With 9th, we are getting a slew of new units for Primaris marines..
Captain, Ancient, and Lt will probably just have options added to existing choices in single data slate
Judiciar
Assault Intercessors
Bladeguard Veterans
Eradicators
Outriders
Invader ATV
Firestrike turret
Landspeeder seen in other pictures
Now add that to existing options for marines, the codex is just going to get ridiculously out of control. At what point does GW branch off primaris into it's own dex and leave the old marines to current dex (before legends)?
I do understand that the Primaris line still has significant gaps and so you can't remove it just yet, but the choices are certainly getting out of hand.
Consolidation of unit entries would solve this problem really easy. Centurions do not need to be in two separate profiles. Terminators don't need 4. We don't need 9+ different Captains.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Split the Codex, slowly drop support for Primaris. Rescale classic marines with new kits to CSM size.
Except Primaris look objectively better than the rescaled stuff. Also the statline makes more sense.
bullyboy wrote: With 9th, we are getting a slew of new units for Primaris marines..
Captain, Ancient, and Lt will probably just have options added to existing choices in single data slate
Judiciar
Assault Intercessors
Bladeguard Veterans
Eradicators
Outriders
Invader ATV
Firestrike turret
Landspeeder seen in other pictures
Now add that to existing options for marines, the codex is just going to get ridiculously out of control. At what point does GW branch off primaris into it's own dex and leave the old marines to current dex (before legends)?
I do understand that the Primaris line still has significant gaps and so you can't remove it just yet, but the choices are certainly getting out of hand.
Marine range has been bloated for years - they may do it in two books now as its buly becomes every more excessive.
Plus bound to be new Marine stuff to come plus all the Wolves and Angels minor variations.
As others have said they could consolodate loads of standard unit entries which are really just weapon options - the new interscesors for instance should just be a weapon swap but we know thats not going to eb the case
bullyboy wrote: With 9th, we are getting a slew of new units for Primaris marines..
Captain, Ancient, and Lt will probably just have options added to existing choices in single data slate
Judiciar
Assault Intercessors
Bladeguard Veterans
Eradicators
Outriders
Invader ATV
Firestrike turret
Landspeeder seen in other pictures
Now add that to existing options for marines, the codex is just going to get ridiculously out of control. At what point does GW branch off primaris into it's own dex and leave the old marines to current dex (before legends)?
I do understand that the Primaris line still has significant gaps and so you can't remove it just yet, but the choices are certainly getting out of hand.
We should know in a couple weeks if the old Micro Marines get moved to Legends with the 9th ed. launch. It would help explain the need for a new Marine Codex so soon after the last one.
They definitely should just Legend the minimarines, but I doubt they'll do it yet. It will only happen in tenth edition, I'll predict. By then most players have fully adopted the Primaris.
I don't think Firstborn are going to legends this Editon, but I bet all of their stuff will go direct only and stores will stop stocking it. Probably will go to legends during the edition after next.
While I don't think it'll happen, the 9th dex could just be Primaris stuff and leave the old SM stuff to 8th dex.
Loyalists have way too many units. This is one of the reasons they are so hard to balance against other factions. With that many options it's hard not to have an answer to every question. I mean, three different types of contemptor? Why?
It will be interesting to see if the outriders and assault primaris replace their predecessors as they're the first Primaris units that can serve as a direct replacement of existing Marine units.
That way we can see what GW is up to. Old Marines might never go to legends because they're simply replaced by newer models - just like every other faction.
Kanluwen wrote: Uh, so Intercessors weren't "direct replacements" of Tactical Marines now? Interesting!
Outriders and Assault Intercessors are both named in such a way that it's unlikely they are meant to be 'replacing' the existing units.
They might be pretty close, but they lack heavy weapons.
Very questionable that that is what makes a Tactical Squad into a Tactical Squad. Whichever way you slice it, most of the firepower in a Tactical Squad were riflemen with bolters. I would absolutely consider an Intercessor Squad their Primaris equivalent. With higher range and higher AP baked into their gun on top of the doctrines, they basically don't need a special or heavy anyway.
Consolidation of data slates would indeed be a very good start, but still not enough. I honestly think if they are doing a 9th marine dex, then now is the time to split. Maybe wait for 6 months, add new kits (suppressors, land speeder, plus a few others) and make it happen.
I just wish that the Primaris line was better looking than what came before it, unfortunately for me, it's not.
Land raider > repulsor
Rhino/razorback > impulsor
basic primaris marine/hellblaster > tacs/devs eliminators > scout snipers (not exactly a direct comparison in reality, but close)
terminators > aggressors > centurions (I know terminators don't really have a primaris full on equivalent yet, but again...close)
Primaris bikes = old bikes
Attack bike/land speeder > invader ATV (I know many don't like attack bike, but I still find it better looking than tonka ATV)
Inceptors/suppressors don't have a marine equivalent, but they look goofy as hell for me. The flying stands don't help. Vanvets look so much better. Give me assault primaris (like shrike) and I'm all in.
Dreads = redemptors (I'm ambivalent there)
Phobos > scouts
yeah, I guess in reality for me it's the vehicles. A big swing and a miss for primaris vehicles so far compared to old marines. I can get on board with the infantry so far, but the so called replacements for land raiders, predators, razorbacks are simply aesthetically awful, and for the most part need rules support to sell them because they ain't winning beauty shows (of course this is subjective, but I know I'm not alone here).
bullyboy wrote: Consolidation of data slates would indeed be a very good start, but still not enough. I honestly think if they are doing a 9th marine dex, then now is the time to split. Maybe wait for 6 months, add new kits (suppressors, land speeder, plus a few others) and make it happen.
I just wish that the Primaris line was better looking than what came before it, unfortunately for me, it's not.
Land raider > repulsor
Rhino/razorback > impulsor
basic primaris marine/hellblaster > tacs/devs eliminators > scout snipers (not exactly a direct comparison in reality, but close)
terminators > aggressors > centurions (I know terminators don't really have a primaris full on equivalent yet, but again...close)
Primaris bikes = old bikes
Attack bike/land speeder > invader ATV (I know many don't like attack bike, but I still find it better looking than tonka ATV)
Inceptors/suppressors don't have a marine equivalent, but they look goofy as hell for me. The flying stands don't help. Vanvets look so much better. Give me assault primaris (like shrike) and I'm all in.
Dreads = redemptors (I'm ambivalent there)
Phobos > scouts
yeah, I guess in reality for me it's the vehicles. A big swing and a miss for primaris vehicles so far compared to old marines. I can get on board with the infantry so far, but the so called replacements for land raiders, predators, razorbacks are simply aesthetically awful, and for the most part need rules support to sell them because they ain't winning beauty shows (of course this is subjective, but I know I'm not alone here).
Marines should have far fewer vehicles. They fight at the battalion level if they are lucky. Battalions are not this heavily customized. They'd have one APC, one MBT, etc. But instead, marines have like 13 types of dreads alone.
Nightlord1987 wrote: You can ditch all the Old Marines as long as we keep Scouts.
I like having a fluffy team of Noobs.
They're starting to push away from the Cawls Surprise Unnumbered Sons, so new recruits have to come from somewhere right?
Or are all the 1st foundings just gonna stop taking recruits from their homeworlds?
Please GW, dont write yourselves into a corner with this.
It has been established that new primaris marines go through the scout process as normal. I just wish there was option to upgrade the scout sergeant to have primaris statline, as sergeants are supposed to be full marines. New scout models wouldn't hurt either.
Well, I think they make more sense now that there are also full marines that can infiltrate with them. I think Black Templars actually had the right idea: have the neophytes to fight alongside the full marines instead of sending them on a suicide mission by themselves.
And just completely omit the 10th companies function?
Vanguard marines arent Neophytes. I wouldn't put it past writers to just restructure the Companies, but currently any Marine can wear Phobos armor, and the 10th company keeps 100 Vanguard for deployment as needed.
If anything, the Scouts are more structured for Primaris than Space Marines are. We have Sniper Scouts, CC scouts, and bolter scouts, all to be later moved into Reserve Companies when they receive their proper Power Armor.
The only way old marines stay in recruitment is if they stress the idea that becoming Primaris is DANGEROUS. But so far everyone survives the Rubikon.
The only way old marines stay in recruitment is if they stress the idea that becoming Primaris is DANGEROUS. But so far everyone survives the Rubikon.
Rubicon is somewhat dangerous, but making a brand new primaris is not any more dangerous than making old style marines. There is no logical reason to make non-primaris marines any longer (though of course this is Imperium, so illogical reasons may suffice.)
Well, I think they make more sense now that there are also full marines that can infiltrate with them. I think Black Templars actually had the right idea: have the neophytes to fight alongside the full marines instead of sending them on a suicide mission by themselves.
Well, I think they make more sense now that there are also full marines that can infiltrate with them. I think Black Templars actually had the right idea: have the neophytes to fight alongside the full marines instead of sending them on a suicide mission by themselves.
This is basically what the 10 Company Vanguard do now.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's hard to say what will be shifted to Legends.
I like scouts alot from a fluff perspective. If there's only around a thousand marines per chapter, logic would dictate that majority of marine casualties must be scouts. Which is why I always field a bunch of them.
However, the models are pretty meh and proportions are goofy af. Wouldn't mind new kits for them. Am kinda warming up to the idea of using Necromunda enforcers as scout proxies, especially when I get more Primaris units to my army.
But the legacy vehicles shouldn't get lost in time. An RT era Land Raider is an iconic and intrinsinc part of 40K aesthetics, along with the Corvus armour and Tactical Dreadnought Armour. I can only hope GW realizes this (they probably do, given how much RT-retro nostalghia the 9th ed logo, zoats etc evoke)
Codex-wise, I am sure they can all still fit in. Current dexes are very bloaty, just skim off the redundant lore and illustrations, you could easily fit double the amt of datasheets into the same amount of pages. Just leave most of the artwork & fluff to the collectors editions, I'm sure most players wouldn't mind.
bullyboy wrote: With 9th, we are getting a slew of new units for Primaris marines..
Captain, Ancient, and Lt will probably just have options added to existing choices in single data slate
Judiciar
Assault Intercessors
Bladeguard Veterans
Eradicators
Outriders
Invader ATV
Firestrike turret
Landspeeder seen in other pictures
Now add that to existing options for marines, the codex is just going to get ridiculously out of control. At what point does GW branch off primaris into it's own dex and leave the old marines to current dex (before legends)?
