I have no plans to change anything. I've got a bajillion painted old Chaos Space Marines, no need to replace them, and the newer models are really quite busy in terms of detail (and much more time consuming to paint as a result), not to mention more than twice the price of what my CSM's cost at MSRP when I picked them up.
I'm slowly replacing the old marines. They're basically inferior in every way to the new sculpts.
That said, I don't like all of them, so I'm not wholesale replacing.
I try to use older pieces here and there though. I don't like the new shoulders for example.
The designs are fine overall, but I hate that every single one of them has those cutouts on the sides.
Full shoulders look much more menacing and make more sense since they are supposed to protect.
I also hate that there are no "free" bolters n such like in the old kits. Or how they are all held in two hands which are also modelled into the guns AND are left handed.
But they do look good. Though the two ranges look ridiculous next to each other.
They can still somewhat be mixed up with the forgeworld parts, which gives a much better aesthetic imo.
I'm probably going to butcher some of my older kits for parts.
So yea, replacing but only to an extent.
Never stop using them? I really like the designs, and how they're really easy to customize. When GW pulls the classic marine, I guess I'll have to buy something else.
My Plague Marines are a Mix of models from 2nd to 8th Edition. Funnily enough I bought the 2nd ed ones after the 8 th ed ones . So... Why would I have to change anything? Us Chaos Boys have the luxury to not have received unnecessary bloated rules for our truescale Marines, so we can use them side by side without problems.
For my loyalists? Keep right on using them as is until their stats are deleted.
And when that happens? Then this:
Hellebore wrote: I will be waiting for GW to convert all marine units to primaris and then my marines will be like all the others.
When every marine is primaris, then any marine deployed in the game will be primaris...
For my CSM? Keep right on using them as is.
I have years & years of effort + $ put into my 5 SM (SW, DA, UM.9th Co., Mentors, & Doom Eagles) & 2 CSM (Iron Warriors & Death Guard) armies. I see no reason to throw all that away just because GW decided to make slightly larger/different sculpts.
Chaos - I have no problem adding new stuff to either army if I like the piece. So some of the figures will be slightly different scale than others. So what? You don't think there's any side effects to being tainted by Chaos? To traveling through the warp for 10k years??
For the loyalists simply being fielded as Primaris eventually - Should I run into any who'd object I'll just not play with those people.
Or I'll just continue playing the last edition where my stuff exists.
I'll stop playing Marines when classics aren't supported, and use them only when my pals and I play older editions without the Primaris *spits* nonsense.
For PUGs I'll play Nids or Eldar, and I will relish Primaris players' tears.
I've spend alot of money and alot of time buying and painting my armies.
I'm not going to throw all that away (or sell for pittance) just because there is a new version that is 5mm taller.
I really like some of the new models, the intercessors and some of the characters especially.
Others though I really dislike, the tacti-cool of most of the phobos range, the horrible flying stands and flying poses, the standing on rocks that takes away all basing theme from an army (plus looks silly) and the general over design of many of them.
The main reason for not buying any of the newer models is the fact that they so clearly don't fit with the old ranges - obviously thats the idea to encourage people to get complete new sets but it has worked the other way for me.
The new rules are clearly very good so I've taken to modelling old scale mark 4 models to be counts as version for some primaris units.
In salamander lists they get the weapons that takes advantage of their bonuses best.
In master artisans lists tac squads with a las cannon they're very useful too.
Keep playing them? I've already got several battle companies worth of both Primaris and Firstborn, and I don't care much for rebuying and repainting all the Firstborn. If they get axed from the game in terms of rules, then I can homebrew my own rules as best I can, or just play count as, or play previous editions.
But, until that happens, I see no trouble using them. Both Primaris and Firstborn are fine ranges IMO.
Keep purging xenos and heretics. The same RTB01 tac marines have formed the backbone of my army since the old days, and will continue until the rules no longer support them. At which point, they will counts-as whatever the new boys are, and continue to bring the Emperor’s light to the dark reaches of the galaxy.
Being sub-par hasn’t stopped me. For large swaths of the editions, scouts outperformed Tacs. Didn’t stop me than, won’t stop me now.
I am painting up primaris. Love the models. Not a huge fan of the lore behind them, but <shrug>. They do look cool, and I like mixing them in with classic marines for mixed lists.
Roknar wrote: I'm slowly replacing the old marines. They're basically inferior in every way to the new sculpts.
That said, I don't like all of them, so I'm not wholesale replacing.
I try to use older pieces here and there though. I don't like the new shoulders for example.
The designs are fine overall, but I hate that every single one of them has those cutouts on the sides.
Full shoulders look much more menacing and make more sense since they are supposed to protect.
I also hate that there are no "free" bolters n such like in the old kits. Or how they are all held in two hands which are also modelled into the guns AND are left handed.
But they do look good. Though the two ranges look ridiculous next to each other.
They can still somewhat be mixed up with the forgeworld parts, which gives a much better aesthetic imo.
I'm probably going to butcher some of my older kits for parts.
So yea, replacing but only to an extent.
Inferior in every way..... hell no haha, Marines are much more customisible, more options etc. all primaris have is the uniform aesthetic which I find boring, they need to mix up the Mks like real marines.
My Classic Tac Marines are still perfectly legal in a Loyalist army. They're not particularly useful in a Loyalist army, but Bikes, Vanguard Vets, Company Vets, and most of the Classic tanks and Dreads still serve needs that the Primaris line either does not meet at all or does not come close to the cost efficiency of the classic line.
When the day comes that the classic line cannot be legally fielded as part of a Loyalist army then I'll have a Renegade CMS collection instead.
I've got 6 rhino. 6 razors, 6 pred hulls that are all worthless now. And 5 drop pods. All worthless. Next time I move, they probably aren't coming with me. Most of these are circa 5th ed, so I guess I got my usage out of them. It's still really hard to feel good about anything GW does with newbois.
Roknar wrote: I'm slowly replacing the old marines. They're basically inferior in every way to the new sculpts.
That said, I don't like all of them, so I'm not wholesale replacing.
I try to use older pieces here and there though. I don't like the new shoulders for example.
The designs are fine overall, but I hate that every single one of them has those cutouts on the sides.
Full shoulders look much more menacing and make more sense since they are supposed to protect.
I also hate that there are no "free" bolters n such like in the old kits. Or how they are all held in two hands which are also modelled into the guns AND are left handed.
But they do look good. Though the two ranges look ridiculous next to each other.
They can still somewhat be mixed up with the forgeworld parts, which gives a much better aesthetic imo.
I'm probably going to butcher some of my older kits for parts.
So yea, replacing but only to an extent.
Inferior in every way..... hell no haha, Marines are much more customisible, more options etc. all primaris have is the uniform aesthetic which I find boring, they need to mix up the Mks like real marines.
That's an entirely subjective evaluation, we could argue that in circles until we're all blue in the face and never get anywhere. I agree with Roknar and disagree with you, but I know trying to persuade you to my point of view on the matter is a waste of time for everyone involved.
You can' t buy Primaris as they are fugly and GW tries to screw you with new CSM. Just one minigun in the new Havoc box? Seriously? I would have bought two boxes, if they had the decency to put at least two miniguns in there. Alas, my wishes remained unfulfilled and as a consequence my money stayed in my wallet.
I'm not going to be touching Primaris until they redo the entire GK line in Primaris and release some really over the top super gothic looking Marines with actual close combat weapons.
kingheff wrote: In salamander lists they get the weapons that takes advantage of their bonuses best.
In master artisans lists tac squads with a las cannon they're very useful too.
Same here. Salamander are very focused on high strength low cadence weapons and anything flame based, and that's something that Primaris just don't do all that well by comparison.
My Raven Guard is almost entirely Phobos Primaris though.
I think that our troop choices are just in a great spot right now, and as long as there're rules I'll keep playing all of them. And with Legends being a thing I don't see any model getting dropped in the future. I don't play tournaments, and if someone really has an issue with my Flamer Razorbacks, I'll just find someone else to play with. But that hasn't been an issue yet (and I don't expect it to become one).
I can' t buy Primaris as I think they are fugly ...
Fixed that for you. Subjective opinions are subjective.
"ugly" is an inherently subjective word. saying something is ugly automatically indicates you are giving a subjective opinion.
Passive aggress harder.
The original post was an imperative statement, which strongly implies the speaker believes it to be objectively true. I reworded it into a non-imperative form because subjective statements made in imperative form is a particular pet peeve of mine, it makes it unclear whether the speaker realizes he's making a subjective judgement or not, which in turn makes it harder to respond appropriately.
You can' t buy Primaris as they are fugly and GW tries to screw you with new CSM. Just one minigun in the new Havoc box? Seriously? I would have bought two boxes, if they had the decency to put at least two miniguns in there. Alas, my wishes remained unfulfilled and as a consequence my money stayed in my wallet.
Oh. I just had a buddy print me some on his 3d printer awhile back. Beats the hell out of raging against GW & pointless wishing.
TonyH122 wrote: Listed them on eBay the day the new kits were announced! Invested the proceeds in the infinitely superior new sculpts.
Contra the above view, I fine the new sculpts an absolute pleasure to paint. The increased detail provides liberal grounds for creative flourishes.
My issue there is that the basic troops now are nearing the same level of visual flair that characters are. For basic troops, that isn't necessary, nor even always desired (as it makes the Characters less distinct, and Troops inherently tend towards uniform looks), and definitely isn't as well appreciated artistically (as we don't spend as much time admiring Private Jenkins).
The real kicker is that so much of that new detail is so cluttered. For example, looking at the box set, one frontal chest/tabard piece has a tabard of cloth, overlaid by chainmail, overlaid by a larger chain with an icon, overlaid by a knife with a fancy hilt and small tassle hanging off it, with an elaborate belt buckle on top and attached grenade, with each element in some form of mild dynamic motion. That's a lot of stuff, and different layers, all crammed into and swinging from the crotch of a single Troop infantry model. Difficult to appreciate artistically on such a small model and relatively mundane game unit, but requiring a substantially greater investment in painting time, effort, and skill than the older simpler sculpts to make look good.
Roknar wrote: I'm slowly replacing the old marines. They're basically inferior in every way to the new sculpts.
That said, I don't like all of them, so I'm not wholesale replacing.
I try to use older pieces here and there though. I don't like the new shoulders for example.
The designs are fine overall, but I hate that every single one of them has those cutouts on the sides.
Full shoulders look much more menacing and make more sense since they are supposed to protect.
I also hate that there are no "free" bolters n such like in the old kits. Or how they are all held in two hands which are also modelled into the guns AND are left handed.
But they do look good. Though the two ranges look ridiculous next to each other.
They can still somewhat be mixed up with the forgeworld parts, which gives a much better aesthetic imo.
I'm probably going to butcher some of my older kits for parts.
So yea, replacing but only to an extent.
Inferior in every way..... hell no haha, Marines are much more customisible, more options etc. all primaris have is the uniform aesthetic which I find boring, they need to mix up the Mks like real marines.
I was talking about csm, I'll have to admit that wasn't clear.
I read CSM and forgot all about how marines were also in the title and got very confused why everybdoy was talking about primaris lol.
There is more variety in designs than the old marines, and even if there wasn't, all the added detail is so far ahead of the old csm that it would make up for half the variety.
The fixed scale equally is a huge leap forward, and allows the extra detail to really shine.
And unlike primaris, they kept the aesthetic more or less intact, at least on the basic troops.
Every individual piece looks better or as good. They look better on their own and converted.
The additional options ( and there really aren't that many more) from the old kit don't make up for the lack of detail.
It makes the fewer combination much more distinct looking.
I will say they are much harder to convert though. That's a plague across their entire catalogue. And the previous kits also suffered from this to a degree.
I remember getting all kinds of greebles and weapons that didn't come with pre-sculpted hands. Those I REALLY miss.
Even so, overall, the new sculpts put the old CSM to shame. They look a LOT less like toys. At least for the basic CSM.
With primaris I can't say the same. They don't have the same design language as first born at all.
Those lost more than they gained. They're just not....space marines to me anymore.
They're some kind of bland sci-fi super soldier, sure, but that's only a small part of the grim dark marine aesthetic.
Never mind that forgeworld is putting out AMAZING first born that not only retain the grimdark feeling, but improve upon the GW models by making them more realistic.
Without going all tacti-cool as Brutus_Apex put it.
And that's just for the regular primaris, I HATE all the special units as well as the tanks.
Especially those bumbling michelin men, read inceptors...what the hell?
If I was a marine player I would be pretty miffed tbh
Heresy era for me, the age of 40k might be embiggened marines but 30k is the age of legends and iconic armours, so all my old marines are slowly becoming heresy era, helped immensely by Sarum and Mantilla Pattern helmets being a thing now so MK7 helmets can sort of be in the game.
Actually going back to play 2nd edition after 8th edition started to really kill my enthusiasm. As such, it doesn't impact either of my armies (Eldar and CSM).
The4thEnemy wrote: Given the new releases for CSMs and the the move to Primaris everything, anyone have any suggestions/plans for the older models?
Like every replacement piece it depends. For every model that's an improvement, there's another that's a step back, or just costs so much at the new price it isn't worth replacing. Stormtroopers being my go to example for the former and Banshees for the latter.
Primaris is an odd case, since they aren't really replacements. No primaris squad has the same capabilities of an old marine squad in any way.
Roknar wrote: I'm slowly replacing the old marines. They're basically inferior in every way to the new sculpts.
That said, I don't like all of them, so I'm not wholesale replacing.
I try to use older pieces here and there though. I don't like the new shoulders for example.
The designs are fine overall, but I hate that every single one of them has those cutouts on the sides.
Full shoulders look much more menacing and make more sense since they are supposed to protect.
I also hate that there are no "free" bolters n such like in the old kits. Or how they are all held in two hands which are also modelled into the guns AND are left handed.
But they do look good. Though the two ranges look ridiculous next to each other.
They can still somewhat be mixed up with the forgeworld parts, which gives a much better aesthetic imo.
I'm probably going to butcher some of my older kits for parts.
So yea, replacing but only to an extent.
Inferior in every way..... hell no haha, Marines are much more customisible, more options etc. all primaris have is the uniform aesthetic which I find boring, they need to mix up the Mks like real marines.
I was talking about csm, I'll have to admit that wasn't clear.
I read CSM and forgot all about how marines were also in the title and got very confused why everybdoy was talking about primaris lol.
There is more variety in designs than the old marines, and even if there wasn't, all the added detail is so far ahead of the old csm that it would make up for half the variety.
The fixed scale equally is a huge leap forward, and allows the extra detail to really shine.
And unlike primaris, they kept the aesthetic more or less intact, at least on the basic troops.
Every individual piece looks better or as good. They look better on their own and converted.
The additional options ( and there really aren't that many more) from the old kit don't make up for the lack of detail.
It makes the fewer combination much more distinct looking.
I will say they are much harder to convert though. That's a plague across their entire catalogue. And the previous kits also suffered from this to a degree.
I remember getting all kinds of greebles and weapons that didn't come with pre-sculpted hands. Those I REALLY miss.
Even so, overall, the new sculpts put the old CSM to shame. They look a LOT less like toys. At least for the basic CSM.
With primaris I can't say the same. They don't have the same design language as first born at all.
Those lost more than they gained. They're just not....space marines to me anymore.
They're some kind of bland sci-fi super soldier, sure, but that's only a small part of the grim dark marine aesthetic.
Never mind that forgeworld is putting out AMAZING first born that not only retain the grimdark feeling, but improve upon the GW models by making them more realistic.
Without going all tacti-cool as Brutus_Apex put it.
And that's just for the regular primaris, I HATE all the special units as well as the tanks.
Especially those bumbling michelin men, read inceptors...what the hell?
If I was a marine player I would be pretty miffed tbh
Agreed, the CSM and Terminator models look great. One wishes they were more poseable and had more options, but the aesthetic and execution get an A+.
If only they did that for the loyalist line, rather than the Primaris move. I hope that they might still do that.
In the last couple of months, I have upgraded my Chaos Space Marines to the new sculpts. I have 30 of the old CSM models that I am just going to give to someone at my story who also happens to have a small Black Legion army to help him fill out his ranks a little more. I kinda didn't want to give them up especially one of my Heavy Bolter CSMs who has bucked statistics enough I remember the model, but I don't see me ever fielding them again now and could use the little extra space getting rid of them. I know the person I am giving them to will use them and that is really all I want to happen with them. I would have given them away already if not for current events.
I am keeping the Dark Vengeance Chosen which I think I can make work if I get a hold of some 32mm base adapters. I am thinking of asking my friend with a 3D printer to make up 7 of them (6 Chosen + Exalted Champ) so they can make the 28mm base stand a little taller to give the models a little boost in height that isn't too obvious.
I am also keeping my old Chaos Terminators as I think they mix well with the new Chaos Terminators. The detail is a little softer and the weapons are a little more chunky, but at tabletop distance (and painted black) it is hard to tell new from old unless you know what you are looking for. At least to me.
jeff white wrote: restartes are heresy plain as day.
Is that heresy in universe? Because, as I hate to bring up, it's not.
Plain as day? Maybe not.
It outright isn't. The people who largely get to choose what is and isn't heresy in-universe haven't declared it so, and any characters in universe who do are misguided.
That doesn't mean people aren't allowed to dislike them outside of the fictional universe.
Voss wrote: Primaris is an odd case, since they aren't really replacements. No primaris squad has the same capabilities of an old marine squad in any way.
There are some squads with pretty clear parallels.
A base-line Inceptor is very similar in capability to an Attack Bike.
Lasfusile Eliminators are pretty close to a similarly pointed Devastator squad with AT weapons.
You could say the same of Suppressors and a Heavy Plasma Dev squad, although that's a bit more of a stretch.
Hellblasters and a Plasma Gun Company Veteran squad aren't that far apart.
The Repulsor covers the range between the Land Raider and the LR Crusader, depending on how you arm it.
You could reasonably make the argument that Eliminators and Sniper Scouts, Intercessors and Tac Marines, and Incursors and Scouts are in basically the same roles.
Obviously there are differences in the available support strats and points-efficiency of the units, but that's not the topic under discussion.
Primaris "are" replacements. However, they're not finished yet - and won't be for some time. They're also not direct replacements, but rather the Primaris army as a whole will replace the "attributes" of an old-marine army eventually. There will be close fighty dudes, heavier armoured dudes, a variety of anti-tank options, etc. etc.
So the functions of the old-marine army will be adopted by differing units in the new Primaris army.
Roknar wrote: I'm slowly replacing the old marines. They're basically inferior in every way to the new sculpts.
That said, I don't like all of them, so I'm not wholesale replacing.
I try to use older pieces here and there though. I don't like the new shoulders for example.
The designs are fine overall, but I hate that every single one of them has those cutouts on the sides.
Full shoulders look much more menacing and make more sense since they are supposed to protect.
I also hate that there are no "free" bolters n such like in the old kits. Or how they are all held in two hands which are also modelled into the guns AND are left handed.
But they do look good. Though the two ranges look ridiculous next to each other.
They can still somewhat be mixed up with the forgeworld parts, which gives a much better aesthetic imo.
I'm probably going to butcher some of my older kits for parts.
So yea, replacing but only to an extent.
Inferior in every way..... hell no haha, Marines are much more customisible, more options etc. all primaris have is the uniform aesthetic which I find boring, they need to mix up the Mks like real marines.
That's an entirely subjective evaluation, we could argue that in circles until we're all blue in the face and never get anywhere. I agree with Roknar and disagree with you, but I know trying to persuade you to my point of view on the matter is a waste of time for everyone involved.
Dude you have that backwards haha, real marines objectively have more options and customisation to them, aesthetically it's purely subjective you are right though
The4thEnemy wrote: Given the new releases for CSMs and the the move to Primaris everything, anyone have any suggestions/plans for the older models?
Hold objectives? Bodyguard for Terminator Wolf Guard Pack Leaders with Thunder Hammers? Carry plasmaguns on the outflank? All of these are things I currently assign Grey Hunter squads to do, and I don't really see myself stopping doing so unless doing the thing in question in the first places becomes unuseful.
For other small marine models, Long Fangs are basically my army backbone, so they're definitely still seeing the table. Primaris have added capability to my army, or at least have provided some capabilities stapled to playable platforms that were previously attached to units I never played, but they haven't really replaced my other units.
jeff white wrote: restartes are heresy plain as day.
Is that heresy in universe? Because, as I hate to bring up, it's not.
Plain as day? Maybe not.
It outright isn't. The people who largely get to choose what is and isn't heresy in-universe haven't declared it so, and any characters in universe who do are misguided.
That doesn't mean people aren't allowed to dislike them outside of the fictional universe.
Use them to play 7th. I cannot support this Primaris marketing ploy by GW to inject some pants on head lore justification for why these Marines are Marines +1 (and somehow not Uber-heresy) and how they are effectively replacing proper Marines in the fluff and eventually the table top.
Vankraken wrote: Use them to play 7th. I cannot support this Primaris marketing ploy by GW to inject some pants on head lore justification for why these Marines are Marines +1 (and somehow not Uber-heresy) and how they are effectively replacing proper Marines in the fluff and eventually the table top.
If you're going to do that, use them to play a good edition . Maybe 5th. I liked 5th. Some people liked 3rd.
I have no plans to abandon using tactical marines. In fact I really dislike the look of my army having both primaris and non-primaris units so I'm currently building a White Scars successor army using only non-primaris models.
While I do think the Primaris models are more proportional and more "realistic" looking, I never questioned the look of my space marines before they introduced beefier space marines and I kind of wish they had just kept releasing normal, non-primaris marines instead.
Roknar wrote: I'm slowly replacing the old marines. They're basically inferior in every way to the new sculpts.
That said, I don't like all of them, so I'm not wholesale replacing.
I try to use older pieces here and there though. I don't like the new shoulders for example.
The designs are fine overall, but I hate that every single one of them has those cutouts on the sides.
Full shoulders look much more menacing and make more sense since they are supposed to protect.
I also hate that there are no "free" bolters n such like in the old kits. Or how they are all held in two hands which are also modelled into the guns AND are left handed.
But they do look good. Though the two ranges look ridiculous next to each other.
They can still somewhat be mixed up with the forgeworld parts, which gives a much better aesthetic imo.
I'm probably going to butcher some of my older kits for parts.
So yea, replacing but only to an extent.
Inferior in every way..... hell no haha, Marines are much more customisible, more options etc. all primaris have is the uniform aesthetic which I find boring, they need to mix up the Mks like real marines.
I was talking about csm, I'll have to admit that wasn't clear.
I read CSM and forgot all about how marines were also in the title and got very confused why everybdoy was talking about primaris lol.
There is more variety in designs than the old marines, and even if there wasn't, all the added detail is so far ahead of the old csm that it would make up for half the variety.
The fixed scale equally is a huge leap forward, and allows the extra detail to really shine.
And unlike primaris, they kept the aesthetic more or less intact, at least on the basic troops.
Every individual piece looks better or as good. They look better on their own and converted.
The additional options ( and there really aren't that many more) from the old kit don't make up for the lack of detail.
It makes the fewer combination much more distinct looking.
I will say they are much harder to convert though. That's a plague across their entire catalogue. And the previous kits also suffered from this to a degree.
I remember getting all kinds of greebles and weapons that didn't come with pre-sculpted hands. Those I REALLY miss.
Even so, overall, the new sculpts put the old CSM to shame. They look a LOT less like toys. At least for the basic CSM.
With primaris I can't say the same. They don't have the same design language as first born at all.
Those lost more than they gained. They're just not....space marines to me anymore.
They're some kind of bland sci-fi super soldier, sure, but that's only a small part of the grim dark marine aesthetic.
Never mind that forgeworld is putting out AMAZING first born that not only retain the grimdark feeling, but improve upon the GW models by making them more realistic.
Without going all tacti-cool as Brutus_Apex put it.
And that's just for the regular primaris, I HATE all the special units as well as the tanks.
Especially those bumbling michelin men, read inceptors...what the hell?
If I was a marine player I would be pretty miffed tbh
Yeah I mean the fact that primaris marines have TWELVE discreet bolt gun variants among them and one single chainsword bit available on an upgrade sprue kind of highlights the flaw in GW's attempt to keep them being what a space marine is.
Vankraken wrote: Use them to play 7th. I cannot support this Primaris marketing ploy by GW to inject some pants on head lore justification for why these Marines are Marines +1 (and somehow not Uber-heresy) and how they are effectively replacing proper Marines in the fluff and eventually the table top.
If you're going to do that, use them to play a good edition . Maybe 5th. I liked 5th. Some people liked 3rd.
I do chuckle a bit at the assertion that 8th is the best balanced 40k has ever been, because it's true but not in the way that anyone wanted. I remember 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. I remember being able to say with 80% certainty that a CMS list would beat a DA list without knowing anything else about them, predicting most of the rest with just a look at the army lists, and predicting most of the fraction that was left on who won the roll to go first.
8th is so lethal that the roll to go first decides more games than anything else, but that's an improvement on where the game started. At least games are being decided on the table now. Sort of.
Vankraken wrote: Use them to play 7th. I cannot support this Primaris marketing ploy by GW to inject some pants on head lore justification for why these Marines are Marines +1 (and somehow not Uber-heresy) and how they are effectively replacing proper Marines in the fluff and eventually the table top.
If you're going to do that, use them to play a good edition . Maybe 5th. I liked 5th. Some people liked 3rd.
I do chuckle a bit at the assertion that 8th is the best balanced 40k has ever been, because it's true but not in the way that anyone wanted. I remember 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. I remember being able to say with 80% certainty that a CMS list would beat a DA list without knowing anything else about them, predicting most of the rest with just a look at the army lists, and predicting most of the fraction that was left on who won the roll to go first.
8th is so lethal that the roll to go first decides more games than anything else, but that's an improvement on where the game started. At least games are being decided on the table now. Sort of.
I wonder what the current competitive winrate of the first player is right now.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah I mean the fact that primaris marines have TWELVE discreet bolt gun variants among them and one single chainsword bit available on an upgrade sprue kind of highlights the flaw in GW's attempt to keep them being what a space marine is.
Isn't the Bolt gun the most iconic of the space marines' weapons? I don't how having more variations of their most iconic weapon makes Primaris lesser space marines. I will admit the chainsword thing was missed opportunity on Rievers, but hardly difficult to convert and is mechanically the same thing anyways. That is what I did with mine. As for Intercessors, it isn't like they can have any less chainswords than Tactical marines. Reivers are about the closest thing to an assault squad for Primaris. I think what you are saying is Primaris don't feel like marines because they don't directly compete with Firstborn units.
Games Workshop seems to have went to a lot of trouble to prevent Primaris being Firstborn replacements. Which can be annoying especially since space marines have a fairly complete roster of stuff. So Primaris had to be wedged in the margins of being similar to a Firstborn unit role as to allow a Primaris only player to have access to it while at the same time offering something different enough to not be a replacement/basically the same thing.
I like the Primaris sculpts way more than the older stuff. I even like the proportioning on them compared to the new Chaos Space Marines. But I wouldn't say Primaris are superior in every way to non-primaris space marines in every way. Some people like the older space marine sculpts and the older GW aesthetic. Rules wise, Firstborn still offer different ways to accomplish things allow a player to select how they want to accomplish a desired effect.
I would say non-Primaris space marines are easier to customize as they were designed with interchangeable parts and have several years to accumulate bits across both Citadel, Forge World and third-party companies. That said, if a person doesn't want Primaris to look uniform, previous space marine helmets and pauldrons can be used just as easily. Additionally, bits and green stuff can be added to Primaris models just easily as they can to non-Primaris. Is it easier? No, but is it still quite possible. I also think as the Primaris line matures there will be more and more bling available to them.
I personally like the lack of in situ Gothic/Grim Dark details on Primaris models. I like a fairly clean space marine and don't like having to remove extra stuff I don't want. At the same time, if I do want a little extra, I like the black 'canvas' work with rather than incorporating what is already there. Sure, that isn't for everyone as some people want their customization to be use this bit from this kit on that kit which Primaris definitely don't allow for nearly as much as the older stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Reivers should have been given power-swords, to be honest.
Well, maybe not the whole squad (although you wouldn't hear me complaining if they did), but the Sergeant very much should have melee options.
The Primaris are better miniatures, hands-down. I don't want to buy, own, or paint them though. It's weird because I spent all that time carefully scraping all the 'gothic' cruft off my 'Firstborn' marines. I've been thinking lately that maybe it's because they look like they're knock-offs.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: I like the Primaris sculpts way more than the older stuff. I even like the proportioning on them compared to the new Chaos Space Marines. But I wouldn't say Primaris are superior in every way to non-primaris space marines in every way. Some people like the older space marine sculpts and the older GW aesthetic. Rules wise, Firstborn still offer different ways to accomplish things allow a player to select how they want to accomplish a desired effect.
I would say non-Primaris space marines are easier to customize as they were designed with interchangeable parts and have several years to accumulate bits across both Citadel, Forge World and third-party companies. That said, if a person doesn't want Primaris to look uniform, previous space marine helmets and pauldrons can be used just as easily. Additionally, bits and green stuff can be added to Primaris models just easily as they can to non-Primaris. Is it easier? No, but is it still quite possible. I also think as the Primaris line matures there will be more and more bling available to them.
I personally like the lack of in situ Gothic/Grim Dark details on Primaris models. I like a fairly clean space marine and don't like having to remove extra stuff I don't want. At the same time, if I do want a little extra, I like the black 'canvas' work with rather than incorporating what is already there. Sure, that isn't for everyone as some people want their customization to be use this bit from this kit on that kit which Primaris definitely don't allow for nearly as much as the older stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Reivers should have been given power-swords, to be honest.
Well, maybe not the whole squad (although you wouldn't hear me complaining if they did), but the Sergeant very much should have melee options.
Explanation? (I know what r/woosh means, but I'm missing it's relevance here?)
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:Isn't the Bolt gun the most iconic of the space marines' weapons? I don't how having more variations of their most iconic weapon makes Primaris lesser space marines. I will admit the chainsword thing was missed opportunity on Rievers, but hardly difficult to convert and is mechanically the same thing anyways. That is what I did with mine. As for Intercessors, it isn't like they can have any less chainswords than Tactical marines.
This is what I keep saying. Bolters are more iconic than chainswords, IMO, and even then, unless you played a (admittedly) deviant Chapter like the Space Wolves or Black Tempars or unique Chapter, your core Tacticals didn't have chainswords either. Sure, I'd like Primaris Marines to have chainswords in the sprue (without needing an upgrade pack), but if you were a Space Marine players beforehand, you probably had dozens of spare chainswords anyway.
space marines have a fairly complete roster of stuff.
Very true. While I love Primaris, I can't help but think that literally any other faction should have had a revamp first.
The Newman wrote:The Reiver serg wants a Power Axe from both a rules and an aesthetic perspective. (A short-handled tactical axe, obviously.)
I'd love for the whole squad to have tactical axes, facaltas or kukris.
A bolter a marine does not make.
They made marines...rounder, softer. On top of removing all the bling.
They are much more toned down...too much so. And that's before you get into gravis armour and such.
They are doing a better job with the more chapter specific models mind you.
Yet you loose ALL the variety in marks. I could see them getting better as time goes on, but for me they way overshot with the sensibility.
It's the grimdark, I don't want sensible marines, they're bland. That might work for different media formats but not as the baseline.
You can't make me squat my Sergeant who slew a Nurgle Biker Lord armed with nothing but a Chainsword, or my other Sergeant who single handedly defeated 30 Kroot, or my pair of bolter marines that gunned down a Shadowfield Archon in overwatch.
You can take the Plasma Cannon guy who blew up on Turn 1, which caused his combat squad to fail a morale check and run off their third story objective and off the board, though.
jeff white wrote: restartes are heresy plain as day.
Is that heresy in universe? Because, as I hate to bring up, it's not.
Yes it is... what you read is just imperial propaganda. Anyone with faith in the emperor knows it to be true.
Cawl clearly has tapped the powers of chaos to turn 10k years of imperial rot into flying tanks and GI SuperJoes.
Anyone who doesnt see the truth in this is obviously equally tainted.
Saturmorn Carvilli 787175 10767041 wrote:
Games Workshop seems to have went to a lot of trouble to prevent Primaris being Firstborn replacements. Which can be annoying especially since space marines have a fairly complete roster of stuff. So Primaris had to be wedged in the margins of being similar to a Firstborn unit role as to allow a Primaris only player to have access to it while at the same time offering something different enough to not be a replacement/basically the same thing.
Mistake to open a hotdog stand next to your own pizza shop, in a similar way...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vankraken wrote: Use them to play 7th. I cannot support this Primaris marketing ploy by GW to inject some pants on head lore justification for why these Marines are Marines +1 (and somehow not Uber-heresy) and how they are effectively replacing proper Marines in the fluff and eventually the table top.
jeff white wrote: restartes are heresy plain as day.
Is that heresy in universe? Because, as I hate to bring up, it's not.
Plain as day? Maybe not.
It outright isn't. The people who largely get to choose what is and isn't heresy in-universe haven't declared it so, and any characters in universe who do are misguided.
That doesn't mean people aren't allowed to dislike them outside of the fictional universe.
I disagree.
Any loyal Sisters of Battle will follow Girlymans flying tanks? Mine wont...
I disagree.
Any loyal Sisters of Battle will follow Girlymans flying tanks? Mine wont...
See, i get to choose. So do you.
Mine won't, but that's because it would be a net detriment to both side to include them alongside each other . That said, I really like the new repulsor executioner.
Long time Chaos player here. I'm dying to get my hands on the new CSM kit. They blow the old plastic ones out of the water! Customizability is a tad limited but aside from the odd head and shoulder swap I don't do a lot of customising anyway.
I'm keeping my old spikey marines. I've mixed in a fair bit of loyalist and HH bits to keep them fresh and will be keeping them as a Red Corsairs force. The old kits are on par with the current non-primaris loyalists in terms of size, so using them as fresh renegades makes sense to me.
Once I get some new kits I'll use them as Legionnaires (once I decide on a legion) in a new force, or as Chosen.
Martel732 wrote: I've got 6 rhino. 6 razors, 6 pred hulls that are all worthless now. And 5 drop pods. All worthless. Next time I move, they probably aren't coming with me. Most of these are circa 5th ed, so I guess I got my usage out of them. It's still really hard to feel good about anything GW does with newbois.
huh, I wish I could get hold of some more drop pods for a reduced price for my Dark Angels, only have one but want three and they're still being sold at regular discount prices despite "no one" using them. Picked up 2 Razorbacks recently, added kromlech twin assault cannon and whirlwind launcher options for variability. Thinking about getting a 5 man assault squad to make my current one 10 strong. That will give me 3 full Tacs, a couple of devastator and 1 assault squad, 2 Razorbacks, 1 rhino (could use razors for these too), dread, support characters. Nothing wrong with having some good old marines for games.
Also building a Primaris addition for the army, but it's still an incomplete line so no rush. Won't add much, if any Phobos, that's for my Ravenguard.
It's a little thing, but I don't like that they gave Reivers skull helmets. That was pretty exclusively a Chaplain thing as far as I know, and I don't like that they diluted that.
Vankraken wrote: Use them to play 7th. I cannot support this Primaris marketing ploy by GW to inject some pants on head lore justification for why these Marines are Marines +1 (and somehow not Uber-heresy) and how they are effectively replacing proper Marines in the fluff and eventually the table top.
If you're going to do that, use them to play a good edition . Maybe 5th. I liked 5th. Some people liked 3rd.
I go with 7th because its the edition have the most playtime with and enjoyed the most. That said I wholeheartedly believe that 7th could of been a great edition in the hands of competent rules writers. The core rule set of 7th just needs a few adjustments and the codexes needed to not go all spinal tap with the power creep.
Martel732 wrote: I've got 6 rhino. 6 razors, 6 pred hulls that are all worthless now. And 5 drop pods. All worthless. Next time I move, they probably aren't coming with me. Most of these are circa 5th ed, so I guess I got my usage out of them. It's still really hard to feel good about anything GW does with newbois.
huh, I wish I could get hold of some more drop pods for a reduced price for my Dark Angels, only have one but want three and they're still being sold at regular discount prices despite "no one" using them. Picked up 2 Razorbacks recently, added kromlech twin assault cannon and whirlwind launcher options for variability. Thinking about getting a 5 man assault squad to make my current one 10 strong. That will give me 3 full Tacs, a couple of devastator and 1 assault squad, 2 Razorbacks, 1 rhino (could use razors for these too), dread, support characters. Nothing wrong with having some good old marines for games.
Also building a Primaris addition for the army, but it's still an incomplete line so no rush. Won't add much, if any Phobos, that's for my Ravenguard.
Martel732 wrote:I've got 6 rhino. 6 razors, 6 pred hulls that are all worthless now. And 5 drop pods. All worthless. Next time I move, they probably aren't coming with me. Most of these are circa 5th ed, so I guess I got my usage out of them. It's still really hard to feel good about anything GW does with newbois.
I'm still using and getting solid use out of mine, and thinking of buying more of them for both my Space Wolves and my Grey Knights. Well, Razorbacks & Land Raider for the GK, Predators, Vindicators, and Whirlwinds for the Space Wolves. Particularly Vindicators and Whirlwinds, as I currently have 0, but I want to field like 3 of each. Project Armored Furry is going to have to wait though, since I can't get much of anything right now and there's some other stuff I want to get, since I haven't been able to religiously keep up with releases at all. I'm also still deciding what I want to play competitively for the near future, since I don't feel confident playing IG competitively [new secondaries helps though, since I'm only starting 8 in the hole instead of 12 in the hole], I'm still not very happy with anything I've put together under the new Sisters codex, Space Wolves are just Marines-1 and marines counter marines right now, I don't feel that I could take on Knights and Flyers and Aggressors and SM in general as GK, and my Custodes army is too small and lacking in the good stuff to make it tabletop worthy in its own right outside of being an auxiliary to my Guard. Whichever one I choose will be first on the list for reinforcements when the quarantine is lifted and I can buy new models again.
Anyway, I'm really excited about my Space Wolves right now, and that includes having a bunch of Old Marine stuff that I don't have on the list of things I desire from both a rules and models standpoint, so I don't really get this whole "Primaris Panic" thing. Like, honestly, for the most part I'm looking at the OldMarine stuff for the rules and the Primaris stuff for the models right now. Not that I don't like Old Marine models, I love the Vindicator and Predator [though I don't like the Whirlwind, someone suggested using the SM Air Defense Tarantula turret on a Razorback chassis, which I think suits what I want better], but my lists are mostly looking at oldmarine stuff carrying the weight with Primaris for some utility units.
Roknar wrote:They made marines...rounder, softer. On top of removing all the bling.
In all fairness, a lot of people, including long-term 40k fans, didn't like how blinged up basic Marines were getting. As users in this thread have said, they would cut off the bling on older models. As I see it, it's a lot easier to add bling to an unblinged model than to carve it all off. If you like your Marines fancy and blinged up, there's nothing stopping you adding that detail in.
jeff white wrote: restartes are heresy plain as day.
Is that heresy in universe? Because, as I hate to bring up, it's not.
Yes it is... what you read is just imperial propaganda. Anyone with faith in the emperor knows it to be true.
Is this supposed to be in-character or something? We literally have direct proof that the Emperor is completely okay with what Guilliman is doing. Unless you're implying that Guilliman fabricated an entire story for only himself in his own head, or that the Custodes are all traitors and heretics?
Cawl clearly has tapped the powers of chaos to turn 10k years of imperial rot into flying tanks and GI SuperJoes.
Anyone who doesnt see the truth in this is obviously equally tainted.
You know this isn't a roleplaying thread? We have more than enough evidence from an OOC perspective to know that all of that isn't true. That's not saying that characters in universe can't have that belief, but we, from an outside perspective, surely know this isn't the case?
Any loyal Sisters of Battle will follow Girlymans flying tanks? Mine wont...
See, i get to choose. So do you.
Well, yes. No-one said that you weren't allowed Your Dudes. But at the same time, if GW say that many, if not most, Sisters follow Guilliman, that's canon. Ignore that, headcanon it, do what you will, what you do with your headcanon is none of my business. Sure, YOUR Sisters might not follow Guilliman, but if GW says/implies that most do, well, that's what it is.
I don't see why they'd be less gak for Space Wolves than Blood Angels. They'd be better for other marine chapters, true, but we're still marines and we can do marine things.
As far as I see, the Vindicator is probably pretty good. If the Exorcist was good pre codex, then the Vindicator is definitely good post-codex.
