with their own Codex? Yikes.
You make the point of "it's a cool narrative idea for the Primaris to pick up the pieces of the Blood Angels legacy and feel they're not part of it" - you're right, it would be a cool narrative idea. That's why, in Redeemer, by Guy Haley, this literally happens. Astorath is talking to some Primaris Marines about having to have killed one of their old marine squad members and their communion with Sanguinius, when a Primaris Marine pretty much asks flat out "hey, we don't get to see Sanguinius' death visions - do we even count as Blood Angels?", to which Astorath says that he sees the Primaris just as much as he would see any other Blood Angels as a son of Sanguinius, even if Cawl claims they won't suffer the Rage (and, funnily enough, he feels that perhaps Cawl may be wrong about them not being at risk of it).
Nitro Zeus wrote:I've never been anything but polite about expressing my distate for Primaris, and I will say that I've been met with literally nothing but hostility and in some cases open toxicity in return. It definitely feels like one side of this discussion in particular is not really capable of politely sharing their perspective and feedback without, well, I can only describe it as exploding an extremely unpleasant attitude across all topics relevant to it.
In my experience, it's nearly always been the other way around. But I understand that we would both have our perceptions biased in this respect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nitro Zeus wrote: Anyone claiming their opinion as factual, regardless which way they lean, is obviously not being honest. But I've seen a bit of that one from both sides ill admit.
Exactly. I've not got an issue with someone saying "I don't like Primaris". I do have a problem if they start pulling reasons for it from a less than honest argument.
Ishagu wrote: Surely you all recognise that GW is a model company first and foremost. The lore is in service to the models, not the other way around.
The classic range was truly and utterly completed and in many ways bloated. The lore that was established was also incredibly constrictive - new things can't be made, they have to be "ret-conned" into the story. It's what happened with Centurions, Stalkers, Storm-Talons and was incredibly unsatisfying and divisive.
Either something monumental happens (the return of a Primarch who enforces change on a galactic scale) or GW can't implement change. Classic Marines were also held hostage by 20+ years of design philosophy dating back to Rogue Trader, and when the game was more similar to kill team.
So, they need a lore shake up, a significant rule shake up and an army wide unit re-design.
Enter the Primaris. New and exciting kits can be released without messing with past lore, the army is designed in a more modern way with dedicated and focused units, and they look better sized and proportioned because they aren't designed with a 20yr old, established model line in mind. The lore which was very cool in the past was literally a stone wall blocking new technologies (and thus kits) from being introduced.
So yes, things have changed but Astartes are the same in spirit. Primaris are still children transformed into drug-fuelled killing machines built for defending a fascistic, dystopian hell of an Empire.
You've all now had over TWO YEARS to get used to them. Either get on board or for the love of all thing stop whinging. Primaris are a massive success. GW profits are through the roof. I myself own a 4k fully painted Primaris army. Bringing up how you dislike them over and over and over again isn't going to change anything. People have voted with their money, and the results are in favour of Primaris.
Get on board or hold your peace. No need to whinge for years - just let the model company release more cool models and if you don't like Primaris collect a different army.
Excuse me, but what kind of nonsense is this? We all know GW introduced primaris to sell more stuff and that they are not going anywhere, but that does not change how they were introduced and implemented. And telling people to just get used to Primaris and not voice complaint because many people do like them and they are not going anywhere is the most condescending thing I've read in some time. I mean the hell do you think you are telling people they should not voice complaint or criticism.
Also like I've said in my posts before, many people who are not as on board with primaris as you are, happen to have this opinion not because of the models themselves, but because of the lore. Like I've said before they come off as replacements for chapters with very long standing lore that many people care a great deal about. Which brings me to my third point: you said that the lore is in service to the models and their sales, which is true I believe, but that doesn't mean that the quality of said lore does not matter. If new releases seem shoehorned in into the lore, people will find it harder to suspend their disbelief and actually get into those new releases. AoS is the prime example for this (don't get me wrong, the introduction of Primaris was not NEARLY as bad as AoS in terms of lore, not even close).
So yes GWs primary goal is to sell new exciting models, but that does not mean there should not be at least some quality lore to go along with new releases.
The classic range was truly and utterly completed and in many ways bloated. The lore that was established was also incredibly constrictive - new things can't be made, they have to be "ret-conned" into the story. It's what happened with Centurions, Stalkers, Storm-Talons and was incredibly unsatisfying and divisive.
The classic range remains unchanged, and primaris only add to any sort of "bloat" in the SM dex, not lessen it.
Ishagu wrote: You've all now had over TWO YEARS to get used to them. Either get on board or for the love of all thing stop whinging. Primaris are a massive success. GW profits are through the roof. I myself own a 4k fully painted Primaris army. Bringing up how you dislike them over and over and over again isn't going to change anything. People have voted with their money, and the results are in favour of Primaris.
Get on board or hold your peace. No need to whinge for years - just let the model company release more cool models and if you don't like Primaris collect a different army.
Welp, there's that needless hostility again.
In all the other topics around release were "give them a chance, they've only just gotten started, its a difference you're not used to yet, this is just the first models of the range they will obviously get cooler in time, etc etc". Well OP did just that. Was quiet on it and waited to see if how it settled with him. 2 years onwards he is articulating how he feels about it, and now you're telling him he missed his opportunity.
Maybe you're the one who should stop clicking on these threads if they give you such a strong, negative emotional reaction. That would seem like the smart action to take. People are allowed to express their feedback whether or not you agree with it.
He has to reply to them. GW won’t pay him otherwise. Obvious AstroTurf account is obvious.
Lore is fine. It's as good as anything that's come before. No more or less silly. Some people just don't like it because of the implication of the lore, not the quality of the lore itself.
People are scared about their old armies being forgotten so they dislike the new lore. GW have continued to support classic Astartes with great rules. Nothing lasts forever, that is another truth people need to accept.
Ishagu wrote: Lore is fine. It's as good as anything that's come before. No more or less silly. Some people just don't like it because of the implication of the lore, not the quality of the lore itself.
People are scared about their old armies being forgotten so they dislike the new lore. GW have continued to support classic Astartes with great rules. Nothing lasts forever, that is another truth people need to accept.
So scuse me but magic Wand lore is bad, and primaris got magic wanded in by Cawl.
As for the latter, "great rules" lmao, sincerly someone that sits on oldmarines in a box atm
Ishagu wrote: 40k literally has space magic. If you take it so seriously that it impacts your enjoyment you need to re-evaluate.
Lots of lore and stories are amazing, but many of them are full of logic holes and convenient plot devices.
Booyyyyyy, did i state i don't enjoy them?
No need to get defensiv there lad, i stated their lore Implementation was gak.
That's it, just like 90% of alpha legion lore is gak.
And gw can and did do considerably better.
Ishagu wrote: 40k literally has space magic. If you take it so seriously that it impacts your enjoyment you need to re-evaluate.
Lots of lore and stories are amazing, but many of them are full of logic holes and convenient plot devices.
Pimaris are a deus ex machina for the imperium, as I've said before. Those kind of things are often not well recieved, because they mostly present a sudden solution for a problem or a conflict that is not in concordance with the lore before its inception and often invalidates previous struggles and cornerstones of the lore.
Now saying this is fine because the setting has "space magic" and should not be taken seriously is frankly a bad argument, it's a non sequitur.
But there are lots of stories like this in 40k. There are so many gizmos or prophesies or convenient ways to solve problems. Horus Heresy is full of them.
I'm saying that this is nothing new, and to pick and chose which of the Deus Ex Machina plots you accept or don't accept is hypocrisy.
Are Primaris a solution though? From what I can tell they are only just holding the line like Marines were before - and by holding the line I mean that the whole Imperium hasn't fallen (even though they've lost loads of stuff).
Of course in any story setting based on a physical game you're not going to get factions die off. No one wants their army Squatted into nothing (just go ask Tombking or Bretonnia players) so of course the story will always contrive to be like a weekly episodic TV show. At the end of the event the factions will still be around only their relative power/influence adjusted a bit for a period of time.
Hopefully in 40 years from now Stella Prima Prime Marines will be around and Tyranids will and Eldar and Orks and Wagabobins (the new army from 2030)
I think the lore was indeed gak, especially initially. The Launch of AOS and Gathering Storm were the era when GW has produced some of it's most insane lore. AOS has greatly improved since then, and the writers are doing their best to do the same with 40K, though they're saddled with some really stupid concepts and developments. I really recommend everyone to read the new marine codex though. In it the Primaris are handled like they should have been from the get go. They're shown to be basically the same like the old marines we know and love. They're recruited in the same way, are part of the same chapter culture and progress through the roles and ranks in similar way. Sure, they have some new weapons and squad compositions and couple of extra organs, but essentially they're the same, only slightly updated.
Cawl's freezer marines was something that didn't need to happen. This whole thing could have been just new technology handed to the chapters (and that's indeed on what the focus is now.) Improving marines in itself is not that preposterous, Ad Mech has been trying to do it for several millennia, the Cursed Founding being the most well know example. It really isn't unbelievable at all that they would finally manage to get some of that stuff to actually function properly. But making it all to be a work of one ten-millennia-old* super genius made it cartoonish. And the initial wave of the Primaris being made on some lab on Mars, being trained differently and being delivered to the chapters en masse needlessly emphasised their differentness. It made them feel like outsider pretenders and I'm sure it soured many people's opinions on the them.
* (Seriously, who tough that was a good idea? It goes radically against what has been established on life extension in 40K before.)
Ishagu wrote:But there are lots of stories like this in 40k. There are so many gizmos or prophesies or convenient ways to solve problems. Horus Heresy is full of them.
I'm saying that this is nothing new, and to pick and chose which of the Deus Ex Machina plots you accept or don't accept is hypocrisy.
Fair enough. Now this is where what I say becomes only personal opinion again, but I think it is fair to say that the introduction of Primaris and how they were introduced affected the setting in a higher magnitude than other deus ex machina lore bits.
Let me give you an example: I remember the release of the 5th ed grey knights codex very vividly because it caused a lot of controversy back then. Players were generally happy with the new models (except the baby carrier), but the main controversy was how the lore was written and presented. One of the big examples was the first inception of kaldor draigo, who was just perfect in every way and could do stuff no other grey knight or any other character (save for maybe a primarch) could do(i.e. survive in the warp for ages without being killed by hordes of demons or in any other way affected over time). Now in the case of kaldor draigo they introduced kind of a mary sue character that was not quite well recieved for one faction.
This however did not impact the setting on a big scale. Which brings me to my point about the primaris: the imperium since the heresy has always been depicted as an insanely bureaucratic, fascistic, religiously zealous moloch, that was in a constant struggle to hold its galaxy wide territory together against all kinds of xenos, heretics and the big enemy. Technology since the heresy was never as good as old tech, and said old tech was often revered for how rare it was and because over time they gradually lost the knowledge to properly maintain their tech or even properly recreate it and if they managed to do it, they only could do it at a very slow pace.
Cue Belisarius Cawl, who was not only able to improve the gene augmentation process of creating a space marine, but was also able to create legions of them and equip them with entirely new tech. This represents quite a tonal shift to the setting as far as I am concerned and has wide implications for the imperium in its entirety and not just one faction.
The whole thing could have been handled with a lot more finesse in my opinion. Now like I've said in previous posts before, if primaris marines were introduced as their own thing, a decidedly smaller elite force with the purpose to reinforce the old chapters and not as a replacement to them, it would have made more sense. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that there can't be a tonal shift in a setting and that the status quo had to be preserved at all costs, I am just saying it could have been handled with more finesse.
But like you said, the main focus here is to sell plastic models and therefore the story in this case appears to me more of an afterthought and so it comes as no surprise that many players had an issue with that. Because like it or not, for a great many people the underlying story of their plastic models matters.
It is the unrealistic acceptance that seems strange to me. But maybe it is the place I am from. One of my grand uncles brought new grain with him to Poland from the US. Sowed it on his field, got much better results per quintal then the local Kolchoz, and because he spend a lot of time in the US, he did the most stupid thing possible. Went to the director and told him, that he can sell him the grain that gives better yields. Was arrested, trailed and shot for spreading foreign propaganda, and the grain itself was burned on the field. They couldn't really control it, so a bit of fields that were his neighbours burned too. My family was not liked after that in the village, so my grandfather moved to old german territory to make a living there.
the intreduction of primaris should have went too folds. Firs tthere should be a full replacment. Non of those, we made calgar, tigurius etc in to primaris. They should be dead, and new stories and new heros should be brought in. Fluff wise there should be a civl war, because that is how an authoritarian sociaty reacts to sudden policy change. There are no soft resets, now talking over stuff, no I guess he is boss now. Change happens, and there are purges. And it doesn't even matter if the country is in a tough or even a war situation.
People have a protectionist attitude of 40k that needs to change. There is nothing objectively wrong with the story. The dislike comes from people scared that their armies might be replaces - the same people wanting some sort of lifetime guarantee of support. That is not something you can demand. As a result of this attitude they look for things to complain and pick apart.
Crimson is saying 40k has become more cartoonish. The whole of 40k is one giant cartoon if you start to pick at it. There are space vikings who howl at the moon and Green fungus aliens who dress like Pirates. The setting is awesome in a pulpy sci-fi way, and has inspiration from lots of things we love. It's not some masterwork of genius that has, up until this point, been a perfectly realistic story.
To criticise Primaris is to reveal your own personal bias and fears. As I said earlier, people have already had 24 months to get on board or to reject 40k. Make your mind up, don't just sit on the fence whinging like angry nerd.
You don't have to like them, but if you don't you've had two years of complaining and angst. Move on
AngryAngel80 wrote: Actually, it is, quite often that happening. Saying any dislike for them is factually wrong bad think. I've literally said how I like the models, hate the fluff and really don't care for them overall. The pro side is so hyperbolic though it's like they can't handle if someone says they don't like them.
I'm just concerned, it seems we've reached a point where someone having a contrary opinion is just not acceptable anymore and deemed categorically negative/toxic. If that doesn't concern someone, maybe it should. I also know this isn't a new thing but its gotten pretty large as of late.
I never once said primaris lovers are bad, but I've seen countless bashes on those who dislike them. Comments as to how it somehow takes away someone elses fun when they even have to read how someone dislikes something they like. That, is a problem.
Fact is, if anyone can't handle people may dislike something you love, and make that opinion known at least as often as it's put out there, maybe online discussions should be avoided.
As if I got sad, mad, downed every time someone disagreed with me things would be quite bad, I might even tear up.
Oh and lets not forget the classic, don't love primaris you should leave the hobby,or don't like everything GW better get out. As well as arguments about if you like old marines you are just dumb and you can't as they are awful.
That's all pretty over the top. When someone is claiming there is no reason to hate them but every reason to love them I begin to think one side is a bit wild in their claims.
There is a big difference from saying "I don't like Primaris" to making loaded statements like "they're like Tau" or "they're not like Marines". It's those loaded statements people take issue with, not with people not liking something.