I do understand that the Primaris line still has significant gaps and so you can't remove it just yet, but the choices are certainly getting out of hand.
That's easy. Never.
At some point, GW will stop producing some of the old marine kits and they will drift off into Legends during a new codex printing. However, don't hold your breath for this happening. Before they can do that, they need to produce a "replacement" unit for every non-vehicle marine in Codex Space Marines, Codex Blood Angels, Codex Dark Angels, Codex Space Wolves, and Codex Deathwatch. Then they can release a new Codex Space Marines along with new Supplement to replace both the existing Supplements and for BA/DA/SW/DW.
Marines should have far fewer vehicles. They fight at the battalion level if they are lucky. Battalions are not this heavily customized. They'd have one APC, one MBT, etc. But instead, marines have like 13 types of dreads alone.
I don't know what Battalion you're comparing SMs to - real world? fictional? your own head cannon?, - but SURPRISE! In the 40k universe of late 8th ed/9th ed, according to the company that makes the game, Space Marines ARE this customized.
And they're that customized (especially for dreads you hate so much) because it sells.
Besides is this really a problem?
You aren't forced to use any of these options when building your lists.
You definitely don't need to worry about the cost$ of producing/selling/stocking the kits. That's GWs problem. And maybe the the local stores.
In competitive play? This "bloat" largely solves itself as you only see the most effective units. So it's kinda like playing with no options.
Does it really really bother you that people not concerned with tourneys/WAAC make use of options you'd personally never touch with a 10' pole?
Oh, "Balance". You're about to go on about balance.... How so many options makes it hard for poor GW to balance things. Except GW doesn't care much about this in the first place.
bullyboy wrote: With 9th, we are getting a slew of new units for Primaris marines..
Captain, Ancient, and Lt will probably just have options added to existing choices in single data slate
Judiciar
Assault Intercessors
Bladeguard Veterans
Eradicators
Outriders
Invader ATV
Firestrike turret
Landspeeder seen in other pictures
Now add that to existing options for marines, the codex is just going to get ridiculously out of control. At what point does GW branch off primaris into it's own dex and leave the old marines to current dex (before legends)?
I do understand that the Primaris line still has significant gaps and so you can't remove it just yet, but the choices are certainly getting out of hand.
That's easy. Never.
At some point, GW will stop producing some of the old marine kits and they will drift off into Legends during a new codex printing. However, don't hold your breath for this happening. Before they can do that, they need to produce a "replacement" unit for every non-vehicle marine in Codex Space Marines, Codex Blood Angels, Codex Dark Angels, Codex Space Wolves, and Codex Deathwatch. Then they can release a new Codex Space Marines along with new Supplement to replace both the existing Supplements and for BA/DA/SW/DW.
They're much of the way there already:
Captain -> Primaris Captain
Captain in Terminator Armour, Captain in Cataphracti Armour -> Captain in Gravis Armour
Captain on Bike -> No current equivalent
Lieutenants -> Primaris Lieutenants
Librarian -> Primaris Librarian
Librarian in Terminator Armour -> No Gravis Librarian yet
Chaplain -> Primaris Chaplain
Chaplain in Terminator Armour -> No Gravis Chaplain yet
Techmarine - > No current equivalent
Primaris add the various Phobos HQs Marines don't have.
Apothecary -> Primaris Apothecary
Ancient -> Primaris Ancient
Company Champion -> Judiciar
Company Veterans/Sternguard Veterans -> No current equivalent
Terminators, Assault Terminators, Cataphracti Terminators, Taratros Terminators, Centurion Assault Squad -> Aggressors
Vanguard Veterans -> Bladeguard Veterans
Dreadnought, Ironclad Dreadnought, Venerable Dreadnought -> Redemptor Dreadnought, Invictor Warsuit
Bike Squad, Scout Bike Squad -> Outriders
Assault Squad -> Assault Intercessors
Landspeeder, Landspeeder Storm -> Leaked Primaris Landspeeder
Attack Bike -> Invader ATV
Devastator Squad -> Hellblasters, Eradicators, Suppressors
Thunderfire Cannon -> Firestrike Servo Turret
Hunter/Stalker -> Impulsor with AA turret.
Whirlwind -> No current equivalent
Predator/Vindicator -> Repulsor Executioner
Land Raider/LRC/LRR, Razorback -> Repulsor
Rhino -> Impulsor
Drop Pod -> No current equivalent
Stormhawk/Stormtalon -> No current equivalent
Stormraven -> No current equivalent
The only really glaring gap in the range is the lack of any Primaris aircraft.
Marines should have far fewer vehicles. They fight at the battalion level if they are lucky. Battalions are not this heavily customized. They'd have one APC, one MBT, etc. But instead, marines have like 13 types of dreads alone.
I don't know what Battalion you're comparing SMs to - real world? fictional? your own head cannon?, - but SURPRISE! In the 40k universe of late 8th ed/9th ed, according to the company that makes the game, Space Marines ARE this customized.
And they're that customized (especially for dreads you hate so much) because it sells.
Besides is this really a problem?
You aren't forced to use any of these options when building your lists.
You definitely don't need to worry about the cost$ of producing/selling/stocking the kits. That's GWs problem. And maybe the the local stores.
In competitive play? This "bloat" largely solves itself as you only see the most effective units. So it's kinda like playing with no options.
Does it really really bother you that people not concerned with tourneys/WAAC make use of options you'd personally never touch with a 10' pole?
Oh, "Balance". You're about to go on about balance.... How so many options makes it hard for poor GW to balance things. Except GW doesn't care much about this in the first place.
The company is simply wrong. And I know its for sales. But it makes no sense at all.
"Besides is this really a problem?"
Yes, it's a problem because that's taking away finite resources from other factions that should be and would be more varied.
tauist wrote: I like scouts alot from a fluff perspective. If there's only around a thousand marines per chapter, logic would dictate that majority of marine casualties must be scouts. .
Ugh. From a fluff perspective scouts are awful. Send your most inexperienced young adults out on a job that's absolutely vital, but they have no skills for and give them less gear. That makes no sense at all.
Space wolves are the only ones that make even an attempt at doing scouts properly (though they're still under equipped) and Black Templars are the only ones that make any sense when it comes to trainees.
bullyboy wrote: With 9th, we are getting a slew of new units for Primaris marines..
Captain, Ancient, and Lt will probably just have options added to existing choices in single data slate
Judiciar
Assault Intercessors
Bladeguard Veterans
Eradicators
Outriders
Invader ATV
Firestrike turret
Landspeeder seen in other pictures
Now add that to existing options for marines, the codex is just going to get ridiculously out of control. At what point does GW branch off primaris into it's own dex and leave the old marines to current dex (before legends)?
I do understand that the Primaris line still has significant gaps and so you can't remove it just yet, but the choices are certainly getting out of hand.
That's easy. Never.
At some point, GW will stop producing some of the old marine kits and they will drift off into Legends during a new codex printing. However, don't hold your breath for this happening. Before they can do that, they need to produce a "replacement" unit for every non-vehicle marine in Codex Space Marines, Codex Blood Angels, Codex Dark Angels, Codex Space Wolves, and Codex Deathwatch. Then they can release a new Codex Space Marines along with new Supplement to replace both the existing Supplements and for BA/DA/SW/DW.
They're much of the way there already:
Captain -> Primaris Captain
Captain in Terminator Armour, Captain in Cataphracti Armour -> Captain in Gravis Armour
Captain on Bike -> No current equivalent
Lieutenants -> Primaris Lieutenants
Librarian -> Primaris Librarian
Librarian in Terminator Armour -> No Gravis Librarian yet
Chaplain -> Primaris Chaplain
Chaplain in Terminator Armour -> No Gravis Chaplain yet
Techmarine - > No current equivalent
Primaris add the various Phobos HQs Marines don't have.
Apothecary -> Primaris Apothecary
Ancient -> Primaris Ancient
Company Champion -> Judiciar
Company Veterans/Sternguard Veterans -> No current equivalent
Terminators, Assault Terminators, Cataphracti Terminators, Taratros Terminators, Centurion Assault Squad -> Aggressors
Vanguard Veterans -> Bladeguard Veterans
Dreadnought, Ironclad Dreadnought, Venerable Dreadnought -> Redemptor Dreadnought, Invictor Warsuit
Bike Squad, Scout Bike Squad -> Outriders
Assault Squad -> Assault Intercessors
Landspeeder, Landspeeder Storm -> Leaked Primaris Landspeeder
Attack Bike -> Invader ATV
Devastator Squad -> Hellblasters, Eradicators, Suppressors
Thunderfire Cannon -> Firestrike Servo Turret
Hunter/Stalker -> Impulsor with AA turret.
Whirlwind -> No current equivalent
Predator/Vindicator -> Repulsor Executioner
Land Raider/LRC/LRR, Razorback -> Repulsor
Rhino -> Impulsor
Drop Pod -> No current equivalent
Stormhawk/Stormtalon -> No current equivalent
Stormraven -> No current equivalent
The only really glaring gap in the range is the lack of any Primaris aircraft.
I'll argue Aggressors are not really a proper Terminator replacement, or at least not enough different units to replace them given the number of units for Scouts and Devestators. We also still have Devastator weapons that need units introduced to replace, like Missile Launchers and Grav weapons.
Then there is the matter of the Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, and Deathwatch units that need to be replaced. Can't have Primaris only Blood Angels until they release a proper jump-pack assault marine unit (no Intercepters do not fit the bill).
bullyboy wrote: With 9th, we are getting a slew of new units for Primaris marines..
Captain, Ancient, and Lt will probably just have options added to existing choices in single data slate
Judiciar
Assault Intercessors
Bladeguard Veterans
Eradicators
Outriders
Invader ATV
Firestrike turret
Landspeeder seen in other pictures
Now add that to existing options for marines, the codex is just going to get ridiculously out of control. At what point does GW branch off primaris into it's own dex and leave the old marines to current dex (before legends)?
I do understand that the Primaris line still has significant gaps and so you can't remove it just yet, but the choices are certainly getting out of hand.
That's easy. Never.
At some point, GW will stop producing some of the old marine kits and they will drift off into Legends during a new codex printing. However, don't hold your breath for this happening. Before they can do that, they need to produce a "replacement" unit for every non-vehicle marine in Codex Space Marines, Codex Blood Angels, Codex Dark Angels, Codex Space Wolves, and Codex Deathwatch. Then they can release a new Codex Space Marines along with new Supplement to replace both the existing Supplements and for BA/DA/SW/DW.