The Whirlwind seems to be popular, and my take on it is that it's really damn cheap for what it brings, so even if it's downrange isn't impressive, it brings useful and threatening capability on a very inexpensive platform. I'm not sure if I want Castellan or Vengeance missiles, because I plan to use them to make the enemy regret taking Engineers or one of the other secondaries based on having a chosen unit hold a point [or encourage them to take some other maneuver secondary that forces them to play with me where I want them to be in a wya that's bad for them]. On one hand, I'm worried that Vengeance Missiles won't be enough to wipe out Guardsmen or other high body count low cost engineer units, but Castellan Missiles won't knock out Sisters or Marines or other high resiliency low cost engineer units, and are more versatile and lethal for doing other things. It's currently a moot point, because I have no whirlwinds and won't be able to buy any until the quarantine clears.
I don't see why they'd be less gak for Space Wolves than Blood Angels. They'd be better for other marine chapters, true, but we're still marines and we can do marine things.
As far as I see, the Vindicator is probably pretty good. If the Exorcist was good pre codex, then the Vindicator is definitely good post-codex.
The Whirlwind seems to be popular, and my take on it is that it's really damn cheap for what it brings, so even if it's downrange isn't impressive, it brings useful and threatening capability on a very inexpensive platform. I'm not sure if I want Castellan or Vengeance missiles, because I plan to use them to make the enemy regret taking Engineers or one of the other secondaries based on having a chosen unit hold a point [or encourage them to take some other maneuver secondary that forces them to play with me where I want them to be in a wya that's bad for them]. On one hand, I'm worried that Vengeance Missiles won't be enough to wipe out Guardsmen or other high body count low cost engineer units, but Castellan Missiles won't knock out Sisters or Marines or other high resiliency low cost engineer units, and are more versatile and lethal for doing other things. It's currently a moot point, because I have no whirlwinds and won't be able to buy any until the quarantine clears.
All BA lists revolve around jumpbois doing tripoints at this juncture.
I play 3rd, so I will be using standard models instead of Primaris or the upgraded Chaos. If anything, I'll be looking for some of the older kits to go up on the cheap.
Roknar wrote:They made marines...rounder, softer. On top of removing all the bling.
In all fairness, a lot of people, including long-term 40k fans, didn't like how blinged up basic Marines were getting. As users in this thread have said, they would cut off the bling on older models. As I see it, it's a lot easier to add bling to an unblinged model than to carve it all off. If you like your Marines fancy and blinged up, there's nothing stopping you adding that detail in.
jeff white wrote: restartes are heresy plain as day.
Is that heresy in universe? Because, as I hate to bring up, it's not.
Yes it is... what you read is just imperial propaganda. Anyone with faith in the emperor knows it to be true.
Is this supposed to be in-character or something? We literally have direct proof that the Emperor is completely okay with what Guilliman is doing. Unless you're implying that Guilliman fabricated an entire story for only himself in his own head, or that the Custodes are all traitors and heretics?
Cawl clearly has tapped the powers of chaos to turn 10k years of imperial rot into flying tanks and GI SuperJoes.
Anyone who doesnt see the truth in this is obviously equally tainted.
You know this isn't a roleplaying thread? We have more than enough evidence from an OOC perspective to know that all of that isn't true. That's not saying that characters in universe can't have that belief, but we, from an outside perspective, surely know this isn't the case?
Any loyal Sisters of Battle will follow Girlymans flying tanks? Mine wont...
See, i get to choose. So do you.
Well, yes. No-one said that you weren't allowed Your Dudes. But at the same time, if GW say that many, if not most, Sisters follow Guilliman, that's canon. Ignore that, headcanon it, do what you will, what you do with your headcanon is none of my business. Sure, YOUR Sisters might not follow Guilliman, but if GW says/implies that most do, well, that's what it is.
Wow. K. Koolaid much?
I am going to let go however direct proof can be found and that if none of this is your business then how does it lead to such a lengthy preachy post with CAPS to simply reiterate that THIS - the reasoning that you offer in ypur post - is why my Marines will play as loyalists though they may be regarded by followers of heretics Cawl and Girlyman as traitors to Cawl and Girlyman.
Restartes are EDIT tools of chaos gods traceable back to the original foul gash in the universe re Eldar in universe and IRL products of greed and sloth. My marines remain loyal.
Edit - and custodes arent heretics, just poorly informed do gooders.
BTW I had told myself that i would NEVER buy a Restartes model. The new Ghaz box had me close to breakng this rule because the restartes incuded are so vanilla that they might mix well with the OG marines or maybe I would sell the restartes half given that the Ragnar model is pretty meh...
But now after reading your post Smudge, my conviction is reaffirmed. I love the gothic over the top ornamentation celebrating ritual and evidence of a civilization in decline. Now it is Justin Bieberman and the McWeenies come to save the day in their shiny flying tanks sans bling as you call it. I will never own a heretic restartes anything for 40k. The taint stinks of corruption and Smudge, that is not in my head.
For what it’s worth on the heresy discussion, the emperor has historically had no say on the religion he never wanted to be a thing, gulliman explicitly isn’t a member of the religion (and thus by it’s principles is already heretical just for that), and Cawl couldn’t any more plainly be a heretek within the barely tolerated alternative human religion.
Primaris are extremely heretical within the standards of the imperial cult, it’s just orders have come down from on high within the totalitarian theocratic state that this week’s official doublethink is to ignore that. Cognitive dissonance isn’t exactly new to the imperium either.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah I mean the fact that primaris marines have TWELVE discreet bolt gun variants among them and one single chainsword bit available on an upgrade sprue kind of highlights the flaw in GW's attempt to keep them being what a space marine is.
Isn't the Bolt gun the most iconic of the space marines' weapons? I don't how having more variations of their most iconic weapon makes Primaris lesser space marines. I will admit the chainsword thing was missed opportunity on Rievers, but hardly difficult to convert and is mechanically the same thing anyways. That is what I did with mine. As for Intercessors, it isn't like they can have any less chainswords than Tactical marines. Reivers are about the closest thing to an assault squad for Primaris. I think what you are saying is Primaris don't feel like marines because they don't directly compete with Firstborn units.
Games Workshop seems to have went to a lot of trouble to prevent Primaris being Firstborn replacements. Which can be annoying especially since space marines have a fairly complete roster of stuff. So Primaris had to be wedged in the margins of being similar to a Firstborn unit role as to allow a Primaris only player to have access to it while at the same time offering something different enough to not be a replacement/basically the same thing.
My point is that GW tossed out the "Medieval knight techno-barbarian" aesthetic that space marines had for a cringe-inducing COD modern warfare edgy teen tacticool look on a ton of the primaris stuff, and that sucks ass. And on the tabletop, they have one single dedicated assault unit that is fething awful and has been since its release 2 years ago, and GW seemed more interested in straight up obsoleting Reivers than acutally trying to fix them. The feth does a reiver do that an incursor doesn't do better?
Just trying to work out if you're doing some kind of roleplay thing or if your beliefs are that set in the fiction. I mean no offence by it.
I am going to let go however direct proof can be found
Oh, okay - where? I've not seen any.
and that if none of this is your business then how does it lead to such a lengthy preachy post with CAPS to simply reiterate that THIS - the reasoning that you offer in ypur post - is why my Marines will play as loyalists though they may be regarded by followers of heretics Cawl and Girlyman as traitors to Cawl and Girlyman.
Because you're not making it clear if you're communicating your argument that Primaris are Heresy from some kind of in-character roleplaying perspective (which would align with Your Dudes believing so, and hence, none of my business), or if you genuinely hold the belief that fictional soldiers are somehow heretical.
If your CHARACTERS believe the Primaris to be heresy, that works. If YOU (a human being outside of the game world) believe them to be heresy (not just bad, or not your kind of model, or you disagree with the IRL production of them, but ACTUAL HERESY in terms of 40k canon), then I think you might want to re-evaluate the evidence.
Restartes are EDIT tools of chaos gods traceable back to the original foul gash in the universe re Eldar in universe and IRL products of greed and sloth. My marines remain loyal.
I'm sure your Marines are loyal, but saying that Primaris are tools of Chaos etc etc is just your headcanon. There's no proof of that in the actual canon. Again, if your own Marines believe that, that can make sense, but IRL, we know better.
As for "IRL products of greed and sloth", now THAT makes more sense, you have an IRL dislike of Primaris. That's also okay. It doesn't make them "heresy" though, it makes them "not something I like". Right now, you're blurring the lines between in-character complaining and IRL business/hobby concerns so much that I'm struggling to figure out which is which.
Edit - and custodes arent heretics, just poorly informed do gooders.
Why the double standard? They support people you claim to be heretics, that should also make them heretics! Don't forget, the Custodes had every right to bar Guilliman entry and reject his claims to power and authority. Instead, they were more than happy to do so, and even enforce Primaris Marines on other Chapters. If what you say is true, that Guilliman, Cawl and the Primaris are all heretical, then the Custodes are very clearly spreading that heresy beyond "poorly informed do-gooders". Why are the Custodes "do-gooders" and not Guilliman?
(And again, that's ignoring the fact that we know from an OOC knowledge that both Guilliman and Cawl have personally been instructed to do what they're doing by the Emperor himself).
But now after reading your post Smudge, my conviction is reaffirmed. I love the gothic over the top ornamentation celebrating ritual and evidence of a civilization in decline.
That's okay. I'm glad you know what you like, and what you don't. You prefer the gothic stuff? Well, I'd argue that you can easily up-bling Primaris Marines to look suitably gothic, and that many of the old Marines have little to no gothic ornamentation on them: But, if you've made up your IRL mind, that's fair.
Now it is Justin Bieberman and the McWeenies come to save the day in their shiny flying tanks sans bling as you call it.
Shiny flying tanks sans bling I understand (even if it's a bit reductive), but "Justin Bieberman and the McWeenies"? What? What have either of those things got to do with Primaris?
I will never own a heretic restartes anything for 40k. The taint stinks of corruption and Smudge, that is not in my head.
Again, is that IRL corruption or IC corruption? Because there's a very big difference between the two.
TL;DR - Why do you keep complaining like you're a character in the 41st millenium? It's okay just to talk about your dislike of Primaris like Insectum does, without using words like "heresy" and "corruption".
Insectum:
Spoiler:
Insectum7 wrote:They are committee designed, marketing informed, blandified fan-marines.
Is that such a bad thing if they are? And come on, we aren't saying that EVERY model, Space Marine or not, isn't committee designed and marketing informed, surely? You're only saying that with Primaris Marines because they're not identical to the Marines you've come to know and recognise. And sure, in your opinion, they're not proper Space Marines. But for many other people, and by GW's own admission, they empirically *are*.
Changemod:
Spoiler:
changemod wrote:For what it’s worth on the heresy discussion, the emperor has historically had no say on the religion he never wanted to be a thing, gulliman explicitly isn’t a member of the religion (and thus by it’s principles is already heretical just for that), and Cawl couldn’t any more plainly be a heretek within the barely tolerated alternative human religion.
Primaris are extremely heretical within the standards of the imperial cult, it’s just orders have come down from on high within the totalitarian theocratic state that this week’s official doublethink is to ignore that. Cognitive dissonance isn’t exactly new to the imperium either.
As I see it, the Ecclesiarchy are the "real" heretics, by the Emperor's terms (obviously by being religious). But if Guilliman and Cawl have been explicitly told by the Emperor that what they're doing is what he wants, then from an OOC perspective, we know they're not heretical. Sure, some people within the setting may believe they are, but as you say, there's been enough people in high places who have vouched for them both, and thereby exonerate them of heresy charges.
Again, I don't really judge true in-universe heresy by the standard of the Imperial Cult, given how trigger happy they can be - hardly a good metre for judgement. If I'm talking about heresy from an OOC perspective looking in, then it would be something like ignoring/breaking the Emperor's will and edicts and directly supporting an entity other than the Imperium or Mars. Under those terms, Guilliman and Cawl and the Primaris are completely not heretics.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah I mean the fact that primaris marines have TWELVE discreet bolt gun variants among them and one single chainsword bit available on an upgrade sprue kind of highlights the flaw in GW's attempt to keep them being what a space marine is.
Isn't the Bolt gun the most iconic of the space marines' weapons? I don't how having more variations of their most iconic weapon makes Primaris lesser space marines. I will admit the chainsword thing was missed opportunity on Rievers, but hardly difficult to convert and is mechanically the same thing anyways. That is what I did with mine. As for Intercessors, it isn't like they can have any less chainswords than Tactical marines. Reivers are about the closest thing to an assault squad for Primaris. I think what you are saying is Primaris don't feel like marines because they don't directly compete with Firstborn units.
Games Workshop seems to have went to a lot of trouble to prevent Primaris being Firstborn replacements. Which can be annoying especially since space marines have a fairly complete roster of stuff. So Primaris had to be wedged in the margins of being similar to a Firstborn unit role as to allow a Primaris only player to have access to it while at the same time offering something different enough to not be a replacement/basically the same thing.
My point is that GW tossed out the "Medieval knight techno-barbarian" aesthetic that space marines had for a cringe-inducing COD modern warfare edgy teen tacticool look on a ton of the primaris stuff, and that sucks ass. And on the tabletop, they have one single dedicated assault unit that is fething awful and has been since its release 2 years ago, and GW seemed more interested in straight up obsoleting Reivers than acutally trying to fix them. The feth does a reiver do that an incursor doesn't do better?
If you compare the various Marines over the years you can see that they have and maintain a basic asthetic, in fact the extra bits and pieces hark back to the original models.
IMO they are much worthy inheritors that cringeworthy gak like the Wolfy Wolf Wolves models, baby carriers, centurions and the crappy chunky little flyers made over the last few years.
changemod wrote:For what it’s worth on the heresy discussion, the emperor has historically had no say on the religion he never wanted to be a thing, gulliman explicitly isn’t a member of the religion (and thus by it’s principles is already heretical just for that), and Cawl couldn’t any more plainly be a heretek within the barely tolerated alternative human religion.
Primaris are extremely heretical within the standards of the imperial cult, it’s just orders have come down from on high within the totalitarian theocratic state that this week’s official doublethink is to ignore that. Cognitive dissonance isn’t exactly new to the imperium either.
As I see it, the Ecclesiarchy are the "real" heretics, by the Emperor's terms (obviously by being religious). But if Guilliman and Cawl have been explicitly told by the Emperor that what they're doing is what he wants, then from an OOC perspective, we know they're not heretical. Sure, some people within the setting may believe they are, but as you say, there's been enough people in high places who have vouched for them both, and thereby exonerate them of heresy charges.
Again, I don't really judge true in-universe heresy by the standard of the Imperial Cult, given how trigger happy they can be - hardly a good metre for judgement. If I'm talking about heresy from an OOC perspective looking in, then it would be something like ignoring/breaking the Emperor's will and edicts and directly supporting an entity other than the Imperium or Mars. Under those terms, Guilliman and Cawl and the Primaris are completely not heretics.
Bizzare post formatting that was a nightmare to undo on mobile aside,
Heresy can only be judged from the perspective of a religion because it’s an inherently religious concept. The emperor and gulliman are both atheists who want as little to do with the imperial cult as possible.
From an out of setting perspective I can’t fairly say that the primaris aren’t a heretical concept, because the more level headed voices in the room don’t have any use for or investment in the concept of heresy. Instead, I can only judge by taking the imperial cult in general terms, looking at what things they tend to hate, and recognising that Primaris fit the bill of heretics very thoroughly.
Mr Morden wrote: If you compare the various Marines over the years you can see that they have and maintain a basic asthetic, in fact the extra bits and pieces hark back to the original models.
Absolutely. If you watch Goodwin breaking down his designs and talking about the design philosophy of the Primaris Marines, you see that the Primaris designs aren't really that different from Space Marines of old.
I was actually looking at a project someone had done where they had painted a single Space Marine of each armour Mark and put them next to eachother, and I had the strangest realisation - the Mark 7 helmet is actually the most odd-one-out, aside from Mark 1 Thunder pattern. Why? It's the only one with an exposed face grille. Mark V, which technically has one, isn't really a proper standardised Mark, and so I didn't include it, but every other proper power armour variant has an enclosed grille except, Aquila pattern.
Similarly, for all the hate Phobos gets (and I understand that), it looks far more Space Marine-y than Scout armour does. In terms of design philosophy, I think having *all* Marines in power armour works well to unified aesthetics.
As a pet project of mine, I'm going to take an Aggressor and give it a more Terminator-styled power fist and storm bolter loadout, and see just how different Terminator and Gravis armour really are - because I don't think it'll be much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
changemod wrote: Heresy can only be judged from the perspective of a religion because it’s an inherently religious concept. The emperor and gulliman are both atheists who want as little to do with the imperial cult as possible.
Eh, when heresy is used in both religious and non-religious manners in 40k, I don't think the inherently religious perspective works. After all, the Word Bearers are called the First Heretics long before the Imperial Cult is established. Heresy seems to just be simply "you don't do what the Emperor commands/expects, and work against him". Unless you're also calling the Emperor, his Custodes, and every non-Imperial Cult Space Marine a heretic? In which case, as long as you're being consistent, that's cool.
From an out of setting perspective I can’t fairly say that the primaris aren’t a heretical concept, because the more level headed voices in the room don’t have any use for or investment in the concept of heresy. Instead, I can only judge by taking the imperial cult in general terms, looking at what things they tend to hate, and recognising that Primaris fit the bill of heretics very thoroughly.
Again, if you want to use the Imperial Cult's definition of heresy, that's fine, as long as you also accept that you'd also be calling every single Primarch, non-Cult Space Marine, all the Custodes, and the Emperor himself a heretic.
changemod wrote: Heresy can only be judged from the perspective of a religion because it’s an inherently religious concept. The emperor and gulliman are both atheists who want as little to do with the imperial cult as possible.
Eh, when heresy is used in both religious and non-religious manners in 40k, I don't think the inherently religious perspective works. After all, the Word Bearers are called the First Heretics long before the Imperial Cult is established. Heresy seems to just be simply "you don't do what the Emperor commands/expects, and work against him". Unless you're also calling the Emperor, his Custodes, and every non-Imperial Cult Space Marine a heretic? In which case, as long as you're being consistent, that's cool.
From an out of setting perspective I can’t fairly say that the primaris aren’t a heretical concept, because the more level headed voices in the room don’t have any use for or investment in the concept of heresy. Instead, I can only judge by taking the imperial cult in general terms, looking at what things they tend to hate, and recognising that Primaris fit the bill of heretics very thoroughly.
Again, if you want to use the Imperial Cult's definition of heresy, that's fine, as long as you also accept that you'd also be calling every single Primarch, non-Cult Space Marine, all the Custodes, and the Emperor himself a heretic.
In as long as they safely aren’t there, especially those who are dead or isolated on life support, then they can avoid heretic status by being grandfathered in as pre-cult figures the cult has formed opinions on... Poor history and cognitive dissonance can patch up any pesky little inconsistencies and let you shove words in their mouths they’d never agree with.
Being around and active, taking actions and stating opinions contrary to cult doctrine? That’s going to give the ecclesiarchy a lot more headaches.
changemod wrote: In as long as they safely aren’t there, especially those who are dead or isolated on life support, then they can avoid heretic status by being grandfathered in as pre-cult figures the cult has formed opinions on... Poor history and cognitive dissonance can patch up any pesky little inconsistencies and let you shove words in their mouths they’d never agree with.
Being around and active, taking actions and stating opinions contrary to cult doctrine? That’s going to give the ecclesiarchy a lot more headaches.
However, if the cult is based upon those people, wouldn't Imperial citizens be more likely to trust in those beings they've been told are divine ever since birth, rather than the preacher who has now suddenly changed tune and called them heretics? That rather more sounds like the preacher is the one telling falsehoods.
Basically, by basing their cult around people who they felt confident couldn't (or wouldn't) disagree with their beliefs, they've undermined their own influence and authority against those people. They've helped legitimise and ensure that the Primarchs are all universally venerated and considered demi-gods - that's propaganda they can't easily take back.
Anyone that says that Primaris don't follow the aesthetic of Manlet Marines outside a couple of Phobos units is 100% incorrect. They take the concept and are simply better models, period. Any "customization" is in your head as, just because you can move the arms a little more, doesn't mean your poses don't all end up the same over time in an army. Get over it, you're not cool for hating on Primaris for reasons not grounded in reality.
My way to tell if models share an aesthetic - show them to someone who has no understanding of the setting, and ask them to put models in categories. I can guarentee that Primaris Marines and regular Marines would be put together more frequently than regular Marines and Scouts would.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah I mean the fact that primaris marines have TWELVE discreet bolt gun variants among them and one single chainsword bit available on an upgrade sprue kind of highlights the flaw in GW's attempt to keep them being what a space marine is.
Isn't the Bolt gun the most iconic of the space marines' weapons? I don't how having more variations of their most iconic weapon makes Primaris lesser space marines. I will admit the chainsword thing was missed opportunity on Rievers, but hardly difficult to convert and is mechanically the same thing anyways. That is what I did with mine. As for Intercessors, it isn't like they can have any less chainswords than Tactical marines. Reivers are about the closest thing to an assault squad for Primaris. I think what you are saying is Primaris don't feel like marines because they don't directly compete with Firstborn units.
Games Workshop seems to have went to a lot of trouble to prevent Primaris being Firstborn replacements. Which can be annoying especially since space marines have a fairly complete roster of stuff. So Primaris had to be wedged in the margins of being similar to a Firstborn unit role as to allow a Primaris only player to have access to it while at the same time offering something different enough to not be a replacement/basically the same thing.
My point is that GW tossed out the "Medieval knight techno-barbarian" aesthetic that space marines had for a cringe-inducing COD modern warfare edgy teen tacticool look on a ton of the primaris stuff, and that sucks ass. And on the tabletop, they have one single dedicated assault unit that is fething awful and has been since its release 2 years ago, and GW seemed more interested in straight up obsoleting Reivers than acutally trying to fix them. The feth does a reiver do that an incursor doesn't do better?
If you compare the various Marines over the years you can see that they have and maintain a basic asthetic, in fact the extra bits and pieces hark back to the original models.
IMO they are much worthy inheritors that cringeworthy gak like the Wolfy Wolf Wolves models, baby carriers, centurions and the crappy chunky little flyers made over the last few years.
I mean..why can't mulitple things be bad? Do I have to like one thing if it's not as bad as something else I don't like?
For my part, the GK babycarrier to me looks more like a 40k model than the new invictus babycarrier, and other than the wulfen I don't mind the space wolf over the top stuff. And I'm not a fan of the chunky flyers, but literally EVERY PRIMARIS VEHICLE follows the exact same aesthetic design: Chunky, no wheels making it just look like a brick, and way too many different crazy guns sticking out at weird angles. To me, the only aesthetic difference between a stormhawk interceptor and a primaris repulsor is what base stand their mounted on.
the_scotsman wrote: My point is that GW tossed out the "Medieval knight techno-barbarian" aesthetic that space marines had for a cringe-inducing COD modern warfare edgy teen tacticool look on a ton of the primaris stuff, and that sucks ass. And on the tabletop, they have one single dedicated assault unit that is [deleted] awful and has been since its release 2 years ago, and GW seemed more interested in straight up obsoleting Reivers than acutally trying to fix them. The [deleted] does a reiver do that an incursor doesn't do better?
I suppose Medieval knight techno-barbarian and cringe-inducing CoD Modern Warfare is in they eye of the beholder. It isn't like the Raptors chapter didn't set an example of tacticool well before Primaris. I don't really see much inherently techo-barbarian about anything Ultramarine or any number of chapters, and medieval knight equal parts lore and units armed with some sort of power weapon and boarding shield/storm shield or anything Dark Angel. Granted Primaris could really use some sort of dedicated CQC unit and I would be all for something like power swords and storm shield Primaris helping them look more knightly. I think in the future Primaris releases will have dedicated melee squads maybe not as exampled above though. At the same time, Primaris have enough units to function well enough as an army on only Primaris. Something they couldn't do very well before Shadowspear. Now that Primaris can do that, I am glad GW has largely taken a break from Primairs sans special characters. There is a great number of factions that could use support over Primaris.
Point is, if someone wants Primaris to be techno-barbarians, medieval knights or CoD modern warriors as modelers we have the bits to make it happen as Primaris are largely a blank canvas and there is a wealth of space marine bits out there that still work for them with varying degrees of effort. Me, I went low effort and steered into the tacticool look and happen to think it makes my Primaris army look really sharp. You are free to disagree and think my army is that cringe-worthy CoD pandering. Do understand when you denigrate and snub 'tacticool' Primaris, you are criticizing my personal army. You don't have to like what I did, but understand that their are a good number of players enjoy that aesetic. And as mentioned, Space Marines can have just about any aesthetic a person wants if they want to put in the effort. Some looks are going to be tougher to put off than others. But the greater the effort, the greater the rewards or some such thing.
You don't have to tell me how bad Reivers are. They are my favorite 40k unit, and I built my Primaris army around them. What Rievers do better than Incursors is Deep Strike and move easier (with grapplers) at 3ppm less than Incursors though are an Elites slot. They are also slightly better at getting into combat with Shock grenades and do a little better with combat knives and their heavy bolt pistol does have a native AP -1. It doesn't come up often, but Terror Troops does sometimes cause a model or two to flee which isn't nothing (almost but isn't nothing).
Despite having fairly similar weapons, Incursors and Rievers do provide different functions. Incursors want to get to objectives early (easy enough with Concealed Positions), lay down a mine or two make the enemy have to take some pain to take the objective away. Reivers want to clear/hold objectives mid-late game sometimes taking over for Incursors. What Reivers really are missing is power weapon options for the Sergeant to help fight more than Guardsmen and maybe some way to cancel Objective Secured. Because even with the boosts to C:SM, Reivers sometimes can't clear an objective entirely of Troop options in a single go.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah I mean the fact that primaris marines have TWELVE discreet bolt gun variants among them and one single chainsword bit available on an upgrade sprue kind of highlights the flaw in GW's attempt to keep them being what a space marine is.
Isn't the Bolt gun the most iconic of the space marines' weapons? I don't how having more variations of their most iconic weapon makes Primaris lesser space marines. I will admit the chainsword thing was missed opportunity on Rievers, but hardly difficult to convert and is mechanically the same thing anyways. That is what I did with mine. As for Intercessors, it isn't like they can have any less chainswords than Tactical marines. Reivers are about the closest thing to an assault squad for Primaris. I think what you are saying is Primaris don't feel like marines because they don't directly compete with Firstborn units.
Games Workshop seems to have went to a lot of trouble to prevent Primaris being Firstborn replacements. Which can be annoying especially since space marines have a fairly complete roster of stuff. So Primaris had to be wedged in the margins of being similar to a Firstborn unit role as to allow a Primaris only player to have access to it while at the same time offering something different enough to not be a replacement/basically the same thing.
My point is that GW tossed out the "Medieval knight techno-barbarian" aesthetic that space marines had for a cringe-inducing COD modern warfare edgy teen tacticool look on a ton of the primaris stuff, and that sucks ass. And on the tabletop, they have one single dedicated assault unit that is fething awful and has been since its release 2 years ago, and GW seemed more interested in straight up obsoleting Reivers than acutally trying to fix them. The feth does a reiver do that an incursor doesn't do better?
If you compare the various Marines over the years you can see that they have and maintain a basic asthetic, in fact the extra bits and pieces hark back to the original models.
IMO they are much worthy inheritors that cringeworthy gak like the Wolfy Wolf Wolves models, baby carriers, centurions and the crappy chunky little flyers made over the last few years.
To add my worthless $0.02 here, I'm not much of a fan of most SM stuff in the last decade or so. I like the scale of the Primaris marines, but I definitely get the "COD modern warfare edgy" complaints, there's a lot in there that doesn't fit either the industrial/cyberpunk or technobarbarian aesthetics, while a lot of the preceding stuff became a painful parody of recursive design (Centurions, Chibi Ravens, etc). Of the SM stuff released since about the 5E SM codex, the only models I felt hit the spot were the Thunderfire Cannon (even though it was just a reintroduced Thudd Gun) and some of the Terminator armor marks.
the_scotsman wrote: My point is that GW tossed out the "Medieval knight techno-barbarian" aesthetic that space marines had for a cringe-inducing COD modern warfare edgy teen tacticool look on a ton of the primaris stuff, and that sucks ass. And on the tabletop, they have one single dedicated assault unit that is [deleted] awful and has been since its release 2 years ago, and GW seemed more interested in straight up obsoleting Reivers than acutally trying to fix them. The [deleted] does a reiver do that an incursor doesn't do better?
I suppose Medieval knight techno-barbarian and cringe-inducing CoD Modern Warfare is in they eye of the beholder. It isn't like the Raptors chapter didn't set an example of tacticool well before Primaris. I don't really see much inherently techo-barbarian about anything Ultramarine or any number of chapters, and medieval knight equal parts lore and units armed with some sort of power weapon and boarding shield/storm shield or anything Dark Angel. Granted Primaris could really use some sort of dedicated CQC unit and I would be all for something like power swords and storm shield Primaris helping them look more knightly. I think in the future Primaris releases will have dedicated melee squads maybe not as exampled above though. At the same time, Primaris have enough units to function well enough as an army on only Primaris. Something they couldn't do very well before Shadowspear. Now that Primaris can do that, I am glad GW has largely taken a break from Primairs sans special characters. There is a great number of factions that could use support over Primaris.
Point is, if someone wants Primaris to be techno-barbarians, medieval knights or CoD modern warriors as modelers we have the bits to make it happen as Primaris are largely a blank canvas and there is a wealth of space marine bits out there that still work for them with varying degrees of effort. Me, I went low effort and steered into the tacticool look and happen to think it makes my Primaris army look really sharp. You are free to disagree and think my army is that cringe-worthy CoD pandering. Do understand when you denigrate and snub 'tacticool' Primaris, you are criticizing my personal army. You don't have to like what I did, but understand that their are a good number of players enjoy that aesetic. And as mentioned, Space Marines can have just about any aesthetic a person wants if they want to put in the effort. Some looks are going to be tougher to put off than others. But the greater the effort, the greater the rewards or some such thing..
Well, sorry if I caused offense. I'll play an army with a modern-looking aesthetic, but I'm not about to embrace it in 40k or think it particularly fits the setting. There are whole game systems built around that kind of aesthetic like Infinity, and it tends to be kind of the generic default for what you get when you say "Sci-fi setting" wheras the somewhat anachronistic and "fantasy in space" aspects of 40k have always been its defining feature.
End of the day, if GW does go ahead and lean in hard on obsoleting the classic marines, it won't really affect me that much. I put about 150 bucks into my marine army in terms of actual kits I bought to get the marines inside (most of the points are taken up by the models I got from Deathwatch Overkill and Space Hulk) so they're by very far the army I'm least invested in financially, and they're fully painted and complete at this point. I'll feel bad for the dedicated marine players that move will (and already has) alienated and driven away from the hobby, but the addition of kiddy's first starter pack marines has probably already brought in more people than got driven away. Net neutral, except in terms of the quality of painting and hobbying that you see in general. There's still a lot of gray/just primed primaris armies out there.
the_scotsman wrote: My point is that GW tossed out the "Medieval knight techno-barbarian" aesthetic that space marines had for a cringe-inducing COD modern warfare edgy teen tacticool look on a ton of the primaris stuff, and that sucks ass. And on the tabletop, they have one single dedicated assault unit that is [deleted] awful and has been since its release 2 years ago, and GW seemed more interested in straight up obsoleting Reivers than acutally trying to fix them. The [deleted] does a reiver do that an incursor doesn't do better?
I suppose Medieval knight techno-barbarian and cringe-inducing CoD Modern Warfare is in they eye of the beholder. It isn't like the Raptors chapter didn't set an example of tacticool well before Primaris. I don't really see much inherently techo-barbarian about anything Ultramarine or any number of chapters, and medieval knight equal parts lore and units armed with some sort of power weapon and boarding shield/storm shield or anything Dark Angel. Granted Primaris could really use some sort of dedicated CQC unit and I would be all for something like power swords and storm shield Primaris helping them look more knightly. I think in the future Primaris releases will have dedicated melee squads maybe not as exampled above though. At the same time, Primaris have enough units to function well enough as an army on only Primaris. Something they couldn't do very well before Shadowspear. Now that Primaris can do that, I am glad GW has largely taken a break from Primairs sans special characters. There is a great number of factions that could use support over Primaris.
Point is, if someone wants Primaris to be techno-barbarians, medieval knights or CoD modern warriors as modelers we have the bits to make it happen as Primaris are largely a blank canvas and there is a wealth of space marine bits out there that still work for them with varying degrees of effort. Me, I went low effort and steered into the tacticool look and happen to think it makes my Primaris army look really sharp. You are free to disagree and think my army is that cringe-worthy CoD pandering. Do understand when you denigrate and snub 'tacticool' Primaris, you are criticizing my personal army. You don't have to like what I did, but understand that their are a good number of players enjoy that aesetic. And as mentioned, Space Marines can have just about any aesthetic a person wants if they want to put in the effort. Some looks are going to be tougher to put off than others. But the greater the effort, the greater the rewards or some such thing..
Well, sorry if I caused offense. I'll play an army with a modern-looking aesthetic, but I'm not about to embrace it in 40k or think it particularly fits the setting. There are whole game systems built around that kind of aesthetic like Infinity, and it tends to be kind of the generic default for what you get when you say "Sci-fi setting" wheras the somewhat anachronistic and "fantasy in space" aspects of 40k have always been its defining feature.
End of the day, if GW does go ahead and lean in hard on obsoleting the classic marines, it won't really affect me that much. I put about 150 bucks into my marine army in terms of actual kits I bought to get the marines inside (most of the points are taken up by the models I got from Deathwatch Overkill and Space Hulk) so they're by very far the army I'm least invested in financially, and they're fully painted and complete at this point. I'll feel bad for the dedicated marine players that move will (and already has) alienated and driven away from the hobby, but the addition of kiddy's first starter pack marines has probably already brought in more people than got driven away. Net neutral, except in terms of the quality of painting and hobbying that you see in general. There's still a lot of gray/just primed primaris armies out there.
And I love the tacticool aesthetic they have on the new marines. I didn't think highly of Marine models before, and there's nothing to love in their lore, so for the most part mine were last on my list of armies I play, and I basically never bought models for them.
Now? I f***ing love the new tacticool stuff they have, and am legitimately excited to play my Space Wolves. I have a long list of models I want to buy to realize lists I want to play, and like they feel fun and funny now.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah I mean the fact that primaris marines have TWELVE discreet bolt gun variants among them and one single chainsword bit available on an upgrade sprue kind of highlights the flaw in GW's attempt to keep them being what a space marine is.
Isn't the Bolt gun the most iconic of the space marines' weapons? I don't how having more variations of their most iconic weapon makes Primaris lesser space marines. I will admit the chainsword thing was missed opportunity on Rievers, but hardly difficult to convert and is mechanically the same thing anyways. That is what I did with mine. As for Intercessors, it isn't like they can have any less chainswords than Tactical marines. Reivers are about the closest thing to an assault squad for Primaris. I think what you are saying is Primaris don't feel like marines because they don't directly compete with Firstborn units.
Games Workshop seems to have went to a lot of trouble to prevent Primaris being Firstborn replacements. Which can be annoying especially since space marines have a fairly complete roster of stuff. So Primaris had to be wedged in the margins of being similar to a Firstborn unit role as to allow a Primaris only player to have access to it while at the same time offering something different enough to not be a replacement/basically the same thing.
My point is that GW tossed out the "Medieval knight techno-barbarian" aesthetic that space marines had for a cringe-inducing COD modern warfare edgy teen tacticool look on a ton of the primaris stuff, and that sucks ass. And on the tabletop, they have one single dedicated assault unit that is fething awful and has been since its release 2 years ago, and GW seemed more interested in straight up obsoleting Reivers than acutally trying to fix them. The feth does a reiver do that an incursor doesn't do better?
Insectum7 wrote:They are committee designed, marketing informed, blandified fan-marines.
Is that such a bad thing if they are?
Yes.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And come on, we aren't saying that EVERY model, Space Marine or not, isn't committee designed and marketing informed, surely? You're only saying that with Primaris Marines because they're not identical to the Marines you've come to know and recognise.
What comes out of a comittee shows you where the deciding priorities lie.
The "tacticool" aesthetic is terrible and has no place in 40K.
They turned Space Marines from something unique and cool into something I will never buy. If I wanted tacticool I'd play any of the other countless futuristic soldiers game.
Had 40 of the old CSM sculpts painted as Black Legion, repainted them as Red Corsairs. In the process of rebasing them, adding details that elevate them to the height of new marines.
Had 80 unbuilt CSM models on the sprue, experimented with making them the size of new CSMs. Adding 1mm of polystyrene to the thigh does a convincing job of increasing the height, adding a small amount of green stuff to the arm joints almost accounts for the width of the chest. I can get them as tall but they're skinnier than the new sculpts.
So I'm just repurposing the old sculpts to make them work with the new ones. Still trying to figure out what to do with the old Abaddon, he really looks small these days.
Brutus_Apex wrote: The "tacticool" aesthetic is terrible and has no place in 40K.
They turned Space Marines from something unique and cool into something I will never buy. If I wanted tacticool I'd play any of the other countless futuristic soldiers game.
40K is fantasy in space. Lets keep it that way.
So just put a load of Purity seals and such over the model. Maybe some skulls if you want to represent SOME chapters.
Sorry - I really can;t see the issue here, both are basically Marines, one has some tactical gear , one has some skulls and seals.
Brutus_Apex wrote: The "tacticool" aesthetic is terrible and has no place in 40K.
They turned Space Marines from something unique and cool into something I will never buy. If I wanted tacticool I'd play any of the other countless futuristic soldiers game.
40K is fantasy in space. Lets keep it that way.
What amuses me most about that newer model, is that they put a faux-1913 attachment rail on top, but only out on the far end of the muzzle and not where they actually mount the optic (which apparently has its own big heavy stonkin' looking mount, so why bother with rails at all?), with the optic being so big it covers the rail sufficiently to make mounting anything else impossible
Brutus_Apex wrote: The "tacticool" aesthetic is terrible and has no place in 40K.
They turned Space Marines from something unique and cool into something I will never buy. If I wanted tacticool I'd play any of the other countless futuristic soldiers game.
40K is fantasy in space. Lets keep it that way.
That isn't really a fair comparison though. The 10th company has always had a different aesthetic and used different equipment from the rest of the chapter. Vanguard marines are a reimagining of scouts.
Primaris have a chaplain model
He isn't in terminator armor but is pretty close to the one you posted.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:It isn't like the Raptors chapter didn't set an example of tacticool well before Primaris. I don't really see much inherently techo-barbarian about anything Ultramarine or any number of chapters, and medieval knight equal parts lore and units armed with some sort of power weapon and boarding shield/storm shield or anything Dark Angel. ... Point is, if someone wants Primaris to be techno-barbarians, medieval knights or CoD modern warriors as modelers we have the bits to make it happen as Primaris are largely a blank canvas and there is a wealth of space marine bits out there that still work for them with varying degrees of effort.
QFT. There are so many different design aspects to Space Marines that they're all viable and all supported in GW's style. Ultramarines aren't tacticool, but the Raptors are. The Raptors aren't techno-barbarians, but the Space Wolves are. The Space Wolves go into battle without helmets and with ornate runic armour and totems, but the Minotaurs don't.
The reason that Space Marines are so popular is because they're such a blank slate. You have have super minimalist Marines, like the Raptors, who fight using more modern tactics and styles. You have the super-religious barbarians like the Black Templars, charging in directly with chainswords and flamers decked out in full tabards and chains and votive papers. You have Chapters that are little more than a historical aesthetic clad in power armour (White Scars, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Ultramarines).
Anyone claiming that "REAL Space Marines are knightly/techno-barbarians/tacticool" is missing the point of Space Marines being what they are. The CORE of what a Space Marine is is: - Power Armour with big bulky shoulder pads and a large vented backpack - Bolt weaponry - Genetically engineered - Flat angled vehicles with layered armour
Me, I went low effort and steered into the tacticool look and happen to think it makes my Primaris army look really sharp. You are free to disagree and think my army is that cringe-worthy CoD pandering. Do understand when you denigrate and snub 'tacticool' Primaris, you are criticizing my personal army. You don't have to like what I did, but understand that their are a good number of players enjoy that aesetic.
Exactly - there are people who have collected armies very similar to what the Primaris are for years, if not decades. Saying that "tacticool Marines aren't allowed" is both a blatant mistunderstanding of Space Marine historical lore/history as a faction, and also a massive slap in the face for players who have enjoyed their tacticool Marines long before Primaris showed up.
And as mentioned, Space Marines can have just about any aesthetic a person wants if they want to put in the effort.