I can definitely understand why a more sophisticated super solider with advanced armour is stupid when Fungal Space Pirates, Viking Ware-wolves and a Space Rambo are all the epitome of gritty realism and sophistication.
Ishagu wrote: Lore is fine. It's as good as anything that's come before. No more or less silly. Some people just don't like it because of the implication of the lore, not the quality of the lore itself.
People are scared about their old armies being forgotten so they dislike the new lore. GW have continued to support classic Astartes with great rules. Nothing lasts forever, that is another truth people need to accept.
So scuse me but magic Wand lore is bad, and primaris got magic wanded in by Cawl.
As for the latter, "great rules" lmao, sincerly someone that sits on oldmarines in a box atm
It took 30 years to get Marines wherenwe are now. He'll even the Hotus Heresy started as nothing more than a throwaway line in Epic to give people's robots a reason to fight despite being identical.
They're already working to smooth stuff. I mean it looks like Cawl spent 10k years rolling out the stuff the Emperor left put of the original Astartes because of how rushed he was to finish the Great Crusade, and with his knowledge theft shown when he brain drains his mentor it's likely that Cawl has stolen a lot of what he knows too.
He's still a walking plot device to get things rolling but they are improving on that initial idea. Heck, Cawl's Primaris are the least flexible of all the Ptimaris due to only really being trained for the one role they serve and nothing else.
I won't say the lore is good, not yet at least, but ot is getting better.
Besides, it's no more silly than load bearing walls being heretical.
Ishagu wrote: People have a protectionist attitude of 40k that needs to change. There is nothing objectively wrong with the story. The dislike comes from people scared that their armies might be replaces - the same people wanting some sort of lifetime guarantee of support. That is not something you can demand. As a result of this attitude they look for things to complain and pick apart.
Part of it is that. Part of it is the recent developements going against the themes of the setting and the core elements of the story being puerile. But because you do not understand either the history of the setting nor literature in general, you do not see this.
Ishagu wrote: People have a protectionist attitude of 40k that needs to change. There is nothing objectively wrong with the story. The dislike comes from people scared that their armies might be replaces - the same people wanting some sort of lifetime guarantee of support. That is not something you can demand. As a result of this attitude they look for things to complain and pick apart.
Part of it is that. Part of it is the recent developements going against the themes of the setting and the core elements of the story being puerile. But because you do not understand either the history of the setting nor literature in general, you do not see this.
I'd disagree with them going against the themes of the setting. I mean a 200 year Crusade ended with Guilliman putting a "You Tried" gold star on it, the Imperium is still going to the Warp in a handbasket, and while the equipment is new, underneath that power armour is the same emotionally underdeveloped, psychoindoctrinated post human monster we call a Space Marine.
Crimson wrote: Part of it is that. Part of it is the recent developements going against the themes of the setting and the core elements of the story being puerile. But because you do not understand either the history of the setting nor literature in general, you do not see this.
I understand it a lot more than you do because I actively read the novels.
I have been involved with 40k since 1997 so you should not assume anything about by understanding or investment.
It is you who doesn't understand the setting or the lore. You've cherry picked things you like and don't like, and you refuse to accept that 40k has and always will have very unrealistic elements scattered around.
The Primaris lore is not a problem at all. You're just scared of what it represents.
Ishagu wrote: I understand it a lot more than you do because I actively read the novels.
I have bee invested on 40k since 1997 so you should not assume anything about by understanding or investment.
It is you who doesn't understand the setting. You've cherry picked things you like and don't like, and you refuse to accept that 40k has and always will have very unrealistic elements scattered around the lore.
The Primaris lore is not a problem at all. You're just scared of what it represents.
Ishagu, tone down the attitude, take a deep breath and then write your posts. You hardly help sell Primaris when they associate Primaris players with such a "holier-than-thou" approach.
Not Online!!! wrote:Jesus, just accept that primaris lore is gak and the models mostly good.
And this the problem - Primaris lore is gak, according to you, but that's certainly not a fact by any means.
Telling people to "accept" an opinion that they simply don't share is hardly conducive to an argument.
Not Online!!! wrote:i stated their lore Implementation was gak.
That's it, just like 90% of alpha legion lore is gak.
Which are both your opinions. That's cool and all, but calling for people to "accept" that as a kind of truth? Nah, not quite.
And gw can and did do considerably better.
Also critique is a form of love.
So's obsession, but as with critique, excess of either is overwhelming. I don't think the deluge of "I hate Primaris!!!" threads is as loving as you think, and certainly comes across closer to toxic.
Tiberias wrote:This however did not impact the setting on a big scale. Which brings me to my point about the primaris: the imperium since the heresy has always been depicted as an insanely bureaucratic, fascistic, religiously zealous moloch, that was in a constant struggle to hold its galaxy wide territory together against all kinds of xenos, heretics and the big enemy. Technology since the heresy was never as good as old tech, and said old tech was often revered for how rare it was and because over time they gradually lost the knowledge to properly maintain their tech or even properly recreate it and if they managed to do it, they only could do it at a very slow pace.
But this is still the same. Even with Guilliman, the Imperium is still a theocratic, totalitarian, xenophobic regime as it always has been.
They've lost half the galaxy, and the half they do have is even more hard pressed. The Indomitus Crusade was successful in that it stopped the remaining half of the Imperium falling too, but it's not like it fixed everything. Their tech is still based on what are conceivably technologies in the Imperium (I mean, have you read how the Repulsor hovers? It's even more rudimentary than the Custodes skimmers, which aren't near Eldar tier), and I think that 10,000 years is an acceptable length of time for the Primaris project. I mean, it's not like Cawl just showed up in universe and magically created them. He's been working for 10,000 years to create a slightly better version of Astartes, and has had a direct missive from the highest authority in the Imperium to get it done. Considering that many people have said that Fabius Bile should have been the one to make Primaris (with less tech and resources than Cawl, might I add), I don't think it's because it couldn't have been done in-universe - it's just because we've never heard of Cawl before. As with everything though, more exposure to Cawl will normalise him.
If primaris marines were introduced as their own thing, a decidedly smaller elite force with the purpose to reinforce the old chapters and not as a replacement to them, it would have made more sense.
Which is what they are? They're not replacing anything or anyone else right now. And in all of GW's publicity, they've made it clear they're supplementary, not a replacement.
the story in this case appears to me more of an afterthought and so it comes as no surprise that many players had an issue with that. Because like it or not, for a great many people the underlying story of their plastic models matters.
Which is fair enough, but in the same vein, many people also say that there's no issue with the new story, and it's completely rational and doesn't detract from the setting. It's not as if everyone who likes Primaris is ignorant of the lore.
Karol wrote:Fluff wise there should be a civl war, because that is how an authoritarian sociaty reacts to sudden policy change. There are no soft resets, now talking over stuff, no I guess he is boss now. Change happens, and there are purges. And it doesn't even matter if the country is in a tough or even a war situation.
However, there are no nations on earth quite like the Imperium. The Imperium is pretty much based on the idea of worship of the Emperor, and the Primarchs and Astartes as his chief lieutenants. So while some of the HLOT might be jealous of Guilliman's new power, to the people, it's as if Jesus or an archangel came down to them - and good luck getting support when you're trying to rebel against one of the most prominent members of your empire's pantheon.
Plus, we have had purges. Guilliman deposed and removed several incompetent members of the Administratum and other leadership positions.
So, here is my fluff problem with the primaris, maybe someone can help me.
So Big E creates the Custodes, who were sort of his First Born. They were with him before even the Thunder warriors.
Then he creates the Thunder warriors. Then he kills them and makes the Space Marines.
Then Cawl, who is not supposed to be, but kinda is I guess, smarter than the Emperor, takes the old Space Marine, improves it, and radically enhances the technology.
Isn't the Space Marine supposed to be the Pinnacle of the Emperors Gene Augmentation knowledge? The Custodes are his finest creations, then the Primarchs, then the Space Marines.
Did Cawl just 1up the Emperor and make Primarch level superhumans? It's the same problem with DBZ. Where do people rank the power levels, because it's getting confusing. The Lore uses objectively final words like "perfect" or "Unmatched" or "Greatest of his creations". The lore can't then say, we made something even PERFECTER.
Then you need to re-examine what that term means, because no, they're not by any definition of Deus ex Machina.
Guilliman however almost literally is!
You mean that long established character who's return has been hinted at and built up over years of lore?
Ah yes, the man who nearly died and was stuck in stasis but may or may not have been healing depending on how faithful you are. How very built up that was.
Why is Cawl smarter than the Emperor? It took him 10 thousand years to improve on something the Emperor created as back up plan in no time.
That's how Science works. A visionary creates something, then later on people improve on it.
The Space Marines were NEVER the pinnacle of the Emperor's work. By asking that you're showing fundamental lack of lore understanding.
The Space Marines were a cobbled together back-up plan after the Primarchs were kidnapped by the Ruinous Powers.
How can you even ask that when Custodes exist? Custodes are better than Astartes. Primarchs are better than Custodes. If Cawl made a better Primarch I would raise an eyebrow.
You mean that long established character who's return has been hinted at and built up over years of lore?
Are you expecting King Arthur to show up to sort out the Brexit any day now?
Mythical heroes of the past returning in the times of great need is stuff of stories and legends but if they start actually returning the setting will irrecoverably change; especially if one of the central themes of the setting is the glory days being in the distant past.
And of course in the ancient Greek literature the 'existence' of gods was well established, yet their too convenient use for resolving plot points in dramas was criticised as bad storytelling, resulting the term 'deus ex machina'.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:So, here is my fluff problem with the primaris, maybe someone can help me.
So Big E creates the Custodes, who were sort of his First Born. They were with him before even the Thunder warriors.
Then he creates the Thunder warriors. Then he kills them and makes the Space Marines.
Then Cawl, who is not supposed to be, but kinda is I guess, smarter than the Emperor, takes the old Space Marine, improves it, and radically enhances the technology.
Isn't the Space Marine supposed to be the Pinnacle of the Emperors Gene Augmentation knowledge? The Custodes are his finest creations, then the Primarchs, then the Space Marines.
Did Cawl just 1up the Emperor and make Primarch level superhumans?
No, he does not. The Emperor's finest creations were the Custodes and Primarchs, and the Primarchs were only able to be created by literally stealing Warp essence or power. So, ignoring them, the Custodes are his greatest creation. The Space Marines may be mighty and powerful, but they're weaker than the Custodes, and were also treated like the Thunder Warriors - the Emperor planned on killing them off too.
Even with Cawl's enhancements on the Space Marine base (which took him 10,000 years to do a modification of the Emperor's original design, whereas Big E was able to do it in far less time between the Thunder Warriors and first Space Marines, and with less resources), the Primaris are still inferior to the Custodes in every aspect. The Primaris *do* have some abilities taken from the Primarchs, but none of their sparks of divinity, as it were. Therefore, they're still far below Primarchs too.
Short answer, no, Cawl took 10,000 years to make a better Space Marine, but it's still nowhere close to Primarch tier - he is very much below the Emperor in almost every respect.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:So, here is my fluff problem with the primaris, maybe someone can help me.
So Big E creates the Custodes, who were sort of his First Born. They were with him before even the Thunder warriors.
Then he creates the Thunder warriors. Then he kills them and makes the Space Marines.
Then Cawl, who is not supposed to be, but kinda is I guess, smarter than the Emperor, takes the old Space Marine, improves it, and radically enhances the technology.
Isn't the Space Marine supposed to be the Pinnacle of the Emperors Gene Augmentation knowledge? The Custodes are his finest creations, then the Primarchs, then the Space Marines.
Did Cawl just 1up the Emperor and make Primarch level superhumans?
No, he does not. The Emperor's finest creations were the Custodes and Primarchs, and the Primarchs were only able to be created by literally stealing Warp essence or power. So, ignoring them, the Custodes are his greatest creation. The Space Marines may be mighty and powerful, but they're weaker than the Custodes, and were also treated like the Thunder Warriors - the Emperor planned on killing them off too.
Even with Cawl's enhancements on the Space Marine base (which took him 10,000 years to do a modification of the Emperor's original design, whereas Big E was able to do it in far less time between the Thunder Warriors and first Space Marines, and with less resources), the Primaris are still inferior to the Custodes in every aspect. The Primaris *do* have some abilities taken from the Primarchs, but none of their sparks of divinity, as it were. Therefore, they're still far below Primarchs too.
Short answer, no, Cawl took 10,000 years to make a better Space Marine, but it's still nowhere close to Primarch tier - he is very much below the Emperor in almost every respect.
You mean that long established character who's return has been hinted at and built up over years of lore?
Are you expecting King Arthur to show up to sort out the Brexit any day now?
If we were living in a fiction setting, this would be an apt time, yes.
Unfortunately, as I'm sure you're aware, this is the real world, and 40k is not.
Mythical heroes of the past returning in the times of great need is stuff of stories and legends but if they start actually returning the setting will irrecoverably change; especially if one of the central themes of the setting is the glory days being in the distant past.
I don't remember all this commotion when Vulkan and Corax returned in books after their stint in the Heresy.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, here is my fluff problem with the primaris, maybe someone can help me.
So Big E creates the Custodes, who were sort of his First Born. They were with him before even the Thunder warriors.
Then he creates the Thunder warriors. Then he kills them and makes the Space Marines.
Then Cawl, who is not supposed to be, but kinda is I guess, smarter than the Emperor, takes the old Space Marine, improves it, and radically enhances the technology.
Isn't the Space Marine supposed to be the Pinnacle of the Emperors Gene Augmentation knowledge? The Custodes are his finest creations, then the Primarchs, then the Space Marines.
Did Cawl just 1up the Emperor and make Primarch level superhumans? It's the same problem with DBZ. Where do people rank the power levels, because it's getting confusing. The Lore uses objectively final words like "perfect" or "Unmatched" or "Greatest of his creations". The lore can't then say, we made something even PERFECTER.
Easy there, you're starting to get into crazy conspiracy land there at the end.
The Astartes where there when the Thunder Warriors were killed off and it's been hinted for a while that the Emperor was rushing to take advantage of the distraction Slaanesh's birth gave (keeping the other Chaos gods busy for a while) to win when they weren't looking. It's implied that Cawl just finished what the Emperor left unfinished and took 10k years to do it.
Ishagu wrote: 40k literally has space magic. If you take it so seriously that it impacts your enjoyment you need to re-evaluate.
Lots of lore and stories are amazing, but many of them are full of logic holes and convenient plot devices.
Pimaris are a deus ex machina for the imperium, as I've said before.
Then you need to re-examine what that term means, because no, they're not by any definition of Deus ex Machina.
Please elaborate.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:Jesus, just accept that primaris lore is gak and the models mostly good.
And this the problem - Primaris lore is gak, according to you, but that's certainly not a fact by any means.
Telling people to "accept" an opinion that they simply don't share is hardly conducive to an argument.
Not Online!!! wrote:i stated their lore Implementation was gak.
That's it, just like 90% of alpha legion lore is gak.