They're much of the way there already:
Captain -> Primaris Captain
Captain in Terminator Armour, Captain in Cataphracti Armour -> Captain in Gravis Armour
Captain on Bike -> No current equivalent
Lieutenants -> Primaris Lieutenants
Librarian -> Primaris Librarian
Librarian in Terminator Armour -> No Gravis Librarian yet
Chaplain -> Primaris Chaplain
Chaplain in Terminator Armour -> No Gravis Chaplain yet
Techmarine - > No current equivalent
Primaris add the various Phobos HQs Marines don't have.
Apothecary -> Primaris Apothecary
Ancient -> Primaris Ancient
Company Champion -> Judiciar
Company Veterans/Sternguard Veterans -> No current equivalent
Terminators, Assault Terminators, Cataphracti Terminators, Taratros Terminators, Centurion Assault Squad -> Aggressors
Vanguard Veterans -> Bladeguard Veterans
Dreadnought, Ironclad Dreadnought, Venerable Dreadnought -> Redemptor Dreadnought, Invictor Warsuit
Bike Squad, Scout Bike Squad -> Outriders
Assault Squad -> Assault Intercessors
Landspeeder, Landspeeder Storm -> Leaked Primaris Landspeeder
Attack Bike -> Invader ATV
Devastator Squad -> Hellblasters, Eradicators, Suppressors
Thunderfire Cannon -> Firestrike Servo Turret
Hunter/Stalker -> Impulsor with AA turret.
Whirlwind -> No current equivalent
Predator/Vindicator -> Repulsor Executioner
Land Raider/LRC/LRR, Razorback -> Repulsor
Rhino -> Impulsor
Drop Pod -> No current equivalent
Stormhawk/Stormtalon -> No current equivalent
Stormraven -> No current equivalent
The only really glaring gap in the range is the lack of any Primaris aircraft.
I'll argue Aggressors are not really a proper Terminator replacement, or at least not enough different units to replace them given the number of units for Scouts and Devestators. We also still have Devastator weapons that need units introduced to replace, like Missile Launchers and Grav weapons.
Then there is the matter of the Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, and Deathwatch units that need to be replaced. Can't have Primaris only Blood Angels until they release a proper jump-pack assault marine unit (no Intercepters do not fit the bill).
This sort of weird backwards thinking is the issue though, they don't need missile launchers, or grav weapons, or a terminator that's a bit bigger. If you simply removed the OG marines all you'd see a lack of now is a plane or possibly artillery.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Consolidation of unit entries would solve this problem really easy. Centurions do not need to be in two separate profiles. Terminators don't need 4. We don't need 9+ different Captains.
I actually kind of disagree on the general sentiment. You consolidate all seven Captain profiles then instead of the bloat of seven different cards you have one enourmously bloated card with seven different stat lines and seven different sets of wargear options on it, a lot of which are mutually exclusive.
The same applies to Terminators and Centurions. Tartaros and Cataphracii have different stats. Ranged and assault terminators have mutuallu exclusive wargear. The same is true of Centurions, and that's not even mentioning that Dev and Assault Cents are in different parts of the org chart.
bullyboy wrote: With 9th, we are getting a slew of new units for Primaris marines..
Captain, Ancient, and Lt will probably just have options added to existing choices in single data slate
Judiciar
Assault Intercessors
Bladeguard Veterans
Eradicators
Outriders
Invader ATV
Firestrike turret
Landspeeder seen in other pictures
Now add that to existing options for marines, the codex is just going to get ridiculously out of control. At what point does GW branch off primaris into it's own dex and leave the old marines to current dex (before legends)?
I do understand that the Primaris line still has significant gaps and so you can't remove it just yet, but the choices are certainly getting out of hand.
Well, at this point the only gaps in the Primaris line are Terminator and Vanguard Vets EQ and jump pack HQs unless I'm missing something. That and some options for some kits (Shield Dome for the Repulsor to turn it into a heavy assault transport and an "Ironclad" loadout for the Redemptor would be nice. Also more options to kit out Primaris HQs). So I feel OldMarines can be resigned into Legends pretty soon (or just use them counts-as for their Primaris equivalent). Then consolidate SW/BA/DA into the main dex and reduce them to supplement level like the other First Founding chapters. I say this as a Space Wolf player by the way, less special snowflake chapters means that all 10 First Founding chapters can continue to receive supplement- level rules support.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Consolidation of unit entries would solve this problem really easy. Centurions do not need to be in two separate profiles. Terminators don't need 4. We don't need 9+ different Captains.
I actually kind of disagree on the general sentiment. You consolidate all seven Captain profiles then instead of the bloat of seven different cards you have one enourmously bloated card with seven different stat lines and seven different sets of wargear options on it, a lot of which are mutually exclusive.
The same applies to Terminators and Centurions. Tartaros and Cataphracii have different stats. Ranged and assault terminators have mutuallu exclusive wargear. The same is true of Centurions, and that's not even mentioning that Dev and Assault Cents are in different parts of the org chart.
It's just cleaner to have them on separate cards.
Or they could handle loyalist terminators the same way they do csm terminators: one data sheet with all the weapon options, tartaros and cataphractii are aesthetic options with the same stats. Or, fare is fare, make the Heresy patterns an option for the marines who actually fought in the Heresy.
Split the Codex, slowly drop support for Primaris. Rescale classic marines with new kits to CSM size.
Insectum wins the internet.
Seriously though - I don't think they ever will split the book. I think it's more likely that over the next few marine codexes, we see Primaris units "retiring" firstborn units in the fluff. This would result in firstborn units slowly being removed from the codex until they are gone. This will still take years and multiple codexes though.
I think it's safe to say that gong forward, there will be no new firstborn models or units, and they're not going to go to the trouble of outputting a codex that they (and the player base) know will never be updated with anything new. Likely, if they ever DID do that, it would happen in conjunction with the announcement that firstborn have officially been moved to legends ...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Consolidation of unit entries would solve this problem really easy. Centurions do not need to be in two separate profiles. Terminators don't need 4. We don't need 9+ different Captains.
Pretty much agreed. We don't have a separate datasheet for jump pack Captains. Why do we need separate ones for Terminator/Bike Captains? Just throw in a clause that says "A Captain may take a Bike. This gives them the <Biker> keyword, changes their Move to 12", and changes their T to 5. The bike is equipped with a twin-linked bolter". or something like that.
Though I wouldn't also mind Terminators getting a consolidated profile, I'm not sure Centurions should - they have different FOC roles, don't they?
Insectum7 wrote: Split the Codex, slowly drop support for Primaris. Rescale classic marines with new kits to CSM size.
Except Primaris look objectively better than the rescaled stuff. Also the statline makes more sense.
As others have said, it's absolutely not objectively better. And that's me talking as a Primaris fan.
Nightlord1987 wrote:You can ditch all the Old Marines as long as we keep Scouts.
I like having a fluffy team of Noobs.
They're starting to push away from the Cawls Surprise Unnumbered Sons, so new recruits have to come from somewhere right?
Or are all the 1st foundings just gonna stop taking recruits from their homeworlds?
Please GW, dont write yourselves into a corner with this.
Space Marines still use Scouts. In the main Codex, they go through the line of an inducted Primaris Marine, who starts out as a Scout Marine. If oldMarines WERE to be ditched, Scouts, Land Raiders, and Stormravens we know explicitly still exist even in Primaris-only Chapters (the latter two appearing in the Silver Templars, an all-Primaris Chapter).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Consolidation of unit entries would solve this problem really easy. Centurions do not need to be in two separate profiles. Terminators don't need 4. We don't need 9+ different Captains.
I actually kind of disagree on the general sentiment. You consolidate all seven Captain profiles then instead of the bloat of seven different cards you have one enourmously bloated card with seven different stat lines and seven different sets of wargear options on it, a lot of which are mutually exclusive.
The same applies to Terminators and Centurions. Tartaros and Cataphracii have different stats. Ranged and assault terminators have mutuallu exclusive wargear. The same is true of Centurions, and that's not even mentioning that Dev and Assault Cents are in different parts of the org chart.
It's just cleaner to have them on separate cards.
We don't need different rules for the different Mks of Terminators though! It's LITERALLY unnecessary, especially when we don't have different rules for the different Mks of Power Armor. Basically all the wargear is already shared! Centurions is easy: the consolidated profile goes into the Heavy Support slot.
It really isn't cleaner to do it GWs way. It basically never is.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Consolidation of unit entries would solve this problem really easy. Centurions do not need to be in two separate profiles. Terminators don't need 4. We don't need 9+ different Captains.
I actually kind of disagree on the general sentiment. You consolidate all seven Captain profiles then instead of the bloat of seven different cards you have one enourmously bloated card with seven different stat lines and seven different sets of wargear options on it, a lot of which are mutually exclusive.
The same applies to Terminators and Centurions. Tartaros and Cataphracii have different stats. Ranged and assault terminators have mutuallu exclusive wargear. The same is true of Centurions, and that's not even mentioning that Dev and Assault Cents are in different parts of the org chart.
It's just cleaner to have them on separate cards.
We don't need different rules for the different Mks of Terminators though! It's LITERALLY unnecessary, especially when we don't have different rules for the different Mks of Power Armor. Basically all the wargear is already shared! Centurions is easy: the consolidated profile goes into the Heavy Support slot.
It really isn't cleaner to do it GWs way. It basically never is.
That's a nice slippery slope, there is literally no reason for anything to have different rules besides lore and appearance. Why does a Scout have a different profile than a Scion? Why does a Russ have a different profile than a Predator? Why does a Conscript have a different profile than a Guardsman when they're literally the same model? Lore and apperance. "Mk III armor has exactly the same rules as Mk VI armor so Cataphracii Terminators should have the same rules as modern Terminators" is actually a less valid argument than "Cataphracii Terminators have different rules than modern Terminators, so Mk III armor should have different rules than Mk VI armor".
Terminators do not share all the wargear. Tartarus are faster and they're the only ones that can carry the Reaper AC, Plasma Blaster, and Volkite Charger. Cataphracii have a penalty to Advance rolls and a better base invuln save. Modern Terminators can't carry the Grenade Harness. Of the two modern units only the Assault Terminators can take weapons besides the Power Sword on the sergeant. Heresy-era Terminators can mix all their melee and ranged options, modern termies cannot. Put it all on one sheet and you either have to add a lot of weird "only these options are legal together" text or you significantly increase the flexibility of the base unit. GW doesn't seem to want to do the latter, and so long as they want those units to have slightly different base capabilities then the way they've divided the cards makes sense.