I think that's why I like the fact that Primaris Marines are so minimal in their basic design - they truly are more of a blank slate to work with. You can keep them bare, even trimming off the chest Aquila if you so want, or you can lace them with purity seals, pouches, pendants, reliquaries and shields that the sprues are festooned with. I mean, look at Aggressors versus basic Terminators! Basic Aggressors all have some kind of rope holding a relic or holy icon over their waist - what do Terminators have? A small shield? Maybe the occasional device on their knee pad. By that logic, Terminators aren't "true" Marine units.
Primaris are a perfect blank slate to do whatever you want with. You like gothic OTT trinkets and pendants and badges? There's enough room for them.
Insectum7 wrote:They are committee designed, marketing informed, blandified fan-marines.
Is that such a bad thing if they are?
Yes.
Why? If you were to find out that other factions (including, more than likely, older, more "classic" versions of Space Marines and other such "grimdark" factions) were designed by a committee, would you similarly pan them?
Otherwise, it just sounds like you have a problem with Primaris in particular, not committee design.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And come on, we aren't saying that EVERY model, Space Marine or not, isn't committee designed and marketing informed, surely? You're only saying that with Primaris Marines because they're not identical to the Marines you've come to know and recognise.
What comes out of a comittee shows you where the deciding priorities lie.
But if the committee produced something you liked, you wouldn't be complaining, I'd bet. I'm not denying that Primaris Marines probably had a good deal of analysis and teams working on producing a good image. But you're deluded if you don't think that all of GW's new sculpts have been done in the same manner. So does that mean that you hate all of GW's new sculpts? Sisters, Ossiarch, Genestealer Cult, Admech, etc?
And sure, in your opinion, they're not proper Space Marines. But for many other people, and by GW's own admission, they empirically *are*.[/spoiler]
Companies can squander their own IP, it's totally within their perogative. But that doesn't make it a smart move.
All you have to do is look at GW's profits. Haven't they gone up quite well with Primaris being released? Hasn't their player base significantly increased, with a great many playing Primaris?
By all means, if you don't like what they've done, you're welcome to that, but I don't think it's been a bad business choice, whichever way you slice it.
Brutus_Apex wrote:The "tacticool" aesthetic is terrible and has no place in 40K.
The Raptors Chapter say hi. Try again?
They turned Space Marines from something unique and cool into something I will never buy.
Shame.
If I wanted tacticool I'd play any of the other countless futuristic soldiers game.
40K is fantasy in space. Lets keep it that way.
It still is. If your idea of "fantasy in space" is so fragile that something as tame as Phobos armour could break it, I honestly feel bad for you missing out. Please, what other universe would a Phobos Marine fit into? Halo? Not really - the armour's too plate-like, bolters too chunky, backpack too large. Mass Effect? Certainly not - far too bulky. Star Wars? Yeah, nah.
In fact, Phobos Marines are far more "Marine-y" than Scouts ever were! Did sniper scout marines also put you off? What about things like the Raptors Chapter?
40k is still unique, still very much fantasy in space. But if you're still not convinced, I hope you find something else you're after.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, Brutus, seeing as you posted some pictures of "proper Space Marines", what's your opinion on this one? As you can see, no purity seals, no skulls, no scrolls, banners, pendants, nothing! Well, except for the chest aquila (which most Primaris have) and a teeny scroll on his bolter (which, again, most Primaris have). So, I guess this isn't a "real Space Marine"?
Brutus_Apex wrote: The "tacticool" aesthetic is terrible and has no place in 40K.
They turned Space Marines from something unique and cool into something I will never buy. If I wanted tacticool I'd play any of the other countless futuristic soldiers game.
40K is fantasy in space. Lets keep it that way.
That isn't really a fair comparison though. The 10th company has always had a different aesthetic and used different equipment from the rest of the chapter. Vanguard marines are a reimagining of scouts.
Primaris have a chaplain model
He isn't in terminator armor but is pretty close to the one you posted.
ThAt ChApLaIn Is ToO tAcTiCaL
Like I said, none of the Primaris line outside a couple of Phobos is Tacticool.
There are really people here thinking primaris don't have a more streamlined and generic sci-fi design than the marines ?
Just because before we had one example of "modern" warfare marines (raptors / rg successors) isn't an excuse, it was an option left amongst hundreds of "medieval" chapters (like UM, BT, BA and most of the successor chapters who are definitely not generic sci-fi).
And yes, technically, every hobbyist can convert his models and blablabla. But the reality is they don't have even paint their models so no, the fact one in ten guys will convert their models isn't an excuse for GW laziness / lost of ip / whatever.
And in addition it's badly executed: the scope is BEHIND the picatinny rail and marines have never needed them because they have scope and sensors in their helmet to hit target at normal range (have you seen Ultramarines movie ? The Dawn Of War Dark Crusade intro (against the necrons) ? ).
So what, primaris helmets are just inferior ?
Tsss....
Brutus_Apex wrote: The "tacticool" aesthetic is terrible and has no place in 40K.
They turned Space Marines from something unique and cool into something I will never buy. If I wanted tacticool I'd play any of the other countless futuristic soldiers game.
40K is fantasy in space. Lets keep it that way.
That isn't really a fair comparison though. The 10th company has always had a different aesthetic and used different equipment from the rest of the chapter. Vanguard marines are a reimagining of scouts.
Primaris have a chaplain model
He isn't in terminator armor but is pretty close to the one you posted.
ThAt ChApLaIn Is ToO tAcTiCaL
Like I said, none of the Primaris line outside a couple of Phobos is Tacticool.
Most of the phobos stuff is too much Call of Duty like with stuff like the Eliminators... sniper scout 2.0 having bloody G36s for the front half of their snipers. Same issue with reavers... (The spooky Skelly Boyz) as they look like some "special" forces BS you see in a sci fi themed COD game.
The jump pack guys and the centurions 2.0 are not tacticool or whatever but are just weak design in general. The stealth dread or whatever the gak it's suppose to be looks like the Walker mechs from Avatar while the redeptor dread has a very Tau looking plasma cannon (similar weapon silhouette to a crisis suit/ghostkeel Ion Weapon).
Only the tactical marines 2.0 (seriously I zogging hate all these garbage names) and their all plasma gun squad setup look remotely in line with the setting as they are effectively true scale marines. I personally dislike the Mark X chest armor due to it's weird stomach armor and knees but the rest is ok. That said I dislike the very busy poses they have which makes repeat model syndrome appear more prevalent unlike the more neutral poses for older sculpts.
In general though the Primaris line shifts away from the sci fi fantasy knights (often with ornate stuff similar to stuff seen in ceremonial gothic armor) to a more sci fi COD or Master Chief look. It clashes a bit when they are in the same faction that has WW1/WW2 looking gear and vehicles for regular troops. Not to mention all the "definitely not the Catholic Church" forces that exist in the fluff.
Smudge. Phobos is not gothic. Historically this style means something. It seems you are oblivious to this ...
Also your rationale for restartes not better fitting in ANY sci fi universe are surface shallow aesthetics. Back paks too large for Halo? WTF srsly?
Missing out? On what? The cheapening of what had been able to capture so much from so many myths and fantasies in a parody future fantasy, turning it into Halo with bigger backpacks? Yeah. Well I avoid also participating in the burning of books out of principle. Have fun tho. To each his own and all that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So many exalts my finger hurts:
changemod wrote:For what it’s worth on the heresy discussion, the emperor has historically had no say on the religion he never wanted to be a thing, gulliman explicitly isn’t a member of the religion (and thus by it’s principles is already heretical just for that), and Cawl couldn’t any more plainly be a heretek within the barely tolerated alternative human religion.
Primaris are extremely heretical within the standards of the imperial cult, it’s just orders have come down from on high within the totalitarian theocratic state that this week’s official doublethink is to ignore that. Cognitive dissonance isn’t exactly new to the imperium either.
As I see it, the Ecclesiarchy are the "real" heretics, by the Emperor's terms (obviously by being religious). But if Guilliman and Cawl have been explicitly told by the Emperor that what they're doing is what he wants, then from an OOC perspective, we know they're not heretical. Sure, some people within the setting may believe they are, but as you say, there's been enough people in high places who have vouched for them both, and thereby exonerate them of heresy charges.
Again, I don't really judge true in-universe heresy by the standard of the Imperial Cult, given how trigger happy they can be - hardly a good metre for judgement. If I'm talking about heresy from an OOC perspective looking in, then it would be something like ignoring/breaking the Emperor's will and edicts and directly supporting an entity other than the Imperium or Mars. Under those terms, Guilliman and Cawl and the Primaris are completely not heretics.
Bizzare post formatting that was a nightmare to undo on mobile aside,
Heresy can only be judged from the perspective of a religion because it’s an inherently religious concept. The emperor and gulliman are both atheists who want as little to do with the imperial cult as possible.
From an out of setting perspective I can’t fairly say that the primaris aren’t a heretical concept, because the more level headed voices in the room don’t have any use for or investment in the concept of heresy. Instead, I can only judge by taking the imperial cult in general terms, looking at what things they tend to hate, and recognising that Primaris fit the bill of heretics very thoroughly.
Vankraken wrote: That said I dislike the very busy poses they have which makes repeat model syndrome appear more prevalent unlike the more neutral poses for older sculpts.
I am not seeing this issue. The spoiler is all the Tacticus Primaris marines I have. The closest to repeat poses I can see is maybe third row, 3rd and 4th from the left which I think just looks like a fairly standard brace to shoot pose. The next closest is the standard Hellblasters (plasmaguns) which were from Know No Fear and were limited in posing by way of construction. Maybe I am bias being they are my models and/or liking Primaris, but I don't really see your repeat model syndrome over some 40+ marines which is should be more than enough even for a Primaris only 2000pt army and I can think a few more ways to model them and still not have repeaters.
I was content to lurk on this topic, reading all the responses while stuffing my fist in my mouth, but this wee bit jumped out at me.
the_scotsman wrote:My point is that GW tossed out the "Medieval knight techno-barbarian" aesthetic that space marines had for a cringe-inducing COD modern warfare edgy teen tacticool look on a ton of the primaris stuff
'Edgy teen'.
A thing for edgy teens.
No awareness that that's not just the 'medieval knight techno-barbarian aesthetic (rolled in spikez 'n' skullz)', but all of 40K, in a nutshell.
For me the problem with the primaris has little to do with gothic. I mainly dislike the new scale and the proportions. They are simply too big. If they were intended for that size they should be fatter, like power armoured ogryns. I dont see why marines have to be taller than humans though. I mean sure maybe a little because of thick boots and a helmet. But they ought to be just humans with more muscles and some added organs. The skeleton is already set when a human has become adult yes? What would even be the advantage of making taller soldiers? I came here to play 28mm damn it, not 35mm or whatever all new guys are.
Smaller irks:
-lack of vox grill is sad, I want that visual
-Flanged knee pads look out of place
-no variation in the armor pattern.
-the concept "marines but bigger" is stupid. It seems to be the general design approach when new people taking over a franchise. Like star wars starkiller base "its a death star, but bigger". Not very inspiring or cool...
I've seen some people online making newer armies of Rouge Trader and 2nd edition Space Marines; that's tempting.
If they were to stop production of "old" Marines wholesale, I'd be tempted to collect a bunch and make an Imperial Fist or White Scars army for 30k (Siege of Terra and all of that).
If I were to start a Chaos Army, Chances are I'd go for Black Legion. Primary goal would be collecting every kind of cultist, or anything that could work as a cultist, that GW ever produced. Doing something similar for Chaos Marines sounds like a good goal as well.
Gitdakka wrote: For me the problem with the primaris has little to do with gothic. I mainly dislike the new scale and the proportions. They are simply too big. If they were intended for that size they should be fatter, like power armoured ogryns. I dont see why marines have to be taller than humans though. I mean sure maybe a little because of thick boots and a helmet. But they ought to be just humans with more muscles and some added organs. The skeleton is already set when a human has become adult yes? What would even be the advantage of making taller soldiers? I came here to play 28mm damn it, not 35mm or whatever all new guys are.
Smaller irks:
-lack of vox grill is sad, I want that visual
-Flanged knee pads look out of place
-no variation in the armor pattern.
-the concept "marines but bigger" is stupid. It seems to be the general design approach when new people taking over a franchise. Like star wars starkiller base "its a death star, but bigger". Not very inspiring or cool...
1. Boy wait until you see Mks 2-6
2. The knee pads actually make sense being part of the calf armor
3. There is variation in the armors and helmets, and yet you complain about no vox grill, which not all the manlet Marines have.
4. In reality the models are just scaled better.
IOW, it is people not having actual complaints grounded in reality. The moment they make Mk3-4 dudes on the scale I'm tossing my current project.
I'm not a marine player, but I think The Primaris overall look better than the chimps-in-armour proportioned oldmarines. That said, they really need some upgrade sprues to enable decorative customisation.
The biggest loss IMO is the vehicles; land raiders and rhinos are realy iconic, while the new vehicles look like somebody's first attempt at a kitbash.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: IOW, it is people not having actual complaints grounded in reality. The moment they make Mk3-4 dudes on the scale I'm tossing my current project.
True scale mark III and IV? Hell yeah. Come on gw, shut up and take my money!
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: IOW, it is people not having actual complaints grounded in reality. The moment they make Mk3-4 dudes on the scale I'm tossing my current project.
True scale mark III and IV? Hell yeah. Come on gw, shut up and take my money!
Truth be told I absolutely hate the chest Aquila. Add on that Mk3-5 clearly look superior anyway and don't have that one annoying bit and you got gold.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: IOW, it is people not having actual complaints grounded in reality. The moment they make Mk3-4 dudes on the scale I'm tossing my current project.
True scale mark III and IV? Hell yeah. Come on gw, shut up and take my money!
There are plenty of 3d models you can scale up to the right size to get what you need.
harlokin wrote: I'm not a marine player, but I think The Primaris overall look better than the chimps-in-armour proportioned oldmarines. That said, they really need some upgrade sprues to enable decorative customisation.
The biggest loss IMO is the vehicles; land raiders and rhinos are realy iconic, while the new vehicles look like somebody's first attempt at a kitbash.
It isn't like Manlet Marines have to be present on the vehicles. That's why I tell everyone wanting a "pure" Primaris army to not worry about inconsistency if they add Predators or Stormtalons. I will say I don't like the Repulsor and friends, but the Impuslor actually looks decent. The FW super heavy ain't bad either.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: IOW, it is people not having actual complaints grounded in reality. The moment they make Mk3-4 dudes on the scale I'm tossing my current project.
True scale mark III and IV? Hell yeah. Come on gw, shut up and take my money!
There are plenty of 3d models you can scale up to the right size to get what you need.
While probably true, the sculptors of GW actually deserve some money here and there. The rules writers can go feth themselves of course. However, outside maybe wanting a particular weapon I wouldn't do a lot of 3D printing.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: IOW, it is people not having actual complaints grounded in reality. The moment they make Mk3-4 dudes on the scale I'm tossing my current project.
True scale mark III and IV? Hell yeah. Come on gw, shut up and take my money!
Truth be told I absolutely hate the chest Aquila. Add on that Mk3-5 clearly look superior anyway and don't have that one annoying bit and you got gold.
The Aquila is ok, after a little work with a hobby knife for the proper defacement of course.
Gitdakka wrote: For me the problem with the primaris has little to do with gothic. I mainly dislike the new scale and the proportions. They are simply too big. If they were intended for that size they should be fatter, like power armoured ogryns. I dont see why marines have to be taller than humans though. I mean sure maybe a little because of thick boots and a helmet. But they ought to be just humans with more muscles and some added organs. The skeleton is already set when a human has become adult yes? What would even be the advantage of making taller soldiers? I came here to play 28mm damn it, not 35mm or whatever all new guys are.
Smaller irks:
-lack of vox grill is sad, I want that visual
-Flanged knee pads look out of place
-no variation in the armor pattern.
-the concept "marines but bigger" is stupid. It seems to be the general design approach when new people taking over a franchise. Like star wars starkiller base "its a death star, but bigger". Not very inspiring or cool...
1. Boy wait until you see Mks 2-6
2. The knee pads actually make sense being part of the calf armor
3. There is variation in the armors and helmets, and yet you complain about no vox grill, which not all the manlet Marines have.
4. In reality the models are just scaled better.
IOW, it is people not having actual complaints grounded in reality. The moment they make Mk3-4 dudes on the scale I'm tossing my current project.
Way to stick your head in the sand m8.
1. If you really think I have not seen the other armor marks 1000 times already you are naive.
2. it does not matter if they make sense or not. They look impractial and useless. They would lead any melee strike into a weakspot in the armor.
3. I know not all armors have them but they were cool.
4. I think I explained pretty thoroughly why I don't like them. It's subjective and based on silly things like wanting my miniatures to be proper small. I don't like size creep and i like heroic scale when excecuted well, like the modern tacticals.
My opponions are subjective, but i explained them as well as I could. You calling that delusional is not that cool in my book.
Brutus_Apex wrote: The "tacticool" aesthetic is terrible and has no place in 40K.
They turned Space Marines from something unique and cool into something I will never buy. If I wanted tacticool I'd play any of the other countless futuristic soldiers game.
40K is fantasy in space. Lets keep it that way.
I don't recognize the lower model. Has the Halo franchise started producing minis?
Brutus_Apex wrote: The "tacticool" aesthetic is terrible and has no place in 40K.
They turned Space Marines from something unique and cool into something I will never buy. If I wanted tacticool I'd play any of the other countless futuristic soldiers game.
40K is fantasy in space. Lets keep it that way.
I don't recognize the lower model. Has the Halo franchise started producing minis?
that's the Primaris Incursor, a SINGLE varient of Primaris Marine. as you well know.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Like I said, none of the Primaris line outside a couple of Phobos is Tacticool.
Yeah, I'm sorry, but anyone saying that Tacticus or Gravis armoured Primaris look tacticool really need to learn what tacticool means. Phobos being more tacticool? Yeah, I can get where that's coming from - but I'd also like to point out that they look more "Space Marine-y" than Scouts. Like, please, for all the people hating on tacticool Marines, what was your opinion on Scout Squads? What about the Raptors Chapter?
If you're going to complain about tacticool models, at least ONLY talk about the Phobos Marines, not the rest of the range. That's be like me saying "I hate Space Marines because Scouts look dumb".
godardc wrote:There are really people here thinking primaris don't have a more streamlined and generic sci-fi design than the marines ?
Yeah. Between these two pictures, are you really telling me you don't think the Intercessor is the more blinged up and "gothic/ornate/grimdark/insert-buzzword-here" of the two?
Spoiler:
Tabard, purity seals, decorative shield, something hanging from his shoulders? If you believed 40k was all about the walking cathedral aesthetic, the Intercessor has it. The Tactical? Aside from the chest aquila, and a few studs on his helmet, they're pretty much smooth and unmarked. Strange, that seems to be the reason given for why people dislike the Primaris. It's almost like streamlined Marines were already a thing.
Just because before we had one example of "modern" warfare marines (raptors / rg successors) isn't an excuse, it was an option left amongst hundreds of "medieval" chapters (like UM, BT, BA and most of the successor chapters who are definitely not generic sci-fi).
But for anyone to say "Real Space Marines aren't tacticool" is being wilfully ignorant. Yes, no-one's denying that the Raptors aren't the be-all-end-all of Chapters, but they prove that not all Chapters were blinged out. And, as my picture above shows, it's hardly like EVERY Space Marine in the more traditional Chapters (like Ultramarines) were all decked out in trinkets. As you said, being tacticool was an option, just like how giving all your Marines trinkets and seals and tabards was an option. There's no definitive version of a Space Marine beyond big power armour with curved shoulder pads, a chunky rectangular bolter, and being genetically engineered. Primaris don't break that.
And yes, technically, every hobbyist can convert his models and blablabla. But the reality is they don't have even paint their models so no, the fact one in ten guys will convert their models isn't an excuse for GW laziness / lost of ip / whatever.
I don't see how. Again, I've posted a picture of an old Marine who has less ornamentation on him than most new models earlier in this thread. Does that mean GW lost their IP already?
Sorry, but if you're going to complain about GW's models not being exactly how you like them, and not put in any work yourself, that's on you. I want my Marines to already come pre-painted in the custom Chapter colour of my choice - it's GW's fault for not doing that! /s
And in addition it's badly executed: the scope is BEHIND the picatinny rail and marines have never needed them because they have scope and sensors in their helmet to hit target at normal range (have you seen Ultramarines movie ? The Dawn Of War Dark Crusade intro (against the necrons) ? ).
I have, yes. Isn't the Ultramarines movie widely panned? Also, in the Ultramarines movie, Brother Verenor *has a bolter with a scope behind the sight*. So the movie which you use as evidence of "Marines shouldn't have scopes" HAS A MARINE WITH A SCOPE.
So what, primaris helmets are just inferior ?
Inferior by what metric? Also, I'd like to point out that they share more in common with older Space Marine designs than even the Mark 7, both in-universe and out of it. In-universe, they're a callback to Mark IV 'Maximus' plate (to the point where I've seen people outright using Mark IV helmets on Primaris and the difference being negligible), and out of universe, their flat shape and lack of a grille is closer in design to the original beaky Marines. Like, sorry to say it, but Marines having mouth grilles is the exception, in terms of their historical armour.
Vankraken wrote:Most of the phobos stuff is too much Call of Duty like with stuff like the Eliminators... sniper scout 2.0 having bloody G36s for the front half of their snipers. Same issue with reavers... (The spooky Skelly Boyz) as they look like some "special" forces BS you see in a sci fi themed COD game.
Eh, CoD isn't nearly as heavily armoured. But I see what you mean with the front of bolt snipers (las-fusils are safe though?). As far as Reiver skull masks go, wouldn't Chaplains suffer similarly?
The jump pack guys and the centurions 2.0 are not tacticool or whatever but are just weak design in general.
Is that an objectively weak design, or just your opinion?
The stealth dread or whatever the gak it's suppose to be looks like the Walker mechs from Avatar
Like, kinda? But Dreadnights also have the same. And again, it's ONE vehicle. By all means, criticise that one vehicle, but it's not the entire Primaris range. Otherwise, that'd be like me saying "Orks are dumb and unoriginal GW are just copying Mad Max because look at the grot strapped to the front of that buggy", or some other stupid argument.
while the redeptor dread has a very Tau looking plasma cannon (similar weapon silhouette to a crisis suit/ghostkeel Ion Weapon).
How does it look Tau? It looks the same as practically any Dreadnought plasma cannon, especially the Contemptor design:
Spoiler:
In general though the Primaris line shifts away from the sci fi fantasy knights (often with ornate stuff similar to stuff seen in ceremonial gothic armor) to a more sci fi COD or Master Chief look.
Alright, I'm curious. I'm seeing CoD and Master Chief thrown around a lot in terms of "what the Primaris look like". If you have the time, I'd REALLY appreciate if you can pull up a picture of Master Chief and a Primaris Marine, and show me what the similarities are that older Marines don't also have. Because I've been looking, and I cannot see a single new feature.
Also, just going back to the whole "sci-f fantasy knights (with ornate stuff...)" comment - in this same post, I've shown a Tactical Marine who is barely ornamented, and an Intercessor dressed to the nines. Rather defeats that line of logic, no?
It clashes a bit when they are in the same faction that has WW1/WW2 looking gear and vehicles for regular troops. Not to mention all the "definitely not the Catholic Church" forces that exist in the fluff.
Isn't clashing/contrasting designs always been a thing for 40k? I mean, you're telling me that even amongst the Guard alone that they all have a unified look? Catachans, Cadians, Tallarn, Vostroyan, Death Korps, Elysians, Armageddon, Scions, etc? In any other miniatures game, these would all be opposing factions! Even between Space Marines, there's clashing aesthetics (Raptors with sleek, camouflaged, stripped down armour, compared to ostentatious Black Templars, rune-covered Space Wolves and robed, winged Dark Angels).
jeff white wrote:Smudge. Phobos is not gothic. Historically this style means something. It seems you are oblivious to this ...
Interesting - the actual *GOTHIC* armour posted by Slayer-fan is much closer in design to the Primaris Tacticus Armour, not Mark VII Aquila.
I'm also not saying that Phobos are exceptionally gothic. But Phobos Marines also aren't all Primaris Marines. By that same logic, old Marines aren't gothic, because Scouts have no gothic parts on their armour.
Also your rationale for restartes not better fitting in ANY sci fi universe are surface shallow aesthetics. Back paks too large for Halo? WTF srsly?
No, come on. If you're going to claim that Primaris Marines look like Halo or any other sci-fi setting more, show me another sci-fi setting, and how the Primaris Marines (the entire range, don't forget, because they're more than any single unit!) would fit in there better. Visual diagrams would be appreciated, ty.
Missing out? On what? The cheapening of what had been able to capture so much from so many myths and fantasies in a parody future fantasy, turning it into Halo with bigger backpacks? Yeah.
Still waiting for someone to elaborate on Primaris being closer to Halo than 40k, but do go on.
Well I avoid also participating in the burning of books out of principle.
Nice dogwhistle there. If you think that Marines getting slightly bigger is akin to erasing entire cultures, I think you need to step away from the keyboard for a bit and breathe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Strg Alt wrote: Has the Halo franchise started producing minis?
Har-dee-har. Which version of MJOLNIR Armour does that look like? I don't think it does- oh. It's almost like people just cry out "it looks like Halo" without backing up that claim.
Just to repeat myself: What are the gothic aesthetics for Space Marine Scouts? What about the artwork of Tactical Marines I've posted that have no ornamentation? What are the similar design features between Halo's Spartans and Primaris Marines *specifically*?
Basic Space Marines have never had anything gothic or blinged about them. Assault, tacticals, devastators, space scouts, etc...
The more elite and specialized boxes, and later kits, many of them loathed by the community for being too blinged, are the ones with more detail, as it should be.
Yeah, the Phobos line of units have more of a tactical aesthetic. And thats fine, is a new take on marines that DOESN'T replaces the more grounded basic one or the more elite one. So is basically more options.
GW has said that the first batches of primaris would be "basic" stuff. Intercessors, hellblasters, aggressors, inceptors, etc... are just like devastators, tacticals, assault squads, in that they have just plain armor without any kind of chapter specific variety or detail. In the future they said they would release more chapter specific and more elite and blinged primaris units.
Imagine if the basic intercessor squad was as "gothic" and blinged as, I don't know, Deathwing Knights. How would you go even more elite to represent other troops? Do you really want space marines to be all Sanguinary guard nipple-chest armor level of blinged? Thats enough gothic?
One can not like the design of certain space marine units, or even all space marine units. But trying to sell the whole primaris line as some giant departure from what space marines aesthetic is, when only the Vanguard line have a different aesthetic, is just wrong.
Well... I decided to implement any leftover CSM and Loyal models that survived the summer collection Purge last year, might be repurposed into a Fabius Bile warband (if rules allow)
Vankraken wrote:Most of the phobos stuff is too much Call of Duty like with stuff like the Eliminators... sniper scout 2.0 having bloody G36s for the front half of their snipers. Same issue with reavers... (The spooky Skelly Boyz) as they look like some "special" forces BS you see in a sci fi themed COD game.
Eh, CoD isn't nearly as heavily armoured. But I see what you mean with the front of bolt snipers (las-fusils are safe though?). As far as Reiver skull masks go, wouldn't Chaplains suffer similarly?
Reivers aren't based on CoD, they're a rip off of Terror Squads. So once again going back to an example of the older armour designs (though infuriatingly so for Night Lords players) not based off of out of universe designs.
Vankraken wrote:Most of the phobos stuff is too much Call of Duty like with stuff like the Eliminators... sniper scout 2.0 having bloody G36s for the front half of their snipers. Same issue with reavers... (The spooky Skelly Boyz) as they look like some "special" forces BS you see in a sci fi themed COD game.
Eh, CoD isn't nearly as heavily armoured. But I see what you mean with the front of bolt snipers (las-fusils are safe though?). As far as Reiver skull masks go, wouldn't Chaplains suffer similarly?
Reivers aren't based on CoD, they're a rip off of Terror Squads. So once again going back to an example of the older armour designs (though infuriatingly so for Night Lords players) not based off of out of universe designs.
I've said as much in the past, but nope, apparently that's still not "Space Marine-y".
"No mouth grille!" - But what about Mark 2, 3, 4, and 6 armour?
"No squad special weapon!" - But what about 30k Tactical Squads?
"No bling and ornamentation!" - But what about both 30k and 40k Tacticals who have very little decoration?
"Shouldn't have power armoured snipers!" - But what about Legion Recon Squads?
A lot of the things that "aren't space marine-y" are things that the Legions did. Are we now saying that those weren't Space Marines?
Gitdakka wrote: For me the problem with the primaris has little to do with gothic. I mainly dislike the new scale and the proportions. They are simply too big. If they were intended for that size they should be fatter, like power armoured ogryns. I dont see why marines have to be taller than humans though. I mean sure maybe a little because of thick boots and a helmet. But they ought to be just humans with more muscles and some added organs. The skeleton is already set when a human has become adult yes? What would even be the advantage of making taller soldiers? I came here to play 28mm damn it, not 35mm or whatever all new guys are.
Smaller irks:
-lack of vox grill is sad, I want that visual
-Flanged knee pads look out of place
-no variation in the armor pattern.
-the concept "marines but bigger" is stupid. It seems to be the general design approach when new people taking over a franchise. Like star wars starkiller base "its a death star, but bigger". Not very inspiring or cool...
1. Boy wait until you see Mks 2-6
2. The knee pads actually make sense being part of the calf armor
3. There is variation in the armors and helmets, and yet you complain about no vox grill, which not all the manlet Marines have.
4. In reality the models are just scaled better.
IOW, it is people not having actual complaints grounded in reality. The moment they make Mk3-4 dudes on the scale I'm tossing my current project.
Way to stick your head in the sand m8.
1. If you really think I have not seen the other armor marks 1000 times already you are naive.
2. it does not matter if they make sense or not. They look impractial and useless. They would lead any melee strike into a weakspot in the armor.
3. I know not all armors have them but they were cool.
4. I think I explained pretty thoroughly why I don't like them. It's subjective and based on silly things like wanting my miniatures to be proper small. I don't like size creep and i like heroic scale when excecuted well, like the modern tacticals.
My opponions are subjective, but i explained them as well as I could. You calling that delusional is not that cool in my book.
1. Your complaint goes off the basis those Mks don't exist. So either Vox Grill is not a real complaint, or you think any of the other helmets aren't for "real" Marines either. Pick one.
2. It's literally no more a weak point than the manlet Marines.
3. Which means you're just complaining to complain.
4. The minis are still small LOL you serious right now. So unless you're suggesting they make Guard Infantry or Eldar Guardians smaller than they already are, the Manlet Marines aren't well designed for the scale of the game.
Space Marine Mk7 Helmets are the one thing that's the worst constant aesthetic about the Space Marine line.
OldMarine infantry leaves a lot to be desired as is, but anything to not have the awful frowny helmet.
It is my opinion that the helmets without the grills already go a long way to looking better, and they'd look even better if they did away with the little eyes and maybe went for sensors, a eye slot, or a solid faceplate. I prefer mine helmetless, since I hate the helmets.
Brutus_Apex wrote:The "tacticool" aesthetic is terrible and has no place in 40K.
They turned Space Marines from something unique and cool into something I will never buy. If I wanted tacticool I'd play any of the other countless futuristic soldiers game.
40K is fantasy in space. Lets keep it that way.
That's you. I for welcome moving towards a more Sci Fi stance for the Space Marines [though they weren't particularly fantasy before either anyway].
Warhammer 40k isn't just fantasy in space any more than Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, Mass Effect, Halo, Starcraft, etc. are. Necrons, Tau, Tyranids, and Imperial Guard aren't fantasy at all, and are classic sci-fi factions. Tyranids, Tau, and Imperial Guard aren't fantasy at all, and the Necrons only received a little bit of egyptian theming when they were retconned but it's just a little bit of character.
Even the supposed "fantasy factions", excepting the Chaos Daemons, have enough Sci-Fi in them to keep them in the sci-fi camp.
And the Space Marines are pretty "blank canvas". They're not intrinsically fantasy, unless you make yours fantasy. There's a long supported ability to play Raven Guard, Raptors, or Iron Hands if you don't want to play Black Templars or Space Wolves.
So I really like the Primaris Marines, especially the Vanguards.
I also like the silly tacticool theme they have. It's not just tacticool, it's in classic 40k sense done to a point where it's over the top and funny. It's an aesthetic that fits the Space Marine's primary lore tagline ["why should you play Space Marines? Because they're awesome 8ft tall super soldiers in power armor with guns that shoot exploding bullets!"], and is in the setting fairly unique to them [and to the Elysians, who are discontinued anyway and also awesome].
BrianDavion wrote: Also for those complaining that the armor "isn't gothic"
Marine armor has NEVER been gothic.
Gothic ARMOUR is a very partiuclar style of late medieval full plate noted for being rounded and having fluted surfaces
that doesn't look like mark 7 armor any more then it looks like mark 10 armor
There is more to the term than armor of a period. There is the historical era before science rose when faith reigned... high vaulted stained glass ornate etc... with organs and ritual upon ritual.
Marine armor in its glory has these elements. Scouts not so much but this makes sense as they are not yet decorated.
Restartes have no such era. No call back to history in the aesthetic. If anything, the rise of Cawl represents the Renaissance... which is why the restartes are essentially heretical.
There is more to the term than armor of a period. There is the historical era before science rose when faith reigned... high vaulted stained glass ornate etc... with organs and ritual upon ritual.
Marine armor in its glory has these elements. Scouts not so much but this makes sense as they are not yet decorated.
You'll have to point out to me where marine armor has stained glass and pipe organs.
I mean after you're done moving that goalpost of course.
There is more to the term than armor of a period. There is the historical era before science rose when faith reigned... high vaulted stained glass ornate etc... with organs and ritual upon ritual.
Marine armor in its glory has these elements. Scouts not so much but this makes sense as they are not yet decorated.
You'll have to point out to me where marine armor has stained glass and pipe organs.
jeff white wrote:There is more to the term than armor of a period. There is the historical era before science rose when faith reigned... high vaulted stained glass ornate etc... with organs and ritual upon ritual.
Okay - where's all the ornate high vaulted stained glass with organs and rituals on this model?
Marine armor in its glory has these elements. Scouts not so much but this makes sense as they are not yet decorated.
Soooooo, Scouts aren't Space Marines then? They're not gothic, they're not ornate, they're more like - *gasp!* - TACTICOOL!!
Double standards much?
Restartes have no such era. No call back to history in the aesthetic.
Wrong on both counts of IRL and within 40k's own background - within their own background, you can clearly see inspiration from previous armour marks (Mark IV especially), and I'm sorry, but you're blind if you can't see the same pauldrons, the same backpack, the same and breastplate. I mean, in my above picture, what are these "call backs to history in the aesthetic"? Please, highlight them, be comprehensive.
Anyways your strawman is dead now.
You've not even touched it! In fact, you've just made the opposing argument stronger by outright admitting Scouts have a widely different aesthetic!
There is more to the term than armor of a period. There is the historical era before science rose when faith reigned... high vaulted stained glass ornate etc... with organs and ritual upon ritual.
Marine armor in its glory has these elements. Scouts not so much but this makes sense as they are not yet decorated.
You'll have to point out to me where marine armor has stained glass and pipe organs.
The Sisters of Battle have that covered.
Oh, yes, but jeff here is implying that that's a Space Marine feature.
jeff white wrote:Smudge. Phobos is not gothic. Historically this style means something. It seems you are oblivious to this ...
Interesting - the actual *GOTHIC* armour posted by Slayer-fan is much closer in design to the Primaris Tacticus Armour, not Mark VII Aquila.
I'm also not saying that Phobos are exceptionally gothic. But Phobos Marines also aren't all Primaris Marines. By that same logic, old Marines aren't gothic, because Scouts have no gothic parts on their armour.
Also your rationale for restartes not better fitting in ANY sci fi universe are surface shallow aesthetics. Back paks too large for Halo? WTF srsly?
No, come on. If you're going to claim that Primaris Marines look like Halo or any other sci-fi setting more, show me another sci-fi setting, and how the Primaris Marines (the entire range, don't forget, because they're more than any single unit!) would fit in there better. Visual diagrams would be appreciated, ty.
Missing out? On what? The cheapening of what had been able to capture so much from so many myths and fantasies in a parody future fantasy, turning it into Halo with bigger backpacks? Yeah.
Still waiting for someone to elaborate on Primaris being closer to Halo than 40k, but do go on.
Well I avoid also participating in the burning of books out of principle.
Nice dogwhistle there.
If you think that Marines getting slightly bigger is akin to erasing entire cultures, I think you need to step away from the keyboard for a bit and breathe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Strg Alt wrote: Has the Halo franchise started producing minis?
Har-dee-har. Which version of MJOLNIR Armour does that look like? I don't think it does- oh. It's almost like people just cry out "it looks like Halo" without backing up that claim.
Just to repeat myself:
What are the gothic aesthetics for Space Marine Scouts?
What about the artwork of Tactical Marines I've posted that have no ornamentation?
What are the similar design features between Halo's Spartans and Primaris Marines *specifically*?
Smudge GW must pay you to produce straw men and bad faith arguments... cuz they are as bad as current background.
Gothic names an era 400years long. Armor existed in different styles. One constant was the role of faith in art culture architecture and limited tech burdened by ritual ... where are the sacred bolter rounds in a restartes bolter? Litanies? Yada? Zilch. Heretics.
jeff white wrote:There is more to the term than armor of a period. There is the historical era before science rose when faith reigned... high vaulted stained glass ornate etc... with organs and ritual upon ritual.
Okay - where's all the ornate high vaulted stained glass with organs and rituals on this model?
Marine armor in its glory has these elements. Scouts not so much but this makes sense as they are not yet decorated.
Soooooo, Scouts aren't Space Marines then? They're not gothic, they're not ornate, they're more like - *gasp!* - TACTICOOL!!
Double standards much?
Restartes have no such era. No call back to history in the aesthetic.
Wrong on both counts of IRL and within 40k's own background - within their own background, you can clearly see inspiration from previous armour marks (Mark IV especially), and I'm sorry, but you're blind if you can't see the same pauldrons, the same backpack, the same and breastplate. I mean, in my above picture, what are these "call backs to history in the aesthetic"? Please, highlight them, be comprehensive.
Anyways your strawman is dead now.
You've not even touched it! In fact, you've just made the opposing argument stronger by outright admitting Scouts have a widely different aesthetic!
There is more to the term than armor of a period. There is the historical era before science rose when faith reigned... high vaulted stained glass ornate etc... with organs and ritual upon ritual.
Marine armor in its glory has these elements. Scouts not so much but this makes sense as they are not yet decorated.
You'll have to point out to me where marine armor has stained glass and pipe organs.
The Sisters of Battle have that covered.
Oh, yes, but jeff here is implying that that's a Space Marine feature.
Not every soldier is decorated. He prays says his ritual things goes through his ritual motions... asks for his bolter to be blessed.
Restartes check their social media. Magic cards. Moms credit card... and time to play GI Joe wannabe
You say widely different aesthetic as if everyone wore the same uniform for 20 generations.
Just weak bad faith arguments Smudge. Tiresome.
Not widely different ... not decorated. Gothic means most had nothing. Servants. ... a failing empire. You just cannot get it.
K Smudge. Bad faith is the game i guess but i dont play that. Another reason to hate restartes. GW showed bad faith and still suffer for it. GI Joe wannabes for Hasbro wannabe fanboiz.
Enjoy your self Smudge. Authenticity trumps poseur off table and on where I game.
jeff white wrote:Smudge GW must pay you to produce straw men and bad faith arguments... cuz they are as bad as current background.
If my arguments are so bad, why can't you disprove them? Because so far, your efforts have been less than stellar.
Gothic names an era 400years long. Armor existed in different styles. One constant was the role of faith in art culture architecture and limited tech burdened by ritual ... where are the sacred bolter rounds in a restartes bolter? Litanies? Yada? Zilch. Heretics.
Um, what? Where have we been told that their bolt rounds are produced any differently to the ones by normal Astartes? Where have we been told anywhere that the Primaris arsenal isn't similarly meticulously blessed, prayed over, etc etc? I mean, for christ's sakes, they have Chaplains! The Aggressor Squads are sculpted with reliquaries and sacred bones on their belts! Purity seals are freely supplied in the kits, alongside various trinkets and badges!
Where on earth are you getting this "Primaris Marines don't bless their bolters" nonsense from?!
You mean the 1200s?
Now, looking at the *14th* Century to the 16th Century - well, I don't know about you, but that armour looks like it would be perfect for both Tactical Marines and Intercessors.
and that if you had to place restartes anywhere herein they look most like a modern cop.