Which are both your opinions. That's cool and all, but calling for people to "accept" that as a kind of truth? Nah, not quite.
And gw can and did do considerably better.
Also critique is a form of love.
So's obsession, but as with critique, excess of either is overwhelming. I don't think the deluge of "I hate Primaris!!!" threads is as loving as you think, and certainly comes across closer to toxic.
Tiberias wrote:This however did not impact the setting on a big scale. Which brings me to my point about the primaris: the imperium since the heresy has always been depicted as an insanely bureaucratic, fascistic, religiously zealous moloch, that was in a constant struggle to hold its galaxy wide territory together against all kinds of xenos, heretics and the big enemy. Technology since the heresy was never as good as old tech, and said old tech was often revered for how rare it was and because over time they gradually lost the knowledge to properly maintain their tech or even properly recreate it and if they managed to do it, they only could do it at a very slow pace.
But this is still the same. Even with Guilliman, the Imperium is still a theocratic, totalitarian, xenophobic regime as it always has been.
They've lost half the galaxy, and the half they do have is even more hard pressed. The Indomitus Crusade was successful in that it stopped the remaining half of the Imperium falling too, but it's not like it fixed everything. Their tech is still based on what are conceivably technologies in the Imperium (I mean, have you read how the Repulsor hovers? It's even more rudimentary than the Custodes skimmers, which aren't near Eldar tier), and I think that 10,000 years is an acceptable length of time for the Primaris project. I mean, it's not like Cawl just showed up in universe and magically created them. He's been working for 10,000 years to create a slightly better version of Astartes, and has had a direct missive from the highest authority in the Imperium to get it done. Considering that many people have said that Fabius Bile should have been the one to make Primaris (with less tech and resources than Cawl, might I add), I don't think it's because it couldn't have been done in-universe - it's just because we've never heard of Cawl before. As with everything though, more exposure to Cawl will normalise him.
If primaris marines were introduced as their own thing, a decidedly smaller elite force with the purpose to reinforce the old chapters and not as a replacement to them, it would have made more sense.
Which is what they are? They're not replacing anything or anyone else right now. And in all of GW's publicity, they've made it clear they're supplementary, not a replacement.
the story in this case appears to me more of an afterthought and so it comes as no surprise that many players had an issue with that. Because like it or not, for a great many people the underlying story of their plastic models matters.
Which is fair enough, but in the same vein, many people also say that there's no issue with the new story, and it's completely rational and doesn't detract from the setting. It's not as if everyone who likes Primaris is ignorant of the lore.
Karol wrote:Fluff wise there should be a civl war, because that is how an authoritarian sociaty reacts to sudden policy change. There are no soft resets, now talking over stuff, no I guess he is boss now. Change happens, and there are purges. And it doesn't even matter if the country is in a tough or even a war situation.
However, there are no nations on earth quite like the Imperium. The Imperium is pretty much based on the idea of worship of the Emperor, and the Primarchs and Astartes as his chief lieutenants. So while some of the HLOT might be jealous of Guilliman's new power, to the people, it's as if Jesus or an archangel came down to them - and good luck getting support when you're trying to rebel against one of the most prominent members of your empire's pantheon.
Plus, we have had purges. Guilliman deposed and removed several incompetent members of the Administratum and other leadership positions.
GW has said Primaris won't replace the old marines and they'll still support them, but let's not kid ourselves...the primaris model line was made to replace the old marines eventually. Why do you think established characters like marneus calgar and kor'sarro khan got the primaris treatment?
Regarding your point about the new tech I think we just have to agree to disagree. 3 new versions of power armor goes against the theme of scarcity in power armor and terminator armor that was prevalent in the old chapters. Now I don't have anything against the new power armor, in fact I have said multiple times that the mark x looks really good (only thing I personally really dont like is the phobos armor, which to me looks....weird).
You mean that long established character who's return has been hinted at and built up over years of lore?
Are you expecting King Arthur to show up to sort out the Brexit any day now?
Mythical heroes of the past returning in the times of great need is stuff of stories and legends but if they start actually returning the setting will irrecoverably change; especially if one of the central themes of the setting is the glory days being in the distant past.
And of course in the ancient Greek literature the 'existence' of gods was well established, yet their too convenient use for resolving plot points in dramas was criticised as bad storytelling, resulting the term 'deus ex machina'.
In real life it's a bad jpke, but stories operate on a different logic. I mean the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is all about the Lion retutning to Narnia. The mobie Hooknwas all about Peter Pan going back to Neverland.
40k operates on the same sort of narrative causality where.myths and legemds can be real.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, here is my fluff problem with the primaris, maybe someone can help me.
So Big E creates the Custodes, who were sort of his First Born. They were with him before even the Thunder warriors.
Then he creates the Thunder warriors. Then he kills them and makes the Space Marines.
Then Cawl, who is not supposed to be, but kinda is I guess, smarter than the Emperor, takes the old Space Marine, improves it, and radically enhances the technology.
Isn't the Space Marine supposed to be the Pinnacle of the Emperors Gene Augmentation knowledge? The Custodes are his finest creations, then the Primarchs, then the Space Marines.
Did Cawl just 1up the Emperor and make Primarch level superhumans? It's the same problem with DBZ. Where do people rank the power levels, because it's getting confusing. The Lore uses objectively final words like "perfect" or "Unmatched" or "Greatest of his creations". The lore can't then say, we made something even PERFECTER.
Easy there, you're starting to get into crazy conspiracy land there at the end.
The Astartes where there when the Thunder Warriors were killed off and it's been hinted for a while that the Emperor was rushing to take advantage of the distraction Slaanesh's birth gave (keeping the other Chaos gods busy for a while) to win when they weren't looking. It's implied that Cawl just finished what the Emperor left unfinished and took 10k years to do it.
I am curious, what source do you refer to when you say the astartes were present when the thunder warriors were killed off? Was this in some black library publication, because as far as I understood it the custodes killed off the remaining thunder warriors and after that the emperor started to create the astartes
Then you need to re-examine what that term means, because no, they're not by any definition of Deus ex Machina.
Guilliman however almost literally is!
Still no.
Agreed. He literally died, had to get his soul stuffed back into his body, can feel the fact that his soul is damaged because of Fulgrim's poison (though hates admitting anything metaphysical) and lives inside of a suit of armour that is keeping him alive like a 40k Iron Man.
Guilliman's death says the belief he was healing was wrong. It also shows how screwed the Imperium was in ttusying a Xenos to shove his soul back inside of his body.
In real life it's a bad jpke, but stories operate on a different logic. I mean the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is all about the Lion retutning to Narnia. The mobie Hooknwas all about Peter Pan going back to Neverland.
40k operates on the same sort of narrative causality where.myths and legemds can be real.
Yes those stories were about that. 40K on the other hand was about a rotten, declining empire, its glory days in the distant past and the heroes of old mere barely remembered distorted legends. How fething hard can it be to understand that one of those mythical heroes returning and starting to fix things utterly changes what the setting is about?
GW has said Primaris won't replace the old marines and they'll still support them, but let's not kid ourselves...the primaris model line was made to replace the old marines eventually. Why do you think established characters like marneus calgar and kor'sarro khan got the primaris treatment?
Regarding your point about the new tech I think we just have to agree to disagree. 3 new versions of power armor goes against the theme of scarcity in power armor and terminator armor that was prevalent in the old chapters. Now I don't have anything against the new power armor, in fact I have said multiple times that the mark x looks really good (only thing I personally really dont like is the phobos armor, which to me looks....weird).
It is quite likely that in the long run Primaris will replace standard Marines but that process is one that takes years.
And we don't have 3 versions of power armour, we have 1. All MkX armour is the same armour plus or minus armoured plates. Phobos is the most stripped down version while Gravis is the heaviest varient and every other varient is something in between. Badically a unit can armour up or strip down to suit the mission allowing for every squad to serve a wider range of roles in a company instead of needing specialist reinforcements from other companies to fill a gap in a strategy. In my book this makes the Astartes feel more flexible and mission oriented than before.
And even with this new armour there is a fair bit of combatability with older marks (helmets, shoulder pads, and likely more come the future).
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I don't remember all this commotion when Vulkan and Corax returned in books after their stint in the Heresy.
They did? When?
Corax has transformed into a living Shadow and he battled Dameon Lorgar on Lorgar's own Daemon world, and easily defeated him. He also slaughtered thousands of Word Bearers and has vowed to hunt Lorgar down, now that he has his scent.
Vulkan returned to the Imperium about 1500? years after the Heresy to lead the Imperial Forces against the Ork Waaagh of the Beast. As a perpetual he cannot die and will likely be back again.
Trazyn the Infinte also has a perfect, un-corrupted clone of Fulgrim locked up in Stasis that has all the memories of the original. The clone is not happy with his original self! Has all the same gifts, abilities, super charisma and combat prowess. Perhaps Cawl can strike a deal with Trazyn, the two have history.
Also, some further lore: Guilliman does not need his suit to live, although the first time he took it off he was in great agony. Has body has finally defeated the poison and the only wounds are spiritual (But he does not want to admit it, even to himself).
Then you need to re-examine what that term means, because no, they're not by any definition of Deus ex Machina.
Guilliman however almost literally is!
Still no.
Agreed. He literally died, had to get his soul stuffed back into his body, can feel the fact that his soul is damaged because of Fulgrim's poison (though hates admitting anything metaphysical) and lives inside of a suit of armour that is keeping him alive like a 40k Iron Man.
Guilliman's death says the belief he was healing was wrong. It also shows how screwed the Imperium was in ttusying a Xenos to shove his soul back inside of his body.
I think it all sounds silly within the fluff of 40K. Its just all kinda bland, Cowl is probably the worst of it. But i feel like the Emperor and the primarchs becoming more than myth is way worse than anything to do with the primaris themselves, and think they would have been better as Cowl and a bunch of others within the imperium had been working on the upgrade.
Here some new minis, in new roles and a new way to field marines. But upgrade all marines, also leaves open for a new marine kits for the older units.
I think it would have been more interesting as well, And it would have largely left us in the same place. With a much more healthy environment for expansion. And without a lot of the worst part of what makes it all kinda bleh.
Cloning Primarchs is..weird. From the looks of it they have some kind of memory written into their genetic information meaning a clone knows everything the original knew up to the time the genetic sample was taken, but minus a soul they are weaker than the original and it seems that their souls have a bit of the Warp in them which might give them more power.
Primarchs becoming more than Myth was a product of fleshing out the Horus Heresy.
Those "mythical" bits of lore days are long gone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: Cloning Primarchs is..weird. From the looks of it they have some kind of memory written into their genetic information meaning a clone knows everything the original knew up to the time the genetic sample was taken, but minus a soul they are weaker than the original and it seems that their souls have a bit of the Warp in them which might give them more power.
Yeah it's really strange. I would be very interested in a story about Guilliman recovering the living clone of Fulgrim.
An un-corrupted Fulgrim would be an incredible ally, if certain safety measures were introduced. Also Guilliman could use the company - he is uttterly bored and lonely with not having anyone on his mental level to talk to. The Emperor must have felt the same way.
Ishagu wrote: 40k literally has space magic. If you take it so seriously that it impacts your enjoyment you need to re-evaluate.
Lots of lore and stories are amazing, but many of them are full of logic holes and convenient plot devices.
Pimaris are a deus ex machina for the imperium, as I've said before.
Then you need to re-examine what that term means, because no, they're not by any definition of Deus ex Machina.
Please elaborate.
.
A Deus ex Machina is something that arrives from outside the narrative to resolve the plot. A relatively modern example comes from Texas Chainsaw Massacre 4, wherein a prop plane shows up, flies low, and saves Reese Witherspoon by killing Matthew Unspellable Last Name with the prop then flying off. No introduction, no explanation, plot finished.
Not only are Primaris not arriving from outside the narrative (in fact being rolled out in the 150 years of story between Gathering Storm and Dark Imperium), they most definitely have not resolved the plot.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, here is my fluff problem with the primaris, maybe someone can help me.
So Big E creates the Custodes, who were sort of his First Born. They were with him before even the Thunder warriors.
Then he creates the Thunder warriors. Then he kills them and makes the Space Marines.
Then Cawl, who is not supposed to be, but kinda is I guess, smarter than the Emperor, takes the old Space Marine, improves it, and radically enhances the technology.
Isn't the Space Marine supposed to be the Pinnacle of the Emperors Gene Augmentation knowledge? The Custodes are his finest creations, then the Primarchs, then the Space Marines.
Did Cawl just 1up the Emperor and make Primarch level superhumans? It's the same problem with DBZ. Where do people rank the power levels, because it's getting confusing. The Lore uses objectively final words like "perfect" or "Unmatched" or "Greatest of his creations". The lore can't then say, we made something even PERFECTER.
Some others have answered this, but I would just say to find some lore (Like the Beast Arises series) where a Primarch is shown among the marines, they are shown to be on a level magnitudes more powerful than Space Marines. So it is very possible to alter the existing space marine with new tech to be slightly better in every way, without coming close to primarch level
I think it all sounds silly within the fluff of 40K. Its just all kinda bland, Cowl is probably the worst of it. But i feel like the Emperor and the primarchs becoming more than myth is way worse than anything to do with the primaris themselves, and think they would have been better as Cowl and a bunch of others within the imperium had been working on the upgrade.
Here some new minis, in new roles and a new way to field marines. But upgrade all marines, also leaves open for a new marine kits for the older units.
I think it would have been more interesting as well, And it would have largely left us in the same place. With a much more healthy environment for expansion. And without a lot of the worst part of what makes it all kinda bleh.
Cawl is currently the worst of it, but he is getting better. Much like how the Horus Heresy took time to become a tighter narrative event this too will take some time to settle. When it does I feel it'll be a solid story that holds up better tham what little we knew at the start.
The Primarch genie was unbottled for the Horus Heresy and once we did that it became too late to stuff if back in. Letting them back into 40k (especially the daemon primarchs who really sgouldn't have left) was just natural after that.
As for upgrading the Marines, it's happening in the lore, but a full upgrade takes time.
Ishagu wrote: Primarchs becoming more than Myth was a product of fleshing out the Horus Heresy.
Those "mythical" bits of lore days are long gone.
And a lot of it went from Myth to joke. The horus heresy i think has left us with some great parts, and a lot of the worst of 40k.
The myths are the story inflated over years, though religions dogma. In most cases, deescalate the power so it can balance against itself in its own world. And you will be left with a better product, a lot of 40k marine lore was cool since it was them against things in the darkness that where dangerous. Super humans, but human in part.
Now i cannot help but feel the space marines are a bit of joke in there own setting. How many Marines but better do we have now.
Tiberias wrote: I am curious, what source do you refer to when you say the astartes were present when the thunder warriors were killed off? Was this in some black library publication, because as far as I understood it the custodes killed off the remaining thunder warriors and after that the emperor started to create the astartes
Because the Iron Warriors were able to taunt the oldstartes with what happened to the Thunder Warriors when they found out about the Primaris (instead of relying on the public story that they died heroically in battle instead of being purged).