Just have one profile for terminators, and give them access to weapon option in all kits. Then people can build their models based on what look they like, instead of rules and equip them how they like.
Pretty sure GW confirmed over the weekend that legacy/firstborn marines would NOT be getting Legendsed and would still be in the codex.
I expect GW is going to keep the firstborn marines around as long as they still see a certain level of community support behind those minis (i.e. people still showing up to tournaments with them, social media posts featuring them, etc.), but I expect they will begin scaling back production of those kits in time before finally quietly sidelining them and then officially Legendsing them. If 9th lasts a full edition cycle (~5 years) then I expect 10th will probably be the end of them.
chaos0xomega wrote: Pretty sure GW confirmed over the weekend that legacy/firstborn marines would NOT be getting Legendsed and would still be in the codex.
I expect GW is going to keep the firstborn marines around as long as they still see a certain level of community support behind those minis (i.e. people still showing up to tournaments with them, social media posts featuring them, etc.), but I expect they will begin scaling back production of those kits in time before finally quietly sidelining them and then officially Legendsing them. If 9th lasts a full edition cycle (~5 years) then I expect 10th will probably be the end of them.
One of the things I like about vanilla Space Marines is how many options I have available.
Why wouldn't I want different rules for different styles of Terminator armor? I'd say there aren't enough yet since I don't have rules for my Fire Drakes for 40k.
Sure, some things should be consolidated just to remove redundancy. But then you run into tournament rule sets like Ars Bellica that tell you to go feth yourself if your Codex has any kind of consolidated datasheets, or the Rule of 3 in general (although it's not as aggravating as AB) - I'd rather have a datasheet for Bolter Devastators, one for Multimelter Devastators and so on if that means I get treated the same way as e.g. Eldar that have separate datasheets for each weapon type, basically.
nekooni wrote: Why wouldn't I want different rules for different styles of Terminator armor? I'd say there aren't enough yet since I don't have rules for my Fire Drakes for 40k.
Unique rules are one of those things a lot of players seem to like, but which don't really do anything to improve gameplay and actively work against any attempts at balance and accessibility.
I suppose on that front it was a shame that GW didn't just introduce primaris as new-scale marines using the regular marine rules (and perhaps used 8th ed as a point to jump all marines to primaris stats)
Insectum7 wrote: Split the Codex, slowly drop support for Primaris. Rescale classic marines with new kits to CSM size.
Squat minimarines and move on with Primaris. Fixed it for ya.
Yank the band aid so we can all move on.
They just invented Legends so they wouldn’t have to squat stuff and literally invented the whole „Primaris“ thing so the new models wouldn’t „replace“ the old Tacticals, etc.. and could be played side-by-side by people that want to do that.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Consolidation of unit entries would solve this problem really easy. Centurions do not need to be in two separate profiles. Terminators don't need 4. We don't need 9+ different Captains.
I actually kind of disagree on the general sentiment. You consolidate all seven Captain profiles then instead of the bloat of seven different cards you have one enourmously bloated card with seven different stat lines and seven different sets of wargear options on it, a lot of which are mutually exclusive.
The same applies to Terminators and Centurions. Tartaros and Cataphracii have different stats. Ranged and assault terminators have mutuallu exclusive wargear. The same is true of Centurions, and that's not even mentioning that Dev and Assault Cents are in different parts of the org chart.
It's just cleaner to have them on separate cards.
We don't need different rules for the different Mks of Terminators though! It's LITERALLY unnecessary, especially when we don't have different rules for the different Mks of Power Armor. Basically all the wargear is already shared! Centurions is easy: the consolidated profile goes into the Heavy Support slot.
It really isn't cleaner to do it GWs way. It basically never is.
That's a nice slippery slope, there is literally no reason for anything to have different rules besides lore and appearance. Why does a Scout have a different profile than a Scion? Why does a Russ have a different profile than a Predator? Why does a Conscript have a different profile than a Guardsman when they're literally the same model? Lore and apperance. "Mk III armor has exactly the same rules as Mk VI armor so Cataphracii Terminators should have the same rules as modern Terminators" is actually a less valid argument than "Cataphracii Terminators have different rules than modern Terminators, so Mk III armor should have different rules than Mk VI armor".
Terminators do not share all the wargear. Tartarus are faster and they're the only ones that can carry the Reaper AC, Plasma Blaster, and Volkite Charger. Cataphracii have a penalty to Advance rolls and a better base invuln save. Modern Terminators can't carry the Grenade Harness. Of the two modern units only the Assault Terminators can take weapons besides the Power Sword on the sergeant. Heresy-era Terminators can mix all their melee and ranged options, modern termies cannot. Put it all on one sheet and you either have to add a lot of weird "only these options are legal together" text or you significantly increase the flexibility of the base unit. GW doesn't seem to want to do the latter, and so long as they want those units to have slightly different base capabilities then the way they've divided the cards makes sense.
So you're telling me no Chapter ended up with 4 sets of each armor for a while and therefore they wouldn't be able to field even a 5 man squad of Terminators? LOL okay then. I'd rather just the flexibility so that we can get rid of 3 whole entries (technically 4 with the two different Terminator Captains which is unnecessary). It's extreme arbitrary differences that don't do anything good for the game.
nekooni wrote: Why wouldn't I want different rules for different styles of Terminator armor? I'd say there aren't enough yet since I don't have rules for my Fire Drakes for 40k.
Unique rules are one of those things a lot of players seem to like, but which don't really do anything to improve gameplay and actively work against any attempts at balance and accessibility.
The incredible amount of options in factions, units, wargear, subfactions and so on is what drives 40k for me. If I wanted to trade that in for better balance, I'd play a different game. I'm not saying that I dislike balance, but I'm not willing to sacrifice these options on the altar of balance. Especially when the balance issues don't stem from having 3 types of Ancients, but from GW being unable to manage their own rules. Who exactly thought that -3 modifiers tohit or the rules Iron Hands got initially in their supplement were remotely balanced? That's just incompetency, nothing else.
Congrats you have a bunch of false choices. At its peak, pathfinder had like 1000 feats, but the same ones were used over and over. 5 meaningful choices is better than one optimal choice and 19 false choices
Martel732 wrote: Congrats you have a bunch of false choices. At its peak, pathfinder had like 1000 feats, but the same ones were used over and over. 5 meaningful choices is better than one optimal choice and 19 false choices
I don't play in tournaments, so I am not forced into cookie cutter builds. I try to cycle through all of my Salamanders though, and that works pretty well. I don't want to run the same list over and over again, just because it's the optimal choice - this isn't like World of Warcraft where all you do is play one set of feats per balance patch. Back in the day you had false choices there because they weren't choices - you HAD to take the optimal feats, and you had like 1 or 2 actual choices that were completely pointless, though.
Cataphractii terminators are sufficiently different from regular terminators, though.
Martel732 wrote: Congrats you have a bunch of false choices. At its peak, pathfinder had like 1000 feats, but the same ones were used over and over. 5 meaningful choices is better than one optimal choice and 19 false choices
Pathfinder isn't about building an optimal character. Your group could agree to play all Tier 4 classes, or Tier 3 with sufficiently unoptimized spell and feat choices, and likely end up having a better time playing as the monsters and campaigns weren't balanced against only ever seeing optimized tier 1 and 2 builds. Those bad feats also open builds that allow for emulation of characters from other properties even if the implementation of the rules means that character is less then optimal. Give choices to those that wish to use them.
Also, cutting rules that are 'dead weight' means that GW may as well hand each faction 3 prebuilt lists, move building your own army into casual play, and boil any sort of balanced play down to getting the first turn and having the paper to your opponent's rock.
I still think false choices are a waste of time, and insulting to boot. Look no further than assault marines. Or whirlwind vs scorpius whirlwind. Any dread vs leviathan dread.
I'm starting to think that maybe all the old Marine units will be left in the SM 8.5 book, and anything new Units will be put into the (Primaris) SM 9th book, thus fulfilling their "old codexes can still be used" promise for the time being.
Old Marines can still use the 8.5 book, and we dont have to waste pages on Terminators and Land Raiders and Old School "First Born" SM units.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Consolidation of unit entries would solve this problem really easy. Centurions do not need to be in two separate profiles. Terminators don't need 4. We don't need 9+ different Captains.
I actually kind of disagree on the general sentiment. You consolidate all seven Captain profiles then instead of the bloat of seven different cards you have one enourmously bloated card with seven different stat lines and seven different sets of wargear options on it, a lot of which are mutually exclusive.
The same applies to Terminators and Centurions. Tartaros and Cataphracii have different stats. Ranged and assault terminators have mutuallu exclusive wargear. The same is true of Centurions, and that's not even mentioning that Dev and Assault Cents are in different parts of the org chart.
It's just cleaner to have them on separate cards.
We don't need different rules for the different Mks of Terminators though! It's LITERALLY unnecessary, especially when we don't have different rules for the different Mks of Power Armor. Basically all the wargear is already shared! Centurions is easy: the consolidated profile goes into the Heavy Support slot.
It really isn't cleaner to do it GWs way. It basically never is.
That's a nice slippery slope, there is literally no reason for anything to have different rules besides lore and appearance. Why does a Scout have a different profile than a Scion? Why does a Russ have a different profile than a Predator? Why does a Conscript have a different profile than a Guardsman when they're literally the same model? Lore and apperance. "Mk III armor has exactly the same rules as Mk VI armor so Cataphracii Terminators should have the same rules as modern Terminators" is actually a less valid argument than "Cataphracii Terminators have different rules than modern Terminators, so Mk III armor should have different rules than Mk VI armor".
Terminators do not share all the wargear. Tartarus are faster and they're the only ones that can carry the Reaper AC, Plasma Blaster, and Volkite Charger. Cataphracii have a penalty to Advance rolls and a better base invuln save. Modern Terminators can't carry the Grenade Harness. Of the two modern units only the Assault Terminators can take weapons besides the Power Sword on the sergeant. Heresy-era Terminators can mix all their melee and ranged options, modern termies cannot. Put it all on one sheet and you either have to add a lot of weird "only these options are legal together" text or you significantly increase the flexibility of the base unit. GW doesn't seem to want to do the latter, and so long as they want those units to have slightly different base capabilities then the way they've divided the cards makes sense.
Love the hysterical jump in non logic.