How? Please, point to your breakdown of the design, as comprehensively as possible.
Obviously, the Primaris don't look anything like a modern police officer. But you know what do?
Scouts. I mean, look - cloth armour on the limbs, exposed neck, even a more exposed face!
So, just to confirm, you would agree then that Scouts aren't PROPER Space Marines, and they'd be more at home in any other sci-fi setting, yes?
Another dead strawman...
You've answered literally nothing. It's not even a strawman argument!
jeff white wrote: Not every soldier is decorated. He prays says his ritual things goes through his ritual motions... asks for his bolter to be blessed.
Well, that concept makes a bit of a mockery of "SPACE MARINES ARE SOOPER GOTHIC AND RELIGIOUS AND ORNATE AND SO FAITHFUL" when you're also saying that they... don't all have ornate armour? Weren't you also complaining that Primaris Marines don't have ornate armour? If that's the case, why can't we assume that that particular Primaris is decorated?
I'm not asking much from your argument, but I do expect a basic level of consistency.
You said you disliked Primaris because their armour was plain and had no decorations (in itself a false statement, as proven by artwork above). Then, when faced with a non-Primaris Marine with no ornamentation, you say that it's okay?
Again, what's your source for Primaris not being religious/doing their daily devotions? They have Chaplains, Masters of Sanctity, wear purity seals, reliquaries, badges of honour. What's your source for them not doing all the same?
Oh, yeah. You don't have any.
Restartes check their social media. Magic cards. Moms credit card... and time to play GI Joe wannabe
Har-dee-har.
Now, if you're done being childish, where's your ACTUAL argument?
Not widely different ... not decorated.
Pardon? As YOU said, you disliked Primaris because their armour was bare. Why don't you complain about that bare Tactical Marine?
Gothic means most had nothing.
No, it's not. Read a dictionary, get a basic grasp of gothic art, and then tell me that with a straight face.
K Smudge. Bad faith is the game i guess bug i dont play that.
Bad faith? I'm the one citing sources, elaborating on my points, and highlighting your double standards. Your contribution to the intelligence of this debate can be summed up as "Restartes check their social media. Magic cards. Moms credit card... and time to play GI Joe wannabe".
Do you actually *have* an argument beyond blind dislike?
Authenticity trumps poseur off table and on where I game.
If your comments in this thread are any indication of "authenticity" in your local area, thank god I'm not playing there.
What will I do with my old tactical marines? Proudly keep them in the display case of course! I'm still very fond of Firstborn marines.
I'm always surprised at how much vitriol can get thrown around in these Primaris vs Firstborn debates. For the most part, I'm not a Primaris fan. I like the basic Mark X armour, gravis is OK, I dislike Phobos (for me it's more the leg armour than the tacticool that's particularly offputting about those), I don't really like the design of the dread/warsuit, and the grav tanks are perhaps the worst offenders (I don't like the design, and I'm also a firm believer that the only anti-grav vehicles space marines should have are Land Speeders, unless your name happens to be Sammael). But I'm not going to try to argue that something about the designs are inherently un-space marine, just that I personally don't like a large proportion of them. I recognise that the sculpts are technically better than the old ones, and I generally like the poses better. But I still prefer the design aesthetic of most of the old marine units. I remain a firm fan of terminators even though their shoulders are the same height as their heads...
I guess I also find it harder than most to let go of the idea that a 40k-era marine battle company is 6 Tactical Squads, 2 Assault Squads and 2 Devastator squads. It's probably better for GW to leave that behind, because the more uncertain chapter organisation we've got now is better for making your collection what you want it to be, rather than what the Codex Astartes wants it to be. Although, I personally wouldn't mix Firstborn and Primaris units. I just think it looks weird. So my Salamanders army is entirely Firstborn. I've got the Primaris from Dark Imperium and Wake the Dead - coincidentally the Primaris sculpts that I like better, so that's handy. But when I finally get around to working on them I'm not going to add them to my Salamanders, I'll make them a different chapter entirely. My Sallies can be slightly historical pre-Gathering Storm, and whatever chapter I pick for the Primaris can be 'current'. But it might be a while, because even though they're my favourite of the Primaris sculpts they don't excite me as much as my other projects.
jeff white wrote: No Smudge i have. The era is not represented in primaris units. Simply isnt. Many of us are saying this and you act like it is an argument you can win right or wrong ... it isnt.
The move to a new era of heretical science should be proof enough but you want to look at two pictures and squeal "but scouts"!..
Go on then Smudge. Love your restartes. I wont be buying any. Lower demand means more for you for less.
Tootles Smudge.
Except you are just making stuff up in your head. Nothing about the Manlet Marines says anything you've been saying. You're wrong. So get over it.
The era is not represented in primaris units. Simply isnt. Many of us are saying this and you act like it is an argument you can win right or wrong ... it isnt.
You can't just say "it isn't" - give me sources. Give me artistic analysis. Give me detailed breakdowns.
Otherwise, your point has as much weight behind it as a puff of mist. "It isn't" is countered just as easily by a flimsy "it is" - and I've provided far more than such a basic rebuttal.
The move to a new era of heretical science should be proof enough but you want to look at two pictures and squeal "but scouts"!..
Yeah - because your whole point has been "tacticool=bad, marines need to be wearing ornate decorated armour all the time lul" - which, sorry to tell you, but Scouts don't fill that!
You're just repeating the same old memes and untruths without backing anything up with an argument beyond "Restartes BAD DURR" - give us SOMETHING with more substance, for the sake of the people who also dislike Primaris! Right now, you're doing them a disservice with your lack of an argument.
Go on then Smudge. Love your restartes. I wont be buying any. Lower demand means more for you for less.
All the more for me - I'm sure GW won't miss your purchases?
jeff white wrote: No Smudge i have. The era is not represented in primaris units. Simply isnt. Many of us are saying this and you act like it is an argument you can win right or wrong ... it isnt.
The move to a new era of heretical science should be proof enough but you want to look at two pictures and squeal "but scouts"!..
Go on then Smudge. Love your restartes. I wont be buying any. Lower demand means more for you for less.
Tootles Smudge.
Except you are just making stuff up in your head. Nothing about the Manlet Marines says anything you've been saying. You're wrong. So get over it.
Then you have not read what i have written and rather also squeal at two pictures and scouts.
The era is not represented in primaris units. Simply isnt. Many of us are saying this and you act like it is an argument you can win right or wrong ... it isnt.
You can't just say "it isn't" - give me sources. Give me artistic analysis. Give me detailed breakdowns.
Otherwise, your point has as much weight behind it as a puff of mist. "It isn't" is countered just as easily by a flimsy "it is" - and I've provided far more than such a basic rebuttal.
The move to a new era of heretical science should be proof enough but you want to look at two pictures and squeal "but scouts"!..
Yeah - because your whole point has been "tacticool=bad, marines need to be wearing ornate decorated armour all the time lul" - which, sorry to tell you, but Scouts don't fill that!
You're just repeating the same old memes and untruths without backing anything up with an argument beyond "Restartes BAD DURR" - give us SOMETHING with more substance, for the sake of the people who also dislike Primaris! Right now, you're doing them a disservice with your lack of an argument.
Go on then Smudge. Love your restartes. I wont be buying any. Lower demand means more for you for less.
All the more for me - I'm sure GW won't miss your purchases?
Tootles Smudge.
I mean, if that's truly you giving up your argument, I'm not complaining. Maybe the next person will have something worth discussing?
There is the diminishment of the background as parody on contemporary empty ritual and excess.
jeff white wrote: No Smudge i have. The era is not represented in primaris units. Simply isnt. Many of us are saying this and you act like it is an argument you can win right or wrong ... it isnt.
The move to a new era of heretical science should be proof enough but you want to look at two pictures and squeal "but scouts"!..
Go on then Smudge. Love your restartes. I wont be buying any. Lower demand means more for you for less.
Tootles Smudge.
Except you are just making stuff up in your head. Nothing about the Manlet Marines says anything you've been saying. You're wrong. So get over it.
Then you have not read what i have written and rather also squeal at two pictures and scouts.
Another reason to hate restartes...
I did. You made these claims about Knights In Space and Gothic Feel only to be quickly dismissed when shown that a majority of the Marine models don't actually have those elements overall, and then you make up stuff about Primaris looking at social media for whatever reason. It isn't even being subjectively wrong, you're objectively wrong.
Bellerophon wrote:For the most part, I'm not a Primaris fan... But I'm not going to try to argue that something about the designs are inherently un-space marine, just that I personally don't like a large proportion of them.
I appreciate your reason. You've clearly stated why you don't like them (I may disagree, but that's not really important), and made it very clear that it's just your opinion, and that you'd never just say that they're not Space Marines because you don't like them. I'm not overly keen on many "classic" Space Marine things (I actually don't really like Bikes, and have a tenuous relationship with Land Speeders - similarly, I'm not massively keen on Tartaros Armour, and not even fond of beaky helmets!), but I'd never say that they're "not Space Marine" just because I personally don't like them.
jeff white wrote:Let me restate. You are a supremely unpleasant fanboi.
I am glad to never speak with you and certainly i couldnt stomach a game with you.
Enjoy your restartes Smudge.
Thank you for your contribution, though I'm not sure this is particularly within forum rules?
jeff white wrote:There is the diminishment of the background as parody on contemporary empty ritual and excess.
Okay - where? Where does it say anywhere in the modern lore that Primaris Marines don't take part in the same rituals and practices as their Firstborn brethren?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Jeff White in reality has no argument and never did. It's like the blind 1d4chan hating on Matt Ward without actually knowing anything beyond memes.
Ok. Yup. You got me. No argument. Just missing context. You cant see what you cant see i guess. Must be me.
Or it could be the actual move from religious fervor to new science in the restartes update around heretic cawl and girlyman which advsnces out of gothic into renaissance when looking historically...
But maybe you cant see that part of the argument. The context part... you also cackle scouts and pet your restartes.
Bellerophon wrote:For the most part, I'm not a Primaris fan... But I'm not going to try to argue that something about the designs are inherently un-space marine, just that I personally don't like a large proportion of them.
I appreciate your reason. You've clearly stated why you don't like them (I may disagree, but that's not really important), and made it very clear that it's just your opinion, and that you'd never just say that they're not Space Marines because you don't like them.
I'm not overly keen on many "classic" Space Marine things (I actually don't really like Bikes, and have a tenuous relationship with Land Speeders - similarly, I'm not massively keen on Tartaros Armour, and not even fond of beaky helmets!), but I'd never say that they're "not Space Marine" just because I personally don't like them.
jeff white wrote:Let me restate.
You are a supremely unpleasant fanboi.
I am glad to never speak with you and certainly i couldnt stomach a game with you.
Enjoy your restartes Smudge.
Thank you for your contribution, though I'm not sure this is particularly within forum rules?
jeff white wrote:There is the diminishment of the background as parody on contemporary empty ritual and excess.
Okay - where? Where does it say anywhere in the modern lore that Primaris Marines don't take part in the same rituals and practices as their Firstborn brethren?
Oh you are not trying to be pleasant Smudge. You are trying to pick a fight. Be honest about this at least... or now does bad faith make you play victim?
You seem to be a troll. Shifting points around.
The era is no longer gothic once it advances into a new Renaissance with flying tanks and super thunder I-marines...
This is the diminished background imho. A loss imho. And the general aesthetic is in some cases of characters especially retained but flying tanks and plasma that doesnt kill you and so polished new restartes shininess when the empire has been on a knifes edge and fading for so long just screams mary sue when the old aesthetic was dirty space crusade with patched ip armor and stretched supply lines or broken due the rift...
The whole religious angle is bull gak. Many chapters are atheistic. They know that the Emperor was a man, not a god, and don't worship him or pray to their guns. The non cult legions are mostly the same, they don't worship chaos, they merely use it as a tool.
jeff white wrote:Oh you are not trying to be pleasant Smudge. You are trying to pick a fight. Be honest about this at least... or now does bad faith make you play victim?
Why would I want to pick a fight? I'm trying to understand your dislike of Primaris and blatant double standard you hold them to.
You dislike Primaris for being plain-armoured, but don't dislike normal Marines when they have less ornamentation.
You hate Tacticool, but are fine with Scouts.
You claim that Primaris Marines don't observe proper rituals and rites, but can't/don't provide any evidence to support it!
Why on earth would I care so much to pick a fight?
You seem to be a troll. Shifting points around.
What points have I shifted around? What goalposts have I moved? I've only been asking you questions, and asking why you don't seem to have consistent opinions.
The era is no longer gothic once it advances into a new Renaissance with flying tanks and super thunder I-marines...
Why isn't it Gothic any more? Were tanks even a *part* of the Gothic era? Why would having flying tanks suddenly be the deciding factor? What about the flying speeders and other anti-grav units the Space Marines had? And what do flying tanks have to do with an Intercessor?
If you only hated the tanks, by all means, say that - but not every Primaris Marine is a flying tank. If you have a problem with all of them, point us to the problem, without also incriminating the Firstborn Astartes you claim to love.
Bellerophon wrote: What will I do with my old tactical marines? Proudly keep them in the display case of course! I'm still very fond of Firstborn marines.
I'm always surprised at how much vitriol can get thrown around in these Primaris vs Firstborn debates. For the most part, I'm not a Primaris fan. I like the basic Mark X armour, gravis is OK, I dislike Phobos (for me it's more the leg armour than the tacticool that's particularly offputting about those), I don't really like the design of the dread/warsuit, and the grav tanks are perhaps the worst offenders (I don't like the design, and I'm also a firm believer that the only anti-grav vehicles space marines should have are Land Speeders, unless your name happens to be Sammael). But I'm not going to try to argue that something about the designs are inherently un-space marine, just that I personally don't like a large proportion of them. I recognise that the sculpts are technically better than the old ones, and I generally like the poses better. But I still prefer the design aesthetic of most of the old marine units. I remain a firm fan of terminators even though their shoulders are the same height as their heads...
I guess I also find it harder than most to let go of the idea that a 40k-era marine battle company is 6 Tactical Squads, 2 Assault Squads and 2 Devastator squads. It's probably better for GW to leave that behind, because the more uncertain chapter organisation we've got now is better for making your collection what you want it to be, rather than what the Codex Astartes wants it to be. Although, I personally wouldn't mix Firstborn and Primaris units. I just think it looks weird. So my Salamanders army is entirely Firstborn. I've got the Primaris from Dark Imperium and Wake the Dead - coincidentally the Primaris sculpts that I like better, so that's handy. But when I finally get around to working on them I'm not going to add them to my Salamanders, I'll make them a different chapter entirely. My Sallies can be slightly historical pre-Gathering Storm, and whatever chapter I pick for the Primaris can be 'current'. But it might be a while, because even though they're my favourite of the Primaris sculpts they don't excite me as much as my other projects.
I feel you on the loss of the coherent battle company. I was shuffling minis around the other day to see what it would take to get a second (mixed) company on the shelf, and the project just kinda petered out. The old format gave you solid goals to strive for. Did I need 6 tactical squads? No way. It’s a rare list that I use 3, and that’s going all the way back to 3rd ed. But do I have 6 on the shelf? Yes. OK, that’s a bit of a lie, I have 9, but 6 are ranked up with the rest of my battle company. But when thinking about what I’d need to buy and build to get another company? No goal, no prize. And no purchases planned. My primaris will just grow organically, unit by unit. If and when I get 100ish guys in roughly a 3:1:1 ratio of basic/fast/shooty they might get moved to their own shelf.
Playing CSM and Death Guard and initially I still fielded the old models. But especially with Chaos Marines and Plague Marines I did it less and less over the last years since I got more and more models. Especially Plague Marines, first there was that Battleforce, then someone gave me the Easy to Build box, then there was Conquest... and if they stand right next to each other the old Plague Marines are really ugly in my eyes.
But I guess it's an easy choice for CSM since it's just a matter of taste, actual unit values are the same. Not envying you loyalists out there.
jeff white wrote: No Smudge i have. The era is not represented in primaris units. Simply isnt. Many of us are saying this and you act like it is an argument you can win right or wrong ... it isnt.
The move to a new era of heretical science should be proof enough but you want to look at two pictures and squeal "but scouts"!..
Go on then Smudge. Love your restartes. I wont be buying any. Lower demand means more for you for less.
Tootles Smudge.
Except you are just making stuff up in your head. Nothing about the Manlet Marines says anything you've been saying. You're wrong. So get over it.
Then you have not read what i have written and rather also squeal at two pictures and scouts.
Another reason to hate restartes...
I did. You made these claims about Knights In Space and Gothic Feel only to be quickly dismissed when shown that a majority of the Marine models don't actually have those elements overall, and then you make up stuff about Primaris looking at social media for whatever reason. It isn't even being subjectively wrong, you're objectively wrong.
Most? Nope. Not been shown that.
I dont use social media for 40k.
Even if you want to focus on gothic armor the single foto shown does not represent crusader aesthetic inherited early in the period most reflected in templars and others including dark angels and grey knights and so on.
Here look again. Ask yourself where in this timeline you see an intercessor? End era leading into renaissance
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4e/08/1a/4e081a85f23f9fe3295b0267712a9909.jpg
jeff white wrote:This is the diminished background imho. A loss imho.
Okay - what part of the background is dimished? Can you point to explicit parts where you feel it is diminished?
flying tanks
Space Marines have had Land Speeders since their inception. The AdMech now also have skimmer tanks. The Custodes have them too. Are they all now heretics and besmirch the lore?
and plasma that doesnt kill you
EVERYONE, including old plasma guns, have this function now. That's not a "Primaris weapons don't overheat" thing, that's a "the game rules now let you fire safe plasma regardless". If Primaris Marines had come out in 7th, their plasma guns would overheat just like everyone else's.
and so polished new restartes shininess when the empire has been on a knifes edge and fading for so long just screams mary sue when the old aesthetic was dirty space crusade with patched ip armor and stretched supply lines or broken due the rift...
Hang on, so now you're saying the old aesthetic WASN'T ornate and majestic and embellished, but was actually "patched up and supply stretched thin"? Those sound like two VERY different things to me.
This brings me to my point - CONSISTENCY. You aren't being consistent.
What is the old aesthetic? Is it dirty, patched up armour? Is it ornate quasi-religious walking churches? Is it okay to be plain armoured? Is it okay to have less armour and wear cloth padding and no helmet, with tacticool pouches and supply kits?
Gadzilla666 wrote:The whole religious angle is bull gak. Many chapters are atheistic. They know that the Emperor was a man, not a god, and don't worship him or pray to their guns. The non cult legions are mostly the same, they don't worship chaos, they merely use it as a tool.
Eh, yes and no. While most Chapters aren't subservient to the Imperial Cult, they are religious. However, their religion comes from more internal Chapter cults and beliefs, and in the form of catachism and in the Emperor and Primarch. They might not see the Emperor as a God, but they do venerate and essentially ask for his blessing. Otherwise, how would Chaplains work? We see plenty of times Space Marines applying oils and unguents and prayers as they prepare their weaponry - ritual actions. Even the most logical and "rational" Chapters still abide by this - even though they don't worship the Emperor as a God, as such.
And no, before anyone say anything, there is no indication that Primaris Marines break this tradition in any way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nevelon wrote:
Bellerophon wrote: I guess I also find it harder than most to let go of the idea that a 40k-era marine battle company is 6 Tactical Squads, 2 Assault Squads and 2 Devastator squads. It's probably better for GW to leave that behind, because the more uncertain chapter organisation we've got now is better for making your collection what you want it to be, rather than what the Codex Astartes wants it to be. Although, I personally wouldn't mix Firstborn and Primaris units. I just think it looks weird. So my Salamanders army is entirely Firstborn. I've got the Primaris from Dark Imperium and Wake the Dead - coincidentally the Primaris sculpts that I like better, so that's handy. But when I finally get around to working on them I'm not going to add them to my Salamanders, I'll make them a different chapter entirely. My Sallies can be slightly historical pre-Gathering Storm, and whatever chapter I pick for the Primaris can be 'current'. But it might be a while, because even though they're my favourite of the Primaris sculpts they don't excite me as much as my other projects.
I feel you on the loss of the coherent battle company. I was shuffling minis around the other day to see what it would take to get a second (mixed) company on the shelf, and the project just kinda petered out. The old format gave you solid goals to strive for. Did I need 6 tactical squads? No way. It’s a rare list that I use 3, and that’s going all the way back to 3rd ed. But do I have 6 on the shelf? Yes. OK, that’s a bit of a lie, I have 9, but 6 are ranked up with the rest of my battle company. But when thinking about what I’d need to buy and build to get another company? No goal, no prize. And no purchases planned. My primaris will just grow organically, unit by unit. If and when I get 100ish guys in roughly a 3:1:1 ratio of basic/fast/shooty they might get moved to their own shelf.
My Primaris homebrew still typically sticks to the Battle Company formula, but in a variant way when it comes to the reserve companies.
I base the Companies on the standard 6x Battleline, 2x Close Support, 2x Fire Support method, and so my Battle Companies are typically your standard Intercessor/Infiltrator core, Inceptor/Reiver/Suppressor Close Support (I count Suppressors as Close Support, given their jump packs), and Aggressor/Hellblaster/Eliminator Fire Support. Nothing too special, that's largely what the Codex outlines.
My Reserve Companies, however, still stick to the general 6:2:2 formula. In my 10th Company, I have it ONLY with Phobos Armour, so 6x Infiltrators, 2x Reivers, and 2x Eliminators. Then, my 8th and 9th Companies take similar approaches, but with the armour type being the determining factor. So, my 9th Company would be 6x Hellblasters, 2x Eliminators and 2x Aggressors, having a mix of Tacticus, Phobos, and Gravis armours.
jeff white wrote:This is the diminished background imho. A loss imho.
Okay - what part of the background is dimished? Can you point to explicit parts where you feel it is diminished?
flying tanks
Space Marines have had Land Speeders since their inception. The AdMech now also have skimmer tanks. The Custodes have them too. Are they all now heretics and besmirch the lore?
and plasma that doesnt kill you
EVERYONE, including old plasma guns, have this function now. That's not a "Primaris weapons don't overheat" thing, that's a "the game rules now let you fire safe plasma regardless". If Primaris Marines had come out in 7th, their plasma guns would overheat just like everyone else's.
and so polished new restartes shininess when the empire has been on a knifes edge and fading for so long just screams mary sue when the old aesthetic was dirty space crusade with patched ip armor and stretched supply lines or broken due the rift...
Hang on, so now you're saying the old aesthetic WASN'T ornate and majestic and embellished, but was actually "patched up and supply stretched thin"? Those sound like two VERY different things to me.
This brings me to my point - CONSISTENCY. You aren't being consistent.
What is the old aesthetic? Is it dirty, patched up armour? Is it ornate quasi-religious walking churches? Is it okay to be plain armoured? Is it okay to have less armour and wear cloth padding and no helmet, with tacticool pouches and supply kits?
Gadzilla666 wrote:The whole religious angle is bull gak. Many chapters are atheistic. They know that the Emperor was a man, not a god, and don't worship him or pray to their guns. The non cult legions are mostly the same, they don't worship chaos, they merely use it as a tool.
Eh, yes and no. While most Chapters aren't subservient to the Imperial Cult, they are religious. However, their religion comes from more internal Chapter cults and beliefs, and in the form of catachism and in the Emperor and Primarch. They might not see the Emperor as a God, but they do venerate and essentially ask for his blessing. Otherwise, how would Chaplains work? We see plenty of times Space Marines applying oils and unguents and prayers as they prepare their weaponry - ritual actions. Even the most logical and "rational" Chapters still abide by this - even though they don't worship the Emperor as a God, as such.
And no, before anyone say anything, there is no indication that Primaris Marines break this tradition in any way.
It is the fact that science has made plasma foolproof that is further evidence of a Cawlian Renaissance that pushes context out if gothic era.. space crusader aesthetic diminishes as a result... not clear?
But there is nothing especially ritual holy warrior seeming about tacticool restartes now is there? Private religious practice is difficult to represent and maybe this is why tacticool looks so not space crusadey at all and very techie I-marine instead...
jeff white wrote: No Smudge i have. The era is not represented in primaris units. Simply isnt. Many of us are saying this and you act like it is an argument you can win right or wrong ... it isnt.
The move to a new era of heretical science should be proof enough but you want to look at two pictures and squeal "but scouts"!..
Go on then Smudge. Love your restartes. I wont be buying any. Lower demand means more for you for less.
Tootles Smudge.
Except you are just making stuff up in your head. Nothing about the Manlet Marines says anything you've been saying. You're wrong. So get over it.
Then you have not read what i have written and rather also squeal at two pictures and scouts.
Another reason to hate restartes...
I did. You made these claims about Knights In Space and Gothic Feel only to be quickly dismissed when shown that a majority of the Marine models don't actually have those elements overall, and then you make up stuff about Primaris looking at social media for whatever reason. It isn't even being subjectively wrong, you're objectively wrong.
Most? Nope. Not been shown that.
I dont use social media for 40k.
Even if you want to focus on gothic armor the single foto shown does not represent crusader aesthetic inherited early in the period most reflected in templars and others including dark angels and grey knights and so on.
Here look again. Ask yourself where in this timeline you see an intercessor? End era leading into renaissance
Spoiler:
The former have more of the elements you want than these:
Spoiler:
Oh noes, those are the units that Dark Angels are KNOWN for too!
I think Fabius having the ability to harvest the primaris marines to create some unholy crazy CSMs is the only good thing about primaris, fluff wise. But most of the CSM force is still from the HH era or at least much of it. It’s not like Kahn and Lucius can cross the rubicon is it. Although some primaris may turn rogue or to chaos these won’t be born of the original legions and one presumes the gene seed of the traitor legions isn’t being used for primaris.
So the rule going forward should be that you can include primaris units in your CSM army but you need the rules from codex space marine and Codex CSM would need to maintain the old marine stats.
mrFickle wrote: I think Fabius having the ability to harvest the primaris marines to create some unholy crazy CSMs is the only good thing about primaris, fluff wise. But most of the CSM force is still from the HH era or at least much of it. It’s not like Kahn and Lucius can cross the rubicon is it. Although some primaris may turn rogue or to chaos these won’t be born of the original legions and one presumes the gene seed of the traitor legions isn’t being used for primaris.
So the rule going forward should be that you can include primaris units in your CSM army but you need the rules from codex space marine and Codex CSM would need to maintain the old marine stats.
Well Kharn got an updated model at least, but his rules weren't updated to be, well, good.
Gadzilla666 wrote:The whole religious angle is bull gak. Many chapters are atheistic. They know that the Emperor was a man, not a god, and don't worship him or pray to their guns. The non cult legions are mostly the same, they don't worship chaos, they merely use it as a tool.
Eh, yes and no. While most Chapters aren't subservient to the Imperial Cult, they are religious. However, their religion comes from more internal Chapter cults and beliefs, and in the form of catachism and in the Emperor and Primarch. They might not see the Emperor as a God, but they do venerate and essentially ask for his blessing. Otherwise, how would Chaplains work? We see plenty of times Space Marines applying oils and unguents and prayers as they prepare their weaponry - ritual actions. Even the most logical and "rational" Chapters still abide by this - even though they don't worship the Emperor as a God, as such.
And no, before anyone say anything, there is no indication that Primaris Marines break this tradition in any way.
Maybe, but my point was that many chapters have no use for all the religious iconography that some people seem to insist on. Chapter symbols and charms maybe, but not stained glass or cathedrals. Ultramarines think the ecclesierchy is against the Imperial Creed, and Night Lords think Word Bearers and World Eaters are religious nuts and psychos. Religious iconography isn't a requirement for space marines, primaris, old marines, chaos, whatever.
jeff white wrote: It is the fact that science has made plasma foolproof that is further evidence of a Cawlian Renaissance that pushes context out if gothic era.. space crusader aesthetic diminishes as a result... not clear?
EVERYONE'S plasma is safe now. Including Chaos Marines, who Cawl has had no way of helping. It's not some kind of "every plasma gun has been fixed, from plasma pistols to plasma cannons, how dare Cawl do this" - it's just GW changing the rules of their game, in the same way that Overwatch was added between 5th and 6th. There wasn't some kind of revelation between 999.M41 and 999999.M41 where soldiers suddenly realised they could shoot at charging enemies. It's just a sweeping change to the whole ruleset, like how Blasts and Templates don't exist, or how models have Move stats, but no Initiative.
But there is nothing especially ritual holy warrior seeming about tacticool restartes now is there?
It's no different than the bare Tactical Marines or Scouts I've mentioned earlier. We only know those particular models/units are ritualistic holy warriors because we've read the background. Primaris? There's no reason not to believe that they follow all the same conventions - and considering that many Primaris, even Phobos units (like Eliminators), have various trappings and votive markings on them, it's further reinforced that they follow the same creeds and practices as their older brethren.
Private religious practice is difficult to represent and maybe this is why tacticool looks so not space crusadey at all and very techie I-marine instead...
Again, I redirect to the Silver Templars artwork posted in this thread, of an Intercessor decked out in tabards, seals, and hanging bits. That artwork looks more "space-crusadey" than many of the Tactical Marine artworks I've seen.
If your issue is with Phobos not looking "space crusadey", then please understand that Phobos Marines are not the entirety of the Primaris range, and are more akin to Scouts. You wouldn't judge all of the Firstborn from their Scouts. If you have an issue with only the Phobos Marines, make it clear that your issue is with them, and them alone.
jeff white wrote:This is the diminished background imho. A loss imho.
Okay - what part of the background is dimished? Can you point to explicit parts where you feel it is diminished?
flying tanks
Space Marines have had Land Speeders since their inception. The AdMech now also have skimmer tanks. The Custodes have them too. Are they all now heretics and besmirch the lore?
and plasma that doesnt kill you
EVERYONE, including old plasma guns, have this function now. That's not a "Primaris weapons don't overheat" thing, that's a "the game rules now let you fire safe plasma regardless". If Primaris Marines had come out in 7th, their plasma guns would overheat just like everyone else's.
and so polished new restartes shininess when the empire has been on a knifes edge and fading for so long just screams mary sue when the old aesthetic was dirty space crusade with patched ip armor and stretched supply lines or broken due the rift...
Hang on, so now you're saying the old aesthetic WASN'T ornate and majestic and embellished, but was actually "patched up and supply stretched thin"? Those sound like two VERY different things to me.
This brings me to my point - CONSISTENCY. You aren't being consistent.
What is the old aesthetic? Is it dirty, patched up armour? Is it ornate quasi-religious walking churches? Is it okay to be plain armoured? Is it okay to have less armour and wear cloth padding and no helmet, with tacticool pouches and supply kits?
Gadzilla666 wrote:The whole religious angle is bull gak. Many chapters are atheistic. They know that the Emperor was a man, not a god, and don't worship him or pray to their guns. The non cult legions are mostly the same, they don't worship chaos, they merely use it as a tool.
Eh, yes and no. While most Chapters aren't subservient to the Imperial Cult, they are religious. However, their religion comes from more internal Chapter cults and beliefs, and in the form of catachism and in the Emperor and Primarch. They might not see the Emperor as a God, but they do venerate and essentially ask for his blessing. Otherwise, how would Chaplains work? We see plenty of times Space Marines applying oils and unguents and prayers as they prepare their weaponry - ritual actions. Even the most logical and "rational" Chapters still abide by this - even though they don't worship the Emperor as a God, as such.
And no, before anyone say anything, there is no indication that Primaris Marines break this tradition in any way.
It is the fact that science has made plasma foolproof that is further evidence of a Cawlian Renaissance that pushes context out if gothic era.. space crusader aesthetic diminishes as a result... not clear?
But there is nothing especially ritual holy warrior seeming about tacticool restartes now is there? Private religious practice is difficult to represent and maybe this is why tacticool looks so not space crusadey at all and very techie I-marine instead...
Plasma didn't become foolproof because of story. It became safe because the current player base cant handle their models incinerating themselves. And so story shifted to reflect the rules.
BTw, for someone who said they weren't going to talk to Smudge any more you sure keep on replying to him.....
NinthMusketeer wrote: I tried to use bits from the new CSM kit to semi-update some old CSM. It ended up being a massive amount of time and parts totally wasted.
Yeah, I couldn't see that working well. The old torso and legs just don't hold up that well. I made use of the older CSM heads and a few of the old pauldrons for the new ones. Even then, I am glad I went Black Legion to help hide how soft the detail is on the old bits when combined with the new ones. I think it works well enough done sparingly. One of the biggest complaints I could poteintally have with the new CSM kit is the lack of horned helms in a similar vein to the old ones. Realistically, I not that bothered by it as I didn't really like the that much on the old models and only added them to the new ones to stretch out variation.
jeff white wrote:This is the diminished background imho. A loss imho.
Okay - what part of the background is dimished? Can you point to explicit parts where you feel it is diminished?
flying tanks
Space Marines have had Land Speeders since their inception. The AdMech now also have skimmer tanks. The Custodes have them too. Are they all now heretics and besmirch the lore?
and plasma that doesnt kill you
EVERYONE, including old plasma guns, have this function now. That's not a "Primaris weapons don't overheat" thing, that's a "the game rules now let you fire safe plasma regardless". If Primaris Marines had come out in 7th, their plasma guns would overheat just like everyone else's.
and so polished new restartes shininess when the empire has been on a knifes edge and fading for so long just screams mary sue when the old aesthetic was dirty space crusade with patched ip armor and stretched supply lines or broken due the rift...
Hang on, so now you're saying the old aesthetic WASN'T ornate and majestic and embellished, but was actually "patched up and supply stretched thin"? Those sound like two VERY different things to me.
This brings me to my point - CONSISTENCY. You aren't being consistent.
What is the old aesthetic? Is it dirty, patched up armour? Is it ornate quasi-religious walking churches? Is it okay to be plain armoured? Is it okay to have less armour and wear cloth padding and no helmet, with tacticool pouches and supply kits?
Gadzilla666 wrote:The whole religious angle is bull gak. Many chapters are atheistic. They know that the Emperor was a man, not a god, and don't worship him or pray to their guns. The non cult legions are mostly the same, they don't worship chaos, they merely use it as a tool.
Eh, yes and no. While most Chapters aren't subservient to the Imperial Cult, they are religious. However, their religion comes from more internal Chapter cults and beliefs, and in the form of catachism and in the Emperor and Primarch. They might not see the Emperor as a God, but they do venerate and essentially ask for his blessing. Otherwise, how would Chaplains work? We see plenty of times Space Marines applying oils and unguents and prayers as they prepare their weaponry - ritual actions. Even the most logical and "rational" Chapters still abide by this - even though they don't worship the Emperor as a God, as such.
And no, before anyone say anything, there is no indication that Primaris Marines break this tradition in any way.
It is the fact that science has made plasma foolproof that is further evidence of a Cawlian Renaissance that pushes context out if gothic era.. space crusader aesthetic diminishes as a result... not clear?
But there is nothing especially ritual holy warrior seeming about tacticool restartes now is there? Private religious practice is difficult to represent and maybe this is why tacticool looks so not space crusadey at all and very techie I-marine instead...
Plasma didn't become foolproof because of story. It became safe because the current player base cant handle their models incinerating themselves. And so story shifted to reflect the rules.
BTw, for someone who said they weren't going to talk to Smudge any more you sure keep on replying to him.....
Actually safe mode was added because Plasma always had that issue on top of being top expensive for its purpose, which is why everyone went with Melta and Grav. We can argue now perhaps Plasma is just a little too cheap, but Melta and Flamers are too expensive.
I just want to pop in to say Dual Mode Plasma is actually a throwback to 2nd edition when there was a difference between Imperial and Chaos Plasma weaponry.
I agree it's still too cheap. Plasma should either be lowered down to S6/S7 or make overcharging grant extra AP and Damage but no S bonus.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Actually safe mode was added because Plasma always had that issue on top of being top expensive for its purpose, which is why everyone went with Melta and Grav. We can argue now perhaps Plasma is just a little too cheap, but Melta and Flamers are too expensive.
I do miss melta weapons both playing Primaris and CSM. I have old Chaos Termicide squads that I want to break out (even in the 8th edition version) every now and again and be at least kinda close to scary as it used to be and not feel like an utter waste of points. It does surprise me that GW never did bring down the points for melta weapons after years of plasma just being better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, Brutus, seeing as you posted some pictures of "proper Space Marines", what's your opinion on this one?
As you can see, no purity seals, no skulls, no scrolls, banners, pendants, nothing! Well, except for the chest aquila (which most Primaris have) and a teeny scroll on his bolter (which, again, most Primaris have).
So, I guess this isn't a "real Space Marine"?
Personally I do not like it. Way way too bland. And although I recognize that it is an iconic space marine model, I personally would never field one like that. Not in 40K anyway.
Deathwing knights are more of what I'm looking for.
TBH it's always been a bit of a disappointment to me that standard marines carry bolters instead of chainswords and stormshields.
I highly dislike most of generic space marine range until you start getting into the super ornate stuff. In the past I've used sternguard/vanguard marines just for my basic guys because they have more stuff on them.
The new Primaris stuff is proportionally better, I'll give it that. But there's nothing exciting about them at all. They're so bland.
I feel like they knocked Sisters of Battle and Custodes out of the park, they just nailed the 40K aesthetic for me there. To see Marines get the opposite treatment has been a huge disappointment for me.
What I really want to see is basically the new Adeptus Sororitas in space marine form. I'd like my Black Templars back and Grey Knights to be redone. I really just want angry space knights. If GW does that then I'll shut my mouth about Primaris.
Also, Brutus, seeing as you posted some pictures of "proper Space Marines", what's your opinion on this one?
As you can see, no purity seals, no skulls, no scrolls, banners, pendants, nothing! Well, except for the chest aquila (which most Primaris have) and a teeny scroll on his bolter (which, again, most Primaris have).
So, I guess this isn't a "real Space Marine"?
Personally I do not like it. Way way too bland. And although I recognize that it is an iconic space marine model, I personally would never field one like that. Not in 40K anyway.
Right, thank you. I appreciate your consistency and honesty, and I'm glad you didn't try and excuse this bland Marine just because it's older.
However, I do need to point out that, even though it's bland, it *is* still a Space Marine, and the perfect example of Space Marines not needing to be dressed up to the nines and embellished. In fact, the vast majority of Space Marines core units (Tacticals, Devastators, Assaults, Bikers, etc) have been like this, maybe with a small purity seal here or there, but your basic Space Marines have nearly *always* been like this model. It's only been Veterans and explicitly more blinged up Chapters (like the Black Templars) who go all out on the decorations and ornate markings. Expecting Primaris to suddenly buck that trend when historically Space Marines core units have been on the under-blinged side feels like a strange expectation.
Deathwing knights are more of what I'm looking for.
TBH it's always been a bit of a disappointment to me that standard marines carry bolters instead of chainswords and stormshields.
I highly dislike most of generic space marine range until you start getting into the super ornate stuff. In the past I've used sternguard/vanguard marines just for my basic guys because they have more stuff on them.
Honestly, it sounds more just like you don't really like any outside of Space Marines being ornate, Primaris or not. So when you comment "I hate Primaris, they're not ornate", that's not *really* a Primaris problem, that's just a Space Marine design problem across the majority of the range.
I'm not saying you're not entitled to your own preferences, you absolutely are, and where's the fun in 40k if you can't make and paint and play your models the way you like - but it would be like me saying "I hate the Tau, they don't have any melee, and they're not a human faction".
Basically, Primaris Marines aren't the problem. Your problem is that Space Marines across the board aren't more ornate, but unfortunately, Space Marines do, and have, come in a wide range of styles, from fully embellished to 'tacticool', and GW strike a middle ground in their core Space Marine designs, leaving Marines as empty as possible so players can convert to their hearts content.
The new Primaris stuff is proportionally better, I'll give it that. But there's nothing exciting about them at all. They're so bland.
Again, they're just taking design cues and styles from existing Space Marines. It's not like they're suddenly more bland than everything else. And, as you've said, you feel the same way about bland Firstborn Marines.
It's not a Primaris problem, it's a Bland Marine problem, in your eyes.
I feel like they knocked Sisters of Battle and Custodes out of the park, they just nailed the 40K aesthetic for me there. To see Marines get the opposite treatment has been a huge disappointment for me.
Custodes and Sisters have always been depicted and shown in model form to be ornate. Space Marines, on the other hand, have always had a wide range of looks, from heavily embellished Black Templars, to tacticool Raptors, and GW has consistently depicted their basic units with less ornamentation. At the risk of repeating myself, Primaris don't do anything new here that hasn't already been done. Your problem isn't with Primaris explicitly, it's with Space Marines in general that aren't how you believe they should look.