In real life it's a bad jpke, but stories operate on a different logic. I mean the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is all about the Lion retutning to Narnia. The mobie Hooknwas all about Peter Pan going back to Neverland.
40k operates on the same sort of narrative causality where.myths and legemds can be real.
Yes those stories were about that. 40K on the other hand was about a rotten, declining empire, its glory days in the distant past and the heroes of old mere barely remembered distorted legends. How fething hard can it be to understand that one of those mythical heroes returning and starting to fix things utterly changes what the setting is about?
Narnia was about a horrible, corrupt dicatorship that was only saved by the return of Christ (represented by a lion). Now imagine that, only the return of the Lion doesn't make anything better and now the kingdom is cracked in half and the crack is full of hell itself.
Yeah, we have a walking legend, but we also see him straining under the pressure to the point of having his hair greying around the temples and even thinning a bit from the stress. A demi-god is going bald from stress. That's how bad it's gotten just trying to keep the leaking boat of the Imperium afloat.
I find it funny that you think Marines are a joke but you have no problem with Fungal Space Pirates, Space Magic, and Space Viking Ware-Wolves.
I hate what space Viking ware-wolves have become, And its why i tend to leave it to within there own setting. Space magic is hardly that crazy a concept, and if the setting has rules and can support itself then that can be just fine within story telling.
Even with magic in settings, consistency within its own setting is important. Even the best wont be perfect, But the less you push those boundary the less players have to ignore inconsistency.
Also you seem to be really dismissive and rude, You just assume i happen to have no issues with something. And Fungal space pirates, Could mean a lot of things. But i guess the best way for you to support you like of 40k is to pull it down, rather than to hold it up to a a higher standard.
I find it funny that you think Marines are a joke but you have no problem with Fungal Space Pirates, Space Magic, and Space Viking Ware-Wolves.
I hate what space Viking ware-wolves have become, And its why i tend to leave it to within there own setting. Space magic is hardly that crazy a concept, and if the setting has rules and can support itself then that can be just fine within story telling.
Even with magic settings, consistency within its own setting is important. Even the best wont be perfect, But the less you push those boundary the less players have to ignore inconsistency.
Space Viking Werewolves was a thing long before Skyrim did Viking Werewolves. It's been hinted for years that there are no wolves on Fenris (and said wolves are actually humans mutated too far by whatever it is humanity did to their genetic code to adapt more to the planets they colonized (which might explain why Catachan natives look like bodybuilders: it's what the adaptation they gained to survive on their planet) and that causes the Wulfen mutation (and Thunderwolves may be the Space Wolves who go out for their final test and don't come back). The execution of the Wulfen is a bit naff (I think the t-poses are a big part of it since it feels less savage and more ballet) but the lore for them has been around for ages.
I find it funny that you think Marines are a joke but you have no problem with Fungal Space Pirates, Space Magic, and Space Viking Ware-Wolves.
I hate what space Viking ware-wolves have become, And its why i tend to leave it to within there own setting. Space magic is hardly that crazy a concept, and if the setting has rules and can support itself then that can be just fine within story telling.
Even with magic settings, consistency within its own setting is important. Even the best wont be perfect, But the less you push those boundary the less players have to ignore inconsistency.
Space Viking Werewolves was a thing long before Skyrim did Viking Werewolves. It's been hinted for years that there are no wolves on Fenris (and said wolves are actually humans mutated too far by whatever it is humanity did to their genetic code to adapt more to the planets they colonized (which might explain why Catachan natives look like bodybuilders: it's what the adaptation they gained to survive on their planet) and that causes the Wulfen mutation (and Thunderwolves may be the Space Wolves who go out for their final test and don't come back). The execution of the Wulfen is a bit naff (I think the t-poses are a big part of it since it feels less savage and more ballet) but the lore for them has been around for ages.
I can dislike a lot of that going back a long time, At a certen point the no wolves on fenris can just be dumb. The space wolves just forgot they could import wolves if they want them. Or there extinct, maybe they made them from other things. And where did Skyrim come into this Its not even the first thing with viking ware-wolves. Not even the first ware-wolves in the setting itself.
Also that was mostly just responding to Ishagu thinking i happen to just like something that i in actuality dislike.
I find it funny that you think Marines are a joke but you have no problem with Fungal Space Pirates, Space Magic, and Space Viking Ware-Wolves.
I hate what space Viking ware-wolves have become, And its why i tend to leave it to within there own setting. Space magic is hardly that crazy a concept, and if the setting has rules and can support itself then that can be just fine within story telling.
Even with magic settings, consistency within its own setting is important. Even the best wont be perfect, But the less you push those boundary the less players have to ignore inconsistency.
Space Viking Werewolves was a thing long before Skyrim did Viking Werewolves. It's been hinted for years that there are no wolves on Fenris (and said wolves are actually humans mutated too far by whatever it is humanity did to their genetic code to adapt more to the planets they colonized (which might explain why Catachan natives look like bodybuilders: it's what the adaptation they gained to survive on their planet) and that causes the Wulfen mutation (and Thunderwolves may be the Space Wolves who go out for their final test and don't come back). The execution of the Wulfen is a bit naff (I think the t-poses are a big part of it since it feels less savage and more ballet) but the lore for them has been around for ages.
I can dislike a lot of that going back a long time, At a certen point the no wolves on fenris can just be dumb. The space wolves just forgot they could import wolves if they want them. Or there extinct, maybe they made them from other things. And where did Skyrim come into this Its not even the first thing with viking ware-wolves. Not even the first ware-wolves in the setting itself.
Skyrim tends to get a lot of credit for the "viking werewolf" idea, but 40k has been doing it for ages. Blood Angels were Space Vampires and Space Wolves were Viking Werewolves in Space as far back as I remember (though the "Blood X" and "Wolf X" stuff got really silly in 5th).
To anyone getting upset or thinking I'm rude. I certainly won't be saying what I'm saying if you added something like: "in my opinion" to your posts, rather than:
"Lore is crap" "Marines are a joke" etc, etc
Remember, people can like or dislike anything. It's subjective. The current lore is not objectively bad or out of line with the setting, but some people may not like it. That's perfectly fine.
Ishagu wrote: 40k literally has space magic. If you take it so seriously that it impacts your enjoyment you need to re-evaluate.
Lots of lore and stories are amazing, but many of them are full of logic holes and convenient plot devices.
Pimaris are a deus ex machina for the imperium, as I've said before.
Then you need to re-examine what that term means, because no, they're not by any definition of Deus ex Machina.
Please elaborate.
.
A Deus ex Machina is something that arrives from outside the narrative to resolve the plot. A relatively modern example comes from Texas Chainsaw Massacre 4, wherein a prop plane shows up, flies low, and saves Reese Witherspoon by killing Matthew Unspellable Last Name with the prop then flying off. No introduction, no explanation, plot finished.
Not only are Primaris not arriving from outside the narrative (in fact being rolled out in the 150 years of story between Gathering Storm and Dark Imperium), they most definitely have not resolved the plot.
I am sorry but come on, they definitely appeared out of nowhere and they did not resolve the plot in the same way as your movie example, because 40k is not a movie. They however punched out the blood angels at devastation of baal and along with guilliman lifted the demon invasion on terra, so yeah I stand by my assessment.
I find it funny that you think Marines are a joke but you have no problem with Fungal Space Pirates, Space Magic, and Space Viking Ware-Wolves.
I hate what space Viking ware-wolves have become, And its why i tend to leave it to within there own setting. Space magic is hardly that crazy a concept, and if the setting has rules and can support itself then that can be just fine within story telling.
Even with magic settings, consistency within its own setting is important. Even the best wont be perfect, But the less you push those boundary the less players have to ignore inconsistency.
Space Viking Werewolves was a thing long before Skyrim did Viking Werewolves. It's been hinted for years that there are no wolves on Fenris (and said wolves are actually humans mutated too far by whatever it is humanity did to their genetic code to adapt more to the planets they colonized (which might explain why Catachan natives look like bodybuilders: it's what the adaptation they gained to survive on their planet) and that causes the Wulfen mutation (and Thunderwolves may be the Space Wolves who go out for their final test and don't come back). The execution of the Wulfen is a bit naff (I think the t-poses are a big part of it since it feels less savage and more ballet) but the lore for them has been around for ages.
I can dislike a lot of that going back a long time, At a certen point the no wolves on fenris can just be dumb. The space wolves just forgot they could import wolves if they want them. Or there extinct, maybe they made them from other things. And where did Skyrim come into this Its not even the first thing with viking ware-wolves. Not even the first ware-wolves in the setting itself.
Skyrim tends to get a lot of credit for the "viking werewolf" idea, but 40k has been doing it for ages. Blood Angels were Space Vampires and Space Wolves were Viking Werewolves in Space as far back as I remember (though the "Blood X" and "Wolf X" stuff got really silly in 5th).
It should not mean they should have gone more into it, there was a lot that could have been done far better and i think at least for what i have been able to observe. Space wolves have lost a lot of support for there take on it. Blood angels i think have at least not been so badly present. (trying to push my point without being so frustrated, I am tired.)
Also i actuly rarely see people think of skyrim as the first iteration of Viking warewolf. Even in the Eldar scrolls community i not sure i have seen it come up that often like that. Its more often taken as a sorta given, both considering the history of the setting and how well it sorta worked.
Also, Everything here has been worded as opinion. It probably should be taken as such that anything said under the topic of My take on the direction GW is taking, is probably opinion. It should not be needed to be stated in such a way.
Ishagu wrote: To anyone getting upset or thinking I'm rude. I certainly won't be saying what I'm saying if you added something like: "in my opinion" to your posts, rather than:
"Lore is crap" "Marines are a joke" etc, etc
Remember, people can like or dislike anything. It's subjective. The current lore is not objectively bad or out of line with the setting, but some people may not like it. That's perfectly fine.
As someone else who generally likes the Primaris, you've gone a bit too far in some of your posts. If you think someone else needs to step up their level of discussion you should first maintain a high level on your own end instead of telling people things like "get used to it". People have years of emotional investment in this game and it causes emotions to run high. Letting your own emotions get away from you when trying to convince people it's not so bad is counter productive and instead just makes the side your taking look bad by extension.
Corax has transformed into a living Shadow and he battled Dameon Lorgar on Lorgar's own Daemon world, and easily defeated him. He also slaughtered thousands of Word Bearers and has vowed to hunt Lorgar down, now that he has his scent.
Vulkan returned to the Imperium about 1500? years after the Heresy to lead the Imperial Forces against the Ork Waaagh of the Beast. As a perpetual he cannot die and will likely be back again.
Trazyn the Infinte also has a perfect, un-corrupted clone of Fulgrim locked up in Stasis that has all the memories of the original. The clone is not happy with his original self! Has all the same gifts, abilities, super charisma and combat prowess. Perhaps Cawl can strike a deal with Trazyn, the two have history.
1500 after HH is still super ancien history from 41st millennium perspective, so that doesn't really matter. Though of course the perpetuals are idiotic and one of the worst things on the long list of terrible things the BL's take on HH as introduced in the setting. Corax and Fulgrim things are stupid, but they really do not currently affect the setting as practically no one knows about them.
Also, some further lore: Guilliman does not need his suit to live, although the first time he took it off he was in great agony. Has body has finally defeated the poison and the only wounds are spiritual (But he does not want to admit it, even to himself).
That is really unfortunate. I was really hoping that he would be killed by accidentally having his life support cable getting stuck in a doorknob and getting unplugged.
Tiberias wrote: I am sorry but come on, they definitely appeared out of nowhere and they did not resolve the plot in the same way as your movie example, because 40k is not a movie. They however punched out the blood angels at devastation of baal and along with guilliman lifted the demon invasion on terra, so yeah I stand by my assessment.
The daemon invasion was overturned by Terran forces who then met Guilliman on Luna (also go read Watchers of the Throne, it's really good). Blood Angels got bailed out by Khorne as part of the Devastation of Baal storyline (possibly as a plot to try and pull them over to Khorne finally by showing them how much more powerful they'd be under the Blood God).
Ishagu wrote: Primarchs becoming more than Myth was a product of fleshing out the Horus Heresy.
Certainly true, and that's why BL's HH was one of the worst things that has ever happened to the setting. Though of course now Gathering Storm has it beat. At least the HH books didn't directly affect the 40K and could be safely ignored.
Apple fox wrote: It should not mean they should have gone more into it, there was a lot that could have been done far better and i think at least for what i have been able to observe. Space wolves have lost a lot of support for there take on it. Blood angels i think have at least not been so badly present. (trying to push my point without being so frustrated, I am tired.)
Also i actuly rarely see people think of skyrim as the first iteration of Viking warewolf. Even in the Eldar scrolls community i not sure i have seen it come up that often like that. Its more often taken as a sorta given, both considering the history of the setting and how well it sorta worked.
Also, Everything here has been worded as opinion. It probably should be taken as such that anything said under the topic of My take on the direction GW is taking, is probably opinion. It should not be needed to be stated in such a way.
I won't deny there are bits of the lore that are basically poorly written (some of it just needs an editor to push the writers harder, other stuff was a bad idea from the get go), but I feel the Primaris rollout is one of those things that is going to get better as we go, with a lot of stuff cleaned up and made better.
Ishagu wrote: Primarchs becoming more than Myth was a product of fleshing out the Horus Heresy.
Certainly true, and that's why BL's HH was one of the worst things that has ever happened to the setting. Though of course now Gathering Storm has it beat. At least the HH books didn't directly affect the 40K and could be safely ignored.
This is actuly a lot of how i seen it, so many players wanted to ignore the Horus heresy. We had one player that really got into it, and i felt sorry for him how little other people wanted it.
I had often wonder how well it does, Since an army and forge world models can cost so much. I know there is a few tanks i would get if not for the heart attack i would have trying to order them.
Ishagu wrote: Primarchs becoming more than Myth was a product of fleshing out the Horus Heresy.
Certainly true, and that's why BL's HH was one of the worst things that has ever happened to the setting. Though of course now Gathering Storm has it beat. At least the HH books didn't directly affect the 40K and could be safely ignored.
And yet the Horus Heresy is some of the best selling work GW has ever produced, and for a while the Horus Heresy game was going so strong that the main studio made plastic kits for MkIII and MkIV armour as well as Cataphrachii Terminators. So your dislike of the setting doesn't carry over to the larger community it seems.
Tiberias wrote: I am sorry but come on, they definitely appeared out of nowhere and they did not resolve the plot in the same way as your movie example, because 40k is not a movie. They however punched out the blood angels at devastation of baal and along with guilliman lifted the demon invasion on terra, so yeah I stand by my assessment.
The daemon invasion was overturned by Terran forces who then met Guilliman on Luna (also go read Watchers of the Throne, it's really good). Blood Angels got bailed out by Khorne as part of the Devastation of Baal storyline (possibly as a plot to try and pull them over to Khorne finally by showing them how much more powerful they'd be under the Blood God).
So your assessment is pretty bad.