We should consolodate the same models which have slightly different weapon options. So maybe we don;t need how many different weapon Primaris Lt dataslates....
MY GOD MAN you want all my models to ALL have the same profile - its exactly the same as a Stomper and a Gretchin havign different profiles. Nothing must puncture the every growing Marine Bloat NOTHING!
Martel732 wrote: Congrats you have a bunch of false choices. At its peak, pathfinder had like 1000 feats, but the same ones were used over and over. 5 meaningful choices is better than one optimal choice and 19 false choices
Pathfinder isn't about building an optimal character. Your group could agree to play all Tier 4 classes, or Tier 3 with sufficiently unoptimized spell and feat choices, and likely end up having a better time playing as the monsters and campaigns weren't balanced against only ever seeing optimized tier 1 and 2 builds. Those bad feats also open builds that allow for emulation of characters from other properties even if the implementation of the rules means that character is less then optimal. Give choices to those that wish to use them.
Also, cutting rules that are 'dead weight' means that GW may as well hand each faction 3 prebuilt lists, move building your own army into casual play, and boil any sort of balanced play down to getting the first turn and having the paper to your opponent's rock.
Pathfinder is also a cooperative game. 40k is not.
nekooni wrote: Why wouldn't I want different rules for different styles of Terminator armor? I'd say there aren't enough yet since I don't have rules for my Fire Drakes for 40k.
Unique rules are one of those things a lot of players seem to like, but which don't really do anything to improve gameplay and actively work against any attempts at balance and accessibility.
The incredible amount of options in factions, units, wargear, subfactions and so on is what drives 40k for me. If I wanted to trade that in for better balance, I'd play a different game. I'm not saying that I dislike balance, but I'm not willing to sacrifice these options on the altar of balance. Especially when the balance issues don't stem from having 3 types of Ancients, but from GW being unable to manage their own rules. Who exactly thought that -3 modifiers tohit or the rules Iron Hands got initially in their supplement were remotely balanced? That's just incompetency, nothing else.
That incredible amount of options isn't available to all factions though. Loyalist marines have more HQ options than many factions have units in their entire codex. Having one data sheet for terminators works just fine for csm, it would work just fine for loyalists as well. Same goes for box dreads, contemptors, etc, etc.
nekooni wrote: Why wouldn't I want different rules for different styles of Terminator armor? I'd say there aren't enough yet since I don't have rules for my Fire Drakes for 40k.
Unique rules are one of those things a lot of players seem to like, but which don't really do anything to improve gameplay and actively work against any attempts at balance and accessibility.
The incredible amount of options in factions, units, wargear, subfactions and so on is what drives 40k for me. If I wanted to trade that in for better balance, I'd play a different game. I'm not saying that I dislike balance, but I'm not willing to sacrifice these options on the altar of balance. Especially when the balance issues don't stem from having 3 types of Ancients, but from GW being unable to manage their own rules. Who exactly thought that -3 modifiers tohit or the rules Iron Hands got initially in their supplement were remotely balanced? That's just incompetency, nothing else.
That incredible amount of options isn't available to all factions though. Loyalist marines have more HQ options than many factions have units in their entire codex. Having one data sheet for terminators works just fine for csm, it would work just fine for loyalists as well. Same goes for box dreads, contemptors, etc, etc.
Yea, there's the equity problem on top of the absurdity problem.
nekooni wrote: Why wouldn't I want different rules for different styles of Terminator armor? I'd say there aren't enough yet since I don't have rules for my Fire Drakes for 40k.
Unique rules are one of those things a lot of players seem to like, but which don't really do anything to improve gameplay and actively work against any attempts at balance and accessibility.
The incredible amount of options in factions, units, wargear, subfactions and so on is what drives 40k for me. If I wanted to trade that in for better balance, I'd play a different game. I'm not saying that I dislike balance, but I'm not willing to sacrifice these options on the altar of balance. Especially when the balance issues don't stem from having 3 types of Ancients, but from GW being unable to manage their own rules. Who exactly thought that -3 modifiers tohit or the rules Iron Hands got initially in their supplement were remotely balanced? That's just incompetency, nothing else.
That incredible amount of options isn't available to all factions though. Loyalist marines have more HQ options than many factions have units in their entire codex. Having one data sheet for terminators works just fine for csm, it would work just fine for loyalists as well. Same goes for box dreads, contemptors, etc, etc.
Sure - but I'm not saying Marines should be the only faction with that many options, so I'm not sure what your point is? I'm basically just saying that you shouldn't take away the options people enjoy just because you think they're pointless if they're not pointless to these other people.
Same for RPGs - I never build minmax characters for D&D, so Martel would probably call most of the feats and choices I pick "false choices" because they're not the optimal choice for that archetype.
And equality is best reached by giving everyone the same, not by taking away from those that already have something, throwing it on a pile and burning it down. So just give CSM more terminator squad options, for example
nekooni wrote: Why wouldn't I want different rules for different styles of Terminator armor? I'd say there aren't enough yet since I don't have rules for my Fire Drakes for 40k.
Unique rules are one of those things a lot of players seem to like, but which don't really do anything to improve gameplay and actively work against any attempts at balance and accessibility.
The incredible amount of options in factions, units, wargear, subfactions and so on is what drives 40k for me. If I wanted to trade that in for better balance, I'd play a different game. I'm not saying that I dislike balance, but I'm not willing to sacrifice these options on the altar of balance. Especially when the balance issues don't stem from having 3 types of Ancients, but from GW being unable to manage their own rules. Who exactly thought that -3 modifiers tohit or the rules Iron Hands got initially in their supplement were remotely balanced? That's just incompetency, nothing else.
That incredible amount of options isn't available to all factions though. Loyalist marines have more HQ options than many factions have units in their entire codex. Having one data sheet for terminators works just fine for csm, it would work just fine for loyalists as well. Same goes for box dreads, contemptors, etc, etc.
Sure - but I'm not saying Marines should be the only faction with that many options, so I'm not sure what your point is? I'm basically just saying that you shouldn't take away the options people enjoy just because you think they're pointless if they're not pointless to these other people.
Same for RPGs - I never build minmax characters for D&D, so Martel would probably call most of the feats and choices I pick "false choices" because they're not the optimal choice for that archetype.
And equality is best reached by giving everyone the same, not by taking away from those that already have something, throwing it on a pile and burning it down. So just give CSM more terminator squad options, for example
Except nothing is lost consolidating Centurions into a single entry for the Heavy Support slot. Nothing is lost with Terminators just having the one entry as Chaos Marines have done for YEARS. Arbitrary units and options are bad design.
I’d like to see some armies, like DA, reject primaris and Keep the line of old marines with them. Possibly they become more of fiefdom. But GW aren’t going to keep producing 2 sets of marines I expect by then end of 9th old marines will have their rules in Index old stuff
Except nothing is lost consolidating Centurions into a single entry for the Heavy Support slot. Nothing is lost with Terminators just having the one entry as Chaos Marines have done for YEARS. Arbitrary units and options are bad design.
I totally agree, even said so earlier already. I'm just saying that I want to retain the options, unlike what Martel (as far as I understand it) argues.
Terminators with 3 different suit options (speed, defense, allrounder) and all of the weapon options from the current datasheets? totally fine with me.
All terminators being the same datasheet with minimal options (eg merging the Autocannon and the Assault Cannon) is a different beast, though.
Do you realize how many releases it would take to bring everyone up to marines? Cutting marines choices by half or even 2/3 is necessary to even have a hope.
The Mini Marine line is one of their most modern plastic lines. It seems incredibly wasteful to essentially squat it by moving it to Legends (cue the contrarians acting like that isn't a death knell)
It would make more sense to write a Badab type coalition of Firstborn who rebel/are driven out to form their own book
Martel732 wrote: Do you realize how many releases it would take to bring everyone up to marines? Cutting marines choices by half or even 2/3 is necessary to even have a hope.
You've yet to explain why it is necessary to reduce the options outside of you thinking that they're "false choices". I want my terminator suits to behave differently from each other, and so far it's not a balance issue - neither are the different variants of Ancients, and so on. Usually the balance problems come from individual special units that are unique in what they can do (eg Hemlock, Reapers).
It's necessary because other factions deserve to have at least half the options of marines. I would say equal, but that seems ambitious. Chopping down the marines makes it much easier to meet that benchmark.
There should not be so many varieties of terminators. Especially the really ancient models. They should have fallen into disrepair.
Martel732 wrote: It's necessary because other factions deserve to have at least half the options of marines. I would say equal, but that seems ambitious. Chopping down the marines makes it much easier to meet that benchmark.
There should not be so many varieties of terminators. Especially the really ancient models. They should have fallen into disrepair.
Again, equity and absurdity issues.
So, just to make sure I get that right - you want to burn 2/3 of the marine codex simply because you don't like Marine players having more choices than other factions? That's it?
If you see a nice house and think that you'd like to have the same thing, too - would you feel like you've improved your situation by burning down that house since now the owner and you both have no house? (insert something appropriate if you already own a nice house, obviously)
If there were a realistic way to bring everyone up to the same number of choices, that would be fine too. Do you think they will make all those molds?
Marines are organized at a battalion level. Their level of diversity is insane for such a small force. All the marine bits and blurbs are really silly. It would consume the entire chapter to field meaningful amounts of the marine vehicles they have created.
Now, if we increase chapter size to say a billion marines, then the absurdity issue at least goes away.
Martel732 wrote: If there were a realistic way to bring everyone up to the same number of choices, that would be fine too. Do you think they are make all those molds?
Marines are organized at a battalion level. Their level of diversity is insane for such a small force. All the marine bits and blurbs are really silly.
Again - why is it necessary to bring everyone to the same level of options? Why is it so important to reach that goal that it is fine to burn 2/3 of the Codex options? Just so eg a Necron player doesn't feel as bad about the lack of options in his Codex? It's not going to change anything for them, as you're only arguing to slash the "false choices", right? It's probably going to make the experience of sub-standard codex armies worse since I won't be able to tune my marines down by going with some wonky choices, since you just removed those.
re: absurdity - as far as I am aware more elite units usually have more diverse equipment in real armies, but I'm no expert so not sure about that. Not that I really care about that level of realism in a setting like 40k, though.
No one should have to "tune down". All choices should be meaningful.
To be honest here, I'd eliminate some of snowflake marines entirely, my own chapter included. Too much power armor in the game. Too many near-mirror matches. So 2/3 sounds like a compromise to me.