The problem with Primaris is that they are toyetic. Rounded edges, smooth lines. A Mark VII helmet screams brutality, viciousness, and terror. A Mark X helmet (while being a cynical "throwback" to Mark IV I am certain was just coincidence) just isn't the same.
Honestly, it sounds more just like you don't really like any outside of Space Marines being ornate, Primaris or not. So when you comment "I hate Primaris, they're not ornate", that's not *really* a Primaris problem, that's just a Space Marine design problem across the majority of the range.
I'm not saying you're not entitled to your own preferences, you absolutely are, and where's the fun in 40k if you can't make and paint and play your models the way you like - but it would be like me saying "I hate the Tau, they don't have any melee, and they're not a human faction".
Basically, Primaris Marines aren't the problem. Your problem is that Space Marines across the board aren't more ornate, but unfortunately, Space Marines do, and have, come in a wide range of styles, from fully embellished to 'tacticool', and GW strike a middle ground in their core Space Marine designs, leaving Marines as empty as possible so players can convert to their hearts content.
The new Primaris stuff is proportionally better, I'll give it that. But there's nothing exciting about them at all. They're so bland.
Again, they're just taking design cues and styles from existing Space Marines. It's not like they're suddenly more bland than everything else. And, as you've said, you feel the same way about bland Firstborn Marines.
It's not a Primaris problem, it's a Bland Marine problem, in your eyes.
I feel like they knocked Sisters of Battle and Custodes out of the park, they just nailed the 40K aesthetic for me there. To see Marines get the opposite treatment has been a huge disappointment for me.
Custodes and Sisters have always been depicted and shown in model form to be ornate. Space Marines, on the other hand, have always had a wide range of looks, from heavily embellished Black Templars, to tacticool Raptors, and GW has consistently depicted their basic units with less ornamentation. At the risk of repeating myself, Primaris don't do anything new here that hasn't already been done. Your problem isn't with Primaris explicitly, it's with Space Marines in general that aren't how you believe they should look.
I get that Marines throughout the ages have been different, from spartan to ornate. Throughout 4th and 5th GW really amped up the ornateness in a lot of those models and I started to really like what they were doing. Then they pulled the rug out from under me and gave me Primaris which I think are bland to the point of not looking like they belong in 40K. I thought they might go in the direction they had been heading for about a decade.
I really want GW to release more of the aesthetic I like, so here's me complaining online in hopes that they will see that some of the community has a taste for that kind of thing.
And in my defence, I dislike Primaris for more than just looks. I think they were shoehorned into the fluff badly, and their very existence trivializes the old marines and the HH as a whole.
BaconCatBug wrote: The problem with Primaris is that they are toyetic. Rounded edges, smooth lines. A Mark VII helmet screams brutality, viciousness, and terror. A Mark X helmet (while being a cynical "throwback" to Mark IV I am certain was just coincidence) just isn't the same.
But still in terms of "toyetic they don't compare to Baby Carriers, Centurions, Santa Logan and other pre-Primaris models
BaconCatBug wrote:The problem with Primaris is that they are toyetic. Rounded edges, smooth lines. A Mark VII helmet screams brutality, viciousness, and terror. A Mark X helmet (while being a cynical "throwback" to Mark IV I am certain was just coincidence) just isn't the same.
Primaris Marines have all the same smooth lines and rounded edges as regular Mark VIIs. Like, the shoulder pads are the same, arms can be reused with no issue, the general lines and everything simply just in different proportions. I mean, look back at the ETB Tactical Marine I posted earlier - you're telling me that doesn't also have the same edges and lines?
And again, look at this Mark IV Marine - certainly not a million miles away from being a Primaris Marine, yet I don't remember the uproar of "these aren't PROPER Space Marines!!"
Spoiler:
Brutus_Apex wrote:
Spoiler:
Honestly, it sounds more just like you don't really like any outside of Space Marines being ornate, Primaris or not. So when you comment "I hate Primaris, they're not ornate", that's not *really* a Primaris problem, that's just a Space Marine design problem across the majority of the range.
I'm not saying you're not entitled to your own preferences, you absolutely are, and where's the fun in 40k if you can't make and paint and play your models the way you like - but it would be like me saying "I hate the Tau, they don't have any melee, and they're not a human faction".
Basically, Primaris Marines aren't the problem. Your problem is that Space Marines across the board aren't more ornate, but unfortunately, Space Marines do, and have, come in a wide range of styles, from fully embellished to 'tacticool', and GW strike a middle ground in their core Space Marine designs, leaving Marines as empty as possible so players can convert to their hearts content.
The new Primaris stuff is proportionally better, I'll give it that. But there's nothing exciting about them at all. They're so bland.
Again, they're just taking design cues and styles from existing Space Marines. It's not like they're suddenly more bland than everything else. And, as you've said, you feel the same way about bland Firstborn Marines.
It's not a Primaris problem, it's a Bland Marine problem, in your eyes.
I feel like they knocked Sisters of Battle and Custodes out of the park, they just nailed the 40K aesthetic for me there. To see Marines get the opposite treatment has been a huge disappointment for me.
Custodes and Sisters have always been depicted and shown in model form to be ornate. Space Marines, on the other hand, have always had a wide range of looks, from heavily embellished Black Templars, to tacticool Raptors, and GW has consistently depicted their basic units with less ornamentation. At the risk of repeating myself, Primaris don't do anything new here that hasn't already been done. Your problem isn't with Primaris explicitly, it's with Space Marines in general that aren't how you believe they should look.
I get that Marines throughout the ages have been different, from spartan to ornate. Throughout 4th and 5th GW really amped up the ornateness in a lot of those models and I started to really like what they were doing. Then they pulled the rug out from under me and gave me Primaris which I think are bland to the point of not looking like they belong in 40K. I thought they might go in the direction they had been heading for about a decade.
Well, I think it just goes to show that there's a lot of different interpretations of what 40k should be, and no real way to appeal to authority on it. Again,look at it the other way - you say that GW pulled the rug out from under you, yet plenty of other people would feel the rug pulled out from them if GW had gone full walking churches aesthetic. End of the day, I maintain that 40k is an excellent IP because of the range it allows. You like tactical, elite, no-nonsense Astartes (like the titular animated work)? That's supported. You like ornate, detailed walking churches and chainswords, like in Death of Hope? That's also supported! With GW taking the more minimal approach with their models, they've given the modelling fans out there a chance to lean whichever way they prefer. Again, it's much much simpler to add to a model than to remove it.
I really want GW to release more of the aesthetic I like, so here's me complaining online in hopes that they will see that some of the community has a taste for that kind of thing.
I mean, fair enough, but in the same vein, there's also a lot of people, myself included, who prefer the cleaner aesthetic, especially on the core infantry.There isn't really a "right" look for Space Marines, beyond them having big round pauldrons and thick vented backpacks and so on, and understandably, I'm going to have a bit of an issue with anyone claiming that there's some kind of "real Space Marine", given how broad that is.
And in my defence, I dislike Primaris for more than just looks. I think they were shoehorned into the fluff badly, and their very existence trivializes the old marines and the HH as a whole.
Their initial explanation? Handled badly, but modern fluff is far more detailed and forgiving.
Smudge GW must pay you to produce straw men and bad faith arguments... cuz they are as bad as current background.
Gothic names an era 400years long. Armor existed in different styles. One constant was the role of faith in art culture architecture and limited tech burdened by ritual ... where are the sacred bolter rounds in a restartes bolter? Litanies? Yada? Zilch. Heretics.
Jeff, I understand what you're saying about gothic armor.
Had a good time at Napoleon's Tomb a couple years ago going through the armor collections, most of it was gothic style plate.
I don't think GW emphasizes this much with NuMarines, it's not just engravings. We don't see many purity seals in the sculpts, we don't see much parchment or zealous declarations anymore. Seem like we've sacrificed the faith-based part of the lore to pure aspirational science fiction, which is part of why NuMarines don't do it for me.
techsoldaten wrote: I don't think GW emphasizes this much with NuMarines, it's not just engravings. We don't see many purity seals in the sculpts, we don't see much parchment or zealous declarations anymore. Seem like we've sacrificed the faith-based part of the lore to pure aspirational science fiction, which is part of why NuMarines don't do it for me.
What about these?
Spoiler:
I'm sure if I looked, I'd also find plenty of Firstborn Marines with very little devotional scripts and parchment.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Actually safe mode was added because Plasma always had that issue on top of being top expensive for its purpose, which is why everyone went with Melta and Grav. We can argue now perhaps Plasma is just a little too cheap, but Melta and Flamers are too expensive.
I do miss melta weapons both playing Primaris and CSM. I have old Chaos Termicide squads that I want to break out (even in the 8th edition version) every now and again and be at least kinda close to scary as it used to be and not feel like an utter waste of points. It does surprise me that GW never did bring down the points for melta weapons after years of plasma just being better.
Melta has low rate of fire in a game with a ton of invulns. It's a complete waste of points.
Smudge GW must pay you to produce straw men and bad faith arguments... cuz they are as bad as current background.
Gothic names an era 400years long. Armor existed in different styles. One constant was the role of faith in art culture architecture and limited tech burdened by ritual ... where are the sacred bolter rounds in a restartes bolter? Litanies? Yada? Zilch. Heretics.
Jeff, I understand what you're saying about gothic armor.
Had a good time at Napoleon's Tomb a couple years ago going through the armor collections, most of it was gothic style plate.
I don't think GW emphasizes this much with NuMarines, it's not just engravings. We don't see many purity seals in the sculpts, we don't see much parchment or zealous declarations anymore. Seem like we've sacrificed the faith-based part of the lore to pure aspirational science fiction, which is part of why NuMarines don't do it for me.
LOL Marines do not have that gothic armor look. You're making that up in your head.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: The problem with Primaris is that they are toyetic. Rounded edges, smooth lines. A Mark VII helmet screams brutality, viciousness, and terror. A Mark X helmet (while being a cynical "throwback" to Mark IV I am certain was just coincidence) just isn't the same.
Mk3 is actually more vicious looking, therefore only Mk3 Marines are real Marines
Smudge GW must pay you to produce straw men and bad faith arguments... cuz they are as bad as current background.
Gothic names an era 400years long. Armor existed in different styles. One constant was the role of faith in art culture architecture and limited tech burdened by ritual ... where are the sacred bolter rounds in a restartes bolter? Litanies? Yada? Zilch. Heretics.
Jeff, I understand what you're saying about gothic armor.
Had a good time at Napoleon's Tomb a couple years ago going through the armor collections, most of it was gothic style plate.
I don't think GW emphasizes this much with NuMarines, it's not just engravings. We don't see many purity seals in the sculpts, we don't see much parchment or zealous declarations anymore. Seem like we've sacrificed the faith-based part of the lore to pure aspirational science fiction, which is part of why NuMarines don't do it for me.
Thanks. I didnt express the point well or maybe it is difficult but a lot of people seem to see the general issue. It is more than shapes and shoulder pads. It was glorious.
Smudge GW must pay you to produce straw men and bad faith arguments... cuz they are as bad as current background.
Gothic names an era 400years long. Armor existed in different styles. One constant was the role of faith in art culture architecture and limited tech burdened by ritual ... where are the sacred bolter rounds in a restartes bolter? Litanies? Yada? Zilch. Heretics.
Jeff, I understand what you're saying about gothic armor.
Had a good time at Napoleon's Tomb a couple years ago going through the armor collections, most of it was gothic style plate.
I don't think GW emphasizes this much with NuMarines, it's not just engravings. We don't see many purity seals in the sculpts, we don't see much parchment or zealous declarations anymore. Seem like we've sacrificed the faith-based part of the lore to pure aspirational science fiction, which is part of why NuMarines don't do it for me.
Thanks. I didnt express the point well or maybe it is difficult but a lot of people seem to see the general issue. It is more than shapes and shoulder pads. It was glorious.
I think I'd have to look back at Realm of Chaos or the early Rogue Trader books to find examples, but there was one artist - pen and ink - who really captured the spirit. Lots of beaky helmets, lots of twisted points around the edges. It really bridged the old divide between Space Marines and the old world.
To those saying gothic armor was not part of the brand - sure, there's examples that don't incorporate it. There's also examples that do. It captured my imagination at an early age and it's still part of how I think about Space Marines.
Just because it's not part of every model doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The style seems to be absent from NuMarines and I feel like that's a loss.
techsoldaten wrote:To those saying gothic armor was not part of the brand - sure, there's examples that don't incorporate it. There's also examples that do. It captured my imagination at an early age and it's still part of how I think about Space Marines.
Just because it's not part of every model doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The style seems to be absent from NuMarines and I feel like that's a loss.
By that same logic, all the plain armoured Marines, just because it's not part of every model, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't say "well not all Space Marines have gothic armour BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT STILL EXISTS", when the same argument can be used to support blank armour.
Sorry, but it's an argument in bad faith if you're just going to cherry pick from the VAST range of what Space Marines have been depicted as. Space Marines are elite, tactical supersoldiers, with high tech equipment and equipment pouches. Space Marines are also robed, hooded knights with shields and power swords. Space Marines are also runic barbarians, helmetless and bearded with feral glory. Space Marines are also fiercely religious and impractical. Space Marines are also tactically gifted and have the capability to attack in multiple styles depending on the most tactically efficient route. Are these contradictory? YES! But that's what being a Space Marine *is*, and for anyone to claim with any degree of authority beyond their own biases what a "Real Space Marine" is beyond the very basic core ideas (that being power armour, genetically enhanced, and incredibly skilled and brave warriors) is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You can't claim that one single feature or even aesthetic is core to the Space Marines when you also admit that not every Space Marine HAS that feature or aesthetic. I appreciate that you have a favourite, that the gothic armour captured your imagination - but that doesn't mean that your narrow view of Space Marines defines it for everyone else.
BaconCatBug wrote:This is 40k.
Spoiler:
This is an Marvel Comic Supersoldier with Mary Sue powers.
Spoiler:
It might be hard to put into words, but the difference is there.
What about these two Marines?
Spoiler:
They have far more in common with Mr "Mary Sue" over here than Blanche's work. What say you on them? Conversely, what about these pictures?
Spoiler:
Full of religious iconography, menacing, with foreboding landscapes and skulls and ruins afoot. Compared to the artwork and models I've posted earlier, in what good conscience can you say that these are any less 40k?
Also, are you actually familiar with Marvel Comics? Because that Primaris Marine looks nothing like a Marvel-styled anything. In fact, it doesn't look like anything other than a 40k design. Like I've asked plenty of people before you, do a DETAILED breakdown of the Primaris aesthetic that makes it more like other IPs than 40k (as in, not more modern relative to other 40k designs, but actually closer to non-40k designs than it is itself to 40k). I'll wait.
This is an Marvel Comic Supersoldier with Mary Sue powers.
Spoiler:
It might be hard to put into words, but the difference is there.
Have any of the figures to the right of the SoB made into being a model in 40k? The red robed guys? How can you possibly say that is 40k when barely anything in that image is actually in 40k.
Amazingly there was this thing called "Worldbuilding" and "Imagination", before GW decided that not only was it No Model, No Rules, it was No Model, No Artwork.
If you were trying to disprove Primaris Marines as literally Toyetic, you did a bad job there.
I’m saying that your example of what 40k the wargame is- is actually a rubbish example. None of the figures in the image are playable miniatures. The image doesn’t even include space marines! When I think of 40k I don’t think of SOBs. Hardly anyone ever played that army. The ratio of SOB to Space Marines books is probably 100-1.
BaconCatBug wrote: Amazingly there was this thing called "Worldbuilding" and "Imagination", before GW decided that not only was it No Model, No Rules, it was No Model, No Artwork.
Strange, how do the Silver Templars covered in all their robes and decorations and suchlike have models?
If you were trying to disprove Primaris Marines as literally Toyetic, you did a bad job there.
Come on, you've not explained how Mr Squat Marine with his clean, featureless armour isn't exactly as toyetic as the Primaris.
I'm not making any comment on if the Primaris are toyetic or not. I'm making comment that any design feature or complaint you can level at the Primaris, I can apply to the old marines too (save for one, proportion - and even then, the SM Heroes range takes steps to alleviate that too).
Jjohnso11 wrote: I’m saying that your example of what 40k the wargame is- is actually a rubbish example. None of the figures in the image are playable miniatures. The image doesn’t even include space marines! When I think of 40k I don’t think of SOBs. Hardly anyone ever played that army. The ratio of SOB to Space Marines books is probably 100-1.
To me I think one is greater than none. Also, did you miss the part where I said 40k used to embrace world-building and imagination rather than click together duplo toys? 40k is not meant to be easy-to-build Mary Sue Marines, but sadly that is what GW have turned it into in the drive for profit.
BaconCatBug wrote: Amazingly there was this thing called "Worldbuilding" and "Imagination", before GW decided that not only was it No Model, No Rules, it was No Model, No Artwork.
Strange, how do the Silver Templars covered in all their robes and decorations and suchlike have models?
If you were trying to disprove Primaris Marines as literally Toyetic, you did a bad job there.
Come on, you've not explained how Mr Squat Marine with his clean, featureless armour isn't exactly as toyetic as the Primaris.
I'm not making any comment on if the Primaris are toyetic or not. I'm making comment that any design feature or complaint you can level at the Primaris, I can apply to the old marines too (save for one, proportion - and even then, the SM Heroes range takes steps to alleviate that too).
Good catch!! Way to hyper focus on one irrelevant thing in the entire context of what I was saying. Your example was rubbish. Last I saw there was a Funko made of a SoB. Is that toyetic?
Jjohnso11 wrote: Good catch!! Way to hyper focus on one irrelevant thing in the entire context of what I was saying. Your example was rubbish. Last I saw there was a Funko made of a SoB. Is that toyetic?
Yes...
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. To me it seems like you're agreeing with me. Unless you're genuinely arguing that Funko pops improve anything ever?
Also if you're not willing to do even the barest modicum of research before asserting something, why should we listen to you? You've demonstrated you're not worth listening to.
I’m disagreeing with the narrative you’re pushing on 40k/space marines of old. I have old medal models that are two pieces. So yeah easy to assemble isn’t a new thing. GW is just marketing that to draw in new people. The aesthetic of the true scale marines is hardly different from the old squat marines. You can drop Blanche art up and say that’s the definition of old marines or world building, but it hasn’t been that way for a long time.
Not a fan of funko. Just pointing out that the aesthetic you’re trying to point out as “40k OG” is toyetic. The company makes plastic soldiers....
Jjohnso11 wrote: Good catch!! Way to hyper focus on one irrelevant thing in the entire context of what I was saying. Your example was rubbish. Last I saw there was a Funko made of a SoB. Is that toyetic?
Yes...
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. To me it seems like you're agreeing with me. Unless you're genuinely arguing that Funko pops improve anything ever?
Also if you're not willing to do even the barest modicum of research before asserting something, why should we listen to you? You've demonstrated you're not worth listening to.
Pump the breaks killer. I own that model so I don’t have to do any research on if it exists as as a miniature. If you were to read my earlier comment I said the figures to the right of the SOB.
Jjohnso11 wrote: Pump the breaks killer. I own that model so I don’t have to do any research on if it exists as as a miniature. If you were to read my earlier comment I said the figures to the right of the SOB.
No, that isn't what you said.
Jjohnso11 wrote: I’m saying that your example of what 40k the wargame is- is actually a rubbish example. None of the figures in the image are playable miniatures. The image doesn’t even include space marines! When I think of 40k I don’t think of SOBs. Hardly anyone ever played that army. The ratio of SOB to Space Marines books is probably 100-1.
This is an Marvel Comic Supersoldier with Mary Sue powers.
Spoiler:
It might be hard to put into words, but the difference is there.
Have any of the figures to the right of the SoB made into being a model in 40k? The red robed guys? How can you possibly say that is 40k when barely anything in that image is actually in 40k.
Jjohnso11 wrote: ...Have any of the figures to the right of the SoB made into being a model in 40k? The red robed guys? How can you possibly say that is 40k when barely anything in that image is actually in 40k.
The Redemptionists? They had Necromunda models back in the day, but GW decided that the KKK hoods may be impolitic so they left them off when they did the Cawdor for N17.
Basic Space Marine boxes have always been smooth/uncluttered with very few exceptions. Mainly because they're leaving it up to the players to style them with "bits" and "doodads" after the fact. The chapter specific models will be more ornate (probably far too much, in typical GW style).
That being said, the newer Primaris units do have a ultra high tech aesthetic which is pretty blase and not very interesting. So while I agree with the aesthetic issue, I don't agree with the expectation that basic marine units would be covered in gothic accessories.
Jjohnso11 wrote: Good catch!! Way to hyper focus on one irrelevant thing in the entire context of what I was saying. Your example was rubbish. Last I saw there was a Funko made of a SoB. Is that toyetic?
Yes...
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. To me it seems like you're agreeing with me. Unless you're genuinely arguing that Funko pops improve anything ever?
Also if you're not willing to do even the barest modicum of research before asserting something, why should we listen to you? You've demonstrated you're not worth listening to.
This ^^ exalted.
I think that you nailed the issue with imagination and world building vs no model no rules.
Some posters focus on the models and from there the game as if the only evidence is in physical models.
Meanwhile what 40k as a so called IP is, is really a context. A universe. A fantasy world that reflects this one...
I think that maybe restartes do reflect the current world and associated values, e.g. profit driven and excusable or even rational behaviours include squatting lines, thereby betraying loyal fans and failing to support tradition. This sort of attitude is evident in the OK boomer type dismissals of life experience that seems to have become such a common attitude in the west. Not that i am a fan of boomer gen as this is where "greed is good" finally takes off but the mantra was the dream of preboomers who set the stage for these so called values. But my point here is simply that we saw the empty rituals point to higher goods even as the rest of the world was turning in the other direction. This transition was gothic leading into new science... now kids only seem to see the plastic in their hands in an ahistorical sense. Posthistory we may say...
Anyways where do my dudes fit into this context? They see restartes for what they are. Heresy.
I think the issue may not be so much in the accessorizing.
The old marines look like something out of the Heavy Metal animated movie, they're much more animation and comic art given form.
The Primaris marines on the other hand, by dint of being more realistically scaled, have less of that fantastical edge (they're still very fantastical, don't get me wrong), and a lot of the game art has gone this route as well. With the shift in GW's art styling over the last few years, new generations of artists and significantly more (almost exclusively) computer assisted depictions, coupled with the scale change and more realistic stylings, it kinda gives everything a different flavor. Less proudly defiant striking metal-band poses, more "tacticool" poses.
We can use these earlier examples to illustrate it
The very bottom pic could basically be a thinly reskinned Call of Duty game cover, and it's not really due to anything different about the marines equipment or decoration. The more realistic interpretation, as expressed in both the art and the models, definitely changes the flavor. There's often either significantly less color or a wash of one and fewer contrasts, and a darker tone in general. (I actually quite like that Space Wolves picture however)
Using some of the previous examples, we can look at this same trend with videogames, Duke Nukem 3D and CoD
Spoiler:
I think a lot of us underestimate how much of the classic Space Marine look and feel was tied to that fundamental 80's/90's Blanchian aesthetic. Whether that is good or bad is going to be entirely subjective. I enjoy the larger scale of the Primaris marines in many ways, the models themselves are marvelous from a technical perspective, but at the same time, they really do feel less "40k" in some hard to explain way (and their hamfisted background is awful, but we'll ignore that for now).
It isn't hard to explain. It's just complaining to complain, simple as that. None of the complaints have been grounded in reality, from saying they're not gothic enough (which Manlet Marines aren't without gluing a bunch of optional stuff on them anyway, nor is the armor actually gothic in nature) to saying the models aren't flexible (which is silly because how many angles are you really getting out of Manlet Models? That answer is not a lot).
It's also probably refusing to accept change as well.
I feel it's worth noting GW by their own admission purposefully made Primaris fairly clean so we could add stuff on or not to taste. for every person who liked the highly skulled up purity seal covered marines we occasionally saw, there where people who hated it. it's a lot easier to give us the empty armor and let us decoate as we wish.
More profitable too as it means GW can hypotheticly if they see demand put out chapter upgrade packs, purity seal packs "SKULL ARMOR" upgrade packs etc.
I will continue to use them, eventually rebasing them if the need arises. I prefer their estetics, expecially in the vehicles...
I don't have issues with the redesign(even of I only likes intercessor...but the differenze with tactical are so minimal that I think they don't deserve a new collection).
However, the change in scale was an unnecessary and ill-conceived nudge to recollect everything again. It is also a fuss about transporting them (this Is a general GW issue recently, AoS under this regard is exemplary).
The only usefulness I personally see in them is to be used with stormcast as parts for Thunder Warriors conversions.
BrianDavion wrote: I feel it's worth noting GW by their own admission purposefully made Primaris fairly clean so we could add stuff on or not to taste. for every person who liked the highly skulled up purity seal covered marines we occasionally saw, there where people who hated it. it's a lot easier to give us the empty armor and let us decoate as we wish.
More profitable too as it means GW can hypotheticly if they see demand put out chapter upgrade packs, purity seal packs "SKULL ARMOR" upgrade packs etc.
Yeah, so if I want to make a primaris marine that looks like a classic marine all I have to do is
BrianDavion wrote: I feel it's worth noting GW by their own admission purposefully made Primaris fairly clean so we could add stuff on or not to taste. for every person who liked the highly skulled up purity seal covered marines we occasionally saw, there where people who hated it. it's a lot easier to give us the empty armor and let us decoate as we wish.
More profitable too as it means GW can hypotheticly if they see demand put out chapter upgrade packs, purity seal packs "SKULL ARMOR" upgrade packs etc.
Yeah, so if I want to make a primaris marine that looks like a classic marine all I have to do is
step 1 - buy a classic marine kit
step 2 - buy a primaris kit
it's really that easy! DDDDDDDDDDDDDD
I would have thought most people have so many bits and pieces in their bits boxes that making a Skulls, relics and scrolls marine would not be hard.
And those were ALways the exception rather than the rule anway .
BaconCatBug wrote:Also, did you miss the part where I said 40k used to embrace world-building and imagination rather than click together duplo toys? 40k is not meant to be easy-to-build Mary Sue Marines, but sadly that is what GW have turned it into in the drive for profit.
Sorry to disappoint you, but you know that ETB Space Marines (and in fact many factions, such as Cadians, Eldar, Tyranids, Ork and Chaos) have existed LONG before Primaris? I know, about a third of my Cadians are made up of those snap-together models.
Spoiler:
Huh. Would you look at that - aside from ONE MODEL with a purity seal, they have absolutely no parchment, no skulls, no chains, ropes or any kind of decoration!
Consistent arguments please!
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Come on, you've not explained how Mr Squat Marine with his clean, featureless armour isn't exactly as toyetic as the Primaris.
I'm not making any comment on if the Primaris are toyetic or not. I'm making comment that any design feature or complaint you can level at the Primaris, I can apply to the old marines too (save for one, proportion - and even then, the SM Heroes range takes steps to alleviate that too).
It's the Stewart Test.
"I know it if I see it"? So, completely subjective, and entirely useless at the level of debate I expected from you?
Try again.
jeff white wrote:Some posters focus on the models and from there the game as if the only evidence is in physical models.
If that wasn't the concern, why would you make comments about the models then? Don't bring something in to the argument if you're not going to defend it. Either the models ARE relevant, or they're not.
Anyways where do my dudes fit into this context? They see restartes for what they are. Heresy.
Your dudes seeing Primaris as heresy? You're welcome to it. But the whole "for what they are", like you can definitely prove that they are heresy objectively? You've been utterly unable to prove your argument beyond empty gestures to some perceived authority and superiority.
Vaktathi wrote:I think the issue may not be so much in the accessorizing.
The old marines look like something out of the Heavy Metal animated movie, they're much more animation and comic art given form.
Really? Look at the pictures I've been posting here - can you really tell me that the squatting Marines I've just posted have more animation and comic art than some of the Primaris art and sculpts? If that really is the case that you feel that way, fair enough, but I don't share that opinion at all.
The Primaris marines on the other hand, by dint of being more realistically scaled, have less of that fantastical edge (they're still very fantastical, don't get me wrong), and a lot of the game art has gone this route as well. With the shift in GW's art styling over the last few years, new generations of artists and significantly more (almost exclusively) computer assisted depictions, coupled with the scale change and more realistic stylings, it kinda gives everything a different flavor. Less proudly defiant striking metal-band poses, more "tacticool" poses.
Again, look at the oldMarines I've just posted, and been posting repeatedly - where are these "proudly defiant metal band poses"? On a select handful of models, sure, but not the whole range! And again, there's been plenty of similarly posed Primaris heroes!
I'm not saying Primaris are flawless. I'm saying that any sins the Primaris are guilty of (barring being better proportioned) the old Marines are too, and it feels like an argument in bad faith to ignore that.
We can use these earlier examples to illustrate it
The very bottom pic could basically be a thinly reskinned Call of Duty game cover
How? And, more importantly, why not this one too?
Spoiler:
Please, like I've asked plenty of other folks, how me a CoD cover and compare them side by side. They look nothing alike! And, at the same time, show how the other art I've just posted wouldn't also fit that.
and it's not really due to anything different about the marines equipment or decoration. The more realistic interpretation, as expressed in both the art and the models, definitely changes the flavor. There's often either significantly less color or a wash of one and fewer contrasts, and a darker tone in general. (I actually quite like that Space Wolves picture however)
But there's plenty of Firstborn Marine art that shares that same colour style and "realistic" art design. At the risk of repeating myself it's not exclusive to Primaris. If someone has a problem with, say, art design post 1990, SAY THAT, not "Primaris suck". If someone has a problem with Space Marines not being walking cathedrals, SAY THAT, instead of "Primaris suck". That way, we all get a better idea of where the problem lies, and know it's not just some irrational hatred of models that otherwise barely look any different from classic Astartes.
Using some of the previous examples, we can look at this same trend with videogames, Duke Nukem 3D and CoD
Spoiler:
I think a lot of us underestimate how much of the classic Space Marine look and feel was tied to that fundamental 80's/90's Blanchian aesthetic. Whether that is good or bad is going to be entirely subjective. I enjoy the larger scale of the Primaris marines in many ways, the models themselves are marvelous from a technical perspective, but at the same time, they really do feel less "40k" in some hard to explain way (and their hamfisted background is awful, but we'll ignore that for now).
I don't see anything of Blanche in those squat monopose blank armoured Space Marines. But they're still Space Marines, still recognisably so, and despite not looking like that classic artwork, I don't hear any kind of uproar about "NOT REAL MARINES". If I did hear that, I'd actually have a lot more sympathy and respect for the people who so vocally oppose Primaris, because they'd at least be consistent. So, when Brutus actually said that they didn't like blank Marines, Primaris or not, I finally understood their point better, because they were being consistent and not just pointing at Primaris alone and being blind to everything else. And so even though I may have disagreed with them on how blinged up a Space Marine should look, at least I know that they're being consistent. And, as for the examples, aside from the red background, I don't see any artistic similarity to Nukem on that first Space Marine, and aside from a similar pose, I don't see any similarity between the Primaris and CoD. Could you break the analysis down further on them, because I'm not seeing it.
the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, so if I want to make a primaris marine that looks like a classic marine all I have to do is
step 1 - buy a classic marine kit
step 2 - buy a primaris kit
it's really that easy! DDDDDDDDDDDDDD
If you like classic Marines, odds are you already had some. If you already had some, you almost certainly have spare bits. If you don't have spare bits, you almost certainly know someone else who does, given the popularity of Space Marines. If you don't even have that, Primaris Marine kits come with plenty of purity seals, alternative shoulder pads, shields, and hanging relics. And if that doesn't work for you, there's always bits sellers. But, more on the idea of "GW should make the kit contain everything I want to fulfil all my personal aesthetic desires perfectly!", does that mean that I should have loads of human heads and lasgun arms in a Tau Fire Warrior box, in case I want to make Gue'Vesa?
Only people invested in the hobby could tell the difference between old tactical marines and new primaris. Also what’s wrong with ETB models they’ve been around forever.
Also why are people so terrified of the aesthetic changing (except it hasn’t) 40k? The only major difference is putting scopes on weapons and giving them proportions that don’t make them look stumpy.
techsoldaten wrote:To those saying gothic armor was not part of the brand - sure, there's examples that don't incorporate it. There's also examples that do. It captured my imagination at an early age and it's still part of how I think about Space Marines.
Just because it's not part of every model doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The style seems to be absent from NuMarines and I feel like that's a loss.
By that same logic, all the plain armoured Marines, just because it's not part of every model, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't say "well not all Space Marines have gothic armour BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT STILL EXISTS", when the same argument can be used to support blank armour.
"By that same logic"
I see no logic to what you have said, just attempts to change the subject and make it look like you have some point by insulting everyone until they no longer care to talk to you.
Gothic armor has been part of the brand since the earliest days of 40k. This is not an argument, this is a fact.
Here are early examples many people recognize as gothic armor. I can pull hundreds more from various editions and tie them to specific models.
No one is arguing this is the only style of armor. You are making that up.
Everything else you said is garbage. Stop wasting everyone's time.
Templarted wrote: Only people invested in the hobby could tell the difference between old tactical marines and new primaris. Also what’s wrong with ETB models they’ve been around forever.
I would be super interested to do some kind of social experiment where people who've never seen 40k before and have no real idea of the setting/lore and see just how many of them actually notice major differences between the old marines and Primaris, and more importantly, if they can identify that the Primaris comes from 40k, instead of things like Halo or CoD.
Also why are people so terrified of the aesthetic changing (except it hasn’t) 40k? The only major difference is putting scopes on weapons and giving them proportions that don’t make them look stumpy.
Even the scopes have been around longer than Primaris! There were removable scopes on 5th edition Tacticals, and units like Sternguard Veterans have scoped bolters too!
I treat different marine models like armour marks. My squads have models that range from second edition to eighth mixed together - Warhammer is not a clean universe and given its scale and scope, Marines will almost certainly vary radically given the length and breadth of their combat and experiences. It makes the units way more fun to look at, and feels almost 'historical'.
Also feth spending £35 on ten models with less options than the previous, cheaper kit.
techsoldaten wrote:To those saying gothic armor was not part of the brand - sure, there's examples that don't incorporate it. There's also examples that do. It captured my imagination at an early age and it's still part of how I think about Space Marines.
Just because it's not part of every model doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The style seems to be absent from NuMarines and I feel like that's a loss.
By that same logic, all the plain armoured Marines, just because it's not part of every model, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't say "well not all Space Marines have gothic armour BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT STILL EXISTS", when the same argument can be used to support blank armour.
"By that same logic"
I see no logic to what you have said, just attempts to change the subject and make it look like you have some point by insulting everyone until they no longer care to talk to you.
Gothic armor has been part of the brand since the earliest days of 40k. This is not an argument, this is a fact.
Here are early examples many people recognize as gothic armor. I can pull hundreds more from various editions and tie them to specific models.
No one is arguing this is the only style of armor. You are making that up.
Everything else you said is garbage. Stop wasting everyone's time.
And yet the models from the same era are plain and unadorned except for the Tac-cool items some people donl tlike on the new models - i have dozens of them and only slightly later did we see the some (a few) models beginning to have the "gothic" style and these were almost with exception for characters or models like the Ordo Malleus /Grey Knights.
Almost all Loyal Marines have ALWAYS been quite plain unless you wanted to add stuff to them - exactly as Primaris are now - Chaos Marines are Chaos....as in all the ones in the images above
Mr Morden wrote: And yet the models from the same era are plain and unadorned except for the Tac-cool items some people donl tlike on the new models - i have dozens of them and only slightly later did we see the some (a few) models beginning to have the "gothic" style and these were almost with exception for characters or models like the Ordo Malleus /Grey Knights.
Almost all Loyal Marines have ALWAYS been quite plain unless you wanted to add stuff to them - exactly as Primaris are now - Chaos Marines are Chaos....as in all the ones in the images above
"And yet the models from the same era are plain and unadorned except for the Tac-cool items some people donl tlike on the new models" - no. This is not true.
You are overgeneralizing to pretend to have a point and clearly know very little about the Rogue Trader era. Look at the World Eaters from Realm of Chaos, look at the color pages from the original 40k book for examples of ample adornment.
"Almost all Loyal Marines have ALWAYS been quite plain" - no. This is not factual, the sentence barely makes any sense in that it could mean quite a few things.
It also directly contradicts your previous point. If all models are plain and unadorned, then almost all loyalist marines could not be plain. An either / or does not permit exception.
Stop pretending everyone else on this board is stupid.
By that same logic, all the plain armoured Marines, just because it's not part of every model, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't say "well not all Space Marines have gothic armour BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT STILL EXISTS", when the same argument can be used to support blank armour.
"By that same logic"
I see no logic to what you have said, just attempts to change the subject and make it look like you have some point by insulting everyone until they no longer care to talk to you.
Changing the subject? I've been consistently asking questions that no-one has answered, and instead move the goalposts. Don't accuse people of changing the topic when you won't answer questions I've consistently been putting in your court.
Gothic armor has been part of the brand since the earliest days of 40k. This is not an argument, this is a fact.
I'm not denying that. But tell me what's gothic about the ETB old Marines I've been posting. Flat, curved armour. No ornamentation. The same complaints levelled at Primaris Marines. Care to explain why?
All I'm asking for is a degree of consistency. Show me why flat, easy build, unadorned old Marines are widely accepted, but Primaris Marines, who have plenty of their own ornamentation and "gothic" art aren't.
Here are early examples many people recognize as gothic armor. I can pull hundreds more from various editions and tie them to specific models.
No one is arguing this is the only style of armor. You are making that up.
Disagree. Check my spoiler tag.
Spoiler:
Brutus_Apex wrote: I'm not going to be touching Primaris until they redo the entire GK line in Primaris and release some really over the top super gothic looking Marines with actual close combat weapons.
This "tacticool" marine look can go get fethed.
the_scotsman wrote: My point is that GW tossed out the "Medieval knight techno-barbarian" aesthetic that space marines had for a cringe-inducing COD modern warfare edgy teen tacticool look on a ton of the primaris stuff
Brutus_Apex wrote: The "tacticool" aesthetic is terrible and has no place in 40K.
godardc wrote: There are really people here thinking primaris don't have a more streamlined and generic sci-fi design than the marines ? Just because before we had one example of "modern" warfare marines (raptors / rg successors) isn't an excuse, it was an option left amongst hundreds of "medieval" chapters (like UM, BT, BA and most of the successor chapters who are definitely not generic sci-fi).
(Emphasis mine!)
jeff white wrote: the old aesthetic was dirty space crusade with patched ip armor and stretched supply lines or broken due the rift...
That's a lot of people saying that certain armours supposedly aren't valid. Gothic styled armour is but one of several. So, as much as you can link to art styles that support gothic, there's plenty of art styles that support plainer Marines and even Primaris styles.
Everything else you said is garbage. Stop wasting everyone's time.
Answer my questions first. Shouldn't be hard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
blood reaper wrote:I treat different marine models like armour marks. My squads have models that range from second edition to eighth mixed together - Warhammer is not a clean universe and given its scale and scope, Marines will almost certainly vary radically given the length and breadth of their combat and experiences. It makes the units way more fun to look at, and feels almost 'historical'.
Exactly. There's isn't a single definitive "true" Space Marine design, beyond chunky bolters and big curved pauldrons.
Also feth spending £35 on ten models with less options than the previous, cheaper kit.
Now THAT'S a take I can understand. Although, in all fairness, the Tactical Squad kit before the current one was also cheaper than the current one.
techsoldaten wrote:"And yet the models from the same era are plain and unadorned except for the Tac-cool items some people donl tlike on the new models" - no. This is not true.
You are overgeneralizing to pretend to have a point and clearly know very little about the Rogue Trader era. Look at the World Eaters from Realm of Chaos, look at the color pages from the original 40k book for examples of ample adornment.
All well and good, but there's been decades since RT. What about all those Tactical Marines I've been posting earlier in the thread who has no ornamentation?
It's almost like there's a great range of aesthetics, of which RT is one of several.
BrianDavion wrote: I feel it's worth noting GW by their own admission purposefully made Primaris fairly clean so we could add stuff on or not to taste. for every person who liked the highly skulled up purity seal covered marines we occasionally saw, there where people who hated it. it's a lot easier to give us the empty armor and let us decoate as we wish.
More profitable too as it means GW can hypotheticly if they see demand put out chapter upgrade packs, purity seal packs "SKULL ARMOR" upgrade packs etc.
Yeah, so if I want to make a primaris marine that looks like a classic marine all I have to do is
step 1 - buy a classic marine kit
step 2 - buy a primaris kit
it's really that easy! DDDDDDDDDDDDDD
I would have thought most people have so many bits and pieces in their bits boxes that making a Skulls, relics and scrolls marine would not be hard.