I've read watchers on the throne, and I stand corrected the custodes and terran forces defeated the khornate forces and then met guilliman, I remembered that wrong. The blood angels however were not saved by the khorne demons, they would have still died to the tyranids if guilliman and his primaris had not come. So yeah, the primaris still fit the criteria for a deus ex machina in my book.
And yet the Horus Heresy is some of the best selling work GW has ever produced, and for a while the Horus Heresy game was going so strong that the main studio made plastic kits for MkIII and MkIV armour as well as Cataphrachii Terminators. So your dislike of the setting doesn't carry over to the larger community it seems.
I never said it does. If so many people wouldn't like puerile superhero action mixed with lame daddy issues then there wouldn't now be Primarchs in 40K. Doesn't mean that those of use who liked the setting as it was cannot lament the change.
Apple fox wrote: It should not mean they should have gone more into it, there was a lot that could have been done far better and i think at least for what i have been able to observe. Space wolves have lost a lot of support for there take on it. Blood angels i think have at least not been so badly present. (trying to push my point without being so frustrated, I am tired.)
Also i actuly rarely see people think of skyrim as the first iteration of Viking warewolf. Even in the Eldar scrolls community i not sure i have seen it come up that often like that. Its more often taken as a sorta given, both considering the history of the setting and how well it sorta worked.
Also, Everything here has been worded as opinion. It probably should be taken as such that anything said under the topic of My take on the direction GW is taking, is probably opinion. It should not be needed to be stated in such a way.
I won't deny there are bits of the lore that are basically poorly written (some of it just needs an editor to push the writers harder, other stuff was a bad idea from the get go), but I feel the Primaris rollout is one of those things that is going to get better as we go, with a lot of stuff cleaned up and made better.
This is think is very true, As i think i have said in other places. I actuly like some of the units. Reavers i think are some of the worst models for 40k, but from a pure looks i think there first iterations where a good look mostly.
Some of them at least, it probably does not help that GW wanted or needed them to happen. So it feels like we get beaten over the head with them as well Its the same reason i gravitate away from 40k, the general feel of neglect from a studio that only seems to really like space marines at times
I've read watchers on the throne, and I stand corrected the custodes and terran forces defeated the khornate forces and then met guilliman, I remembered that wrong. The blood angels however were not saved by the khorne demons, they would have still died to the tyranids if guilliman and his primaris had not come. So yeah, the primaris still fit the criteria for a deus ex machina in my book.
I mean Cawl (of whom we had never heard of before this mess) conveniently had a legion of übermarines in his freezer to swiftly deploy at the time of need. It is certainly quite deus ex machiney. Primaris do not necessarily need to be that, but given how they were originally presented makes such an assertion pretty fair.
I've read watchers on the throne, and I stand corrected the custodes and terran forces defeated the khornate forces and then met guilliman, I remembered that wrong. The blood angels however were not saved by the khorne demons, they would have still died to the tyranids if guilliman and his primaris had not come. So yeah, the primaris still fit the criteria for a deus ex machina in my book.
I mean Cawl (of whom we had never heard of before this mess) conveniently had a legion of übermarines in his freezer to swiftly deploy at the time of need. It is certainly quite deus ex machiney. Primaris do not necessarily need to be that, but given how they were originally presented makes such an assertion pretty fair.
Anything compared to the 30 years of lore the setting has built up is going to feel like a rush job. That said, they have been unpacking that and showing ways Cawl's roll out wasn't as good as it needed to be (like the 200 year long Crusade needed to make them as effective as the current existing marines, or the fact that Cawl's lack the tactical and role flexibility of new Primaris (or even converted Primaris) since he made each one to do a single job. Plus, you know, he made the units around the way Legions organize and not how Chapters fight.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Actually, it is, quite often that happening. Saying any dislike for them is factually wrong bad think. I've literally said how I like the models, hate the fluff and really don't care for them overall. The pro side is so hyperbolic though it's like they can't handle if someone says they don't like them.
I'm just concerned, it seems we've reached a point where someone having a contrary opinion is just not acceptable anymore and deemed categorically negative/toxic. If that doesn't concern someone, maybe it should. I also know this isn't a new thing but its gotten pretty large as of late.
I never once said primaris lovers are bad, but I've seen countless bashes on those who dislike them. Comments as to how it somehow takes away someone elses fun when they even have to read how someone dislikes something they like. That, is a problem.
Fact is, if anyone can't handle people may dislike something you love, and make that opinion known at least as often as it's put out there, maybe online discussions should be avoided.
As if I got sad, mad, downed every time someone disagreed with me things would be quite bad, I might even tear up.
Oh and lets not forget the classic, don't love primaris you should leave the hobby,or don't like everything GW better get out. As well as arguments about if you like old marines you are just dumb and you can't as they are awful.
That's all pretty over the top. When someone is claiming there is no reason to hate them but every reason to love them I begin to think one side is a bit wild in their claims.
There is a big difference from saying "I don't like Primaris" to making loaded statements like "they're like Tau" or "they're not like Marines". It's those loaded statements people take issue with, not with people not liking something.
Many Primaris have more Tau-like qualities than classic marines. Flying tanks, jump pack troopers with guns instead of cc weapons, suits of armor with dual-weilded guns, more techy details, etc.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Actually, it is, quite often that happening. Saying any dislike for them is factually wrong bad think. I've literally said how I like the models, hate the fluff and really don't care for them overall. The pro side is so hyperbolic though it's like they can't handle if someone says they don't like them.
I'm just concerned, it seems we've reached a point where someone having a contrary opinion is just not acceptable anymore and deemed categorically negative/toxic. If that doesn't concern someone, maybe it should. I also know this isn't a new thing but its gotten pretty large as of late.
I never once said primaris lovers are bad, but I've seen countless bashes on those who dislike them. Comments as to how it somehow takes away someone elses fun when they even have to read how someone dislikes something they like. That, is a problem.
Fact is, if anyone can't handle people may dislike something you love, and make that opinion known at least as often as it's put out there, maybe online discussions should be avoided.
As if I got sad, mad, downed every time someone disagreed with me things would be quite bad, I might even tear up.
Oh and lets not forget the classic, don't love primaris you should leave the hobby,or don't like everything GW better get out. As well as arguments about if you like old marines you are just dumb and you can't as they are awful.
That's all pretty over the top. When someone is claiming there is no reason to hate them but every reason to love them I begin to think one side is a bit wild in their claims.
There is a big difference from saying "I don't like Primaris" to making loaded statements like "they're like Tau" or "they're not like Marines". It's those loaded statements people take issue with, not with people not liking something.
Many Primaris have more Tau-like qualities than classic marines. Flying tanks, jump pack troopers with guns instead of cc weapons, suits of armor with dual-weilded guns, more techy details, etc.
These are observations, not opinions.
Flying tanks that punch the ground to stay up through brute force much like how their aircraft operate? I mean yeah, it flies, but it also pastes anything that ends up underneath it. Other than "lol, flying tanks" it's not like Tau.
And while they do have more shooting, they still punch as well as Marines normally do (which is decent, but largely hasn't been a strong focus for the army in years as they're billed as generalists who can "shoot -and- punch" not "shoot -or- punch".
There aren't really a lot of more techy details. I mean, Tau Crisis Suits have thinner legs because of how they basically hover around, while the Inceptors and Suppressors use Jump Packs and need special attachments (the skids on their feet) to help get them into the air faster or take their harder landings. That's not really techy as much as it is the Imperium going "we need to be able to get bigger guns into places faster, so let's give them to assault units and compensate for the extra weight with more rockets and moon shoes."
If you want to argue that they match a xenos army at least use Eldar who have specialized mono-wargear squads, can mix melee and ranged better than Tau do, and have grav tanks and generally more mid to short range than Tau who are long to mid range in design.
SO then they are also like Eldar? Because Flying tanks, Jump pack troopers with guns, techy details?
I mean regular marines have lightly armored infiltrating troops, stationary heavy weapons teams, suits of armor with dual-weilded guns, bulky front heavy flyers....
seem like they are comparatively just as Tau like if we want to use those descriptions.
Thargrim wrote: I started disliking new lore around the time necrons were revamped into space tomb kings. And then things continued to get worse from there. I definitely think the initial Dawn of War era is my idea of iconic 40k. Things feel different now, on one hand we are getting things I despise like primaris, primarchs returning etc. But on the other hand we are getting aeronautica imperialis and other stuff like sisters of battle which distinctly capture the feel I had been looking for.
Take what you want and ignore what you don't like.
SO then they are also like Eldar? Because Flying tanks, Jump pack troopers with guns, techy details?
I mean regular marines have lightly armored infiltrating troops, stationary heavy weapons teams, suits of armor with dual-weilded guns, bulky front heavy flyers....
seem like they are comparatively just as Tau like if we want to use those descriptions.
Yes, there are aspects of Primaris that are more Eldarish as well, such as the fixed-role units, but the 'look' leans more tau-like, with the chunky suits and 'anime fins'.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Actually, it is, quite often that happening. Saying any dislike for them is factually wrong bad think. I've literally said how I like the models, hate the fluff and really don't care for them overall. The pro side is so hyperbolic though it's like they can't handle if someone says they don't like them.
I'm just concerned, it seems we've reached a point where someone having a contrary opinion is just not acceptable anymore and deemed categorically negative/toxic. If that doesn't concern someone, maybe it should. I also know this isn't a new thing but its gotten pretty large as of late.
I never once said primaris lovers are bad, but I've seen countless bashes on those who dislike them. Comments as to how it somehow takes away someone elses fun when they even have to read how someone dislikes something they like. That, is a problem.
Fact is, if anyone can't handle people may dislike something you love, and make that opinion known at least as often as it's put out there, maybe online discussions should be avoided.
As if I got sad, mad, downed every time someone disagreed with me things would be quite bad, I might even tear up.
Oh and lets not forget the classic, don't love primaris you should leave the hobby,or don't like everything GW better get out. As well as arguments about if you like old marines you are just dumb and you can't as they are awful.
That's all pretty over the top. When someone is claiming there is no reason to hate them but every reason to love them I begin to think one side is a bit wild in their claims.
There is a big difference from saying "I don't like Primaris" to making loaded statements like "they're like Tau" or "they're not like Marines". It's those loaded statements people take issue with, not with people not liking something.
Many Primaris have more Tau-like qualities than classic marines. Flying tanks, jump pack troopers with guns instead of cc weapons, suits of armor with dual-weilded guns, more techy details, etc.
These are observations, not opinions.
Gotta agree. The armour has a certain look to it that is reminiscent of the Damocles armour from the Dornian Heresy Ultramarines.
Spoiler:
Now, it's not a 1:1 match, but there are elements of that amongst the entire Primaris line to me. The Primaris tanks are very similar to the Tau tanks, combining the image of a skimmer and a heavy tank but is lifted huge thrusters rather than anti grav . There are just too many similarities scattered about. Now you can say that about a lot of ranges if you want to misconstrue the point (like some are) but looking at both ranges side by side it looks like they are stepping on one another's toes in places.
Which is something I find very odd, as GW is very protective of the imagery of its armies (can't remember what it is called, it's on the tip of my tongue) where you would not find sweeping smooth lines on SMs no more that you would find blocky, heavy armour on an Eldar. The idea is to make it so you know exactly what army a mini goes to by simply looking at its silhouette, this is where some of the more outlandish Primaris designs fall down for me. You could be forgiven for thinking an Inceptor is part of the Tau by just looking at its silhouette.
SO then they are also like Eldar? Because Flying tanks, Jump pack troopers with guns, techy details?
I mean regular marines have lightly armored infiltrating troops, stationary heavy weapons teams, suits of armor with dual-weilded guns, bulky front heavy flyers....
seem like they are comparatively just as Tau like if we want to use those descriptions.
Yes, there are aspects of Primaris that are more Eldarish as well, such as the fixed-role units, but the 'look' leans more tau-like, with the chunky suits and 'anime fins'.
Are you talking about the Grav Chute fins? The same Grav Chute fins we had on Guard models years ago?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Inceptors lack the organic curves the Tau tanks do, nor do they have wings on the front (for drone storage) or the more triangle shaped body with a wide back that tapers going forward.
Overread wrote:Are Primaris a solution though? From what I can tell they are only just holding the line like Marines were before - and by holding the line I mean that the whole Imperium hasn't fallen (even though they've lost loads of stuff).
Of course in any story setting based on a physical game you're not going to get factions die off. No one wants their army Squatted into nothing (just go ask Tombking or Bretonnia players) so of course the story will always contrive to be like a weekly episodic TV show. At the end of the event the factions will still be around only their relative power/influence adjusted a bit for a period of time.
Or ask a Squat Player?
Hate to break it to those that dont know but....40k is (and always has been) one gigantic Saturday morning cartoon. Just a more adult oriented one(not that kind you perverts).
I like Primaris but for sure it isnt due to the lore. the models are spectacular and really kitbash well with Astartes. Hamfisted and weak are how I'd describe their intro. Altho I'm not sure how else GW could've shoehorned them in without them feeling weird. It probably wasnt the best idea/way to intro them into the 41st millennium. But they could've just said screw it, bye bye Astartes....Hello Primaris.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Inceptors lack the organic curves the Tau tanks do, nor do they have wings on the front (for drone storage) or the more triangle shaped body with a wide back that tapers going forward.
Marine vehicles are bricks.
And just as I predicted people are misconstruing what is being said...
It is NOT a 1:1 comparison. The Tau tanks are bricks, just like the Primaris ones. There might be some superficial differences but this is NOT what is being noted. You can pick apart the little differences but the big sames are right there for all to see.
GW has a thing called Design Vocabularies (it's in the October 2016 WD in the interview with Jes Goodwin, ironically enough. (Yes, I finally remembered what is was called)). To me, and Insectum the Primaris range in places bleeds too much into the Tau's design vocabularies. It does not mean it is a 1:1 match.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Inceptors lack the organic curves the Tau tanks do, nor do they have wings on the front (for drone storage) or the more triangle shaped body with a wide back that tapers going forward.
Marine vehicles are bricks.
And just as I predicted people are misconstruing what is being said...
It is NOT a 1:1 comparison. The Tau tanks are bricks, just like the Primaris ones. There might be some superficial differences but this is NOT what is being noted. You can pick apart the little differences but the big sames are right there for all to see.
GW has a thing called Design Vocabularies (it's in the October 2016 WD in the interview with Jes Goodwin, ironically enough. (Yes, I finally remembered what is was called)). To me, and Insectum the Primaris range in places bleeds too much into the Tau's design vocabularies. It does not mean it is a 1:1 match.
Those superficial differences are important. If you start stripping them out than any army could be called "like" any other.
The Primaris tanks don't look very Tau like but it does break away from the IoM's crude design by slapping sci fi grav tech on it. That said the plasma cannon on the Primaris Dread is immersion breaking with how much it looks like Tau tech.
Vankraken wrote: The Primaris tanks don't look very Tau like but it does break away from the IoM's crude design by slapping sci fi grav tech on it. That said the plasma cannon on the Primaris Dread is immersion breaking with how much it looks like Tau tech.