"
Again - why is it necessary to bring everyone to the same level of options?"
Because Orks and Tau are just as valid conceptually. Probably more so.
I'd say there's a pretty easy way to consolidate all the Terminators.
Single datasheet, all weapons available to everyone (because why can only Tartaros have the plasma blaster, when they're from the same chronological period as Cataphractii? Why can Cataphractii not have storm shields, despite that being an option they had in 30k? Why can some Chapters of loyalist Marines have mixed Terminator squads, but others can only have mixed Tartaros and Cataphractii squads, and others can't take mixed Indomitus squads on tabletop, but can in lore?)
However, you still get to have the difference between marks - have a rule in place where you *must* choose your Terminator Squad to be Indomitus, Cataphractii, or Tartaros - Indomitus gets 5++, Cataphractii gets 4++ but -1 Move, and Tartaros gets 6++ and +1 Move (yes, it makes them weaker than current, but that gives Indomitus a niche).
Martel732 wrote: No one should have to "tune down". All choices should be meaningful.
To be honest here, I'd eliminate some of snowflake marines entirely, my own chapter included. Too much power armor in the game. Too many near-mirror matches. So 2/3 sounds like a compromise to me.
You'd end up playing even more mirror matches since you'd no longer have any distinction between eg BA and DA, and you'd face even more "standardized" PA lists as a result. If everyone is stuck with "Terminator, Tactical, Devastator and a Captain" as options, that's all you're going to see. And if there're no longer any chapter specific rules, that just removes even more distinction. Well played.
Because Orks and Tau are just as valid conceptually. Probably more so.
And in no way are my Tau invalidated by me having a ton of choices for my Salamanders.
And honestly, you're claiming that there arent enough marines to explain diverse wargear, and they you're going to bring up the tiniest faction in the entire game, that has like a handful of worlds?
There are still orders of magnitude more Tau than marines. I know it's hard to grasp the actual setting insignificance of marines the way GW treats them.
I wouldn't get as many mirror matches because hopefully some people would dump marines. So yes, marine vs marine is MORE similar, but marine vs the field gets a lot better.
And yes, Tau and Orks are partially invalidated by all the attention GW gives marines. Marines are eating their lunch.
I know GW will not change, and continue gaking on all non-marine factions. So your million versions of terminators are safe, even if they are stupid and useless.
Martel732 wrote: There are still orders of magnitude more Tau than marines.
I wouldn't get as many mirror matches because hopefully some people would dump marines. So yes, marine vs marine is MORE similar, but marine vs the field gets a lot better.
And yes, Tau and Orks are partially invalidated by all the attention GW gives marines. Marines are eating their lunch.
That's a great attitude, making players lose interest in their armies on purpose. I'm done here, no point in continuing.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'd say there's a pretty easy way to consolidate all the Terminators.
Single datasheet, all weapons available to everyone (because why can only Tartaros have the plasma blaster, when they're from the same chronological period as Cataphractii? Why can Cataphractii not have storm shields, despite that being an option they had in 30k? Why can some Chapters of loyalist Marines have mixed Terminator squads, but others can only have mixed Tartaros and Cataphractii squads, and others can't take mixed Indomitus squads on tabletop, but can in lore?)
However, you still get to have the difference between marks - have a rule in place where you *must* choose your Terminator Squad to be Indomitus, Cataphractii, or Tartaros - Indomitus gets 5++, Cataphractii gets 4++ but -1 Move, and Tartaros gets 6++ and +1 Move (yes, it makes them weaker than current, but that gives Indomitus a niche).
I like this idea. As long as we're talking legions as well as chapters.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'd say there's a pretty easy way to consolidate all the Terminators.
Single datasheet, all weapons available to everyone (because why can only Tartaros have the plasma blaster, when they're from the same chronological period as Cataphractii? Why can Cataphractii not have storm shields, despite that being an option they had in 30k? Why can some Chapters of loyalist Marines have mixed Terminator squads, but others can only have mixed Tartaros and Cataphractii squads, and others can't take mixed Indomitus squads on tabletop, but can in lore?)
However, you still get to have the difference between marks - have a rule in place where you *must* choose your Terminator Squad to be Indomitus, Cataphractii, or Tartaros - Indomitus gets 5++, Cataphractii gets 4++ but -1 Move, and Tartaros gets 6++ and +1 Move (yes, it makes them weaker than current, but that gives Indomitus a niche).
I like this idea. As long as we're talking legions as well as chapters.
You want it for CSM too? Hell yeah! If anyone should have Tartaros/Cataphractii, it's them!
Primaris are GW's biggest mistake, but unfortunately, they are here to stay. Old marines are going the way of the dodo sooner or later. 10,000 years of tradition and lore upended to force SM players to buy new armies.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'd say there's a pretty easy way to consolidate all the Terminators.
Single datasheet, all weapons available to everyone (because why can only Tartaros have the plasma blaster, when they're from the same chronological period as Cataphractii? Why can Cataphractii not have storm shields, despite that being an option they had in 30k? Why can some Chapters of loyalist Marines have mixed Terminator squads, but others can only have mixed Tartaros and Cataphractii squads, and others can't take mixed Indomitus squads on tabletop, but can in lore?)
However, you still get to have the difference between marks - have a rule in place where you *must* choose your Terminator Squad to be Indomitus, Cataphractii, or Tartaros - Indomitus gets 5++, Cataphractii gets 4++ but -1 Move, and Tartaros gets 6++ and +1 Move (yes, it makes them weaker than current, but that gives Indomitus a niche).
I like this idea. As long as we're talking legions as well as chapters.
You want it for CSM too? Hell yeah! If anyone should have Tartaros/Cataphractii, it's them!
Of course they should. Why gw decided that a kit designed to be used for any of the 18 legions in 30k could only be used for loyalists in 40k escapes me. Especially considering that the legions actually fought in the Heresy.
chaos0xomega wrote: Pretty sure GW confirmed over the weekend that legacy/firstborn marines would NOT be getting Legendsed and would still be in the codex.
I expect GW is going to keep the firstborn marines around as long as they still see a certain level of community support behind those minis (i.e. people still showing up to tournaments with them, social media posts featuring them, etc.), but I expect they will begin scaling back production of those kits in time before finally quietly sidelining them and then officially Legendsing them. If 9th lasts a full edition cycle (~5 years) then I expect 10th will probably be the end of them.
If 9th last 3 years like 8th and then 10th last 3 more years, I won't be surprised for the Firstborn to shift to Legends int he 11th Edition Codex. I will be surprised if they are removed anytime before then. So a solid 6 year minimum in my opinion.
Of course, GW has it own plans that are inscrutable to the likes of us.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Consolidation of unit entries would solve this problem really easy. Centurions do not need to be in two separate profiles. Terminators don't need 4. We don't need 9+ different Captains.
I actually kind of disagree on the general sentiment. You consolidate all seven Captain profiles then instead of the bloat of seven different cards you have one enourmously bloated card with seven different stat lines and seven different sets of wargear options on it, a lot of which are mutually exclusive.
The same applies to Terminators and Centurions. Tartaros and Cataphracii have different stats. Ranged and assault terminators have mutuallu exclusive wargear. The same is true of Centurions, and that's not even mentioning that Dev and Assault Cents are in different parts of the org chart.
It's just cleaner to have them on separate cards.
We don't need different rules for the different Mks of Terminators though! It's LITERALLY unnecessary, especially when we don't have different rules for the different Mks of Power Armor. Basically all the wargear is already shared! Centurions is easy: the consolidated profile goes into the Heavy Support slot.
It really isn't cleaner to do it GWs way. It basically never is.
That's a nice slippery slope, there is literally no reason for anything to have different rules besides lore and appearance. Why does a Scout have a different profile than a Scion? Why does a Russ have a different profile than a Predator? Why does a Conscript have a different profile than a Guardsman when they're literally the same model? Lore and apperance. "Mk III armor has exactly the same rules as Mk VI armor so Cataphracii Terminators should have the same rules as modern Terminators" is actually a less valid argument than "Cataphracii Terminators have different rules than modern Terminators, so Mk III armor should have different rules than Mk VI armor".
Terminators do not share all the wargear. Tartarus are faster and they're the only ones that can carry the Reaper AC, Plasma Blaster, and Volkite Charger. Cataphracii have a penalty to Advance rolls and a better base invuln save. Modern Terminators can't carry the Grenade Harness. Of the two modern units only the Assault Terminators can take weapons besides the Power Sword on the sergeant. Heresy-era Terminators can mix all their melee and ranged options, modern termies cannot. Put it all on one sheet and you either have to add a lot of weird "only these options are legal together" text or you significantly increase the flexibility of the base unit. GW doesn't seem to want to do the latter, and so long as they want those units to have slightly different base capabilities then the way they've divided the cards makes sense.
Love the hysterical jump in non logic.
Absolutely nothing I said is a leap into non-logic. Different Terminator marks having slightly different rules makes more sense than different power armor marks all being under a single sheet. The lack of difference in power armor marks does not support the argument that the differences in terminator marks should be removed. If anything the opposite is true.
Look, I'd prefer to have one Terminator unit that I could upgrade to M6 or 4++, with Serg options for any combination of sword/claws/power fist/chainfist/thunder hammer/storm shield/Stormbolter/Volkite charger/plasma blaster plus the grenade harness and squad options for any combination of their gear and one Heavy Flamer/Assault Cannon/Reaper AC/Cyclone Launcher. I'd much prefer to be able to field my Centurions with one Heavy Bolter/Grav Cannon/Lascannon and one Siege Drill + Flamer/Meltagun and any one of the Centurion Missile Launcher/Hurricane Bolter/Assault Launcher instead of having to match the left and right arms so they could multi-task better. But if only certain combinations of that stuff is legal I want it on seperate cards for clarity.
Actually no it doesn't. The logic is, if different Mks of Terminator armor get different because they "act different" in fluff, Power Armor needs the same treatment since they act different in fluff. Either you're wanting that consistency or you should admit that just because a different kit exists doesn't mean there's a justification for different rules.
The Newman wrote: [Absolutely nothing I said is a leap into non-logic. Different Terminator marks having slightly different rules makes more sense than different power armor marks all being under a single sheet. The lack of difference in power armor marks does not support the argument that the differences in terminator marks should be removed. If anything the opposite is true.