And those were ALways the exception rather than the rule anway .
Marines are and always have been a starter army. By your logic, female imperial guard armies are not needed because people should have plenty of female heads they can use from their bits box.
I find the primaris space marine kits to be a step backwards from a modeling perspective from the 5th ed. era analogous kits they're replacing. I'd rather build and paint a Tactical Squad than an Intercessor squad, an Assault Squad than an Inceptor Squad, or a Devastator Squad than a Hellblaster Squad. I'd rather my marines be varied than uniform, and honestly I'd rather they not be twice the height of the skitarii/inquisitors/guardsmen I'm going to be fielding alongside them. The fact that I could buy a bland primaris kit and a varied DW vets kit and make more interesting looking DW intercessors isn't super appealing to me - if Primaris obsolete standard marines I'll just use my standard marines as counts-as primaris. I've had counts-as armies for multiple editions anyway, when I played GSC and Harlequins in 5th and 6th, so that's not new territory for me anyway.
techsoldaten wrote:To those saying gothic armor was not part of the brand - sure, there's examples that don't incorporate it. There's also examples that do. It captured my imagination at an early age and it's still part of how I think about Space Marines.
Just because it's not part of every model doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The style seems to be absent from NuMarines and I feel like that's a loss.
By that same logic, all the plain armoured Marines, just because it's not part of every model, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't say "well not all Space Marines have gothic armour BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT STILL EXISTS", when the same argument can be used to support blank armour.
"By that same logic"
I see no logic to what you have said, just attempts to change the subject and make it look like you have some point by insulting everyone until they no longer care to talk to you.
Gothic armor has been part of the brand since the earliest days of 40k. This is not an argument, this is a fact.
Here are early examples many people recognize as gothic armor. I can pull hundreds more from various editions and tie them to specific models.
Spoiler:
No one is arguing this is the only style of armor. You are making that up.
Everything else you said is garbage. Stop wasting everyone's time.
I can do that too.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
I also added a photo of how complex and multi-pose space marines were. For everyone saying that monopose -ETB models are a new thing.
techsoldaten wrote:To those saying gothic armor was not part of the brand - sure, there's examples that don't incorporate it. There's also examples that do. It captured my imagination at an early age and it's still part of how I think about Space Marines.
Just because it's not part of every model doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The style seems to be absent from NuMarines and I feel like that's a loss.
By that same logic, all the plain armoured Marines, just because it's not part of every model, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't say "well not all Space Marines have gothic armour BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT STILL EXISTS", when the same argument can be used to support blank armour.
"By that same logic"
I see no logic to what you have said, just attempts to change the subject and make it look like you have some point by insulting everyone until they no longer care to talk to you.
Gothic armor has been part of the brand since the earliest days of 40k. This is not an argument, this is a fact.
Here are early examples many people recognize as gothic armor. I can pull hundreds more from various editions and tie them to specific models.
Spoiler:
No one is arguing this is the only style of armor. You are making that up.
Everything else you said is garbage. Stop wasting everyone's time.
I can do that too.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
I also added a photo of how complex and multi-pose space marines were. For everyone saying that monopose -ETB models are a new thing.
You've attached a picture of the assembly instructions for what, if I remember right, was the 2nd edition starter kit? From like 20+ years ago. VERY damning evidence that modern kits were non-poseable
It's not as if the primaris kit is more poseable than the classic marine kit. Honestly, it's probably more poseable. https://imgur.com/a/mMeWR
For every 5 primaris intercessors, it looks like you've got 6 two-hand carry boltguns, 5 one-hand carry boltguns, several arms holding pistols, pointing, reloading, etc., and the 10-man box has two of the same sprue.
To me, it's the fact that Primaris have gone from an imperial style special and heavy weapons and sergeant weapons option scheme to more of a necron-style "all the guys have the same gun" upgrade scheme, and that they all wear the same armor mark, have the same helmets, etc.
Space Marines have always had some models and ranges that looked basic and clean, some that looked modern and tactical, and some that looked gothic and grimdark.
The argument here is that OUT OF THE ACTUAL KITS GW HAS RELEASED FOR PRIMARIS, not kitbashes with older classic marine kits, not with custom-made greenstuff bits or 3rd party 3d printed stuff, you will have a very difficult time making gothic, barbaric or grimdark looking primaris space marines. They have released a couple of models that fit that look, I think the primaris chaplain was shown earlier and there are the two dudes that come with Calgar,
People who got into marines for that aesthetic are going to be annoyed at the removal of chainswords, storm shields, lightning claws, robes and tabards, power mauls, etc from the marine range.
BrianDavion wrote: I feel it's worth noting GW by their own admission purposefully made Primaris fairly clean so we could add stuff on or not to taste. for every person who liked the highly skulled up purity seal covered marines we occasionally saw, there where people who hated it. it's a lot easier to give us the empty armor and let us decoate as we wish.
More profitable too as it means GW can hypotheticly if they see demand put out chapter upgrade packs, purity seal packs "SKULL ARMOR" upgrade packs etc.
Yeah, so if I want to make a primaris marine that looks like a classic marine all I have to do is
step 1 - buy a classic marine kit
step 2 - buy a primaris kit
it's really that easy! DDDDDDDDDDDDDD
I would have thought most people have so many bits and pieces in their bits boxes that making a Skulls, relics and scrolls marine would not be hard.
And those were ALways the exception rather than the rule anway .
Marines are and always have been a starter army. By your logic, female imperial guard armies are not needed because people should have plenty of female heads they can use from their bits box.
I find the primaris space marine kits to be a step backwards from a modeling perspective from the 5th ed. era analogous kits they're replacing. I'd rather build and paint a Tactical Squad than an Intercessor squad, an Assault Squad than an Inceptor Squad, or a Devastator Squad than a Hellblaster Squad. I'd rather my marines be varied than uniform, and honestly I'd rather they not be twice the height of the skitarii/inquisitors/guardsmen I'm going to be fielding alongside them. The fact that I could buy a bland primaris kit and a varied DW vets kit and make more interesting looking DW intercessors isn't super appealing to me - if Primaris obsolete standard marines I'll just use my standard marines as counts-as primaris. I've had counts-as armies for multiple editions anyway, when I played GSC and Harlequins in 5th and 6th, so that's not new territory for me anyway.
No I am saying if you want to have your Marines look like they are loaded down with relics and purity seals you can do that but its not how most Marines are actually depicted or ever were.
So what female Imperial Guard can I buy now? I can get a Comissar but still waiting for any female elements in the Guard boxes.
Saying you don't like Primaris is fine, I hate Centurions.
Lets be polite here: Say they go against the design paradim for marines is misleading at the very best as has been proved numerous times trhougout this discussion.
BrianDavion wrote: I feel it's worth noting GW by their own admission purposefully made Primaris fairly clean so we could add stuff on or not to taste. for every person who liked the highly skulled up purity seal covered marines we occasionally saw, there where people who hated it. it's a lot easier to give us the empty armor and let us decoate as we wish.
More profitable too as it means GW can hypotheticly if they see demand put out chapter upgrade packs, purity seal packs "SKULL ARMOR" upgrade packs etc.
Yeah, so if I want to make a primaris marine that looks like a classic marine all I have to do is
step 1 - buy a classic marine kit
step 2 - buy a primaris kit
it's really that easy! DDDDDDDDDDDDDD
I would have thought most people have so many bits and pieces in their bits boxes that making a Skulls, relics and scrolls marine would not be hard.
And those were ALways the exception rather than the rule anway .
Marines are and always have been a starter army. By your logic, female imperial guard armies are not needed because people should have plenty of female heads they can use from their bits box.
I find the primaris space marine kits to be a step backwards from a modeling perspective from the 5th ed. era analogous kits they're replacing. I'd rather build and paint a Tactical Squad than an Intercessor squad, an Assault Squad than an Inceptor Squad, or a Devastator Squad than a Hellblaster Squad. I'd rather my marines be varied than uniform, and honestly I'd rather they not be twice the height of the skitarii/inquisitors/guardsmen I'm going to be fielding alongside them. The fact that I could buy a bland primaris kit and a varied DW vets kit and make more interesting looking DW intercessors isn't super appealing to me - if Primaris obsolete standard marines I'll just use my standard marines as counts-as primaris. I've had counts-as armies for multiple editions anyway, when I played GSC and Harlequins in 5th and 6th, so that's not new territory for me anyway.
No I am saying if you want to have your Marines look like they are loaded down with relics and purity seals you can do that but its not how most Marines are actually depicted or ever were.
So what female Imperial Guard can I buy now? I can get a Comissar but still waiting for any female elements in the Guard boxes.
Saying you don't like Primaris is fine, I hate Centurions.
Lets be polite here: Say they go against the design paradim for marines is misleading at the very best as has been proved numerous times trhougout this discussion.
If you want me to concede a point for an argument I never made, then sure - there is design precedent SOMEWHERE in the collossal pre-existing model range for space marines for almost everything they've done with primaris. All the head visors, goggles, camo-gear, tacticool scopes and whatnot that they used for what is now over 1/2 of the full primaris range had precedent in, say, the Scout Sniper kit.
My overall point has never been that. My overall point has been that the ornamented design elements from kits like Vanguard Veterans and Sternguard kits or the gothic technobarbarian elements from kits like Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Assault Terminators appear to be totally absent in the primaris range, and your counterpoint to that appears from my perspective to be "Well you can just buy those older kits and kitbash primaris with those, so it's all fine and you're not missing anything."
That doesn't put those elements in to the Primaris range, that just points out that customization through kitbashing is possible. Just because you can buy a box of Eschers or GSC bikers or sisters of battle and put their heads on guardsmen does not mean female guardsmen exist in the current guard range.
"I can get a Comissar but still waiting for any female elements in the Guard boxes."
I can get a Chaplain but I'm still waiting for any gothic elements in the Primaris boxes.
the_scotsman wrote:Marines are and always have been a starter army. By your logic, female imperial guard armies are not needed because people should have plenty of female heads they can use from their bits box.
There's a very big difference between the sheer numbers of spare scrolls, seals and trinkets from a Space Marine kit and spare female heads. In fact, can you actually name a kit with *spare* female heads? Sisters of Battle, perhaps, but they don't easily fit guardsman bodies. And, unlike just getting Space Marine bits from other Space Marine boxes, Sisters are a totally different faction to Guardsmen.
the_scotsman wrote:You've attached a picture of the assembly instructions for what, if I remember right, was the 2nd edition starter kit? From like 20+ years ago. VERY damning evidence that modern kits were non-poseable
Then what about the snapfit Space Marines that, up until recently, were still available all through 7th? They were literally three pieces, IIRC - the body, the backpack, and the gun. The ones I posted earlier?
Easy building kits has been around long before Primaris, and long after 2nd edition.
To me, it's the fact that Primaris have gone from an imperial style special and heavy weapons and sergeant weapons option scheme to more of a necron-style "all the guys have the same gun" upgrade scheme, and that they all wear the same armor mark, have the same helmets, etc.
They have shoulder pad differences, just like the Tacticals. The basic Tactical Squad kit only has a beaky head or two, alongside the vast amount of Mark VII helms, with no trace of older Marks. And sure, you have some chest variation and legs (only really Marks IV and VI though, nothing older than Mark IV), but that's also a relatively new addition. In the Tactical Squad kits I remember prior to this current one, there wasn't even Mark IV parts, only a majority of VII and a single Mark VI here and there. The vast majority of Tactical Squad bits have been Mark VII, so it's not like squads were this super varied mix. More than Primaris? Yes, but not THAT much.
Also, what about Legion Marines? They had mono-gun loadouts - were they not Space Marines?
Space Marines have always had some models and ranges that looked basic and clean, some that looked modern and tactical, and some that looked gothic and grimdark.
Absolutely, and anyone saying that any of those aesthetics was wrong (looking at everyone who's complained about basic and tacticool "not being Space Marine-y) just isn't correct.
The argument here is that OUT OF THE ACTUAL KITS GW HAS RELEASED FOR PRIMARIS, not kitbashes with older classic marine kits, not with custom-made greenstuff bits or 3rd party 3d printed stuff, you will have a very difficult time making gothic, barbaric or grimdark looking primaris space marines.
Perhaps. But at the same time, in previous kits, Marines have also been very bare. Look at the 2nd ed stuff: and the Tactical I remember from around I started weren't particularly gothic, barbaric or grimdark either. It's almost like GW has never really matched the aesthetic of many of their art styles, and have nearly always settled on a more basic, stripped back look for their core Marines.
If your complaint extends to those models too, to those snapfits and bland looking Tacticals I've mentioned above, then I appreciate the consistency and willingness to complain about the old Marines too. This isn't a Primaris exclusive problem.
They have released a couple of models that fit that look, I think the primaris chaplain was shown earlier and there are the two dudes that come with Calgar,
People who got into marines for that aesthetic are going to be annoyed at the removal of chainswords, storm shields, lightning claws, robes and tabards, power mauls, etc from the marine range.
Primaris have chainswords, which can be bought from upgrade packs. And again, most of those features weren't present on tactical squad kits, or assault squads or similar, for that matter. If you wanted your Tacticals with robes and tabards, you needed to go elsewhere beyond the main box. If you wanted lightning claws, power mauls and storm shields, you needed dedicated kits for it, because, as many people have said, the core Space Marine units have historically been very bland. And while I do recognise that those weapons don't show up on Primaris units (at least, in any regularity), saying that they were readily available on old ones is a misrepresentation.
Mr Morden wrote:Lets be polite here: Say they go against the design paradim for marines is misleading at the very best as has been proved numerous times trhougout this discussion.
Maybe my disappointment with the Primaris stems from expecting them to release a box of purely MkVI Beakies, like they released MkIII and MkIV. In part it's probably my fault: businesses typically measure demand in part by what people actually buy, and I sure didn't buy any of FW's MkVI squads.
the_scotsman wrote:My overall point has never been that. My overall point has been that the ornamented design elements from kits like Vanguard Veterans and Sternguard kits or the gothic technobarbarian elements from kits like Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Assault Terminators appear to be totally absent in the primaris range, and your counterpoint to that appears from my perspective to be "Well you can just buy those older kits and kitbash primaris with those, so it's all fine and you're not missing anything."
So, you're complaining that features from explicitly elite, non-standard, and notably ornamented units aren't present on the core units of the Primaris?
Why WOULD Primaris look as detailed as those elite, first company units? Tacticals don't. Assault Marines don't. Devastators don't. Now, if GW released a proper "Veteran Intercessors" box or "Elitenassors" or whatever veteran Primaris unit, and didn't make them ornate, I'd see your point. But Intercessors are basic troops! Why are you comparing them to the standard of Veterans?
Do you also complain about the Tacticals not looking like the ornamented designs of the Sternguard?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote: Maybe my disappointment with the Primaris stems from expecting them to release a box of purely MkVI Beakies, like they released MkIII and MkIV.
I'd love to see all the 30k squads get plastic releases (well, maybe except Mark V, which I don't really count as a proper armour variant). Mark II and VI deserve it.
the_scotsman wrote:My overall point has never been that. My overall point has been that the ornamented design elements from kits like Vanguard Veterans and Sternguard kits or the gothic technobarbarian elements from kits like Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Assault Terminators appear to be totally absent in the primaris range, and your counterpoint to that appears from my perspective to be "Well you can just buy those older kits and kitbash primaris with those, so it's all fine and you're not missing anything."
So, you're complaining that features from explicitly elite, non-standard, and notably ornamented units aren't present on the core units of the Primaris?
Why WOULD Primaris look as detailed as those elite, first company units? Tacticals don't. Assault Marines don't. Devastators don't. Now, if GW released a proper "Veteran Intercessors" box or "Elitenassors" or whatever veteran Primaris unit, and didn't make them ornate, I'd see your point. But Intercessors are basic troops! Why are you comparing them to the standard of Veterans?
Do you also complain about the Tacticals not looking like the ornamented designs of the Sternguard?
I mean, primarily I complain that they don't fit the aesthetics or gameplay of my Deathwatch, which is the marine army that I play. They're pretty heavily individualized, include some sternguard bits because they share wargear options with that kit, and they come with Storm Shields in the vets box.
This is the same baffling argument that came up when people complained that, for example, the incursors that came in the new space wolf box set didn't match at all with the aesthetics of the Space Wolf army people had built out of the 5th/7th ed era space wolf kits while Ragnar did. And people responded to that with either "Well I don't like the aesthetics of that space wolf army you built out of the existing space wolf kits" or "yes they do, they're in the space wolf codex therefore they are space wolfs and they MUST match aesthetically!"
BrianDavion wrote: I feel it's worth noting GW by their own admission purposefully made Primaris fairly clean so we could add stuff on or not to taste. for every person who liked the highly skulled up purity seal covered marines we occasionally saw, there where people who hated it. it's a lot easier to give us the empty armor and let us decoate as we wish.
More profitable too as it means GW can hypotheticly if they see demand put out chapter upgrade packs, purity seal packs "SKULL ARMOR" upgrade packs etc.
Yeah, so if I want to make a primaris marine that looks like a classic marine all I have to do is
step 1 - buy a classic marine kit
step 2 - buy a primaris kit
it's really that easy! DDDDDDDDDDDDDD
I would have thought most people have so many bits and pieces in their bits boxes that making a Skulls, relics and scrolls marine would not be hard.
And those were ALways the exception rather than the rule anway .
Marines are and always have been a starter army. By your logic, female imperial guard armies are not needed because people should have plenty of female heads they can use from their bits box.
I find the primaris space marine kits to be a step backwards from a modeling perspective from the 5th ed. era analogous kits they're replacing. I'd rather build and paint a Tactical Squad than an Intercessor squad, an Assault Squad than an Inceptor Squad, or a Devastator Squad than a Hellblaster Squad. I'd rather my marines be varied than uniform, and honestly I'd rather they not be twice the height of the skitarii/inquisitors/guardsmen I'm going to be fielding alongside them. The fact that I could buy a bland primaris kit and a varied DW vets kit and make more interesting looking DW intercessors isn't super appealing to me - if Primaris obsolete standard marines I'll just use my standard marines as counts-as primaris. I've had counts-as armies for multiple editions anyway, when I played GSC and Harlequins in 5th and 6th, so that's not new territory for me anyway.
No I am saying if you want to have your Marines look like they are loaded down with relics and purity seals you can do that but its not how most Marines are actually depicted or ever were.
So what female Imperial Guard can I buy now? I can get a Comissar but still waiting for any female elements in the Guard boxes.
Saying you don't like Primaris is fine, I hate Centurions.
Lets be polite here: Say they go against the design paradim for marines is misleading at the very best as has been proved numerous times trhougout this discussion.
If you want me to concede a point for an argument I never made, then sure - there is design precedent SOMEWHERE in the collossal pre-existing model range for space marines for almost everything they've done with primaris. All the head visors, goggles, camo-gear, tacticool scopes and whatnot that they used for what is now over 1/2 of the full primaris range had precedent in, say, the Scout Sniper kit.
My overall point has never been that. My overall point has been that the ornamented design elements from kits like Vanguard Veterans and Sternguard kits or the gothic technobarbarian elements from kits like Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Assault Terminators appear to be totally absent in the primaris range, and your counterpoint to that appears from my perspective to be "Well you can just buy those older kits and kitbash primaris with those, so it's all fine and you're not missing anything."
That doesn't put those elements in to the Primaris range, that just points out that customization through kitbashing is possible. Just because you can buy a box of Eschers or GSC bikers or sisters of battle and put their heads on guardsmen does not mean female guardsmen exist in the current guard range.
"I can get a Comissar but still waiting for any female elements in the Guard boxes."
I can get a Chaplain but I'm still waiting for any gothic elements in the Primaris boxes.
So moving the goalposts we are now only comparing Primaris to Sterngaurd or speclaist marine units from specific Chapters?
No lets compare like with like - Tac Marines/Devestator/Assault and Primaris (as they do in the codex) - so whats the difference in the basic models? How many Tac marines are super gothic without those same upgrades, bits or similar?
Yeah thats right.
There are no female guard bodies, arms or anything else.
There is a vast blaoted range of marines going back decades and anyone who actually collects marines has a vast bits box.
BrianDavion wrote: I feel it's worth noting GW by their own admission purposefully made Primaris fairly clean so we could add stuff on or not to taste. for every person who liked the highly skulled up purity seal covered marines we occasionally saw, there where people who hated it. it's a lot easier to give us the empty armor and let us decoate as we wish.
More profitable too as it means GW can hypotheticly if they see demand put out chapter upgrade packs, purity seal packs "SKULL ARMOR" upgrade packs etc.
Yeah, so if I want to make a primaris marine that looks like a classic marine all I have to do is
step 1 - buy a classic marine kit
step 2 - buy a primaris kit
it's really that easy! DDDDDDDDDDDDDD
I would have thought most people have so many bits and pieces in their bits boxes that making a Skulls, relics and scrolls marine would not be hard.
And those were ALways the exception rather than the rule anway .
Marines are and always have been a starter army. By your logic, female imperial guard armies are not needed because people should have plenty of female heads they can use from their bits box.
I find the primaris space marine kits to be a step backwards from a modeling perspective from the 5th ed. era analogous kits they're replacing. I'd rather build and paint a Tactical Squad than an Intercessor squad, an Assault Squad than an Inceptor Squad, or a Devastator Squad than a Hellblaster Squad. I'd rather my marines be varied than uniform, and honestly I'd rather they not be twice the height of the skitarii/inquisitors/guardsmen I'm going to be fielding alongside them. The fact that I could buy a bland primaris kit and a varied DW vets kit and make more interesting looking DW intercessors isn't super appealing to me - if Primaris obsolete standard marines I'll just use my standard marines as counts-as primaris. I've had counts-as armies for multiple editions anyway, when I played GSC and Harlequins in 5th and 6th, so that's not new territory for me anyway.
No I am saying if you want to have your Marines look like they are loaded down with relics and purity seals you can do that but its not how most Marines are actually depicted or ever were.
So what female Imperial Guard can I buy now? I can get a Comissar but still waiting for any female elements in the Guard boxes.
Saying you don't like Primaris is fine, I hate Centurions.
Lets be polite here: Say they go against the design paradim for marines is misleading at the very best as has been proved numerous times trhougout this discussion.
If you want me to concede a point for an argument I never made, then sure - there is design precedent SOMEWHERE in the collossal pre-existing model range for space marines for almost everything they've done with primaris. All the head visors, goggles, camo-gear, tacticool scopes and whatnot that they used for what is now over 1/2 of the full primaris range had precedent in, say, the Scout Sniper kit.
My overall point has never been that. My overall point has been that the ornamented design elements from kits like Vanguard Veterans and Sternguard kits or the gothic technobarbarian elements from kits like Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Assault Terminators appear to be totally absent in the primaris range, and your counterpoint to that appears from my perspective to be "Well you can just buy those older kits and kitbash primaris with those, so it's all fine and you're not missing anything."
That doesn't put those elements in to the Primaris range, that just points out that customization through kitbashing is possible. Just because you can buy a box of Eschers or GSC bikers or sisters of battle and put their heads on guardsmen does not mean female guardsmen exist in the current guard range.
"I can get a Comissar but still waiting for any female elements in the Guard boxes."
I can get a Chaplain but I'm still waiting for any gothic elements in the Primaris boxes.
So moving the goalposts we are now only comparing Primaris to Sterngaurd or speclaist marine units from specific Chapters?
No lets compare like with like - Tac Marines/Devestator/Assault and Primaris (as they do in the codex) - so whats the difference in the basic models? How many Tac marines are super gothic without those same upgrades, bits or similar?
Yeah thats right.
There are no female guard bodies, arms or anything else.
There is a vast blaoted range of marines going back decades and anyone who actually collects marines has a vast bits box.
Step 1: Assign other person an argument they did not make
Step 2: Accuse other person of "moving the goalposts" from the argument you've assigned to them.
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit/List Off Other List of Logical Fallacies(tm)
I didn't have a vast bits box of space marines when I started collecting space marines...because I hadn't...collected space marines before that. You'd think that would be kind of obvious? I had the spare bits from the space wolves box we used to make my wife's disney princess marines, the leftover bits from my Thousand Sons, and anything I could make marine-compatible from my Necromunda or Guard models. That and the Vets kit and Sternguard kit were what I made my deathwatch out of.
Also, are you, person who has the big "I AM A MARINE PLAYER" thing in their signature, really actually going to accuse me of not "actually collecting space marines"? Am I not a True Fan? And for that matter, is nobody that starts the hobby now, with zero bits box? That's some adorable stuff right there.
Besides that, you have violated the quid pro quo, ipso facto, reductio ad delusiam, and astra militarum fallacies, so I win automatically.
fething balls I hate arguing with internet people.
the_scotsman wrote:I mean, primarily I complain that they don't fit the aesthetics or gameplay of my Deathwatch, which is the marine army that I play. They're pretty heavily individualized, include some sternguard bits because they share wargear options with that kit, and they come with Storm Shields in the vets box.
So, you needed to take bits from another kit to make them work (Sternguard).
Secondly, looking at the sprue from my own DW box of Veterans, they're not exactly that ornate either. Not even any Mark VI helmets in there! No studded shoulder pads, no loincloths, no different armour marks. In fact, their armour looks remarkably clean, and, actually looking at all the pouches and wrist gubbinz, almost look quite tacticool!
The Sternguard and Deathwatch don't really have the same design philosophy, and realistically, the Deathwatch Veterans kit looks closer to the Intercessors one! The only real distinction (aside from the armour being different marks) is that the DW kit is packed full of special weapons, and the Intercessor kit is full of bolt rifles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: That and the Vets kit and Sternguard kit were what I made my deathwatch out of.
So, why are you complaining that Primaris players would need to buy other kits to get the desired aesthetic when you've had to do the same with classic Marines?
Step 1: Assign other person an argument they did not make
Step 2: Accuse other person of "moving the goalposts" from the argument you've assigned to them.
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit/List Off Other List of Logical Fallacies(tm)
I didn't have a vast bits box of space marines when I started collecting space marines...because I hadn't...collected space marines before that. You'd think that would be kind of obvious? I had the spare bits from the space wolves box we used to make my wife's disney princess marines, the leftover bits from my Thousand Sons, and anything I could make marine-compatible from my Necromunda or Guard models. That and the Vets kit and Sternguard kit were what I made my deathwatch out of.
Also, are you, person who has the big "I AM A MARINE PLAYER" thing in their signature, really actually going to accuse me of not "actually collecting space marines"? Am I not a True Fan? And for that matter, is nobody that starts the hobby now, with zero bits box? That's some adorable stuff right there.
Besides that, you have violated the quid pro quo, ipso facto, reductio ad delusiam, and astra militarum fallacies, so I win automatically.
fething balls I hate arguing with internet people.
Yes I play Marines and as you shoud know as I have said it enough times I put that so fething idiots on the internet do not whine that I hate Marines - so it obvious I have hundreds of them and that tiresome argument can not be trotted out - even though it is.
So how long have you been collection Marines then? Have you got a bits box or not? Its not a hard question.
So what did you do with your basic Tac and other marines - just stare at them until they magically grew gothicness and scrolls and skulls - how did you cope then? NO you as you said took them from other stuff and added it.
But apparently thats too hard or someting with Primaris..... Sheesh kids today.
the_scotsman wrote:I mean, primarily I complain that they don't fit the aesthetics or gameplay of my Deathwatch, which is the marine army that I play. They're pretty heavily individualized, include some sternguard bits because they share wargear options with that kit, and they come with Storm Shields in the vets box.
So, you needed to take bits from another kit to make them work (Sternguard).
Secondly, looking at the sprue from my own DW box of Veterans, they're not exactly that ornate either. Not even any Mark VI helmets in there! No studded shoulder pads, no loincloths, no different armour marks. In fact, their armour looks remarkably clean, and, actually looking at all the pouches and wrist gubbinz, almost look quite tacticool!
The Sternguard and Deathwatch don't really have the same design philosophy, and realistically, the Deathwatch Veterans kit looks closer to the Intercessors one! The only real distinction (aside from the armour being different marks) is that the DW kit is packed full of special weapons, and the Intercessor kit is full of bolt rifles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: That and the Vets kit and Sternguard kit were what I made my deathwatch out of.
So, why are you complaining that Primaris players would need to buy other kits to get the desired aesthetic when you've had to do the same with classic Marines?
Because the primary reason I added the sternguard kit was actually to get storm bolters and storm shields, lol. That's a separate problem with GW not being terribly good at balancing their game.
Look dawg, I know you and morden are after a sweet internet dunk "Checkmate Atheists" "Illogal SJW DESTOYED WITH FACTS AND REASON" moment, but this is a subjective opinion and I have never presented it as anything but a subjective opinion.
If I got interested in space marines as a mobile lightning strike type force with units equipped with special weapons, I can't do that with primaris (especially if I liked Drop Pods, lol). Primaris marines are pretty much a static gunline army.
If I got interested in space marines for a gothic aesthetic, and I dislike a COD Modern Warfare tactical aesthetic, I'll need to custom-build my primaris with third party bits or bits from another kit.
If I got interested in space marines because I like making each model a unique individual, I can't do that with Primaris marines.
If I got interested in space marines as a mixed melee/shooting force with some dedicated shooting and some dedicated melee units, I can't do that with primaris marines.
Step 1: Assign other person an argument they did not make
Step 2: Accuse other person of "moving the goalposts" from the argument you've assigned to them.
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit/List Off Other List of Logical Fallacies(tm)
I didn't have a vast bits box of space marines when I started collecting space marines...because I hadn't...collected space marines before that. You'd think that would be kind of obvious? I had the spare bits from the space wolves box we used to make my wife's disney princess marines, the leftover bits from my Thousand Sons, and anything I could make marine-compatible from my Necromunda or Guard models. That and the Vets kit and Sternguard kit were what I made my deathwatch out of.
Also, are you, person who has the big "I AM A MARINE PLAYER" thing in their signature, really actually going to accuse me of not "actually collecting space marines"? Am I not a True Fan? And for that matter, is nobody that starts the hobby now, with zero bits box? That's some adorable stuff right there.
Besides that, you have violated the quid pro quo, ipso facto, reductio ad delusiam, and astra militarum fallacies, so I win automatically.
fething balls I hate arguing with internet people.
Yes I play Marines and as you shoud know as I have said it enough times I put that so fething idiots on the internet do not whine that I hate Marines - so it obvious I have hundreds of them and that tiresome argument can not be trotted out - even though it is.
So how long have you been collection Marines then? Have you got a bits box or not? Its not a hard question.
So what did you do with your basic Tac and other marines - just stare at them until they magically grew gothicness and scrolls and skulls - how did you cope then? NO you as you said took them from other stuff and added it.
But apparently thats too hard or someting with Primaris..... Sheesh kids today.
It was real cool, they came out late 7th edition and are one of the newest plastic armies that I own, and a couple years later a bunch of coolkids are calling them "Old marines" and wondering when I'm going to get around to getting them "up to date".
Yeah Deathwatch are the new/OG Tacticool. One of the reasons I didn't collect them was all the pouches, cool guy individual weapons, and the weird random letter shoulder pad.
I think Deathwatch will get a conversion kit to Primaris just like the Space Wolves. Just a matter of time.
You don't/didn;t want a Marine army you wanted a Deathwatch Army - a subspecies if you will and given that they are all storied veterans they are likely to have armour to match.
Ok so the Primaris don't currently provide many of the appropriate models for that sort iof army - just like in the olden days if you wanted to make DW or similar (or most Chapters) you had to add stuff to Tac Marines and the like. Now there is a whole massive range of them which is super cool.
However as I think you know the Primaris range is not designed for that its designed as a basic building block of a generic marine army as the old Tac, Dev and Assault marines were and are.
Sure the basic Primaris are not going to provide you with the highly ornate Marines you want but neither would the old Tacs, Devs and Assaults - which is why you didnlt buy them presumably and wnet for the ones that had been made especially for DW - same as there is now a huge range of add ons for both Pre-Primaris and Prmaris.
Compare the options you have with any other faction......any upgrade packs at all for any of them?
the_scotsman wrote:Because the primary reason I added the sternguard kit was actually to get storm bolters and storm shields, lol. That's a separate problem with GW not being terribly good at balancing their game.
The Sternguard kit has no storm shields.
Look dawg, I know you and morden are after a sweet internet dunk "Checkmate Atheists" "Illogal SJW DESTOYED WITH FACTS AND REASON" moment, but this is a subjective opinion and I have never presented it as anything but a subjective opinion.
That's fair, but don't criticise the Primaris for "needing other kits to have gothic bits" when the regular kits don't even have it. Consistency.
If I got interested in space marines as a mobile lightning strike type force with units equipped with special weapons, I can't do that with primaris (especially if I liked Drop Pods, lol). Primaris marines are pretty much a static gunline army.
So, just to confirm (for the sake of consistency) do you think that non-mobile Space Marines and 30k Astartes are not Space Marines? Or, do you acknowledge that they're Space Marines, but just not the kind you like?
If I got interested in space marines for a gothic aesthetic, and I dislike a COD Modern Warfare tactical aesthetic, I'll need to custom-build my primaris with third party bits or bits from another kit.
Yes, and you'd have to do the same for your Tacticals as well, who also lack a lot of "gothic aesthetic". (Also, in what way are Intercessors "CoD Modern Warfare tactical aesthetic? They look nothing like CoD, save for having a longer bolter?)
If I got interested in space marines because I like making each model a unique individual, I can't do that with Primaris marines.
Tactical Marines are only slightly more varied (as in, they get one more type of helmet, and maybe one different chestplate or legs).
If I got interested in space marines as a mixed melee/shooting force with some dedicated shooting and some dedicated melee units, I can't do that with primaris marines.
So, if/when Primaris do get a dedicated melee unit, you won't have problems with them?
Much as I love those sculpts (and I do, I own them!), they have plenty of "tacticool" gubbinz on them, and aren't exactly covered in robes and tabards. The Black Shield in the back there is the exception, not the norm.
And, again, all the complaints you have with Primaris needing to buy Sternguard to be more ornate, Tactical Marines have the same. Aesthetic is not an exclusively Primaris problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: Sure the basic Primaris are not going to provide you with the highly ornate Marines you want but neither would the old Tacs, Devs and Assaults - which is why you didnlt buy them presumably and wnet for the ones that had been made especially for DW - same as there is now a huge range of add ons for both Pre-Primaris and Prmaris.
Exactly. It wasn't ONLY Primaris who have less ornate sculpts.
By that same logic, all the plain armoured Marines, just because it's not part of every model, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't say "well not all Space Marines have gothic armour BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT STILL EXISTS", when the same argument can be used to support blank armour.
"By that same logic"
I see no logic to what you have said, just attempts to change the subject and make it look like you have some point by insulting everyone until they no longer care to talk to you.
Changing the subject? I've been consistently asking questions that no-one has answered, and instead move the goalposts. Don't accuse people of changing the topic when you won't answer questions I've consistently been putting in your court.
You haven't been putting any balls in any courts, you've been taking a series of absurd positions that are increasingly specific to the point of having nothing to do with the original topic.
Gothic armor has been part of the brand since the earliest days of 40k. This is not an argument, this is a fact.
I'm not denying that. But tell me what's gothic about the ETB old Marines I've been posting.
Flat, curved armour. No ornamentation. The same complaints levelled at Primaris Marines. Care to explain why?
Sure. More than one style of armor existed, more than one illustrator's vision of what it looks like was used by GW. One does not exclude the other.
Everyone has said that. You are the one saying the fact there are variants means classic gothic armor has never been part of the aestheic, that it refers to lots of different things, and a bunch of other garbage.
It's incredibly simple for most people to grasp. You're deliberately not getting the point.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: All I'm asking for is a degree of consistency. Show me why flat, easy build, unadorned old Marines are widely accepted, but Primaris Marines, who have plenty of their own ornamentation and "gothic" art aren't.
No thank you, and don't tell me what to do.
Some people do not like Primaris. It's a matter of taste and it seems that's what all your questions are getting at. You don't like that some people don't like the way Primaris look and you're trying to make a case why that's stupid.
Primaris look terrible in comparison with older editions. Screw them and the stupid stuff GW is doing with the rules to accommodate them. They are ruining the game and the aesthetic, at my FLGS no one plays against PEQ and their OP lists, we make them play each other in a corner and keep them out of tournaments.
By that same logic, all the plain armoured Marines, just because it's not part of every model, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't say "well not all Space Marines have gothic armour BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT STILL EXISTS", when the same argument can be used to support blank armour.
"By that same logic"
I see no logic to what you have said, just attempts to change the subject and make it look like you have some point by insulting everyone until they no longer care to talk to you.
Changing the subject? I've been consistently asking questions that no-one has answered, and instead move the goalposts. Don't accuse people of changing the topic when you won't answer questions I've consistently been putting in your court.
You haven't been putting any balls in any courts, you've been taking a series of absurd positions that are increasingly specific to the point of having nothing to do with the original topic.
Gothic armor has been part of the brand since the earliest days of 40k. This is not an argument, this is a fact.
I'm not denying that. But tell me what's gothic about the ETB old Marines I've been posting.
Flat, curved armour. No ornamentation. The same complaints levelled at Primaris Marines. Care to explain why?
Sure. More than one style of armor existed, more than one illustrator's vision of what it looks like was used by GW. One does not exclude the other.
Everyone has said that. You are the one saying the fact there are variants means classic gothic armor has never been part of the aestheic, that it refers to lots of different things, and a bunch of other garbage.
It's incredibly simple for most people to grasp. You're deliberately not getting the point.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: All I'm asking for is a degree of consistency. Show me why flat, easy build, unadorned old Marines are widely accepted, but Primaris Marines, who have plenty of their own ornamentation and "gothic" art aren't.
No thank you, and don't tell me what to do.
Some people do not like Primaris. It's a matter of taste and it seems that's what all your questions are getting at. You don't like that some people don't like the way Primaris look and you're trying to make a case why that's stupid.
Primaris look terrible in comparison with older editions. Screw them and the stupid stuff GW is doing with the rules to accommodate them. They are ruining the game and the aesthetic, at my FLGS no one plays against PEQ and their OP lists, we make them play each other in a corner and keep them out of tournaments.
You don't/didn;t want a Marine army you wanted a Deathwatch Army - a subspecies if you will and given that they are all storied veterans they are likely to have armour to match.
Ok so the Primaris don't currently provide many of the appropriate models for that sort iof army - just like in the olden days if you wanted to make DW or similar (or most Chapters) you had to add stuff to Tac Marines and the like. Now there is a whole massive range of them which is super cool.
However as I think you know the Primaris range is not designed for that its designed as a basic building block of a generic marine army as the old Tac, Dev and Assault marines were and are.
Sure the basic Primaris are not going to provide you with the highly ornate Marines you want but neither would the old Tacs, Devs and Assaults - which is why you didnlt buy them presumably and wnet for the ones that had been made especially for DW - same as there is now a huge range of add ons for both Pre-Primaris and Prmaris.
Compare the options you have with any other faction......any upgrade packs at all for any of them?
Well, not exactly. Deathwatch don't have a huge range, they have one character, one troop kit, and one flyer. Beyond that, they use the regular marine stuff, like the Vanguard Veterans I got for them, which fit pretty well with the deathwatch vets. I also got a box of regular assault marines which with their chainswords and eviscerator matched perfectly well.
I didn't get devs because deathwatch don't have devs. Same reason I didn't buy tacs.
What they do have, however, is the ability to take Intercessors, Inceptors, Aggressors and Hellblasters. Those exist in the deathwatch rules. They work about as well as one of those "Mom can we have X?" "We have X at home!" meme formats as an actual deathwatch kill team, but they do exist and I could take them if I wanted.
Of course I know the primaris range isn't built for that. That's literally what I've been saying the entire time while you've accused me of moving the goalposts. I will not be replacing my marine army with primaris because primaris do not come anywhere close to replicating the style of play and aesthetic I wanted when I started space marines. That is a legitimate complaint with primaris - they replicate one particular aesthetic and playstyle very well, several others very badly if at all.
Some people, folks who liked their marines to be a big gunline in the 30k style or the imperial fists/ultramarines style, will very easily and happily pick up primaris.
Others, like anyone who had a drop pod army, or a melee-heavy army, or a first company/deathwatch style elite army, or a biker-heavy/mobile army, or a mechanized Rhino/Razorback army...they're going to have a much more difficult time making that work with Primaris. There's no secret ILLOGICAL SWJ EXPOSE double-standard going on. People who enjoyed a large variety of playstyles are now presented with a much more contracted playstyle and some people have to adapt their army far more than others to fit that.