So the Grav tech is based on the STCs created by Lamd in M30 based on anti-grav tech he recovered, making it the same grav tech used for all Land Speeder type vehicles. It's existing tech slapped onto a tank chassis that is likely based on the same STCs that were used to create the Land Raider.
And Tau plasma doesn't have massive exposed coils, but rather looks like this:
And before someone points at the plasma bottles (or whatever you want to call those small power cell looking things), Mechanicus plasma has those too (albeit less shielded but that comes down to how you paint it):
Tiberias wrote: I am sorry but come on, they definitely appeared out of nowhere and they did not resolve the plot in the same way as your movie example, because 40k is not a movie. They however punched out the blood angels at devastation of baal and along with guilliman lifted the demon invasion on terra, so yeah I stand by my assessment.
The daemon invasion was overturned by Terran forces who then met Guilliman on Luna (also go read Watchers of the Throne, it's really good). Blood Angels got bailed out by Khorne as part of the Devastation of Baal storyline (possibly as a plot to try and pull them over to Khorne finally by showing them how much more powerful they'd be under the Blood God).
So your assessment is pretty bad.
I may be wrong but the Daemons bailed out the BA purely because Ka'Bhanda wanted to kill the Blood Angels himself. Which is moronic considering he promptly didn't do that.
SO then they are also like Eldar? Because Flying tanks, Jump pack troopers with guns, techy details?
I mean regular marines have lightly armored infiltrating troops, stationary heavy weapons teams, suits of armor with dual-weilded guns, bulky front heavy flyers....
seem like they are comparatively just as Tau like if we want to use those descriptions.
Yes, there are aspects of Primaris that are more Eldarish as well, such as the fixed-role units, but the 'look' leans more tau-like, with the chunky suits and 'anime fins'.
Are you talking about the Grav Chute fins? The same Grav Chute fins we had on Guard models years ago?
You're going to have to provide some reference, because all I know of are the Elesian models, and those ain't 'anime fins' by a long shot.
Inceptors lack the organic curves the Tau tanks do, nor do they have wings on the front (for drone storage) or the more triangle shaped body with a wide back that tapers going forward.
Marine vehicles are bricks.
Inceptors aren't tanks? Arguably Inceptors have more curved features than a Tau Stealth Suit. They both fly, they both shoot, they both have rounded 'chassis' and they both have little anime fins.
Ishagu wrote: In 5 years Cawl will be established, old lore.
Community needs more patience.
I doubt that. Centurions have been around long enough for me to call them old but the way they were introduced was and will always be rubbish and lazy in my view and the same is true of Primaris.
Ishagu wrote: In 5 years Cawl will be established, old lore.
Community needs more patience.
I doubt that. Centurions have been around long enough for me to call them old but the way they were introduced was and will always be rubbish and lazy in my view and the same is true of Primaris.
You're right, Elesians don't have fins (don't know why I remembered fins), but I hardly think fins are 'anime like' just because their fins (especially since anime is a medium not a genre so you're probably talking about something like Gundam which does have some Mech designs with fins, but not like 40k uses them).
And you're right, Inceptors are rather round (my brain went to the tank because I-word confusion) but they aren't that similar to Tau suits which are more boxy than the Inceptor which looks like an Centurion crossed with a Terminator and an Assault Marine.
Vankraken wrote: The Primaris tanks don't look very Tau like but it does break away from the IoM's crude design by slapping sci fi grav tech on it. That said the plasma cannon on the Primaris Dread is immersion breaking with how much it looks like Tau tech.
So the Grav tech is based on the STCs created by Lamd in M30 based on anti-grav tech he recovered, making it the same grav tech used for all Land Speeder type vehicles. It's existing tech slapped onto a tank chassis that is likely based on the same STCs that were used to create the Land Raider.
And Tau plasma doesn't have massive exposed coils, but rather looks like this:
And before someone points at the plasma bottles (or whatever you want to call those small power cell looking things), Mechanicus plasma has those too (albeit less shielded but that comes down to how you paint it):
So yeah, not that similar.
It looks more like the CIB than Tau plasma.
Funny enough it looks even more like the somewhat commonly used 3rd party CIBs.
The shape of the CIB and the shape of the Primaris Dread plasma are very similar. (Thus why I said it looks like Tau tech).
Also I get that the IoM had grav tech but the fluff until Cawl showed up was that Grav tech is becoming increasingly rare which fits the whole technological regression theme of the IoM. It's the rapid inclusion of mass produced grav tanks for the IoM that are in contrast to the established setting of 40k.
ClockworkZion wrote: You're right, Elesians don't have fins (don't know why I remembered fins), but I hardly think fins are 'anime like' just because their fins (especially since anime is a medium not a genre so you're probably talking about something like Gundam which does have some Mech designs with fins, but not like 40k uses them).
And you're right, Inceptors are rather round (my brain went to the tank because I-word confusion) but they aren't that similar to Tau suits which are more boxy than the Inceptor which looks like an Centurion crossed with a Terminator and an Assault Marine.
Stealth Suits are quite un-boxy.
'Anime fins' are just common in many designs. I'm not a big anime guy, but Robotech/Macross, Gundam, Appleseed(?) come to mind.
The takeaway is that Tau is often thought to be anime-inspired design. One of the elements that give that impression are the little fins, now Space Marines have similar fins. It doesn't really matter what the function is. One could call it a silhouette issue.
Actually I think they show up a lot in Infinity, too.
Funny enough it looks even more like the somewhat commonly used 3rd party CIBs.
The shape of the CIB and the shape of the Primaris Dread plasma are very similar. (Thus why I said it looks like Tau tech).
Also I get that the IoM had grav tech but the fluff until Cawl showed up was that Grav tech is becoming increasingly rare which fits the whole technological regression theme of the IoM. It's the rapid inclusion of mass produced grav tanks for the IoM that are in contrast to the established setting of 40k.
It's wider, lacks the tri-fin design and has exposed coils.
Besides, there are only so many ways to shape a gun like object. Next thing people will be saying that Bolt Rifle looks like a Pusle Rifle just because they're both long and gun shaped.
I'd need to double check but Cawl wasn't given credit for the Grav tanks in the latest codex, but Land was for his STC.
I suppose Primaris share some aesthetics with Tau and Eldar. I do think they are several standard deviations away though. I honestly think Phobos armor is more similar to AoS Blood Warriors in aesthetics than pretty much anything you have described. I mean Phobos armor does have bucket boot like feet and is stripped down from heavier armor.
I kinda think the fins or plasma or whatever similarity between factions is more to sell what the unit does within the universe than being something that treading on anther faction's look. I personally think adding fins is a fine way to indicate, 'This unit is swift and probably has a jump/flight element to it.' I guess you could call it lazy, I would call it not reinventing the wheel each time. I mean even with these elements I doubt anyone, including someone that had never seen a 40k model would confuse anything Primaris for any other faction definitely within 40k and very likely even with other IPs. So long as the models don't stray so far from that that they very much could be confused for another faction, I don't really see the issue.
As for the specifics of the tracks on the repulsors. I think they would look very out of place if done over the hull like the land raider. At the same time, going for a more modern track layout means there can't be side doors which one could argue is even more of a space marine aesthetic. For me, I think I would have preferred modern tracks and no side doors. Of course, I guess then we would have to weather jokes about the snow cat marine tank. Get it weather? Snow cat. At the same time, I am okay with the grav setup. The lore description keep the brutality of space marines even if it is difficult to create that on the actual model. I think the repulsor is a fair compromise keeping as much of the old space marine design choices while updating them to give the Primaris line something of their own to define them. Of course, I think allow marine players to make use of any marine transport to transport any marine would have made this go over much better.
It is what it is. We can coulda, woulda, shoulda this all year long, but that doesn't change what is.
Tiberias wrote:GW has said Primaris won't replace the old marines and they'll still support them, but let's not kid ourselves...the primaris model line was made to replace the old marines eventually. Why do you think established characters like marneus calgar and kor'sarro khan got the primaris treatment?
Because GW like to release new models, and upgrading old ones to Primaris a great way to do that?
Until it happens, I don't think it's exactly solid ground to base an argument upon.
Regarding your point about the new tech I think we just have to agree to disagree. 3 new versions of power armor goes against the theme of scarcity in power armor and terminator armor that was prevalent in the old chapters.
So we didn't have 8 marks of power armour and three marks of vastly rarer Terminator armour?
I mean, even discounting the Mark 1 Thunder Armour, that's still 7 marks of power armour. Primaris introduce three very similar and modular designs all on the Mark X pattern. It's *technically* only one pattern of armour, with various upgrades and attachments. I don't think that takes away from the scarcity of the 9+ types of power armour and terminator armour we had before.
Crimson wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I don't remember all this commotion when Vulkan and Corax returned in books after their stint in the Heresy.
They did? When?
War of the Beast and an undisclosed time after Corax abandoned his legion, respectively.
It doesn't matter that it didn't happen in M41, if the whole point is "Primarchs coming back is against the theme of the setting", then why haven't I seen the same uproar?
Insectum7 wrote:Many Primaris have more Tau-like qualities than classic marines. Flying tanks
Custodes, Admech, Sisters of Silence, Dark Angels heavy skimmers
jump pack troopers with guns instead of cc weapons
Vanguard Vets with dual pistols, Legion Destroyers, Assault Marines with flamers and suchlike, Seraphim, Venetarii
suits of armor with dual-weilded guns
As above, barring the Assault Marines and Venetarii, and including Devastators Centurions too.
more techy details, etc.
Admech, Legion Recon and Signals, etc etc
These are observations, not opinions.
And I'm observing that those exact traits you call "Tau-like" qualities are also present in some very obviously Imperial units. Considering that no-one was complaining about Seraphim having dual pistols on a jump pack power armoured unit or calling them "Tau-like", I only wish to point out inconsistencies with the whole "they're more like Tau" argument, which you claim to be an observation - unfortunately, it's an accurate "observation" that only holds if you ignore the other Imperial and even standard Marine units that share the same designs.
It doesn't matter that it didn't happen in M41, if the whole point is "Primarchs coming back is against the theme of the setting", then why haven't I seen the same uproar?
Of course it matters. The Imperium of 32nd millennium was quite different, the era of legends was not so far behind. And the game is not set in that era, so the main setting is not affected regardless. Furthermore, it happens in some obscure BL book.
It doesn't matter that it didn't happen in M41, if the whole point is "Primarchs coming back is against the theme of the setting", then why haven't I seen the same uproar?
Of course it matters. The Imperium of 32nd millennium was quite different, the era of legends was not so far behind.
And Corax? Plus, it's still a Primarch returning - on a simple level of "Primarchs ruin the setting", I don't see anywhere near the same commotion.
And the game is not set in that era, so the main setting is not affected regardless.
The game can be set in whatever era you want. Badab War, War of the Beast, 1st Tyrannic War, Indomitus Crusade, you name it - you can play any of them.
Furthermore, it happens in some obscure BL book.
It's really not that obscure. Unless you're calling all BL books obscure, in which case, you can't really complain about things "not being true to the setting" when you're ignoring it.
Now, if you don't like BL books or simply prefer to only see the setting as you've grown up/experienced it, good for you, genuinely. But that doesn't change that your version of the setting is based on one that ignores significant sections of it, and simply saying "ah well anything that's not XYZ is obscure and is irrelevant to me" isn't exactly a great foundation if you want to make a wider argument beyond your personal opinions.
Honestly?
I stick to the rulebooks and codecies/supplements for my lore.
This is a game, the main books should (and do) provide wonderful amounts of lore, especially across many editions. Reading just the rulebook lore between 4th and now shows so much, let alone the Codex lore!
The Black Library stuff is nice, but, to me, it's more akin to really popular theories and lore ideas, as things vary wildily between authors and their perceptions of the 40k universe, the factions and abilities of various units and individuals.
Blndmage wrote: Honestly?
I stick to the rulebooks and codecies/supplements for my lore.
This is a game, the main books should (and do) provide wonderful amounts of lore, especially across many editions. Reading just the rulebook lore between 4th and now shows so much, let alone the Codex lore!
The Black Library stuff is nice, but, to me, it's more akin to really popular theories and lore ideas, as things vary wildily between authors and their perceptions of the 40k universe, the factions and abilities of various units and individuals.
Fair enough, you enjoy the universe how you like! As long as you're not claiming that anything you've not read is "obscure" or claiming facts from the lore which are simply untrue, I honestly don't have an issue how you enjoy 40k!
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And Corax? Plus, it's still a Primarch returning - on a simple level of "Primarchs ruin the setting", I don't see anywhere near the same commotion.
Because it happens at unspecified time in a manner that doesn't affect the main setting, and most people in the setting and indeed in the real world do not even know about it. It is completely different thing than Guilliman's return being the focal point the game's metaplot.
The game can be set in whatever era you want. Badab War, War of the Beast, 1st Tyrannic War, Indomitus Crusade, you name it - you can play any of them.
That is utterly disingenous on an absurd level. The setting of the game is 41st millennium, it is called Warhammer 40 000, that is where all the focus is. I agree with you on many matters (though not on this one,) but your method of arguing is quite dishonest.
FIt's really not that obscure. Unless you're calling all BL books obscure, in which case, you can't really complain about things "not being true to the setting" when you're ignoring it.
Now, if you don't like BL books or simply prefer to only see the setting as you've grown up/experienced it, good for you, genuinely. But that doesn't change that your version of the setting is based on one that ignores significant sections of it, and simply saying "ah well anything that's not XYZ is obscure and is irrelevant to me" isn't exactly a great foundation if you want to make a wider argument beyond your personal opinions.
Most people who play this game don't read BL books, and people who do are mostly fine with Primarchs, as the main focus of BL for a decade has been catering to Primarch fan boys.
They're nice models, but for the love of the God Emperor, enough with the damned Space Marines, I am so sick and tired of hearing about them. On top of that new superer Space Marines just means more awful superhero fluff regarding Marines, which I personally hate.
In real life it's a bad jpke, but stories operate on a different logic. I mean the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is all about the Lion retutning to Narnia. The mobie Hooknwas all about Peter Pan going back to Neverland.
40k operates on the same sort of narrative causality where.myths and legemds can be real.
Yes those stories were about that. 40K on the other hand was about a rotten, declining empire, its glory days in the distant past and the heroes of old mere barely remembered distorted legends. How fething hard can it be to understand that one of those mythical heroes returning and starting to fix things utterly changes what the setting is about?
This pretty much sums up perfectly why I don't like any of the newer books or releases. The return of Bobby G ( something I'm not entirely opposed to) and Cawl suddenly having better marines, wargear and tanks including hovering superheavies changes the setting.
No longer is the IOM an ignorant dying empire holding on mostly due to inertia, size and numbers. No longer is it taking a step backward in social structures and tech, most of which is centuries if not older. Instead it now has an enlighten leader who is slowly but surely putting forward reforms, effecting good governance and now has an updated super army cooked up by a tech heretic.