It is just pointless crazy bloat. Some options can be just visual. Just let the people choose the look they like.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Actually no it doesn't. The logic is, if different Mks of Terminator armor get different because they "act different" in fluff, Power Armor needs the same treatment since they act different in fluff. Either you're wanting that consistency or you should admit that just because a different kit exists doesn't mean there's a justification for different rules.
I don't want to make any assumptions since you didn't quote anything, but I'm guessing you're responding to me. Which is a little odd since you're saying pretty much exactly what I said.
I can see the argument for consolidating the Terminator marks into a single entry with all the options. I can see the argument for the different Power Armor marks to have small variations in their rules. What I can't see is the argument that Power Armor having the same rules for different marks justifies removing the differences between the terminator marks when "different model ~> different rules" is the rule and Power Armor is the exception, and that keeps getting held up as an example of why things should be consolidated.
It's not even really removing bloat if the new Terminator card can replicate any of the four existing cards.
No. Stop creating more marine codexes. Bad! Down! Bad!
What else could you possibly want? Last edition there was: Space Marine Index, Space Marine Codex, Faction Codex, Vigilus, That one Chaos thing no one cares about, Prophecy of da wolf, other varies PA stuff that wasn't relevant about marines but somehow it was.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Actually no it doesn't. The logic is, if different Mks of Terminator armor get different because they "act different" in fluff, Power Armor needs the same treatment since they act different in fluff. Either you're wanting that consistency or you should admit that just because a different kit exists doesn't mean there's a justification for different rules.
Or you could argue that the inherent differences in Power Armour are not as pronounced as they are between the different marks of Terminator Armour.
Mk.VI has slightly better sensors than Mk.VII. Is that enough to justify a different rule compared to the speed differential between Cataphractii, Indomitus and Tartaros?
I'm not sure how you even could give the different marks of power armour separate rules, given how many marine models have mixed or non-standard armour parts.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Actually no it doesn't. The logic is, if different Mks of Terminator armor get different because they "act different" in fluff, Power Armor needs the same treatment since they act different in fluff. Either you're wanting that consistency or you should admit that just because a different kit exists doesn't mean there's a justification for different rules.
Or you could argue that the inherent differences in Power Armour are not as pronounced as they are between the different marks of Terminator Armour.
Mk.VI has slightly better sensors than Mk.VII. Is that enough to justify a different rule compared to the speed differential between Cataphractii, Indomitus and Tartaros?
Ignore negative modifiers to hit. Bam done. So yes, we don't need the differing rules for the different Terminator armors. It's the pure definition of bloat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: I'm not sure how you even could give the different marks of power armour separate rules, given how many marine models have mixed or non-standard armour parts.
So you would also need to argue there's no such thing as Terminator squads that are mixed ever. No Chapter has just three pieces of Tartaros and they won't be able to field ANY of them. Simply because there's not five!
Also you could do it because Mk3 and 4 have their own separate kits.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also you could do it because Mk3 and 4 have their own separate kits.
But then what about any other models that are wearing parts of Mk3 or 4 armour? How much Mk3 would you need to be wearing to count as wearing Mk3?
Honestly, that's a level of detail that is completely unneccessary in a game on this scale. As is the terminator delineation, IMO.
It gives marine players access to more rules and more unit types. Now terminator armoured units are in a bad state in general, but all they need is rules and point adjustments, and it could see wide use. What is bad in having more options for your army?
At this point there really should be no other option but to rip the bandaid off and simply drop oldMarines. With the upcoming Primaris Bikers it's fairly obvious all the kits will be Primarified sooner rather than later. GW just needs to get that ball rolling faster and stop dragging it out.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also you could do it because Mk3 and 4 have their own separate kits.
But then what about any other models that are wearing parts of Mk3 or 4 armour? How much Mk3 would you need to be wearing to count as wearing Mk3?
Honestly, that's a level of detail that is completely unneccessary in a game on this scale. As is the terminator delineation, IMO.
It gives marine players access to more rules and more unit types. Now terminator armoured units are in a bad state in general, but all they need is rules and point adjustments, and it could see wide use. What is bad in having more options for your army?
If GW can't get one Terminator unit right, they shouldn't be attempting to make 4 of them.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also you could do it because Mk3 and 4 have their own separate kits.
But then what about any other models that are wearing parts of Mk3 or 4 armour? How much Mk3 would you need to be wearing to count as wearing Mk3?
Honestly, that's a level of detail that is completely unneccessary in a game on this scale. As is the terminator delineation, IMO.
It gives marine players access to more rules and more unit types. Now terminator armoured units are in a bad state in general, but all they need is rules and point adjustments, and it could see wide use. What is bad in having more options for your army?
If GW can't get one Terminator unit right, they shouldn't be attempting to make 4 of them.
This. And, again, it introduces what is effectively a false choice for the player.
If you have 4 different versions of a unit but one of those versions is flat out better in every reasonable scenario then those other three might not as well be in there from a game design perspective as the player is effectively punished for taking them over the superior option. Give them all the same rules and nobody is punished for picking one particular model for their terminators over any other, which means that players can happily use whatever models they want, even mixing and matching those different marks within a unit.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also you could do it because Mk3 and 4 have their own separate kits.
But then what about any other models that are wearing parts of Mk3 or 4 armour? How much Mk3 would you need to be wearing to count as wearing Mk3?
Honestly, that's a level of detail that is completely unneccessary in a game on this scale. As is the terminator delineation, IMO.
It gives marine players access to more rules and more unit types. Now terminator armoured units are in a bad state in general, but all they need is rules and point adjustments, and it could see wide use. What is bad in having more options for your army?
if ( MoreOptions == Good) then :
Grey knights power weapons are a good thing for the army.
i think most people can agree that these are non-choices, how often do you play with warding staves or daemon hammers? thats the kind of bloat that people talk about, same thing with power axe/maul/sword, theyre not real options.
I get that some people take suboptimal options (me included, especially for my night lords since theyre my fluffy army) but i'd rather the choices be mostly visual (which power weapon fits best with my theme)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also you could do it because Mk3 and 4 have their own separate kits.
But then what about any other models that are wearing parts of Mk3 or 4 armour? How much Mk3 would you need to be wearing to count as wearing Mk3?
Honestly, that's a level of detail that is completely unneccessary in a game on this scale. As is the terminator delineation, IMO.
It gives marine players access to more rules and more unit types. Now terminator armoured units are in a bad state in general, but all they need is rules and point adjustments, and it could see wide use. What is bad in having more options for your army?
If GW can't get one Terminator unit right, they shouldn't be attempting to make 4 of them.
This. And, again, it introduces what is effectively a false choice for the player.
If you have 4 different versions of a unit but one of those versions is flat out better in every reasonable scenario then those other three might not as well be in there from a game design perspective as the player is effectively punished for taking them over the superior option. Give them all the same rules and nobody is punished for picking one particular model for their terminators over any other, which means that players can happily use whatever models they want, even mixing and matching those different marks within a unit.
This is exactly what I do. My csm terminators are a mix of cataphractii and tartaros, all with the same rules. It makes sense for a ragtag band of raiders, which is what they are. I don't understand why gw didn't go this route with the new csm terminators instead of making them all the newer indomutus pattern when csm should have older patterns. They understand that with basic power armour but not terminators.
This is exactly what I do. My csm terminators are a mix of cataphractii and tartaros, all with the same rules. It makes sense for a ragtag band of raiders, which is what they are. I don't understand why gw didn't go this route with the new csm terminators instead of making them all the newer indomutus pattern when csm should have older patterns. They understand that with basic power armour but not terminators.
I can't wait for the Contekar to be released by FW so i can have actual NL themes termies in my army instead of running Scarab Occult "count-as"
I can't wait for the Contekar to be released by FW so i can have actual NL themes termies in my army instead of running Scarab Occult "count-as"
How do they relate to the Atramentar?
I just started looking up NL lore but from what i understand, the Atramentars were actually part of the legion whilst the Contekar are basically "Mercenaries" within the legion that chose who they fight for. The contekar were part of the ruling elite of Nostromo.
I'm mostly saying that they fit the NL theme because of the model's looks, the previewed models wear Tartaros armor instead of the indomitus that regular chaos termies have.
bullyboy wrote: With 9th, we are getting a slew of new units for Primaris marines..
Captain, Ancient, and Lt will probably just have options added to existing choices in single data slate
Judiciar
Assault Intercessors
Bladeguard Veterans
Eradicators
Outriders
Invader ATV
Firestrike turret
Landspeeder seen in other pictures
Now add that to existing options for marines, the codex is just going to get ridiculously out of control. At what point does GW branch off primaris into it's own dex and leave the old marines to current dex (before legends)?
I do understand that the Primaris line still has significant gaps and so you can't remove it just yet, but the choices are certainly getting out of hand.
Have you not been paying attention over the last three years? Many of the older Space Marine models are no longer being produced, and many more are only "made to order". I would not be surprised at all if the new Space Marine Codex was nothing but Primaris, with the older Space Marine line getting the Legendary rules online with no codex. All the pieces are in place. While I thought Space Marines wern't gonna get squatted until at least 10th edition, it looks like GW is moving up that time lime.
The largest holes in the Primaris line are about to be filled. Dedicated close combat units. Check. Fast attack bikes. Check. Devastators Check. What's left? Speeders? We've seen leaked, blurry images of a possible replacement. It's all there. The only question will be flyers- will we get new Stormnouns?
This is exactly what I do. My csm terminators are a mix of cataphractii and tartaros, all with the same rules. It makes sense for a ragtag band of raiders, which is what they are. I don't understand why gw didn't go this route with the new csm terminators instead of making them all the newer indomutus pattern when csm should have older patterns. They understand that with basic power armour but not terminators.
I can't wait for the Contekar to be released by FW so i can have actual NL themes termies in my army instead of running Scarab Occult "count-as"
Why don't you just use the plastic tartoros kit instead of scarabs? If you like tartoros and Night Lords you should check out the Night Lords praetor from fw. Now that's a Night Lords terminator.
This is exactly what I do. My csm terminators are a mix of cataphractii and tartaros, all with the same rules. It makes sense for a ragtag band of raiders, which is what they are. I don't understand why gw didn't go this route with the new csm terminators instead of making them all the newer indomutus pattern when csm should have older patterns. They understand that with basic power armour but not terminators.
I can't wait for the Contekar to be released by FW so i can have actual NL themes termies in my army instead of running Scarab Occult "count-as"
Why don't you just use the plastic tartoros kit instead of scarabs? If you like tartoros and Night Lords you should check out the Night Lords praetor from fw. Now that's a Night Lords terminator.