"I didn't personally like that option you chose" is not a legitimate counter to "this option I chose is no longer available in the new range."
the_scotsman wrote:Because the primary reason I added the sternguard kit was actually to get storm bolters and storm shields, lol. That's a separate problem with GW not being terribly good at balancing their game.
The Sternguard kit has no storm shields.
Look dawg, I know you and morden are after a sweet internet dunk "Checkmate Atheists" "Illogal SJW DESTOYED WITH FACTS AND REASON" moment, but this is a subjective opinion and I have never presented it as anything but a subjective opinion.
That's fair, but don't criticise the Primaris for "needing other kits to have gothic bits" when the regular kits don't even have it.
Consistency.
If I got interested in space marines as a mobile lightning strike type force with units equipped with special weapons, I can't do that with primaris (especially if I liked Drop Pods, lol). Primaris marines are pretty much a static gunline army.
So, just to confirm (for the sake of consistency) do you think that non-mobile Space Marines and 30k Astartes are not Space Marines? Or, do you acknowledge that they're Space Marines, but just not the kind you like?
If I got interested in space marines for a gothic aesthetic, and I dislike a COD Modern Warfare tactical aesthetic, I'll need to custom-build my primaris with third party bits or bits from another kit.
Yes, and you'd have to do the same for your Tacticals as well, who also lack a lot of "gothic aesthetic". (Also, in what way are Intercessors "CoD Modern Warfare tactical aesthetic? They look nothing like CoD, save for having a longer bolter?)
If I got interested in space marines because I like making each model a unique individual, I can't do that with Primaris marines.
Tactical Marines are only slightly more varied (as in, they get one more type of helmet, and maybe one different chestplate or legs).
If I got interested in space marines as a mixed melee/shooting force with some dedicated shooting and some dedicated melee units, I can't do that with primaris marines.
So, if/when Primaris do get a dedicated melee unit, you won't have problems with them?
Much as I love those sculpts (and I do, I own them!), they have plenty of "tacticool" gubbinz on them, and aren't exactly covered in robes and tabards. The Black Shield in the back there is the exception, not the norm.
And, again, all the complaints you have with Primaris needing to buy Sternguard to be more ornate, Tactical Marines have the same. Aesthetic is not an exclusively Primaris problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: Sure the basic Primaris are not going to provide you with the highly ornate Marines you want but neither would the old Tacs, Devs and Assaults - which is why you didnlt buy them presumably and wnet for the ones that had been made especially for DW - same as there is now a huge range of add ons for both Pre-Primaris and Prmaris.
Exactly. It wasn't ONLY Primaris who have less ornate sculpts.
Holy crap this whole quote thing you do is obnoxious to try and read.
Of course I have some of the same complaints with primaris and older kits in the marine range. It's why I didn't buy those. I dislike, for example, scouts, for exactly the same reason I dislike primaris. This is like countering "I don't like apples" with "Aha, but you ALSO don't like pears! CHECKMATE!"
Dedicated melee options would probably help someone accept primaris that enjoys marines with dedicated melee options, yes... It's amazing, but most people who dislike something dislike it for a reason, and if you remove that reason, they think it's fine. I never said "I hate primaris, I will never accept primaris! There is no thing you could release called a primaris I would ever buy ever!" nor did I ever say "A primaris is not a marine!" Primaris is a fething marketing label invented by Steve The Guy Who Likes Fake Latin Too Much. They're just new marine models. The only distinction between these new marine models and all the other piles upon piles of new marine models that came before is this bizarre social pressure to be a good little corporate bootlicker and throw out the brand-new product you just bought in favor of the NEWERER product that's somehow...a replacement, despite not being the same thing.
I don't see a thread being created "What are you going to do with your old howling banshees?"
Right again so those basic Assault Marines - the plain ones without large amounts of heraldry, scrolls or other stuff - they were fine..... and you did nothing with them other than what - paint them black?
Or did you add stuff to them like you can do with the Primaris.
Sorry but your argument is circular and somewhat incomprehensible at this point
I don't like Primaris cos they don't look gothic enough
but they look no more or less gothic than any other basic Marine I don;t like Primaris cos they don;'t look Gothic enough like my Deathwatch
OK so do what you did with them I dont like Primaris cos they donlt look gothic enough like the special Deathwatch models I bought
OK so just use them I don't like Primaris cos they don;t look gothic enough like the Assault marines I bought
Er but they are not Gothic either I don't like Primaris cos they don;t look gothic enough like the Assault marines I bought which have chainswords
Right er ok....is that Gothic then
Surely the statement shoudl just be
I don't ike Primaris because I dont like the way they look.
Nothing wrong with that and not claiming they are divergent from the design idea of a Marine.
I don't see a thread being created "What are you going to do with your old howling banshees?"
Probably becuase they look the same as the old ones? So why would there be a thread.
techsoldaten wrote:You haven't been putting any balls in any courts, you've been taking a series of absurd positions that are increasingly specific to the point of having nothing to do with the original topic.
In what way are they absurd?
More than one style of armor existed, more than one illustrator's vision of what it looks like was used by GW. One does not exclude the other.
Agreed. So why, when tacticool art styles and suchlike are shown, have people screamed about "tacticool =/= space marines"?
Everyone has said that.
So, you didn't read the set of comments I found for you.
I suggest you go back and do that?
You are the one saying the fact there are variants means classic gothic armor has never been part of the aestheic, that it refers to lots of different things, and a bunch of other garbage.
I've never said that "gothic has never been part of the aesthetic". I've said that there's plenty of models and artwork which have very little in the way of gothic aesthetic, and so having gothic aesthetic isn't compulsory.
Unlike you, who claimed that, because Primaris Marines had no gothic aesthetic, they were somehow missing something - despite the same thing being said for many non-Primaris Marines, and you seemingly turning a blind eye to them! By all means, gothic aesthetic can be part of Space Marine design, I've never said otherwise. But when plenty of users, yourself included, make the implication that, 'if it don't have gothic, it ain't right' to hate on Primaris but then also ignore non-gothic oldMarines, don't you think that's just a teeny weeny bit incongruous?
Look back at all the old Marines I've posted the ones with no gothic leaning, no ornamentation, no tabards, nothing. In your own words, you felt that Primaris not having those things "feels like a loss". Do you feel the same way about those old Marines too?
It's incredibly simple for most people to grasp. You're deliberately not getting the point.
Clearly not. Perhaps if you explained your position better, maybe I would get the point.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: All I'm asking for is a degree of consistency. Show me why flat, easy build, unadorned old Marines are widely accepted, but Primaris Marines, who have plenty of their own ornamentation and "gothic" art aren't.
No thank you, and don't tell me what to do.
Cool. Guess I won't be taking your argument seriously then, if you can't even explain it.
Some people do not like Primaris. It's a matter of taste and it seems that's what all your questions are getting at. You don't like that some people don't like the way Primaris look and you're trying to make a case why that's stupid.
It *is* a matter of taste, yes! But I'd rather people just said "I don't like them because of some irrational gut feeling" than spout a bunch of inconsistent comments about how they're "not gothic enough" when they're perfectly in line with other Space Marines that they've never complained about before. I couldn't care less if people liked them or not, but don't try to make up reasons that fall apart under the most basic of scrutinies!
If you dislike Primaris, that's fine. But don't claim it's bad because "it's not gothic enough" or "it's got tacticool bits" or "it's heresy" or "it's too bland", and not apply those same criticisms elsewhere. Be consistent with your complaints, and I won't have an issue.
They are ruining the game and the aesthetic, at my FLGS no one plays against PEQ and their OP lists, we make them play each other in a corner and keep them out of tournaments.
Thank god I don't play at a gatekeeping LGS like yours (I removed the F for that reason). God forbid someone plays an army I don't like, that sounds like a perfect excuse to segregate them and ostracise them from our hobby! /s
Everything else you said is garbage. Stop wasting everyone's time.
Answer my questions first. Shouldn't be hard.
That's the problem. Your questions have been answered repeatedly, you just keep coming back with increased insipidity.
No they haven't. Only Brutus has actually answered my question about if the non-gothic Tactical Marines are a problem, by explaining that actually, yes, they don't like the non-ornate oldMarines too. In doing so, they've elevated their argument beyond "I don't like Primaris" and into "I don't like this feature, which extends far beyond just Primaris and into wider Space Marine designs". They've been consistent, and as I result, I have a great deal of respect for that.
No one is going to give you an answer that satisfies you, this is like the kid who keeps asking but why?
Again, Brutus has demonstrated otherwise. Give me a *consistent* answer, and I'll be happy.
And, for what it's worth, there's nothing wrong with asking why if all the answers you're given are empty shells of an argument.
Give me a consistent point, and I'll respect it. Show me why Primaris specifically are bad; show me that you hold old Marines to the same standard; or just say you dislike Primaris for some unquantifiable irrational reason and it's as simple as that. Just don't make claims to some kind of artistic standard or appeal to authority or superiority that older models and artwork don't live it to as well.
You just responded to a post that included this statement
nor did I ever say "A primaris is not a marine!"
I'm gonna make it real real real big, so you can read it carefully. I am including NO OTHER ARGUMENTS OR TANGENTS that you can possibly latch on to here.
the_scotsman wrote: Holy crap this whole quote thing you do is obnoxious to try and read.
Eh, I like to keep arguments focused as to what I responding to.
Of course I have some of the same complaints with primaris and older kits in the marine range. It's why I didn't buy those. I dislike, for example, scouts, for exactly the same reason I dislike primaris. This is like countering "I don't like apples" with "Aha, but you ALSO don't like pears! CHECKMATE!"
Perfect! That's all I was asking for! I wanted to know that you weren't just singling out Primaris, and that you were holding the old Marines to the same standards! You are being consistent. Thank you.
Dedicated melee options would probably help someone accept primaris that enjoys marines with dedicated melee options, yes... It's amazing, but most people who dislike something dislike it for a reason, and if you remove that reason, they think it's fine.
Absolutely. That's *why* I'm asking all these questions so I know what those reasons are, and so I know that those reasons aren't solely being levelled at Primaris. I want to know what the issue is, and that it's an issue you have with every other Space Marine.
So, to be clear, it's not explicitly Primaris that's the problem: the problem for you is Space Marine models without the same degree of customisation as the more ornate kits, and a more flexible army list.
I never said "I hate primaris, I will never accept primaris! There is no thing you could release called a primaris I would ever buy ever!" nor did I ever say "A primaris is not a marine!"
No, you didn't. But there are plenty of people who do say that. Again, I greatly appreciate you clarifying your point, and expanding on your own personal preferences of what you like in a Space Marine, without appealing to some kind of "real Space Marine" idea.
The only distinction between these new marine models and all the other piles upon piles of new marine models that came before is this bizarre social pressure to be a good little corporate bootlicker and throw out the brand-new product you just bought in favor of the NEWERER product that's somehow...a replacement, despite not being the same thing.
Well, to be fair, I do agree with you that no-one should have to buy new models, and I wholeheartedly support sticking to your own collections if Primaris don't appeal. I'm not saying at all that someone should have to buy new models. By all means, if you like Primaris, get them, but I don't agree with anyone saying "sell all your old stuff, get your new Primaris now!". I just want people to explain their dislike of Primaris without being inconsistent, which you have done, and I greatly respect that.
the_scotsman wrote: You just responded to a post that included this statement
nor did I ever say "A primaris is not a marine!"
I'm gonna make it real real real big, so you can read it carefully. I am including NO OTHER ARGUMENTS OR TANGENTS that you can possibly latch on to here.
the_scotsman wrote: You just responded to a post that included this statement
nor did I ever say "A primaris is not a marine!"
I'm gonna make it real real real big, so you can read it carefully. I am including NO OTHER ARGUMENTS OR TANGENTS that you can possibly latch on to here.
Nothing wrong with that and not claiming they are divergent from the design idea of a Marine.
Can you understand why doing this repeatedly like you've been doing is irritating?
well done - you have finally stated a clear opinion.
Give yourself a gold star and maybe something for your blood pressure.....
....man alive, if I didn't interact with folks like this in real life at my job I'd swear you were just doing this to be irritating.
Do you not get that this has been my opinion the entire time we've been talking, and that you've been responding to some fantasy version of me that exists only in your own head that has some other opinion?
the_scotsman wrote: You just responded to a post that included this statement
nor did I ever say "A primaris is not a marine!"
I'm gonna make it real real real big, so you can read it carefully. I am including NO OTHER ARGUMENTS OR TANGENTS that you can possibly latch on to here.
Nothing wrong with that and not claiming they are divergent from the design idea of a Marine.
Can you understand why doing this repeatedly like you've been doing is irritating?
well done - you have finally stated a clear opinion.
Give yourself a gold star and maybe something for your blood pressure.....
....man alive, if I didn't interact with folks like this in real life at my job I'd swear you were just doing this to be irritating.
Do you not get that this has been my opinion the entire time we've been talking, and that you've been responding to some fantasy version of me that exists only in your own head that has some other opinion?
Same here - its also vaguely iritating to be shouted at over the internet as well.
What did you do with plain old Assault Marines to make them Gothic looking?
the_scotsman wrote: You just responded to a post that included this statement
nor did I ever say "A primaris is not a marine!"
I'm gonna make it real real real big, so you can read it carefully. I am including NO OTHER ARGUMENTS OR TANGENTS that you can possibly latch on to here.
Nothing wrong with that and not claiming they are divergent from the design idea of a Marine.
Can you understand why doing this repeatedly like you've been doing is irritating?
well done - you have finally stated a clear opinion.
Give yourself a gold star and maybe something for your blood pressure.....
....man alive, if I didn't interact with folks like this in real life at my job I'd swear you were just doing this to be irritating.
Do you not get that this has been my opinion the entire time we've been talking, and that you've been responding to some fantasy version of me that exists only in your own head that has some other opinion?
Same here - its also vaguely iritating to be shouted at over the internet as well.
What did you do with plain old Assault Marines to make them Gothic looking?
It's a man with a jet pack strapped to his back holding a gigantic chainsaw sword - I didn't have to do very much.
The entire reason I got sucked into this argument is the fact that I pointed out on page 2 that GW seems to have basically forgotten what the two iconic weapons they made for the Space Marines were - the boltgun, and the chainsword. Primaris marines have something bonkers like 12 different legally distinct adjective-verbnoun Bolt-somethings, and the whole range has one chainsword on a chapter-specific upgrade frame. Unless there's two now with the new space wolf one, I honestly don't recall. With how much GW has been obsessed with their own brand image these days, making sure that every marine subunit gets redesigned to be a legally recognizable Brand Entity (in case you're wondering the legal reasoning behind the redesign of Scouts to Reivers and the reduction in the elephant-faced Terminator armor marks in favor of the more recognizably marine-helmeted designs, that's why), I'm frankly amazed that they have pivoted away from that particular weapon being center-focus.
They just aren't the space marines that I bought into to create my space marine army. They're a different thing. Their playstyle matches up just fine with some peoples' marine armies, but it doesn't match up with mine. It's the same reason I don't include unadorned, bolter-armed tactical marines in my army, or spiky chaos space marines, or Blood Bowl Halflings. They're not what my army is.
the_scotsman wrote: They just aren't the space marines that I bought into to create my space marine army. They're a different thing. Their playstyle matches up just fine with some peoples' marine armies, but it doesn't match up with mine. It's the same reason I don't include unadorned, bolter-armed tactical marines in my army, or spiky chaos space marines, or Blood Bowl Halflings. They're not what my army is.
Yeah, that's completely fair. Just like how some people just don't like Bikes, or aren't keen on Scouts - Space Marines just have a very broad range of aesthetic and playstyle, so obviously some bits of it just don't align.
If people were upset because Primaris Marines don't match the particular style they prefer, well that's understandable, just as long as they make it clear that they're aware that non-Primaris Marines have that same issue.
the_scotsman wrote: They just aren't the space marines that I bought into to create my space marine army. They're a different thing. Their playstyle matches up just fine with some peoples' marine armies, but it doesn't match up with mine. It's the same reason I don't include unadorned, bolter-armed tactical marines in my army, or spiky chaos space marines, or Blood Bowl Halflings. They're not what my army is.
Yeah, that's completely fair. Just like how some people just don't like Bikes, or aren't keen on Scouts - Space Marines just have a very broad range of aesthetic and playstyle, so obviously some bits of it just don't align.
If people were upset because Primaris Marines don't match the particular style they prefer, well that's understandable, just as long as they make it clear that they're aware that non-Primaris Marines have that same issue.
Sure. The distinction is, when Deathwatch came out, nobody went and asked the guy with the uniform, gunline style imperial fists army when he was going to get around to replacing all his imp fists with individually armed, ornate, elite Deathwatch dudes.
I'm also aware that Necrons don't match that aesthetic. Were you gonna ask if I was aware that they are also different?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh look, a new post on General from a returning space marine player. Let's see what questions he's got...
blood reaper wrote: I treat different marine models like armour marks. My squads have models that range from second edition to eighth mixed together - Warhammer is not a clean universe and given its scale and scope, Marines will almost certainly vary radically given the length and breadth of their combat and experiences. It makes the units way more fun to look at, and feels almost 'historical'.
Also feth spending £35 on ten models with less options than the previous, cheaper kit.
I wish that the restartes had been made with this attitude. I wanted to add and as you note even mix. Why the radical departure. Cant share equipment? GW gives me the 'emperor backstabbing the jedi clone war style' heebie jeebies...
My marines were lost in the warp. That was their story. Not so unique but 2 things.
1. They scavenge. Rebuild. Craftsmanship with such limited supplies in dead emptiness of space then scavenging hulks for parts... yada.
2. New models could have been contact upon a valiant return. Instead, now they return to find heresy!!! They are unsure of the universe that they have entered into... but one thing is certain. The foul stench of chaos hangs heavy over the empire. Much has changed ...
blood reaper wrote: I treat different marine models like armour marks. My squads have models that range from second edition to eighth mixed together - Warhammer is not a clean universe and given its scale and scope, Marines will almost certainly vary radically given the length and breadth of their combat and experiences. It makes the units way more fun to look at, and feels almost 'historical'.
Also feth spending £35 on ten models with less options than the previous, cheaper kit.
I wish that the restartes had been made with this attitude. I wanted to add and as you note even mix. Why the radical departure. Cant share equipment? GW gives me the 'emperor backstabbing the jedi clone war style' heebie jeebies...
My marines were lost in the warp. That was their story. Not so unique but 2 things.
1. They scavenge. Rebuild. Craftsmanship with such limited supplies in dead emptiness of space then scavenging hulks for parts... yada.
2. New models could have been contact upon a valiant return. Instead, now they return to find heresy!!! They are unsure of the universe that they have entered into... but one thing is certain. The foul stench of chaos hangs heavy over the empire. Much has changed ...
Wow I've never seen such a unique backstory on why a Chapter doesn't have Primaris since 8th started.
the_scotsman wrote: They just aren't the space marines that I bought into to create my space marine army. They're a different thing. Their playstyle matches up just fine with some peoples' marine armies, but it doesn't match up with mine. It's the same reason I don't include unadorned, bolter-armed tactical marines in my army, or spiky chaos space marines, or Blood Bowl Halflings. They're not what my army is.
Yeah, that's completely fair. Just like how some people just don't like Bikes, or aren't keen on Scouts - Space Marines just have a very broad range of aesthetic and playstyle, so obviously some bits of it just don't align.
If people were upset because Primaris Marines don't match the particular style they prefer, well that's understandable, just as long as they make it clear that they're aware that non-Primaris Marines have that same issue.
Sure. The distinction is, when Deathwatch came out, nobody went and asked the guy with the uniform, gunline style imperial fists army when he was going to get around to replacing all his imp fists with individually armed, ornate, elite Deathwatch dudes.
I'm also aware that Necrons don't match that aesthetic. Were you gonna ask if I was aware that they are also different?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh look, a new post on General from a returning space marine player. Let's see what questions he's got...
Keep them of course. My Mighty Mouse Captain (compared to Primaris) is one of my favourite paint jobs.
I´ll keep buying classic marines as long as they sell them. I´ll only get primaris from starter sets though. I think the mono weapon groups suck, personally. Rocket Launchers and Flamers (choose your own) are so cool and add so much flavour to a squad. They are "tactical"!
I originally started painting the primaris I have in the same chapter colours, but now I realise I´m going to make them a different chapter and scheme, since the army looks stupid together. Apart from the 3 flying termies (the Intwhatevers, they all have the same damned name!). They look cool in the army..
The day GW disontinues classic marines will be a very sad day. Personally I think they´ve realised that they´ve storied themselves into a corner, as the classics still sell well, apparently. Devastators rock, assault marines rock, and tactical marines are the coolest squad group out there.
I'm gonna note Primaris are still in their relative infancy. give Priamris 10-15 years for GW to bloat out the range and I'd not be at all suprised to see "vetern intercessors" a space wolves intercessor pack thats more then just an upgrade frame, etc.
that is the REAL differance between old marines and Primaris. Old Marines are a... not even sure the phrase mature line really does it justice. it's a line that has been around for so long, developed so much that every little variation is covered.
Let's look at space Marines for a moment, the core of the Marine range is it's infantry.
divided into 5 distinct types of infantry.
"Line infantry" (tactical Marines etc. the "guys with the bolt gun)
"Assault Infantry" (jump[ packs and CCW weapons)
"Heavy weapons squads" devestators and their varients
Scouts
Terminators.
Into that framework are dozen of kits, with a unique tactical squad kit for most of the chapters, (DW, BA and space wolves each have their own basic troop kit) etc.
I'm not saying this is a abd thing or a good thing, but it's certainly differant from Primaris Marines who haven't yet reached the point of maturity where GW's really thinking about doing a seperate kit entirely for dark angel intercessors.
It *is* a matter of taste, yes! But I'd rather people just said "I don't like them because of some irrational gut feeling" than spout a bunch of inconsistent comments about how they're "not gothic enough" when they're perfectly in line with other Space Marines that they've never complained about before. I couldn't care less if people liked them or not, but don't try to make up reasons that fall apart under the most basic of scrutinies!
If you dislike Primaris, that's fine. But don't claim it's bad because "it's not gothic enough" or "it's got tacticool bits" or "it's heresy" or "it's too bland", and not apply those same criticisms elsewhere. Be consistent with your complaints, and I won't have an issue.
Why do you say we have to be irrational in our oppinions not to like primaris? You did the same thing on me saying my points were" not grounded in reality". We think they lack in design, we all try to explain why, we may have different reasons. You sound so dismissal and defensive about it
What are you trying to gain here?
It *is* a matter of taste, yes! But I'd rather people just said "I don't like them because of some irrational gut feeling" than spout a bunch of inconsistent comments about how they're "not gothic enough" when they're perfectly in line with other Space Marines that they've never complained about before. I couldn't care less if people liked them or not, but don't try to make up reasons that fall apart under the most basic of scrutinies!
If you dislike Primaris, that's fine. But don't claim it's bad because "it's not gothic enough" or "it's got tacticool bits" or "it's heresy" or "it's too bland", and not apply those same criticisms elsewhere. Be consistent with your complaints, and I won't have an issue.
Why do you say we have to be irrational in our oppinions not to like primaris? You did the same thing on me saying my points were" not grounded in reality". We think they lack in design, we all try to explain why, we may have different reasons. You sound so dismissal and defensive about it
What are you trying to gain here?
Mostly because many of the points made are NOT grounded in reality. talking points are tossed out that doesn't actually say what people think they're saying.
as others have said "I dislike Marines that are light on decoration" is a valid complaint. "Primaris are all lame because they're not gothic" isn't. for one thing gothic has a precise descriptor, it can refer to a style of architechture (which Marine minis never have been gothic, given one of the hallmarks of gothic sculpture is elongated necks and torsos) gothic armor is a specific type of german plate armor from the 1500s, noted for it's fluted style, which has never been a marine thing. it's also known for scupture being embedded in everything, which.. we occasionally see with Marine stuff, but almost always on conversions, never on core Marine kits.
this would be a gothic land raider.
but most often we see them as something like this
Marines don't have excessive gothic styling, aside from maybe on their vetern units. Now sisters of battle. THAT is a gothic styled army.
I mean just look at
and compare it to
so this is what people are getting at. it's fine to say "Primaris Marines aren't ornate, and I prefer my Marines on the more ornate side and thus they don't work for me" but claiming Primaris Marines universally are bad because of that etc. ignores that many if not most old Marines aren't ornate, they CAN be and we see examples of it, but they generally don't come with it.
I have to be a talented painter, kitbasher etc, if I wanna turn a land raider into something like Calgar's Land Raider.
And now that Calgar is a Primaris I'd not be TOOO suprised to see a Repulsor tank given that kind of treatment in the future
While it's been correctly pointed out that Gothic Armour is not a space marine aesthetic and is a specific style of art and architecture.
I think a lot of people have been using the word gothic as a bit of a catch-all phrase as a descriptor for highly ornate, dark images of space marines and 40k in general that have been used throughout the decades.
Mostly because many of the points made are NOT grounded in reality. talking points are tossed out that doesn't actually say what people think they're saying.
Because aesthetic terminology is often imprecise.
But "tacticool" details take precedent in the Primaris aesthetic far more than in the realmarine aesthetic. That is grounded in reality.
The third definition I get for "gothic" btw is:
"belonging to or redolent of the Dark Ages; portentously gloomy or horrifying." which appears spot on for our context here.
I haven't really warmed to the Primaris range yet. I much prefer their proportions, but in almost every other respect, I prefer the old sculpts. So I think until such a time as the Primaris sculpts themselves are redone - which will take what, another 5 to 10 years - I'll just stick with mini-marine kits for as long as I can keep buying them. If they pull the rug from under any old kits before I'm finished my current army project, I'll probably just start collecting Genestealer cults.
It *is* a matter of taste, yes! But I'd rather people just said "I don't like them because of some irrational gut feeling" than spout a bunch of inconsistent comments about how they're "not gothic enough" when they're perfectly in line with other Space Marines that they've never complained about before. I couldn't care less if people liked them or not, but don't try to make up reasons that fall apart under the most basic of scrutinies!
If you dislike Primaris, that's fine. But don't claim it's bad because "it's not gothic enough" or "it's got tacticool bits" or "it's heresy" or "it's too bland", and not apply those same criticisms elsewhere. Be consistent with your complaints, and I won't have an issue.
Why do you say we have to be irrational in our oppinions not to like primaris?
That was one of two options. You can explain your argument, and be consistent with it (aka, if you're complaining about blank armour or tacticool pouches, scopes, and wrist computers, hold oldMarine units to the same scrutiny), or abandon impartiality.
I outright admit I have my own irrational dislikes in the Space Marine range, but I'm not going to claim that they're "not Space Marine" - I just dislike it, but it's not for any solid, rational reason that wouldn't incriminate other aspects. It's an irrational dislike.
You did the same thing on me saying my points were" not grounded in reality". We think they lack in design, we all try to explain why, we may have different reasons. You sound so dismissal and defensive about it
You do give your reasons why, and nearly all of those reasons lack consistency (or, at the very least, many of you fail to make that clear, and avoid the topic when I bring it up).
For example, people saying that they "lack gothic design" - that's fine, but what about old Marines who similarly lack the gothic ornamentation and look tacticool? All I'm after is a "yes, this old Marine isn't gothic, and I dislike it as well" or a "no, that Marine is still gothic". To the latter, I would ask for further explanation and a detailed side-by-side breakdown on how a bare Primaris Marine isn't gothic, but a bare normal Marine is, until they can finally show me this elusive "evidence". Or, if that's not possible, for them simply to say "that's completely my subjective irrational opinion"* without any kind of appeals to "True Space Marines" or "Real Space Marines" or "GW's killing Space Marines" or similar appeals to superiority and authority.
*which isn't a defeat or anything to be ashamed of because we all have irrational illogical opinions, and it's absolutely fine to have a dislike of something and that to be completely inconsistent - as long as you admit it!
What are you trying to gain here?
As I've been saying for several pages now: consistency.
Brutus_Apex wrote:While it's been correctly pointed out that Gothic Armour is not a space marine aesthetic and is a specific style of art and architecture.
I think a lot of people have been using the word gothic as a bit of a catch-all phrase as a descriptor for highly ornate, dark images of space marines and 40k in general that have been used throughout the decades.
Which is fine, but when there's pictures of Space Marines that aren't particularly ornate or dark, why should they be called gothic? It's a bit of a bastardisation of the phrase, and just ends up meaning "whatever I want it to mean". In my opinion, Space Marine architecture and certain Chapters (mostly the Black Templars) are gothic, but it's really the Sisters who are the "gothic" looking faction. Not all Space Marines look gothic, so when people complain about Primaris "not being gothic", I have to wonder if they complain about the other Marines who don't.
Insectum7 wrote:Because aesthetic terminology is often imprecise.
So, completely subjective? Why use it to make claims to objectivity and things like "realmarine" if you're also going to say it's an imprecise system?
But "tacticool" details take precedent in the Primaris aesthetic far more than in the realmarine aesthetic. That is grounded in reality.
Right, but what about the tacticool details in oldMarine aesthetic? According to you, tacticool has no place in the Space Marine aesthetic - so what about all those tacticool Deathwatch wrist computers, those pouches and goggles and cloth armour on Scouts, those scopes on bolters, the Raptors Chapter, etc etc? Are they "realmarines" too?
The third definition I get for "gothic" btw is:
"belonging to or redolent of the Dark Ages; portentously gloomy or horrifying." which appears spot on for our context here.
Howso? What about Mr Snapfit Tactical that I've posted repeatedly in this thread is "portentously gloomy or horrifying"?
Gothic style was actually late/high medieval ages not dark ages. Just for everyones information.
Personally I prefer the plainer look, with a few pouches etc. Its easier for me to add a thing or two, maybe, to a plain marine than trying to remove bling from a more 'decorated' one.
Is it easy to make a marine more gothic looking? IMHO yes.
Is it easy to make a gothic looking marine less gothic? IMHO no.
Insectum7 wrote:Because aesthetic terminology is often imprecise.
So, completely subjective? Why use it to make claims to objectivity and things like "realmarine" if you're also going to say it's an imprecise system?
Imprecise does't mean subjective.
But "tacticool" details take precedent in the Primaris aesthetic far more than in the realmarine aesthetic. That is grounded in reality.
Right, but what about the tacticool details in oldMarine aesthetic? According to you, tacticool has no place in the Space Marine aesthetic - so what about all those tacticool Deathwatch wrist computers, those pouches and goggles and cloth armour on Scouts, those scopes on bolters, the Raptors Chapter, etc etc? Are they "realmarines" too?
Show me where I've said that. I actually like the Scout design, although much prefer the older metals.
The third definition I get for "gothic" btw is:
"belonging to or redolent of the Dark Ages; portentously gloomy or horrifying." which appears spot on for our context here.
Howso? What about Mr Snapfit Tactical that I've posted repeatedly in this thread is "portentously gloomy or horrifying"?
1: It's crude simplicity. Nothing on that model looks like it follows any contemporary logic.
2: Its context. That model was born into a universe of static decline, mired in tradition and ritual, where all the ancient heroes are dead. Also, theres a good chance the sergeant of the squad came with a chainsword.
Insectum7 wrote:Because aesthetic terminology is often imprecise.
So, completely subjective? Why use it to make claims to objectivity and things like "realmarine" if you're also going to say it's an imprecise system?
Imprecise does't mean subjective.
But how can an imprecise system be used to measure objectivity?
But "tacticool" details take precedent in the Primaris aesthetic far more than in the realmarine aesthetic. That is grounded in reality.
Right, but what about the tacticool details in oldMarine aesthetic? According to you, tacticool has no place in the Space Marine aesthetic - so what about all those tacticool Deathwatch wrist computers, those pouches and goggles and cloth armour on Scouts, those scopes on bolters, the Raptors Chapter, etc etc? Are they "realmarines" too?
Show me where I've said that.
Fair point, you haven't - but your comment certainly implies that tacticool isn't appropriate in Space Marine designs.
I actually like the Scout design, although much prefer the older metals.
But the Scout design isn't particularly gothic, ornamented, and is filled with pouches, scoped bolt pistols (with silencers/suppressors!), and the Scout Sniper kit doesn't have a single chainsword on it! In fact, they seem to follow "contemporary logic" quite well.
Why are they fine, and the Intercessors not? This is what I'm talking about - why are one units exempt from criticism but other Primaris units aren't?
The third definition I get for "gothic" btw is:
"belonging to or redolent of the Dark Ages; portentously gloomy or horrifying." which appears spot on for our context here.
Howso? What about Mr Snapfit Tactical that I've posted repeatedly in this thread is "portentously gloomy or horrifying"?
1: It's crude simplicity. Nothing on that model looks like it follows any contemporary logic.
What do you mean, "contemporary logic?" I'd say myself that the Intercessors share the same crude simplicity (big armour, big gun, big power pack), so what are the features on Tacticals that "don't follow contemporary logic" that the Intercessors don't?
2: Its context. That model was born into a universe of static decline, mired in tradition and ritual, where all the ancient heroes are dead.
So, nothing to do with the design of the model then.
If GW had released Primaris without Guilliman, say instead a cabal of Techpriests and high ranking Imperial and Mechanicus officials have discovered long lost STCs that allow the creation of Primaris Armour and weaponry, and it's still horrifically misunderstood, but slowly more Chapters are adopting this Primaris style into their ranks, or that this has ALWAYS existed in Chapters, and GW just retcon them in, like with Centurions or Stormtalons - would you still dislike the model?
Fluff aside, I'm discussing the model and artwork. Bringing in the context around the model has nothing to do with it's design., which is what I asked you.
Also, theres a good chance the sergeant of the squad came with a chainsword.
Still can in Primaris squads. What, just because it doesn't come in the pack, it's not valid? Tell that to the Sniper Scouts bereft of a chainsword.
I remember when you could buy Tactical Combat Squads, which didn't even come with any special weapons, heavy weapons, and I'm fairly sure they didn't even have any Sergeant options. Were they "not real Marines"? If I build a Tactical Squad, and I don't give the sergeant a chainsword, are they not Space Marines? If the Sergeant with a chainsword dies, are they no longer Space Marines?
Since when did "being a Space Marine" matter depending on the weapon one guy in a squad carries? Are Space Marines not allowed to be depicted alone? Must they always have a chainsword bearer on hand, just so they can assuage the doubts of "if they're a *real* Space Marine"?
I'm talking about that ONE Space Marine, not their squad, not their Sergeant, that ONE model. Is that model a Space Marine? Yes, according to you. So why is THAT model a Space Marine, but the Primaris isn't?
So far, the only answer I seem to have gotten is "the old Marine doesn't follow contemporary logic", so I'm curious to see your elaboration on what that means.
Insectum7 wrote:Because aesthetic terminology is often imprecise.
So, completely subjective? Why use it to make claims to objectivity and things like "realmarine" if you're also going to say it's an imprecise system?
Imprecise does't mean subjective.
But how can an imprecise system be used to measure objectivity?
You're evidencing how incapable you appear to be at having this discussion.
Aesthetics isn't a "system". And merely sticking to quantifying terms doesn't capture the entire picture. But that doesn't mean it's subjective. Differences can objectively exist even if there aren't specific terms for those differences.
But for objectivity funsies,
Count for me the number of chainswords in Primaris kits.
Then find for me the ratio of skimmers to non-skimmers in realmarines, and do the same for Primaris.
Then count for me the number of tacticool pouches per-model on realmarines vs. Priamris.
^Do the same for scopes.
Then count for me the armor angles on Tacticals vs. Intercessors.
Insectum7 wrote:Because aesthetic terminology is often imprecise.
So, completely subjective? Why use it to make claims to objectivity and things like "realmarine" if you're also going to say it's an imprecise system?
Imprecise does't mean subjective.
But how can an imprecise system be used to measure objectivity?
You're evidencing how incapable you appear to be at having this discussion.
Aesthetics isn't a "system". And merely sticking to quantifying terms doesn't capture the entire picture. But that doesn't mean it's subjective. Differences can objectively exist even if there aren't specific terms for those differences.
But for objectivity funsies, count for me the number of chainswords in Primaris kits.
Insectum7 wrote:Because aesthetic terminology is often imprecise.
So, completely subjective? Why use it to make claims to objectivity and things like "realmarine" if you're also going to say it's an imprecise system?
Imprecise does't mean subjective.
But how can an imprecise system be used to measure objectivity?
You're evidencing how incapable you appear to be at having this discussion.
Aesthetics isn't a "system". And merely sticking to quantifying terms doesn't capture the entire picture. But that doesn't mean it's subjective. Differences can objectively exist even if there aren't specific terms for those differences.
But for objectivity funsies, count for me the number of chainswords in Primaris kits.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But how can an imprecise system be used to measure objectivity?
The Schrödinger equation comes to mind.
Explain how that can be used in this situation?
Insectum7 wrote:Aesthetics isn't a "system". And merely sticking to quantifying terms doesn't capture the entire picture. But that doesn't mean it's subjective. Differences can objectively exist even if there aren't specific terms for those differences.
Using a term that has no clearly defined meaning is useless though. If we're outright admitting that aesthetic terminology like "gothic" is imprecise and doesn't really have a concrete meaning, why use it to make an objective claim? Otherwise, I can quite easily claim that "objectively, Primaris Marines are more gothic", and because it's an imprecise term, you can't argue with it?
Like, I completely get "gothic" being used to describe something ACTUALLY gothic (such as artwork from that period), or even "this feels gothic" (being used as a subjective), but trying to say "this IS gothic" and being unable to actually point to what it is? That's just subjective feeling - and that's totally valid! Just accept that it IS subjective.
You mention "differences can exist without specific terms" - I'm not asking for terms. I'm asking for explanations, diagrams, simple circling of a feature. Objective things that we can see perceive. Sure, you might *feel* imperceptibly that there's a difference, but that's subjective to you! That's my whole point. You can clearly experience something that I cannot - but that doesn't make your perspective the *correct* one. You can't claim "this is the REAL version" when it's based on your own subjective experience.
Count for me the number of chainswords in Primaris kits.
3, by my count (not including duplicates within the same kit). So, they both have chainswords. Nice. Your point?
Then find for me the ratio of skimmers to non-skimmers in realmarines, and do the same for Primaris.
Yep, Primaris have more skimmers. Your point? What, there's some kind of ratio that's correct?
Then count for me the number of tacticool pouches per-model on realmarines vs. Priamris.
Well, that's completely down to how many you put on, isn't it? Intercessors don't have to have any glued on, and I could glue on loads for oldMarines. In the same vein, asking "how many purity seals" doesn't work, because again, that all depends on how many you glue on yourself.
^Do the same for scopes.
Primaris have more scopes. Your point? Both factions have scopes, have been depicted as having both scopes and non-scopes, and the freedom to choose is down to the player.
Then count for me the armor angles on Tacticals vs. Intercessors.
What do you mean, angles? Faces, edges, of any degree, the sharpness of the angle, etc etc? As I see them, their angles are the same, with Primaris seeming to have a higher fidelity in terms of crispness (that comes from a newer sculpt).
So, all we've gathered is: Primaris have more skimmers (but skimmers are still very much a part of the whole Space Marine aesthetic, coming from the wealth of Land Speeder variants), and have more scopes. What, do you have a problem with scopes on Tactical Marines? Does Brother Verenor from the Ultramarines movie not count as a Space Marine?
In fact, let's actually think about that film - we've got Marines with scopes, the only vehicle being a Land Speeder, and the squad Sergeant not even carrying a chainsword! I guess *that* must be why it was panned - they're not "Real Marines".
Insectum7 wrote:Because aesthetic terminology is often imprecise.
So, completely subjective? Why use it to make claims to objectivity and things like "realmarine" if you're also going to say it's an imprecise system?
Imprecise does't mean subjective.
But how can an imprecise system be used to measure objectivity?
You're evidencing how incapable you appear to be at having this discussion.
Aesthetics isn't a "system". And merely sticking to quantifying terms doesn't capture the entire picture. But that doesn't mean it's subjective. Differences can objectively exist even if there aren't specific terms for those differences.
But for objectivity funsies, count for me the number of chainswords in Primaris kits.
no but aesthetics IS completely subjective.
Debateable, but beside the point anyways.
You're right it is debatable, which is why anyone saying Manlet Marines are better design is completely wrong. Thanks for playing.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: My Plague Marines are a Mix of models from 2nd to 8th Edition. Funnily enough I bought the 2nd ed ones after the 8 th ed ones . So... Why would I have to change anything? Us Chaos Boys have the luxury to not have received unnecessary bloated rules for our truescale Marines, so we can use them side by side without problems.
the current taller, beefier plague marines aren't history, are they? :-(
Insectum7 wrote:Because aesthetic terminology is often imprecise.