The main appeal to me was that humanity missed it's shot at having a good future and rather than dying out almost all at once like the elder, we are doomed to a slow decay. 8th edition doesn't have that feel.
ClockworkZion wrote: BL is an expansion of the codex canon and sometimes feeds back into the codexes ad well.
both the space marine codex, and the white scars and ultramarines supplements explictly refer to events in the BL novels. Waay back in the day BL was basicly stand alone stories that didn't filter into the codices but that has since changed. Fans respond to a more interlinked universe by getting more invested and spending more money so...
This pretty much sums up perfectly why I don't like any of the newer books or releases. The return of Bobby G ( something I'm not entirely opposed to) and Cawl suddenly having better marines, wargear and tanks including hovering superheavies changes the setting.
No longer is the IOM an ignorant dying empire holding on mostly due to inertia, size and numbers. No longer is it taking a step backward in social structures and tech, most of which is centuries if not older. Instead it now has an enlighten leader who is slowly but surely putting forward reforms, effecting good governance and now has an updated super army cooked up by a tech heretic.
The main appeal to me was that humanity missed it's shot at having a good future and rather than dying out almost all at once like the elder, we are doomed to a slow decay. 8th edition doesn't have that feel.
And yet he can't shut down the Ecclesiarchy, he's starting to lose his hair to stress (and his temples have greyed), he had to threaten people in order to make any change (and they're likely undoing his work as he does it), his Indomitus Crusade was a victory in name only and the Imperium is still broken in half and nearly lost Vigilus (which is basically the new Cadia) if it wasn't for Eldar getting involved.
Guilliman isn't truly turning humanity around as much as he gives a light of hope that only makes how bad everything is getting look even worse. Humanity is still on a path towards damnation.
both the space marine codex, and the white scars and ultramarines supplements explictly refer to events in the BL novels. Waay back in the day BL was basicly stand alone stories that didn't filter into the codices but that has since changed. Fans respond to a more interlinked universe by getting more invested and spending more money so...
Mother Gullet is a bit of lore from BL (also 40k vore, ew) from Ian Watson's books that has been around as Assassin codex lore, and Witch Hunters had bits of the Eisenhorn books in it for lore.
It is not about winning or losing. The Imperium is now run by a living, breathing, mythic, noblebright demigod. Whether he succeeds or not doesn't change the fact that this already changes the setting immensely.
Crimson wrote: It is not about winning or losing. The Imperium is now run by a living, breathing, mythic, noblebright demigod. Whether he succeeds or not doesn't change the fact that this already changes the setting immensely.
It creates a comforting lie, but doesn't do much else.
He represents a huge change though in prior to 8th edition 40k was more of a setting were stories took place, rather than an ongoing evolving narrative. Bobby G's return changed all that as we now have a central story with a main character.
That combined with the fact that the entire idea and background of primaris marines don't really add anything to the setting but IMO definitely take something away some of what made it unique we end up with a setting that many of us, particularly older players don't really like.
Ishagu wrote: People have a protectionist attitude of 40k that needs to change. There is nothing objectively wrong with the story. The dislike comes from people scared that their armies might be replaces - the same people wanting some sort of lifetime guarantee of support. That is not something you can demand. As a result of this attitude they look for things to complain and pick apart.
Oh. I didn't realize that. Here I was thinking GW just generally pens inferior fiction.
Ishagu wrote: To criticise Primaris is to reveal your own personal bias and fears.
Yes. I admit it.
I have a bias against reading poorly written gak.
Ishagu wrote: As I said earlier, people have already had 24 months to get on board or to reject 40k. Make your mind up, don't just sit on the fence whinging like angry nerd.
40k as a whole/concept? I accept that.
And I accept that all I can do about GWs fiction is to read as little of it as I have to learn the game.
Ishagu wrote: You don't have to like them, but if you don't you've had two years of complaining and angst. Move on
What about me? I only rejoined the 41stM last year. I WANT MY FULL TWO YEARS OF COMPLAINING!
And what about the new guy who joins tomorrow?
Brand new guy who.joins tomorrow? He won't have as much emotional baggage about the old linenas a grognard.
As for the quality of writing for 40k: that comes down to expectations. If you go into every bit of lore expecting Macbeth or [insert your own high bar of fiction here] then you're probably not going to enjoy yourself. Codex lore is written to cliffnote things, and even the slightly longer bits in campaign books can't make get you as emotionally invested as the full story. That's a large part of why we have Black Library: to give us those larger stories that draw us in while fleshing out the setting.
I rarely pick up any book expecting the next generation defining masterpiece though so maybe having less inflated expectations lets me enjoy the lore we get more. I don't know.
I do know that we have a lot of "old loe good, new lore bad" tossed around like that's a valid means of critic. I mean the Astral Knights novel is new lore and is one of the best Space Marine books out there. Perdition's Flame is a very new audiodrama that sells the horror of Poxwalkers quite well and presents a line that requires a massive set of brass ones to utter: "Ready to go pick a fight with an Inquisitor?"
Sorry, but that whole bit was friggin' great.
Sure there are stinkers (Descent of Angels anyone?), but for the most part the lore has a decent standard that holds fairly well and with some real great works mixed in.
If you don't like Primaris, the Great Rift or Guilliman, simply play 41st K instead of 42nd K. Nothing changes for your Minis.
I wonder if the people that argue that much about the new background mostly play narrative missions and therefore feel forced to use the new developments in the fluff. Because if you don't, it's simply not very important. And even if you do... well, I'd say 49.9 % of the Imperium didn't change at all, 50% are more desperate than before and are under seige by Chaos and 0.1% are about Guilliman and Primaris. As before you have enough Space in the fluff to care about what's happening at the top of the Imperium - or simply don't. For your homemade Chapter / planet / even sector nothing has to change.
Ishagu wrote: In 5 years Cawl will be established, old lore.
Community needs more patience.
I doubt that. Centurions have been around long enough for me to call them old but the way they were introduced was and will always be rubbish and lazy in my view and the same is true of Primaris.
Considering more then 5 years passed since the GK codex that maybe people angry, does that mean GW is going to give a GK a good codex this time?
If you don't like Primaris, the Great Rift or Guilliman, simply play 41st K instead of 42nd K. Nothing changes for your Minis.
like besides what other armies are using, right?
If you don't like the setting now why are you returning to it?
because otherwise it would mean you spend a lot of real money on plastic toys, that are useless? playing the game is the only thing that adds value to them, and the lore is part of the things that is suppose to enhance the feeling.
So you don't like the lore. Congratulations on having an opinion.
Don't continue to whinge about it in every topic because the things you don't like aren't going to change. It will get more fleshed out of course, but there won't be a grand retcon because it has been very successful.
"I don't like it" is an opinion, but not a valid critique that can or should be actioned. You've said your peace.
Ishagu wrote: So you don't like the lore. Congratulations on having an opinion.
Don't continue to whinge about it in every topic because the things you don't like aren't going to change. It will get more fleshed out of course, but there won't be a grand retcon because it has been very successful.
"I don't like it" is an opinion, but not a valid critique that can or should be actioned. You've said your peace.
Here you go again, saying someone can dislike it and it isn't valid.
What about all the valid points that have been spoken ? I mean aside from them, sure, no reason to quibble at all.
Brushing those reasons aside and citing it all as foolish, or pointless or any other way of discrediting it. I mean you do realize you can't win this yes ?
It isn't a battle to be fought, or a war to be won. It's people not liking the current direction and even if we typed up huge explanations it would just be shot down as wrong or told it'll take time for the issues to fade. Some may not have stances other than " I don't like them they are bad " is that any better than " I love them, so they are great ! " I really don't think so.
I can't speak for everyone, but I think the more you tell people they can't whinge and should basically just be quiet in every topic in which it arises simply promises they will whinge now in every single topic.
Heck, I'm pretty the over the top love it or leave it snipes and toxic primaris love you slap everyone down with has I'm sure made sure people will whinge more as opposed to less.
I'm also not sure you even realize what an opinion is and isn't. As really your love isn't any more founded than someone elses dislike of them. I'm sure to you it's of paramount importance but that doesn't make anyone elses dislike not valid and I've seen many valid critiques with dislike in them.
I'll close in saying, you don't ever get to tell someone when they've had their peace, sorry that isn't up to you. You can always choose not to comment yourself, that is up to you.
Ishagu wrote: So you don't like the lore. Congratulations on having an opinion.
Don't continue to whinge about it in every topic because the things you don't like aren't going to change. It will get more fleshed out of course, but there won't be a grand retcon because it has been very successful.
"I don't like it" is an opinion, but not a valid critique that can or should be actioned. You've said your peace.
Here we go again. Ain't nobody gonna say anything against your honeybunny while youre watching, right?
Primaris aside, I've asked before in this thread and I'll ask again: the hell do you think you are telling people they should not voice criticism and either just shut up and accept or leave the hobby? Also there have been brought up many points in this thread that were not just: "I just hate primaris, because!"
Ishagu wrote: So you don't like the lore. Congratulations on having an opinion.
Don't continue to whinge about it in every topic because the things you don't like aren't going to change. It will get more fleshed out of course, but there won't be a grand retcon because it has been very successful.
"I don't like it" is an opinion, but not a valid critique that can or should be actioned. You've said your peace.
Here we go again. Ain't nobody gonna say anything against your honeybunny while youre watching, right?
Primaris aside, I've asked before in this thread and I'll ask again: the hell do you think you are telling people they should not voice criticism and either just shut up and accept or leave the hobby? Also there have been brought up many points in this thread that were not just: "I just hate primaris, because!"
except most of those posts are "Hi I hate primaris because the sky is pink" and it turns out that they saw a single picture of a sunrise and thought the sky was perminantly pink. or that their professed reason doesn't upon any examination make any sense. we have had at this point a half dozen "primaris suck" threads within the last month.
As for Gulliman changing the setting by leading the Imperium, he doesn't not really. the high lords are rarely a factor in 40k events. Until "Watchers of the throne" mentioned some, had the name of even a SINGLE high lord gotten published? the over all leader of the Imperium... ISN'T IMPORTANT.
Ishagu wrote: So you don't like the lore. Congratulations on having an opinion.
Don't continue to whinge about it in every topic because the things you don't like aren't going to change. It will get more fleshed out of course, but there won't be a grand retcon because it has been very successful.
"I don't like it" is an opinion, but not a valid critique that can or should be actioned. You've said your peace.
Here we go again. Ain't nobody gonna say anything against your honeybunny while youre watching, right?
Primaris aside, I've asked before in this thread and I'll ask again: the hell do you think you are telling people they should not voice criticism and either just shut up and accept or leave the hobby? Also there have been brought up many points in this thread that were not just: "I just hate primaris, because!"
except most of those posts are "Hi I hate primaris because the sky is pink" and it turns out that they saw a single picture of a sunrise and thought the sky was perminantly pink. or that their professed reason doesn't upon any examination make any sense. we have had at this point a half dozen "primaris suck" threads within the last month.
As for Gulliman changing the setting by leading the Imperium, he doesn't not really. the high lords are rarely a factor in 40k events. Until "Watchers of the throne" mentioned some, had the name of even a SINGLE high lord gotten published? the over all leader of the Imperium... ISN'T IMPORTANT.
Eeeh, ok? The main issue was not robert girlyman, at least in the criticism I had presented.
Ishagu wrote: So you don't like the lore. Congratulations on having an opinion.
Don't continue to whinge about it in every topic because the things you don't like aren't going to change. It will get more fleshed out of course, but there won't be a grand retcon because it has been very successful.
"I don't like it" is an opinion, but not a valid critique that can or should be actioned. You've said your peace.
Here we go again. Ain't nobody gonna say anything against your honeybunny while youre watching, right?
Primaris aside, I've asked before in this thread and I'll ask again: the hell do you think you are telling people they should not voice criticism and either just shut up and accept or leave the hobby? Also there have been brought up many points in this thread that were not just: "I just hate primaris, because!"
except most of those posts are "Hi I hate primaris because the sky is pink" and it turns out that they saw a single picture of a sunrise and thought the sky was perminantly pink. or that their professed reason doesn't upon any examination make any sense. we have had at this point a half dozen "primaris suck" threads within the last month.
As for Gulliman changing the setting by leading the Imperium, he doesn't not really. the high lords are rarely a factor in 40k events. Until "Watchers of the throne" mentioned some, had the name of even a SINGLE high lord gotten published? the over all leader of the Imperium... ISN'T IMPORTANT.
Considering most voiced like me the opinion that the models aren't bad but the lore. Just like centurions, which seems also not acceptable.
Because people here seem to be so dense that leaving an undersea trench would lead to spontanious combustion.
Considering most voiced like me the opinion that the models aren't bad but the lore. Just like centurions, which seems also not acceptable.
given that centurions where introduced in the exact oppisite manner of Primaris, slide in not as something new, but as something Marines ahd actually had for milennia and was a found STC template. I have an honest question..
Since developing actual new weapons/equipment is "bad lore" and sliding in new weapons/equipment as something thats always been there is "bad lore" what is ACCEPTABLE Lore if you want to add something new to Space Marines?
Honest question, because I'm not sure I get it. Please keep in mind "not introducing new stuff" isn't an acceptable answer eaither.
Ishagu wrote: So you don't like the lore. Congratulations on having an opinion.
Don't continue to whinge about it in every topic because the things you don't like aren't going to change. It will get more fleshed out of course, but there won't be a grand retcon because it has been very successful.
"I don't like it" is an opinion, but not a valid critique that can or should be actioned. You've said your peace.
This is a forum, it's built on opinions. You trying to shut down everyone who dislike primaris and devalue their statements is not adding anything positive to dakkadakka or 40k.
Why do you think I have him on ignore? Stop quoting this clown so I don’t have to see his drivel and follow suit and let him scream into the void at no one.
Ishagu wrote: So you don't like the lore. Congratulations on having an opinion.
Don't continue to whinge about it in every topic because the things you don't like aren't going to change. It will get more fleshed out of course, but there won't be a grand retcon because it has been very successful.
"I don't like it" is an opinion, but not a valid critique that can or should be actioned. You've said your peace.
Here we go again. Ain't nobody gonna say anything against your honeybunny while youre watching, right?
Primaris aside, I've asked before in this thread and I'll ask again: the hell do you think you are telling people they should not voice criticism and either just shut up and accept or leave the hobby? Also there have been brought up many points in this thread that were not just: "I just hate primaris, because!"
except most of those posts are "Hi I hate primaris because the sky is pink" and it turns out that they saw a single picture of a sunrise and thought the sky was perminantly pink. or that their professed reason doesn't upon any examination make any sense. we have had at this point a half dozen "primaris suck" threads within the last month.
As for Gulliman changing the setting by leading the Imperium, he doesn't not really. the high lords are rarely a factor in 40k events. Until "Watchers of the throne" mentioned some, had the name of even a SINGLE high lord gotten published? the over all leader of the Imperium... ISN'T IMPORTANT.