Because i also have a Thousand sons army .
And i already have the night lords praetor that i'm running as a termi lord.
i don't want to get a kit since i know i'll get the contekar once they release.
I'm thinking they will do a First Born separate book later in 9th and in 10th they will start with First Born and Primaris separate that the same time remove some of them to Legends making it the last edition for baby marines. This is a 9 ish year plan, i'm guess Marines will be all Primaris by towards the end of 10th.
The current marine dex has 76 datasheets, and now we will be adding at least 8-9 more sheets for roughly 85 separate data sheets. This does not include Forgeworld, chapter specific sheets etc.
bullyboy wrote: The current marine dex has 76 datasheets, and now we will be adding at least 8-9 more sheets for roughly 85 separate data sheets. This does not include Forgeworld, chapter specific sheets etc.
That's pure insanity really.
No, its a well a thought out sane business move.
GW customers are sometimes somewhat insane- they often have emotional attachments to their plastic model toys.
Their flagship product is 40k, with the flagship faction being Imperium, specifically Space Marines.
They are going to get rid of all the classic Marines within the next 4-5 years. All of them.
This is their transition and phase out, there has been only 1 new marine sculpt model in the past 4 years, and it was a replacement for a model that already existed as a special character. Slowly every classic marine option is being replace with an equivalent primaris option. When the something something is complete absolute primaris will mean classic marines become legends. Not only will GW no longer have to create new classic marines, which they are not and have not been doing, they will not have to continue supporting the legend sculpts and production.
This is a very sane, very well thought out, long term business plan to replace the highest grossing product for a company in a way their customer base will accept.
The whole point of primaris is to completely replace the space marine line and void the old models so people have to buy new armies. They couldn't do it all at once because that would be too much even for frogs that are used to being boiled. So they started small, deliberately leaving large areas of the oldmarines range still mostly untouched. 8th was the "comfy warm temperatures" phase of the plan to boil the frogs. Nothing too extreme, nothing that couldn't plausibly be spun as "expanding" the range instead of "replacing it."
Now comes 9th, when the temperatures really get turned up now that people are used to the concept of primaris models, and even to the point of actually asking for their old models to be replaced with better primaris versions.
By the end of 9th, every single oldmarine will have a primaris alternative that is aggressively point costed at a more attractive level, and aggressively $ costed at a price point higher than the old model.
Insectum7 wrote: Split the Codex, slowly drop support for Primaris. Rescale classic marines with new kits to CSM size.
Except Primaris look objectively better than the rescaled stuff. Also the statline makes more sense.
I love the way you use the word “objectively” like a person who has absolutely no idea what it means. It doesn’t just “add extra emphasis” to your entirely subjective opinion FYI.
Insectum7 wrote: Split the Codex, slowly drop support for Primaris. Rescale classic marines with new kits to CSM size.
Except Primaris look objectively better than the rescaled stuff. Also the statline makes more sense.
I love the way you use the word “objectively” like a person who has absolutely no idea what it means. It doesn’t just “add extra emphasis” to your entirely subjective opinion FYI.
Well it isn't really subjective to say Primaris are more realistic in scale to other models, more evenly proportioned, etc. You can LIKE Manlet Marines more because you refuse to look at anything new, but let's not pretend the models are better than Primaris.
Insectum7 wrote: Split the Codex, slowly drop support for Primaris. Rescale classic marines with new kits to CSM size.
Except Primaris look objectively better than the rescaled stuff. Also the statline makes more sense.
I love the way you use the word “objectively” like a person who has absolutely no idea what it means. It doesn’t just “add extra emphasis” to your entirely subjective opinion FYI.
Well it isn't really subjective to say Primaris are more realistic in scale to other models, more evenly proportioned, etc. You can LIKE Manlet Marines more because you refuse to look at anything new, but let's not pretend the models are better than Primaris.
But also "objectively", bigger models make the table look smaller, and make terrain features like buildings less realistically scaled, or ranges on guns more ridiculously short.
The poster you responded to didn’t say anything about old marines being scaled better, just that he liked them better - exactly what you just said was okay. Your response to him also didn’t say anything about them being objectively more realistic - just that they objectively look better.
And if it was even still in question, you then go on to make it clear that you believe someone can’t actually think old marines are better, and that the only reason to say such a thing would be because you hate “everything new”.
Try to keep up with your own nonsense a bit better. You do not understand what the word objective means.
Insectum7 wrote: Split the Codex, slowly drop support for Primaris. Rescale classic marines with new kits to CSM size.
Except Primaris look objectively better than the rescaled stuff. Also the statline makes more sense.
I love the way you use the word “objectively” like a person who has absolutely no idea what it means. It doesn’t just “add extra emphasis” to your entirely subjective opinion FYI.
Well it isn't really subjective to say Primaris are more realistic in scale to other models, more evenly proportioned, etc. You can LIKE Manlet Marines more because you refuse to look at anything new, but let's not pretend the models are better than Primaris.
But also "objectively", bigger models make the table look smaller, and make terrain features like buildings less realistically scaled, or ranges on guns more ridiculously short.
Uh if anything the upscale Primaris make more sense for buildings on the field being smaller for them, soooooooooo I don't think you're making a good point, if at all.
Also if you think Primaris make the battlefield look "smaller" wait until you see Terminators or Meganobz! THOSE make the battlefield super small. Or Centurions or Imperial Knights. Amd any army using 3+ Land Raiders.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nitro Zeus wrote: The poster you responded to didn’t say anything about old marines being scaled better, just that he liked them better - exactly what you just said was okay. Your response to him also didn’t say anything about them being objectively more realistic - just that they objectively look better.
And if it was even still in question, you then go on to make it clear that you believe someone can’t actually think old marines are better, and that the only reason to say such a thing would be because you hate “everything new”.
Try to keep up with your own nonsense a bit better. You do not understand what the word objective means.
Except it is people hating everything new. Remember how the last Tactical kit made the last iteration of Marines look silly?
Insectum7 wrote: Split the Codex, slowly drop support for Primaris. Rescale classic marines with new kits to CSM size.
Except Primaris look objectively better than the rescaled stuff. Also the statline makes more sense.
I love the way you use the word “objectively” like a person who has absolutely no idea what it means. It doesn’t just “add extra emphasis” to your entirely subjective opinion FYI.
Well it isn't really subjective to say Primaris are more realistic in scale to other models, more evenly proportioned, etc. You can LIKE Manlet Marines more because you refuse to look at anything new, but let's not pretend the models are better than Primaris.
But also "objectively", bigger models make the table look smaller, and make terrain features like buildings less realistically scaled, or ranges on guns more ridiculously short.
Uh if anything the upscale Primaris make more sense for buildings on the field being smaller for them, soooooooooo I don't think you're making a good point, if at all.
Also if you think Primaris make the battlefield look "smaller" wait until you see Terminators or Meganobz! THOSE make the battlefield super small. Or Centurions or Imperial Knights. Amd any army using 3+ Land Raiders.
A: So you agree with me that they're adding an already existing problem then. Well that's nice.
B: Depends on how big you want your "massive cathedral ruin" to look. 50 feet wide?
C: How common are Terminators and Meganobz in comparison to Primaris? See many of those on the tabletop recently?
D: Depends on which Terminators you're using. I prefer the 2nd Ed metals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except it is people hating everything new. Remember how the last Tactical kit made the last iteration of Marines look silly?
Nitro Zeus wrote: The poster you responded to didn’t say anything about old marines being scaled better, just that he liked them better - exactly what you just said was okay. Your response to him also didn’t say anything about them being objectively more realistic - just that they objectively look better.
And if it was even still in question, you then go on to make it clear that you believe someone can’t actually think old marines are better, and that the only reason to say such a thing would be because you hate “everything new”.
Try to keep up with your own nonsense a bit better. You do not understand what the word objective means.
Except it is people hating everything new. Remember how the last Tactical kit made the last iteration of Marines look silly?
Lmao so you DO think that it's objectively wrong to prefer the firstborn aesthetic to the primaris. Why did you bother doing all that pretending otherwise then?
No, I don't remember anyone hating the last tactical kit, that is definitely something you invented. No, it isn't just us "hating everything new". I love almost everything new. Even similarly armored units to get updates, like the new take on Sisters, the new High Elf faction for AoS ( ), the new Crons, new everything. To me, the Primaris aesthetic is chock a block full of tacticool garbage marketed at the lowest common denominator, the kneepads look like garbage, and I prefer the fanatical beauty of the old scaled Marines. This is a personal opinion, that many others share. You don't have to be one of them. Primaris aren't "objectively better", you're just illiterate to what that word means. The fact that someone can say "well I prefer the old ones" for ANY reason at all, means you're objectively wrong, and yes that is the correct use of the term.
Being so incapable of grasping the idea that people may prefer a different aesthetic to you, suggests there's something going on underneath all this though.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Well it isn't really subjective to say Primaris are more realistic in scale to other models, more evenly proportioned, etc. You can LIKE Manlet Marines more because you refuse to look at anything new, but let's not pretend the models are better than Primaris.
It's absolutely subjective, and this is coming from someone who loves the Primaris.
People can prefer the older models without being "wrong". It's only "wrong" when they start saying how Primaris "totally change the aesthetic". You're allowed to dislike something even if it has the same aesthetic.
Insectum7 wrote:But also "objectively", bigger models make the table look smaller, and make terrain features like buildings less realistically scaled, or ranges on guns more ridiculously short.
Eh, Primaris look more suitable on most of the terrain than old Marines do, IMO. And really, the <1" height increase doesn't make the short gun ranges any worse than they already were. It's a negligible difference.
But that is the one part which is literally the same between the primaris and the minimarines...
I actually do think that the shoulder plates don't look good, personally, BECAUSE they're the same. Primaris are quite a bit bigger than the Oldmarines, which makes their shoulderpads look smaller and I happen to like the oversized shoulder plates aesthetic.
I prefer the 2nd Ed metals.
), the new Crons, new everything. To me, the Primaris aesthetic is chock a block full of tacticool garbage marketed at the lowest common denominator, the kneepads look like garbage, and I prefer the fanatical beauty of the old scaled Marines. This is a personal opinion, that many others share. You don't have to be one of them. Primaris aren't "objectively better", you're just illiterate to what that word means. The fact that someone can say "well I prefer the old ones" for ANY reason at all, means you're objectively wrong, and yes that is the correct use of the term.