So, completely subjective? Why use it to make claims to objectivity and things like "realmarine" if you're also going to say it's an imprecise system?
Imprecise does't mean subjective.
But how can an imprecise system be used to measure objectivity?
You're evidencing how incapable you appear to be at having this discussion.
Aesthetics isn't a "system". And merely sticking to quantifying terms doesn't capture the entire picture. But that doesn't mean it's subjective. Differences can objectively exist even if there aren't specific terms for those differences.
But for objectivity funsies, count for me the number of chainswords in Primaris kits.
blood reaper wrote: I treat different marine models like armour marks. My squads have models that range from second edition to eighth mixed together - Warhammer is not a clean universe and given its scale and scope, Marines will almost certainly vary radically given the length and breadth of their combat and experiences. It makes the units way more fun to look at, and feels almost 'historical'.
Also feth spending £35 on ten models with less options than the previous, cheaper kit.
I wish that the restartes had been made with this attitude. I wanted to add and as you note even mix. Why the radical departure. Cant share equipment? GW gives me the 'emperor backstabbing the jedi clone war style' heebie jeebies...
My marines were lost in the warp. That was their story. Not so unique but 2 things.
1. They scavenge. Rebuild. Craftsmanship with such limited supplies in dead emptiness of space then scavenging hulks for parts... yada.
2. New models could have been contact upon a valiant return. Instead, now they return to find heresy!!! They are unsure of the universe that they have entered into... but one thing is certain. The foul stench of chaos hangs heavy over the empire. Much has changed ...
Wow I've never seen such a unique backstory on why a Chapter doesn't have Primaris since 8th started.
the_scotsman wrote: They just aren't the space marines that I bought into to create my space marine army. They're a different thing. Their playstyle matches up just fine with some peoples' marine armies, but it doesn't match up with mine. It's the same reason I don't include unadorned, bolter-armed tactical marines in my army, or spiky chaos space marines, or Blood Bowl Halflings. They're not what my army is.
Yeah, that's completely fair. Just like how some people just don't like Bikes, or aren't keen on Scouts - Space Marines just have a very broad range of aesthetic and playstyle, so obviously some bits of it just don't align.
If people were upset because Primaris Marines don't match the particular style they prefer, well that's understandable, just as long as they make it clear that they're aware that non-Primaris Marines have that same issue.
Sure. The distinction is, when Deathwatch came out, nobody went and asked the guy with the uniform, gunline style imperial fists army when he was going to get around to replacing all his imp fists with individually armed, ornate, elite Deathwatch dudes.
I'm also aware that Necrons don't match that aesthetic. Were you gonna ask if I was aware that they are also different?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh look, a new post on General from a returning space marine player. Let's see what questions he's got...
4: "Hey, where the chainswords at?"
The Chainswords are everywhere. Duh.
Actually this had always been their story.
The story then could change with restartes. Either buy in or no. Obviously no. Heresy was the decision.
I have the new CSM from the shadowspear set (I think it was called that?) but have no reason to use them at the moment. Been collecting for 20 years so I have a healthy number of CSM painted, converted, usable and looking like fairly chaotic marines. Not sure why I would replace? I'm glad I have some of the new ones and will build them in time but that's to add to my collection, not replace.
From a loyalist perspective, I can see some of the dilemma but then only if you absolutely MUST have the new thing to play with in a professional level competitive setting otherwise not sure why you'd have to upgrade and do anything with your older marines.
I suppose it's a loaded question as it assumes one will be replacing the old marine sculpts because one must upgrade to the new versions.
Insectum7 wrote:Because aesthetic terminology is often imprecise.
So, completely subjective? Why use it to make claims to objectivity and things like "realmarine" if you're also going to say it's an imprecise system?
Imprecise does't mean subjective.
But how can an imprecise system be used to measure objectivity?
You're evidencing how incapable you appear to be at having this discussion.
Aesthetics isn't a "system". And merely sticking to quantifying terms doesn't capture the entire picture. But that doesn't mean it's subjective. Differences can objectively exist even if there aren't specific terms for those differences.
But for objectivity funsies, count for me the number of chainswords in Primaris kits.
no but aesthetics IS completely subjective.
Is it? Please explain.
if you insist.
Aesthetics is described as a set of principals underlying beauty within art, or underlying and guiding the work of a partiuclar artist of movement.
the first is CLEARLY subjective. "beauty is within the eye of the beholder" and the second is, clearly up for debate. I know you're going to seize on that and claim "SEE THEY'RE TOTALLY DIFFERANT! AESTETICLY NOT THE SAME
except well 1: people disagree. 2: the evidance that they do indeed share an aestetic is pretty strong.
here's a old piece of Goodwin concept art for the MK 8 Space Marine, this dates back to 1990.
you can see how it informed the design of Primaris Marines, the armor is clearly reminiscant of the MK X tacticus armor, (unless you reaaaaaally think the knee pads are a sufficant aestetics change) and the power fist really does remind me of the fists on Agressors.
Likewise, the design of the new dreadnought...
take a look at the upper right sketch there. I can see some design ques for the redemptor. (meanwhile the contemptor dreadnought is a total and complete change from the dreadnought aestetic and people just accept it)
meanwhilke there is other old art out there that if you look at you can definatly see that GW dipped into their old art stock when designing primaris.
if you insist.
A ) Aesthetics is described as a set of principals underlying beauty within art, or underlying and guiding the work of a partiuclar artist of movement.
B ) the first is CLEARLY subjective. "beauty is within the eye of the beholder" and the second is, clearly up for debate. I know you're going to seize on that and claim "SEE THEY'RE TOTALLY DIFFERANT! AESTETICLY NOT THE SAME
...
meanwhilke there is other old art out there that if you look at you can definatly see that GW dipped into their old art stock when designing primaris.
I have cut most and added A and B.
B does not follow from A
You might read Kant's third critique, of judgement. This may help...
The rest is gibberish. No one argues that GW did not look at old sketches to make restartes ... the renessaince followed gothic followed medeival eras. Of course this is not an issue.
I'm not a Marine player, but I do want to comment that some of what might be getting to people about Primaris is the same type of thing that's getting to me.
For years, I could play against Tactical Marines (regular Marines), Devastator Marines (biggo gun regular Marines), and Assault Marines (stabby regular Marines). Later, Sternguard and Vanguard were added (5th edition) which were Tactical Marines, but with +1 attack and more gun and Assault Marines with +1 attack and more stab respectively. I generally understood what those things were, and they had a unifying aesthetic now that they're all basically the same thing. Now, however, I find myself up against a blistering array of syllables and design aesthetic (both rules design and model design) that's just sorta everywhere.
"I'm shooting at the flying ones - on the stand?" "Inceptors?" "Maybe? The flying ones, right there!" "That's inceptors, yeah." *rolls dice, begins to remove models* "Wait, no, those other flying ones!" "Oh, those are suppressors!"
-- two turns later -- "I'm shooting at the Incessors." *rolls dice, begins to remove models* "Wait no, I was shooting at the unit there." "Inceptors?" "No, Interceptors? Intersectionals?" "Intercessors? Oh, I thought you were wounding on Toughness 5!" "I was!" "Intercessors are Toughness 4!" "Wait, why are the flyguys T5 but the foot guys T4? Oh, I mean the Interceptors, not the Suppressors." "You mean Inceptors?"
At this point I just call them Intersuppreliminassrieversors.
here people just call them bolter dudes, flying dudes, the other flying dudes, plasma dudes, and I can't write the word that is used to describe the sniper ones, because it would break the forum terms.
no idea how reavers would be called, because no one uses them here. And aggressors are calle fat dudes. So no naming problems accure
BaconCatBug wrote: At least they aren't Adjective NounVerb like all the Death Guard and Ork stuff.
I so, so, vastly prefer the overly descriptive names to the stupid in-something names that all sound the fething same. Every Adjective Nounverb name can be easily shortened to something that easily disinguishes what the thing is and instantly clears up any confusion. The number of times I've actually said "Rukkatrukk Squigbuggy" I can count on zero fingers, because it's just the squigbuggy and that instantly and easily differentiates it from everything else in my army. Bloat Drone, Blight Hauler, Plaguecrawler or whatever it's called, there's pretty much nothing in the DG range I have trouble identifying.
The only army that I find more confusing to play against than space marines at this point with their 10,234,853 different slightly distinct bolter-armed duders is tyranids, because every time I look at a tyranid army some part of my brain switches off and I just see a weird jumbly mass of teeth and scythes and claws.That might just be me pulling a little bit of that alex jones on joe rogan meme but I just cannot differentiate tyranid stuff no matter how hard I try.
Unit1126PLL wrote:I'm not a Marine player, but I do want to comment that some of what might be getting to people about Primaris is the same type of thing that's getting to me.
For years, I could play against Tactical Marines (regular Marines), Devastator Marines (biggo gun regular Marines), and Assault Marines (stabby regular Marines). Later, Sternguard and Vanguard were added (5th edition) which were Tactical Marines, but with +1 attack and more gun and Assault Marines with +1 attack and more stab respectively. I generally understood what those things were, and they had a unifying aesthetic now that they're all basically the same thing. Now, however, I find myself up against a blistering array of syllables and design aesthetic (both rules design and model design) that's just sorta everywhere.
I think a lot of that just came with years of experience and familiarity though. When I've played against new players who've never experienced 40k before, they often don't recognise the distinctions between many units I'd say are classic, and it's only with units with vastly different silhouettes (think Terminators, Scouts, Bikers, jump packs units and Centurions) that stand out from the normal power armour (and even then jump pack units like Vanguard and Assault Marines can easily be confused).
"I'm shooting at the flying ones - on the stand?" "Inceptors?" "Maybe? The flying ones, right there!" "That's inceptors, yeah." *rolls dice, begins to remove models* "Wait, no, those other flying ones!" "Oh, those are suppressors!"
Eh, the same could/would happen for many other factions. "I'm shooting the ones with jump packs." "The Assault Marines?" "Sure- why are you removing from that squad?" "These are the Assault Marines?" "No, I meant the other jump pack squad!" "Ohhh, the Vanguard Veterans!"
It's even more extreme with the units from multi-kit kits, like Seraphim/Zephyrim or Sydonian Dragoons/Ironstrider Ballistarii, or, as I'm sure you'd appreciate, the massive variety of Baneblade hulls. Someone with little experience might just expect them to be the same unit with different weapons.
-- two turns later -- "I'm shooting at the Incessors." *rolls dice, begins to remove models* "Wait no, I was shooting at the unit there." "Inceptors?" "No, Interceptors? Intersectionals?" "Intercessors? Oh, I thought you were wounding on Toughness 5!" "I was!" "Intercessors are Toughness 4!" "Wait, why are the flyguys T5 but the foot guys T4? Oh, I mean the Interceptors, not the Suppressors." "You mean Inceptors?"
Well, that's a naming thing, which, in all fairness can also be a problem outside of Space Marines. I mean, Tactical/Assault/Devastator all feel natural, but Sternguard and Vanguard? If you don't know what that means, why would you associate that? Many units (as BCB says, Death Guard and Orks especially) have overly long names, and while it's pretty trivial to shorten them into more digestable ones (we don't call Riptides, XV-104 Riptide-class Battlesuits, so shouldn't we just call Sloppity Bilepipers 'Bilepipers'?), I'm still not completely sure on the distinction between Flash Gitz and Lootas - they both have big guns that obviously look looted and powerful? And nearly all Daemon names are a bit of a mess, even the classic ones. And why would someone know the difference between a Termagant, Hormagaunt and Tervigon just on name? And what's the different between a Baneblade, Banewolf, Banehammer, Banesword, Banelord?*
Similarly on expectation of durability and stats, I've never really understood why bikers get extra T and W. They'r still just one guy on a bike, the extra T makes sense, but the Wound? At least the Intercessors and Inceptors have a notable different in the thickness of their armour, on the similar degree as Terminators to Tacticals.
Most problems can be solved by pointing (or asking your opponent) to point at the unit that you're targetting. Asking your opponent to point is usually better, because they can touch their model, and then you know you're both paying attention.
Basically, Primaris are guilty of some pretty obtuse naming (well, some are fine - Eliminators, Infiltrators, Aggressors and Hellblasters I think are all pretty self-explanatory names), but let's not pretend that it's a Primaris only thing, or that we haven't all been in a position with an unfamiliar unit that we've gotten the name mixed up and designs have all blurred into one.
*I had to literally google that, and found out that one of them doesn't exist, one is a Hellhound class tank, and I can't even tell the difference aesthetically between two of them! Viewers at home, if you're not familiar with these tanks, try and guess which is which!
I mean, a loota and a flash git look, like, completely different. I feel like you'd have to not have both on the table in front of you to be confused by them. Other than "ork have big gun" lootas are almost half the size, are on a different base, and have a gun that they hold over their shoulder with a rail thing, while flash gits hold their gun in front of their torso, have banners on their backs, and oh minor detail they've got comical pirate hats on.
Sure, if someone completely unfamiliar with 40k was asked "which one of these is a loota and which is a flash git" they'd probably get it wrong, but that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts. "which one of these is an aggressor" - you'd have no fething clue. Zero. You might get "Eliminators" and you might get "Infiltrators" but that last one would be a 1/3 chance between infiltrators reivers and incursors, they all look like infiltrating tactical dudes.
the_scotsman wrote: I mean, a loota and a flash git look, like, completely different. I feel like you'd have to not have both on the table in front of you to be confused by them. Other than "ork have big gun" lootas are almost half the size, are on a different base, and have a gun that they hold over their shoulder with a rail thing, while flash gits hold their gun in front of their torso, have banners on their backs, and oh minor detail they've got comical pirate hats on.
And Suppressors and Inceptors look totally different, despite both having jump packs. So which is it - are people smart enough to tell between two aesthetically different units or not? And aside from that, what's to say Flash Gitz and Lootas couldn't be different sculpts of the same kit? The Daemon models especially look quite different. After all, if their main "feature" is 'big cobbled together gun', why would if it's shoulder mounted or hand held matter? Plus, as the FW 30k weapon sculpts show, there's precedent for the same weapon being both shoulder-mounted and handheld.
Also, you absolutely don't have to build the Flash Gitz with pirate hats, as there's plenty of bare heads in the same kit.
Sure, if someone completely unfamiliar with 40k was asked "which one of these is a loota and which is a flash git" they'd probably get it wrong, but that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts. "which one of these is an aggressor" - you'd have no fething clue. Zero. You might get "Eliminators" and you might get "Infiltrators" but that last one would be a 1/3 chance between infiltrators reivers and incursors, they all look like infiltrating tactical dudes.
Like someone would be able to work out what Paladins, Purifiers, Strike and Purgators are? And with Sisters of Battle, how can someone tell the difference between Celestians, Dominions, Retributors and regular Battle Sisters? And Seraphim/Zephyrim only become understandable if you understand Judeo-Christian mythology, or are aware of the connotation between Seraphs and angels, and even then, how could you tell which one is the power sword squad, or the twin pistol squad?
And do I really need to talk about Baneblades, Banehammers, Banewolves, Baneswords and Banestorms?
I'm not saying Primaris don't have obtuse naming, but pretending that plenty of other 40k units don't also have really vague naming is just ignorance.
Holy mother of god what is it with you and just DESPERATELY needing to have an internet dunk that you take what I say and imagine that I said the exact opposite thing?
You even quoted the part where I said
"Sure, if someone completely unfamiliar with 40k was asked "which one of these is a loota and which is a flash git" they'd probably get it wrong, but that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts."
and your "Counter" was
"Like someone would be able to work out what Paladins, Purifiers, Strike and Purgators are?"
No. Of course not. Because I literally said "that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts". MOST units in 40k do not have immediately clear delineations based on their name that can be comprehended by random folks.
the_scotsman wrote: Holy mother of god what is it with you and just DESPERATELY needing to have an internet dunk that you take what I say and imagine that I said the exact opposite thing?
You even quoted the part where I said
"Sure, if someone completely unfamiliar with 40k was asked "which one of these is a loota and which is a flash git" they'd probably get it wrong, but that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts."
and your "Counter" was
"Like someone would be able to work out what Paladins, Purifiers, Strike and Purgators are?"
No. Of course not. Because I literally said "that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts". MOST units in 40k do not have immediately clear delineations based on their name that can be comprehended by random folks.
So why on earth would you possibly complain about Primaris doing something that, as you say, 90% of all 40k models do, as some kind of 'slam dunk' against Primaris? That'd be like me complaining that Primaris Marines are mounted on raised bases, even though practically everything is. If the majority of things have that problem, singling Primaris out for it isn't a solid argument.
You're guilty of what you're accusing me of - trying to make some kind of "slam dunk".
I heavily dislike planned obsolescence. Maybe play old editions if i can find anyone willing to do it or 30k.
Otherwise I'm switching to a different system.
Unit1126PLL wrote:I'm not a Marine player, but I do want to comment that some of what might be getting to people about Primaris is the same type of thing that's getting to me.
For years, I could play against Tactical Marines (regular Marines), Devastator Marines (biggo gun regular Marines), and Assault Marines (stabby regular Marines). Later, Sternguard and Vanguard were added (5th edition) which were Tactical Marines, but with +1 attack and more gun and Assault Marines with +1 attack and more stab respectively. I generally understood what those things were, and they had a unifying aesthetic now that they're all basically the same thing. Now, however, I find myself up against a blistering array of syllables and design aesthetic (both rules design and model design) that's just sorta everywhere.
I think a lot of that just came with years of experience and familiarity though. When I've played against new players who've never experienced 40k before, they often don't recognise the distinctions between many units I'd say are classic, and it's only with units with vastly different silhouettes (think Terminators, Scouts, Bikers, jump packs units and Centurions) that stand out from the normal power armour (and even then jump pack units like Vanguard and Assault Marines can easily be confused).
Yes, but I think it's not a hard thing to get. "The ones with the chainswords are assault marines" - that's easy to remember. "The blinged-out ones with the chainswords are Vanguard marines" is harder, I agree. But the fundamental difference is: 1) Squad with significant numbers of heavy weapons = Devastator Marines 2) Squad with significant numbers of bolters = tactical marines 3) Squad with significant numbers of chainswords = assault marines.
Vanguard and Sternguard screwed this up a bit, but essentially they're just "Marines but with an extra attack" so confusing them isn't devastating the way confusing Suppressors and Inceptors is. And if they do have wargear changes that matter, those will be modeled (e.g. thunder hammer/storm shield vanguard) which make them easy to tell apart again. Lastly, they came out in 5th Edition, which is when all this creep started happening. Giving units access to the armory and preserving Retinues from 4th edition was easy to remember.
"I'm shooting at the flying ones - on the stand?" "Inceptors?" "Maybe? The flying ones, right there!" "That's inceptors, yeah." *rolls dice, begins to remove models* "Wait, no, those other flying ones!" "Oh, those are suppressors!"
Eh, the same could/would happen for many other factions. "I'm shooting the ones with jump packs." "The Assault Marines?" "Sure- why are you removing from that squad?" "These are the Assault Marines?" "No, I meant the other jump pack squad!" "Ohhh, the Vanguard Veterans!"
This typically only happens in cases where the Vanguard is equipped the same as the Assault Marines, in which case it doesn't matter really, because that +1 attack isn't going to make or break the difference. Now, if it's a squad of lightning claws, thunder hammers, and power fists, I'm going to worry - but those are also much harder to confuse with basic Assault Marines.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: It's even more extreme with the units from multi-kit kits, like Seraphim/Zephyrim or Sydonian Dragoons/Ironstrider Ballistarii, or, as I'm sure you'd appreciate, the massive variety of Baneblade hulls. Someone with little experience might just expect them to be the same unit with different weapons.
Which is exactly my point. Baneblade hulls, Zephyrim, and Sydonian Dragoons/Ironstrider Balistarii were all released during or after 5th edition, and really should be the same datasheet with different weapons. However, GW's dropping of the armory system from codexes (and the ability to buy special rules) meant that they had to be different datasheets now. This is a deliberate design choice and one I do not like.
-- two turns later -- "I'm shooting at the Incessors." *rolls dice, begins to remove models* "Wait no, I was shooting at the unit there." "Inceptors?" "No, Interceptors? Intersectionals?" "Intercessors? Oh, I thought you were wounding on Toughness 5!" "I was!" "Intercessors are Toughness 4!" "Wait, why are the flyguys T5 but the foot guys T4? Oh, I mean the Interceptors, not the Suppressors." "You mean Inceptors?"
Well, that's a naming thing, which, in all fairness can also be a problem outside of Space Marines. I mean, Tactical/Assault/Devastator all feel natural, but Sternguard and Vanguard? If you don't know what that means, why would you associate that? Many units (as BCB says, Death Guard and Orks especially) have overly long names, and while it's pretty trivial to shorten them into more digestable ones (we don't call Riptides, XV-104 Riptide-class Battlesuits, so shouldn't we just call Sloppity Bilepipers 'Bilepipers'?), I'm still not completely sure on the distinction between Flash Gitz and Lootas - they both have big guns that obviously look looted and powerful? And nearly all Daemon names are a bit of a mess, even the classic ones. And why would someone know the difference between a Termagant, Hormagaunt and Tervigon just on name? And what's the different between a Baneblade, Banewolf, Banehammer, Banesword, Banelord?*
Agreed here, but that doesn't make the problem easier. Especially since they keep coming out with brand new units. Tomorrow it'll be the Primaris Jazzerceptessors and they'll be armed with Rotary Bolt Projectors and I'll have yet another thing to remember. Slow down the releases! Especially if their names are long and difficult!
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Similarly on expectation of durability and stats, I've never really understood why bikers get extra T and W. They'r still just one guy on a bike, the extra T makes sense, but the Wound? At least the Intercessors and Inceptors have a notable different in the thickness of their armour, on the similar degree as Terminators to Tacticals.
I agree with you with bikes, and personally dislike the way they are handled. The armor thing, though... wat? Why does thicker armor give you +1 toughness in the case of Inceptors but +1 armor save in the case of Terminators? Also don't inceptors have 3 wounds? Or is that aggressors? Or both? I honestly don't remember.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Most problems can be solved by pointing (or asking your opponent) to point at the unit that you're targetting. Asking your opponent to point is usually better, because they can touch their model, and then you know you're both paying attention.
I started doing this, but it gets tedious after a while. I'm on my eighth game against a Primaris player and he still calls his Inceptors "jumpy dudes", (from Winters SEO who also confuses himself in the middle of his battle reports with his own army), and then confuses himself with his Suppressors which he also calls "jumpy dudes." I'm not sure there's much of a way to do it if you don't play like EVERY WEEK.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Basically, Primaris are guilty of some pretty obtuse naming (well, some are fine - Eliminators, Infiltrators, Aggressors and Hellblasters I think are all pretty self-explanatory names), but let's not pretend that it's a Primaris only thing, or that we haven't all been in a position with an unfamiliar unit that we've gotten the name mixed up and designs have all blurred into one.
Correct, but this problem was much mitigated prior to 5th edition's madness. The era Oldmarines are from. There's been a slow escalation from "customize this unit into what you want" towards "buy this different unit entirely that represents what used to be customization!". So instead of "Devastators but I only took two heavy weapons" or "Tactical Marines in 2x6 groups with combi-plas, plas, lascannon" we have Sternguard.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: *I had to literally google that, and found out that one of them doesn't exist, one is a Hellhound class tank, and I can't even tell the difference aesthetically between two of them! Viewers at home, if you're not familiar with these tanks, try and guess which is which!
Another product of GW moving away from customization (all the turreted ones should be "Baneblade" with access to the superheavy armory, and the non-turreted ones be "Shadowswords" with access to the superheavy armory, for example). Primaris are the latest and most exemplary force of this trend, though I think that has more to do with simple newness than deliberate action.
the_scotsman wrote: Holy mother of god what is it with you and just DESPERATELY needing to have an internet dunk that you take what I say and imagine that I said the exact opposite thing?
You even quoted the part where I said
"Sure, if someone completely unfamiliar with 40k was asked "which one of these is a loota and which is a flash git" they'd probably get it wrong, but that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts."
and your "Counter" was
"Like someone would be able to work out what Paladins, Purifiers, Strike and Purgators are?"
No. Of course not. Because I literally said "that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts". MOST units in 40k do not have immediately clear delineations based on their name that can be comprehended by random folks.
Amen.
There's an effort in this thread to establish a system of aesthetics that can be used to declare the Primaris sculpts the only legitimate design for Space Marines.
Primaris represent a void of imagination, a standardized ensemble that's supposed to replace the gritty piecemeal lore of 40k. Nothing about it appeals to me, there have been much richer designs in the past.
And that's alright, I am not breaking aesthetic rules by saying that. The people (person) looking to enforce those rules are operating off faulty assessments.
the_scotsman wrote: Holy mother of god what is it with you and just DESPERATELY needing to have an internet dunk that you take what I say and imagine that I said the exact opposite thing?
You even quoted the part where I said
"Sure, if someone completely unfamiliar with 40k was asked "which one of these is a loota and which is a flash git" they'd probably get it wrong, but that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts."
and your "Counter" was
"Like someone would be able to work out what Paladins, Purifiers, Strike and Purgators are?"
No. Of course not. Because I literally said "that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts". MOST units in 40k do not have immediately clear delineations based on their name that can be comprehended by random folks.
So why on earth would you possibly complain about Primaris doing something that, as you say, 90% of all 40k models do, as some kind of 'slam dunk' against Primaris? That'd be like me complaining that Primaris Marines are mounted on raised bases, even though practically everything is. If the majority of things have that problem, singling Primaris out for it isn't a solid argument.
You're guilty of what you're accusing me of - trying to make some kind of "slam dunk".
Because I wasn't doing that, my dude. I used Primaris as an example because they're top of mind, and specifically called out Aggressors because i agree with your assessment that their name is generally fine and descriptive to what they are and do. Read the post. Actually read it - don't clip it apart so you can figure out which bits you can disagree with and dunk on for your internet debate - all I was saying was "to a person who plays 40k the distinction between a loota and a flash git is pretty obvious because physically they're totally different models, if you're talking about asking a random person which is which they will get the answer wrong for 90% of the models that exist in 40k."
There are a few units with names so descriptive it's immediately obvious what you're looking at - anyone's mom could probably pick out a Pink Horror from a lineup - but most aren't. It is not a unique problem to primaris. The only particular annoyance I have with primaris is how linguistically similar many of their names are, which leads to confusion, and since they are marines they fall into the same problem all marines have which is that their unit roster is fething colossal and many of their units do the exact same thing in different ways, and primaris marines continue this problem.
And in some instances they do exacerbate the problem more so than previous marine units did. The distinction between a melta gun, a flamer and a plasma gun is pretty obvious, much less so the difference between an auto bolt-rifle and a standard bolt-rifle, or...whatever it is that physically distinguishes incursors and infiltrators.
This does not mean the same problems do not exist with standard marines or other armies - say, which guardsmen in that huge blob of guardsmen are Veterans, with BS3+ and 3x specials per squad, which are Infantry, with 10-man squads, and which are 30-man conscript blobs? Who knows, they could be literally the exact same models. I did also bring this gak up before, when I talked about tyranids, but it seems like you ignored that as well.
You are giving basically any statement that says anything negative about primaris marines a level of ludicrous, pedantic uncharitability that you are simply not applying to any other posts. If someone says eldar guardians are ugly models, you don't jump down their throat and go "WELL WHAT ABOUT THESE UGLY MODELS FROM OTHER FACTIONS, HUH? HUH??? WHY DON'T YOU THINK ANYTHING ELSE IS UGLY?" You insist that every opinion on primaris marines is inconsistent unless the individual also lists out every other thing they find bad in other aspects of the game at the same time, because your assumption is that people are hypocritically holding these opinions about primaris and not other stuff.
the_scotsman wrote: Holy mother of god what is it with you and just DESPERATELY needing to have an internet dunk that you take what I say and imagine that I said the exact opposite thing?
You even quoted the part where I said
"Sure, if someone completely unfamiliar with 40k was asked "which one of these is a loota and which is a flash git" they'd probably get it wrong, but that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts."
and your "Counter" was
"Like someone would be able to work out what Paladins, Purifiers, Strike and Purgators are?"
No. Of course not. Because I literally said "that's true of like 90% of 40k sculpts". MOST units in 40k do not have immediately clear delineations based on their name that can be comprehended by random folks.
Amen.
There's an effort in this thread to establish a system of aesthetics that can be used to declare the Primaris sculpts the only legitimate design for Space Marines.
Primaris represent a void of imagination, a standardized ensemble that's supposed to replace the gritty piecemeal lore of 40k. Nothing about it appeals to me, there have been much richer designs in the past.
And that's alright, I am not breaking aesthetic rules by saying that. The people (person) looking to enforce those rules are operating off faulty assessments.
..I mean, I'd go ahead and say that about a LOT of the 1,023,235,123* very slight variations on the theme of "dreadnought" "terminator" "power armored bolter wielding marine" and "rhino chassis tank" pumped out over the last 3-4 editions by games workshop and FW. Just go look at how many variants of "dead guy in space armor" forgeworld currently sells, it MUST be in the triple digits at this point or close. Primaris are just the Iphone 11 of marines - the one people seemed to finally stand back and realize "Hey, they're just re-re-re-re-re-re releasing the same thing and requiring us to repurchase this product we already own!
Spoiler:
* PEDANTRY DISCLAIMER: USER THE_SCOTSMAN IS NOT IMPLYING NOR HAS HE EVER IMPLIED IN THE PAST THAT OTHER FACTIONS DO NOT HAVE VARIANT SCULPTS SURROUNDING THE SAME DESIGN CONCEPT NOR IS THIS A PROBLEM INHERENTLY ONLY RESERVED TO MARINES IN SPACE OR OTHER ASSOCIATED PROPERTIES OF GAMES WORKSHOP INCORPORATED RESULTS MAY VARY SOME RESTRICTIONS MAY APPLY
Unit1126PLL wrote:"The ones with the chainswords are assault marines" - that's easy to remember. "The blinged-out ones with the chainswords are Vanguard marines" is harder, I agree. But the fundamental difference is: 1) Squad with significant numbers of heavy weapons = Devastator Marines 2) Squad with significant numbers of bolters = tactical marines 3) Squad with significant numbers of chainswords = assault marines.
In that same vein: 1) Squad with bolters and straight leg armour = Intercessors 2) Squad with antennae = Infiltrators 3) Squad with visors = Incursors 4) Squad with plasma weapons = Hellblasters 5) Jumping squad with big cannons = Suppressors 6) Jumping squad with twin guns = Inceptors 7) Squad with camo cloaks = Eliminators 8) Squad with gauntlet weapons = Aggressors 9) Squad with skull masks = Reivers
Vanguard and Sternguard screwed this up a bit, but essentially they're just "Marines but with an extra attack" so confusing them isn't devastating the way confusing Suppressors and Inceptors is. And if they do have wargear changes that matter, those will be modeled (e.g. thunder hammer/storm shield vanguard) which make them easy to tell apart again. Lastly, they came out in 5th Edition, which is when all this creep started happening. Giving units access to the armory and preserving Retinues from 4th edition was easy to remember.
Again, I don't see what's confusing (or even similar) about Inceptors and Suppressors beyond "jump packs". They don't even have the option for the same weapons, unlike Assault Marines and Vanguard Vets! If "jump pack" is enough to cause confusion, the same should be said of Vanguard and Assault Marines - and I believe the only reason they're not confused by veteran players is simply exposure. Vanguard Vets have been a thing for over a decade. Primaris haven't even had 5 years. If/when Primaris are given the same amount of time and exposure that new fans to the setting will be equally familiar, there will be just as much confusion between Primaris units as there is between oldMarine units.
This typically only happens in cases where the Vanguard is equipped the same as the Assault Marines, in which case it doesn't matter really, because that +1 attack isn't going to make or break the difference. Now, if it's a squad of lightning claws, thunder hammers, and power fists, I'm going to worry - but those are also much harder to confuse with basic Assault Marines.
But the Suppressors and Inceptors aren't equipped anywhere near the same! In your example, the person would surely say "I'm shooting those jump pack guys with the twin guns".
There isn't really a reason that Primaris jump units should be confused that couldn't also apply to oldMarines. Well, save for, again, people having experience of oldMarines units for longer.
Which is exactly my point. Baneblade hulls, Zephyrim, and Sydonian Dragoons/Ironstrider Balistarii were all released during or after 5th edition, and really should be the same datasheet with different weapons. However, GW's dropping of the armory system from codexes (and the ability to buy special rules) meant that they had to be different datasheets now. This is a deliberate design choice and one I do not like.
Right, so it's *not a Primaris problem*.
I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page that many of the complaints about Primaris aren't really *Primaris* problems, but issues that have been around long before they were even around, and I take issue with calling Primaris out on those issue without also mentioning that those problems are in no way exclusive to them. It's a semantic issue, but it's incredibly frustrating seeing the sheer amount of "Primaris complaints" and comparatively nothing about the other factions that share the same problem.
Agreed here, but that doesn't make the problem easier. Especially since they keep coming out with brand new units. Tomorrow it'll be the Primaris Jazzerceptessors and they'll be armed with Rotary Bolt Projectors and I'll have yet another thing to remember. Slow down the releases! Especially if their names are long and difficult!
Again, not a Primaris problem - that's an every new faction problem. I mean, I can barely name any of the new Ork vehicles or GSC units, but you don't see me complaining that the new Ork units and GSC aren't "Real".
I don't have an issue with people saying "I don't like GW's current naming convention" or "I wish GW would slow down with their releases so the player base can get used to the new stuff", but I do have an issue with the implication that it's a Primaris problem.
I agree with you with bikes, and personally dislike the way they are handled. The armor thing, though... wat? Why does thicker armor give you +1 toughness in the case of Inceptors but +1 armor save in the case of Terminators? Also don't inceptors have 3 wounds? Or is that aggressors? Or both? I honestly don't remember.
Terminators do an extra Wound too, let's not forget. End of the day though, thicker armour = more durability, either in the form of toughness or armour and Wounds. And no, Aggressors/Inceptors only have 2 Wounds. Like Terminators.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Most problems can be solved by pointing (or asking your opponent) to point at the unit that you're targetting. Asking your opponent to point is usually better, because they can touch their model, and then you know you're both paying attention.
I started doing this, but it gets tedious after a while. I'm on my eighth game against a Primaris player and he still calls his Inceptors "jumpy dudes", (from Winters SEO who also confuses himself in the middle of his battle reports with his own army), and then confuses himself with his Suppressors which he also calls "jumpy dudes." I'm not sure there's much of a way to do it if you don't play like EVERY WEEK.
Sounds like this player would confuse themselves with their Vanguard Vets and Assault Marines too, which are both jumpy dudes.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: *I had to literally google that, and found out that one of them doesn't exist, one is a Hellhound class tank, and I can't even tell the difference aesthetically between two of them! Viewers at home, if you're not familiar with these tanks, try and guess which is which!
Another product of GW moving away from customization (all the turreted ones should be "Baneblade" with access to the superheavy armory, and the non-turreted ones be "Shadowswords" with access to the superheavy armory, for example). Primaris are the latest and most exemplary force of this trend, though I think that has more to do with simple newness than deliberate action.
Exactly, it's newness, but it still creates the kind of impression the Primaris are somehow completely different to everything else that's ever come before. Just the simple understanding/recognition that Primaris aren't the ONLY culprit of cases that have been around for decades beforehand would be appreciated, but instead, all there seems to be (or the vast majority) is just "Primaris are the worst and break DECADES of design philosophy etc etc".
Again, at the risk of repeating myself, it's almost certainly a case of veteran players jumping on something new because it's unfamiliar, but something new players would have no issue with.
techsoldaten wrote:There's an effort in this thread to establish a system of aesthetics that can be used to declare the Primaris sculpts the only legitimate design for Space Marines.
Who on earth is claiming that Primaris are the "only" legitimate design for Space Marines? It certainly isn't me.
What I'm seeing is an effort to claim a system of aesthetics that declare Primaris as "not-Space Marine", but I've seen no argument that uses aesthetics as a base that doesn't also make old Marines irrelevant. There's only one party who's claiming that there's some kind of "Real Marine" aesthetic - and unfortunately, they're unable to show what that is without also jeopardising their own "Real Marines".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote:Because I wasn't doing that, my dude. I used Primaris as an example because they're top of mind, and specifically called out Aggressors because i agree with your assessment that their name is generally fine and descriptive to what they are and do. Read the post. Actually read it - don't clip it apart so you can figure out which bits you can disagree with and dunk on for your internet debate - all I was saying was "to a person who plays 40k the distinction between a loota and a flash git is pretty obvious because physically they're totally different models, if you're talking about asking a random person which is which they will get the answer wrong for 90% of the models that exist in 40k."
I do read it. I only clip out the bits I'm actually responding to. If I don't include it, it's either because I agree with it, or have nothing to say about it (usually the same thing).
I'm just saying that if a Loota and Flash Git can be easily identified as different, something like Inceptors and Suppressors should equally be identifiably different. But, if it makes my point consistent, I apologise if I implied that you were being inconsistent.
There are a few units with names so descriptive it's immediately obvious what you're looking at - anyone's mom could probably pick out a Pink Horror from a lineup - but most aren't. It is not a unique problem to primaris. The only particular annoyance I have with primaris is how linguistically similar many of their names are, which leads to confusion, and since they are marines they fall into the same problem all marines have which is that their unit roster is fething colossal and many of their units do the exact same thing in different ways, and primaris marines continue this problem.
Right, so it's not exactly a *Primaris* only problem, and an extension of the Space Marine faction's problems. It's that distinction that I just want to bring attention to, not to stifle criticism of Primaris. By all means, I suppose criticism of them, as long as it's consistent!
And in some instances they do exacerbate the problem more so than previous marine units did. The distinction between a melta gun, a flamer and a plasma gun is pretty obvious, much less so the difference between an auto bolt-rifle and a standard bolt-rifle, or...whatever it is that physically distinguishes incursors and infiltrators.
This does not mean the same problems do not exist with standard marines or other armies - say, which guardsmen in that huge blob of guardsmen are Veterans, with BS3+ and 3x specials per squad, which are Infantry, with 10-man squads, and which are 30-man conscript blobs? Who knows, they could be literally the exact same models.
Exactly - the highlighted part is exactly my argument! I literally just want people to bring attention to that, to recognise that their issues with Primaris are present in so many other places that receive nowhere near the same zealous hatred.
I did also bring this gak up before, when I talked about tyranids, but it seems like you ignored that as well.
I didn't comment on it, because I agreed with it. Just because I don't comment on EVERYTHING doesn't mean I don't read it.
You are giving basically any statement that says anything negative about primaris marines a level of ludicrous, pedantic uncharitability that you are simply not applying to any other posts. If someone says eldar guardians are ugly models, you don't jump down their throat and go "WELL WHAT ABOUT THESE UGLY MODELS FROM OTHER FACTIONS, HUH? HUH??? WHY DON'T YOU THINK ANYTHING ELSE IS UGLY?"
Guess I'm just doing exactly what all the people who start/hijack all these Primaris hate threads are doing.
Also, if someone says Eldar Guardians are ugly, they usually don't follow that up with "these aren't REAL ELDAR", or "Eldar Guardians are OBJECTIVELY BAD", and there's certainly not whole threads dedicated to hatred of Eldar Guardians.
You insist that every opinion on primaris marines is inconsistent unless the individual also lists out every other thing they find bad in other aspects of the game at the same time, because your assumption is that people are hypocritically holding these opinions about primaris and not other stuff.
I mean, I'm not seeing them complain about everything else - of course I'm going to take their comments literally, because that's all I can see. I also make it VERY clear that I'm only after clarification and for people to say that they share those opinions with everything else, and when they do, I'm more than happy to give up the discussion when they *make clear they're being consistent*.
It's a simple as that. If you're going to namedrop Primaris, make it clear that it's ONLY Primaris, for the sake of a consistent argument.
But Marines are so omnipresent that it is more obvious. I can count on one hand the number of times I have played against a Baneblade variant in the entirety of 8th edition.
I have played more against marines in 2020 (yes, even with COVID) than I have Imperial Guard Superheavies ever. So if I was a normal player, the fact that I can't tell the difference between a Shadowsword and a Stormsword isn't as important or irritating.
. So... Why would I have to change anything? Us Chaos Boys have the luxury to not have received unnecessary bloated rules for our truescale Marines, so we can use them side by side without problems.
EVERYONE'S plasma is safe now. Including Chaos Marines, who Cawl has had no way of helping. It's not some kind of "every plasma gun has been fixed, from plasma pistols to plasma cannons, how dare Cawl do this" - it's just 
this would be a gothic land raider.