Considering most voiced like me the opinion that the models aren't bad but the lore. Just like centurions, which seems also not acceptable.
given that centurions where introduced in the exact oppisite manner of Primaris, slide in not as something new, but as something Marines ahd actually had for milennia and was a found STC template. I have an honest question..
Since developing actual new weapons/equipment is "bad lore" and sliding in new weapons/equipment as something thats always been there is "bad lore" what is ACCEPTABLE Lore if you want to add something new to Space Marines?
Honest question, because I'm not sure I get it. Please keep in mind "not introducing new stuff" isn't an acceptable answer eaither.
See take Cawl and his primaris.
I wouldn't have cared if the Primaris range would've just replaced the squat marine range.
Alternativly propperly introducing Cawl via admech codex and establishing him propperly beforehand wouldn't have killed GW aswell.
I would also not have been opposed to gw using the hh legion Arsenal more.
My point is, if you use plotdevice atleast use it propperly, no need to use a sledgehammer for a solution when you just needed a hammer and screwdriver.
Grimtuff wrote: Why do you think I have him on ignore? Stop quoting this clown so I don’t have to see his drivel and follow suit and let him scream into the void at no one.
Certainly an amount of vitriol going on here.
This is a forum, it's built on opinions. You trying to shut down everyone who dislike primaris and devalue their statements is not adding anything positive to dakkadakka or 40k.
People seem to be forgetting how often the people who actually like Primaris have been shut down each time they've liked it. At this point the constant negativity would just drone on people till they've decided to speak out against it.
As for Gulliman changing the setting by leading the Imperium, he doesn't not really. the high lords are rarely a factor in 40k events. Until "Watchers of the throne" mentioned some, had the name of even a SINGLE high lord gotten published? the over all leader of the Imperium... ISN'T IMPORTANT.
It isn't important if you don't care about themes. It doesn't really matter who the High Lords were as people. But they were normal humans, nobles, ambitious priests and politicians. Now there is a noblebright demigod. It is fine that you don't care, it is even fine if you like this lame superhero running the Imperium. It is not fine to claim that a very significant change has not happened.
Cawl is similarly infuriating (albeit not quite so setting shattering.) It is one super tech pries that is farted into existence out of thin air that suddenly produces a ton of hitherto unknown setting altering tech.
And of course the Primaris are results of the actions of these bozos. They're introduced in a really jarring manner, so I fully understand why people don't like their lore. And I think GW understands too, as in the new codex they're trying to represent than as much like the old marines than they can. This is a good approach and how it should have been from the get go. I really like the Primaris models, and as this is mainly a modelling hobby for me that makes me forgive many sins. But butchering of the setting that has happened since Gathering Storm is really unfortunate, and it is not surprising if that has soured many people's opinion on the Primaris.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: In DnD terms, Gman and Cawl conspiring is like to The Paladin hatching a plot with the Warlock to steal from the chantry.
Not really?
It's more as if the Paladin hatched a plot with the Warlock to steal a relic from the chantry that might save the village at large but the chantry won't release it because the priests are liking the power they've been given over the village because of said relic.
Ishagu wrote: So you don't like the lore. Congratulations on having an opinion.
Don't continue to whinge about it in every topic because the things you don't like aren't going to change. It will get more fleshed out of course, but there won't be a grand retcon because it has been very successful.
"I don't like it" is an opinion, but not a valid critique that can or should be actioned. You've said your peace.
Here we go again. Ain't nobody gonna say anything against your honeybunny while youre watching, right?
Primaris aside, I've asked before in this thread and I'll ask again: the hell do you think you are telling people they should not voice criticism and either just shut up and accept or leave the hobby? Also there have been brought up many points in this thread that were not just: "I just hate primaris, because!"
except most of those posts are "Hi I hate primaris because the sky is pink" and it turns out that they saw a single picture of a sunrise and thought the sky was perminantly pink. or that their professed reason doesn't upon any examination make any sense.
Important question: Are there any points made by the anti-primaris camp that you think ARE valid?
The point of having unnamed High Lords of Terra is they are mysterious background characters because it's not about them.
It's about you and your Dudes, and their struggles and not the High Lords of Terra being on every battlefield to personally fight Khorne incarnate because every battle decides the fate of the universe.
It's about the fact that in the grim darkness of the future there is only pointless war between people with no names who die on unremember on a thousand battlefields.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: The point of having unnamed High Lords of Terra is they are mysterious background characters because it's not about them.
It's about you and your Dudes, and their struggles and not the High Lords of Terra being on every battlefield to personally fight Khorne incarnate because every battle decides the fate of the universe.
It's about the fact that in the grim darkness of the future there is only pointless war between people with no names who die on unremember on a thousand battlefields.
As for Gulliman changing the setting by leading the Imperium, he doesn't not really. the high lords are rarely a factor in 40k events. Until "Watchers of the throne" mentioned some, had the name of even a SINGLE high lord gotten published? the over all leader of the Imperium... ISN'T IMPORTANT.
It isn't important if you don't care about themes. It doesn't really matter who the High Lords were as people. But they were normal humans, nobles, ambitious priests and politicians. Now there is a noblebright demigod. It is fine that you don't care, it is even fine if you like this lame superhero running the Imperium. It is not fine to claim that a very significant change has not happened.
The guy himself is noblebright. He is a noble hero lamenting the current state of the Imperium, and a considerable (though perhaps insufficient) power to change things.
Also, superpowered immortals who are worshipped as divine and wield ultimate authority lamenting how hard their lot in life is isn't particularly endearing.
Though I agree with Guilliman on something: it indeed would have been better had he stayed dead.
Ishagu wrote: So you don't like the lore. Congratulations on having an opinion.
Don't continue to whinge about it in every topic because the things you don't like aren't going to change. It will get more fleshed out of course, but there won't be a grand retcon because it has been very successful.
"I don't like it" is an opinion, but not a valid critique that can or should be actioned. You've said your peace.
Here we go again. Ain't nobody gonna say anything against your honeybunny while youre watching, right?
Primaris aside, I've asked before in this thread and I'll ask again: the hell do you think you are telling people they should not voice criticism and either just shut up and accept or leave the hobby? Also there have been brought up many points in this thread that were not just: "I just hate primaris, because!"
except most of those posts are "Hi I hate primaris because the sky is pink" and it turns out that they saw a single picture of a sunrise and thought the sky was perminantly pink. or that their professed reason doesn't upon any examination make any sense.
Important question: Are there any points made by the anti-primaris camp that you think ARE valid?
sure it's fine to say "Not a fan of the aestetics" (claiming they're not space Marines however) I mean you can even justly say you dislike the aestetics of a single partriuclar unit. Likewise One complaint I've heard was that Marines suffer from a certain.. "uncanny valley" when they're close to Marines but are just differant eneugh to trigger a bit of a "uhh no" but in my experiance a lot of the anti-primaris "reasons" feel reactionary. like they've decided they hate primaris and are now looking for a reason. but the problem is in part the degree of venom. god knows we all have models we dislike and bits of lore that are "thats stupid" but I can't think of anything else people act like this on. most people seem content to live and elt live and reckongize that 40k's a big setting with things for all people.
Crimson wrote: The guy himself is noblebright. He is a noble hero lamenting the current state of the Imperium, and a considerable (though perhaps insufficient) power to change things.
Also, superpowered immortals who are worshipped as divine and wield ultimate authority lamenting how hard their lot in life is isn't particularly endearing.
Though I agree with Guilliman on something: it indeed would have been better had he stayed dead.
That picture is also an example of someone that did not get the "show, don't tell" memo.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: The point of having unnamed High Lords of Terra is they are mysterious background characters because it's not about them.
It's about you and your Dudes, and their struggles and not the High Lords of Terra being on every battlefield to personally fight Khorne incarnate because every battle decides the fate of the universe.
It's about the fact that in the grim darkness of the future there is only pointless war between people with no names who die on unremember on a thousand battlefields.
Or it was, anyway.
Except we've had named High Lords in the past. Goge Vandire, Drakan Vangorich, Gastaph Hediatrix, and this list I just got from Lexicanum of notable High Lords:
Decius XXIII — Ecclesiarch as of 945.M41
Veneris II – First Ecclesiarch to sit in the Senatorum
Umberto II — Ecclesiarch around the time of the 11th Black Crusade
Sarius Gorki — Paternoval Envoy in M41
Sabrina — Abbess of the Adepta Sororitas. Currently missing
Javor — Lord High Admiral of the Imperial Navy in M32
Iulia Lestia — Inquisitorial Representative in 989.M41
Uixot — Fabricator-General of Mars in the 8th Black Crusade
Sennaca — Traitor who conspired to murder the Emperor, sometime between M40 and M41
Aesoth Koumadra — Captain-General of the Adeptus Custodes
Tybanus Lencilius — Captain-General of the Adeptus Custodes
Galahoth — Captain-General of the Adeptus Custodes in M41
Andros Launceddre — Captain-General of the Adeptus Custodes in M41
Vult - Inquisitorial Representative in M41
Skito Gavalles - Master of the Administratum in the 500s.M41
Saviona
Veynd
Xanthius
So yeah, we've had the High Lords involved on the plot before plenty of times.
Heck Vandire was the sole reason the Sisters of Battle came into being. And that's from -second- edition. This insistance of "facts" about the way the lore used to be is demonstratably false and honestly a bit of a joke.
Ishagu wrote: So you don't like the lore. Congratulations on having an opinion.
Don't continue to whinge about it in every topic because the things you don't like aren't going to change. It will get more fleshed out of course, but there won't be a grand retcon because it has been very successful.
"I don't like it" is an opinion, but not a valid critique that can or should be actioned. You've said your peace.
Here we go again. Ain't nobody gonna say anything against your honeybunny while youre watching, right?
Primaris aside, I've asked before in this thread and I'll ask again: the hell do you think you are telling people they should not voice criticism and either just shut up and accept or leave the hobby? Also there have been brought up many points in this thread that were not just: "I just hate primaris, because!"
except most of those posts are "Hi I hate primaris because the sky is pink" and it turns out that they saw a single picture of a sunrise and thought the sky was perminantly pink. or that their professed reason doesn't upon any examination make any sense.
Important question: Are there any points made by the anti-primaris camp that you think ARE valid?
sure it's fine to say "Not a fan of the aestetics" (claiming they're not space Marines however) I mean you can even justly say you dislike the aestetics of a single partriuclar unit. Likewise One complaint I've heard was that Marines suffer from a certain.. "uncanny valley" when they're close to Marines but are just differant eneugh to trigger a bit of a "uhh no" but in my experiance a lot of the anti-primaris "reasons" feel reactionary. like they've decided they hate primaris and are now looking for a reason. but the problem is in part the degree of venom. god knows we all have models we dislike and bits of lore that are "thats stupid" but I can't think of anything else people act like this on. most people seem content to live and elt live and reckongize that 40k's a big setting with things for all people.
So.. what's the most likely scenario A) people dislike the Primaris for the reasons they explicitly describe to you B) People DECIDED to dislike a new incarnation of the most popular 40k line because they felt like to do that, and are coming up with reasons to justify their decision. You are not sounding really rational here. There is no conspiracy, just people disliking a number of design directions and the correlated fluff.
Crimson wrote: The guy himself is noblebright. He is a noble hero lamenting the current state of the Imperium, and a considerable (though perhaps insufficient) power to change things.
Also, superpowered immortals who are worshipped as divine and wield ultimate authority lamenting how hard their lot in life is isn't particularly endearing.
Though I agree with Guilliman on something: it indeed would have been better had he stayed dead.
That picture is also an example of someone that did not get the "show, don't tell" memo.
it would be if that was the only time we saw it but that quote is from a differant source, and every post Gathering storm book dealing with Gulliman does explore this theme. Of Gulliman grappling with the hellscape the IoM has become
Crimson wrote: The guy himself is noblebright. He is a noble hero lamenting the current state of the Imperium, and a considerable (though perhaps insufficient) power to change things.
Also, superpowered immortals who are worshipped as divine and wield ultimate authority lamenting how hard their lot in life is isn't particularly endearing.
Though I agree with Guilliman on something: it indeed would have been better had he stayed dead.
That picture is also an example of someone that did not get the "show, don't tell" memo.
it would be if that was the only time we saw it but that quote is from a differant source, and every post Gathering storm book dealing with Gulliman does explore this theme. Of Gulliman grappling with the hellscape the IoM has become
The number of times it appears has nothing to do with its nature.
So.. what's the most likely scenario
A) people dislike the Primaris for the reasons they explicitly describe to you
B) People DECIDED to dislike a new incarnation of the most popular 40k line because they felt to do that, and are coming up with reasons.
You are not sounding really rational here. There is no conspiracy, just people disliking a number of design decisions and the correlated fluff.
Most likely scenario is that people like/dislike Primaris for purely emotional reasons and have been rationalizing it since they've picked their camp.
I feel like this rationalization is the problem as instead of approaching the problem acknowledging biases (such as mine that revolve around my enjoyment of painting Primaris versus my lack of enjoyment painting standard Marines) leads to things like making up facts about the lore, or looking for justifications to claim that the Primaris ruined 40k, or acting like the only logical option is to like something new and bash everyone who doesn't like it.
I never want to say a person can't feel a certain way about models, I mean I can't seem to enjoy painting Tau for reasons I've never been able to articulate, but I will happily point out where people got things wrong where they lay out their rationalizations of the old setting versuses the new (like the High Lords being unimportant to the setting in the old lore).
Most likely scenario is that people like/dislike Primaris for purely emotional reasons and have been rationalizing it since they've picked their camp.
I feel like this rationalization is the problem as instead of approaching the problem acknowledging biases (such as mine that revolve around my enjoyment of painting Primaris versus my lack of enjoyment painting standard Marines) leads to things like making up facts about the lore, or looking for justifications to claim that the Primaris ruined 40k, or acting like the only logical option is to like something new and bash everyone who doesn't like it.
I never want to say a person can't feel a certain way about models, I mean I can't seem to enjoy painting Tau for reasons I've never been able to articulate, but I will happily point out where people got things wrong where they lay out their rationalizations of the old setting versuses the new (like the High Lords being unimportant to thensetting in the old lore).
This is downright insulting, especially in light of the fact that many voiced with points and examples their concerns.
Crimson wrote: The guy himself is noblebright. He is a noble hero lamenting the current state of the Imperium, and a considerable (though perhaps insufficient) power to change things.
Also, superpowered immortals who are worshipped as divine and wield ultimate authority lamenting how hard their lot in life is isn't particularly endearing.
Though I agree with Guilliman on something: it indeed would have been better had he stayed dead.
That picture is also an example of someone that did not get the "show, don't tell" memo.
it would be if that was the only time we saw it but that quote is from a differant source, and every post Gathering storm book dealing with Gulliman does explore this theme. Of Gulliman grappling with the hellscape the IoM has become
The number of times it appears has nothing to do with its nature.
"ohh GW doesn't show but tells!" "well actually they show it plenty" "the number of times it appers (and is thus shown) is irrelevant"
)
