This is something i noticed in 8th, but is harder to quantify now since firstborn and primaris both got two wounds. But i was thinking about it during the time, and did the drunken math, and i thought it was interesting to talk about. I will note that it is a specific time period, and put your gw coloured glasses on its better (tm) now!
5x fb marines cost like 13-15 points each
5x primaris marines (lets say intercessors) cost 18 points with 2 wounds (*1) each
So the primaris marines cost like less points per wound (13/1 vs 18/2).
Firstborn get better shooting, but primaris get better close combat attacks and meq resilience (per wound, with the whole 2.0. The value of s4 ap0 x2 is another topic).
Lets fast forwards to now, i know certain gravis models went up in price, but like my etb flamestorm aggressors(*2) are still 40ppm. That's about 13.3 ppw for a model that used to fire twice if stationary with either a single 2D6 autohit (although the range was borked) or 12 + 1D6 shots. I didn't entirely agree with how they buffed marine shooting/in general(*3) but yeah for the 'basic' marine profile, it costs w/e, 13-15 points per wound from addled memory, whereas look at at the ppw and the firepower. (*4) I think this is the problem people have with eradicators right now. (*5)
Now that 9th is here, and once i paint this dude i glued just this morning, i'll have a 1k list to field. (*6) (*7) But without having played a modern game (*9), it can get hard to sift through the hyperbole. But yeah, now everyone marine (except you know who because reasons) has 2w its harder to see.... unless, idk unless you play non-marine. Are they as powerful as i hear? I don't know, but i wan't to start fluffy and cheese up as needed, and i've always had great respect for brother slamguinius (rip 8th, i never knew you).
*1 and an extra attack, but thats apparently worth 2 points now
*2 (i got lucky and bought in right as gw was closing out dark imperium. Kicking myself i didn't get that one with the other inceptors and cost less, but i managed to snag what i wanted right before it stopped existing
*3 they needed a buff, outside specific builds of chapters i didn't play, they've always needed a buff, that's the camp i'm in *4 I know they removed double-shot from aggressors, and halved the weapons they can shoot in overwatch, while outrider bike engines go: brrt, brrrrt brrrt brrrrt
*5 see my post in the proposed rules forum where i say: instead of giving all these 'shooty' units bespoke rules for shooting, just do like space marine primaris eliminators and give them +1 BS *6 lets not talk about corona virus, whether you believe in it or not, it has been a total **** **** of a ******* **** that screwed up the playing environment *7 painted to a tabletop standard. My vision isn't 20/20 anymore it seems, and i borrowed a pair of those miracle glasses to see up close to paint (*8)
*8 yes, yes i know, go to an optomotrist, its free
*9 or any chance in the forseeable future this year :(
I'm pretty sure if we could peel back the curtain, Firstborn were all going to get squatted in 2019. But everyone freaked the hell out, and Age of Sigmar's launch had been a dumpster fire, so GW slammed on the brakes.
And lo and behold, firstborn still sell. So GW just shrugged its shoulders, rewrote a bit of fluff and rules, and carried on.
And that's why the SM codex has like 100 data sheet entries. Plus all the supplements.
Not entirely sure what your question is, but if you are asking are marines powerful: I'd say yes in both casual and competitive environments. Not as overbearing as they used to be but they still pack a punch and are hard to shift. Some problem units like Bladeguards and Eradicators are still underpriced if you ask me but at least they are overall not nearly as cheesy as they used to be.
The one problem you might run into before everyone gets their codex is that even when making a fluffy list marines are just really, really good. As in, blowing certain other factions with an equally casual/fluffy list off the table good. Which was always my main problem with that 8.5 codex of theirs. Ripping up tournaments is bad enough but there I expect certain levels of min-maxing and cheese, but even their baseline was and still is so good some factions just can't compete.
argonak wrote: I'm pretty sure if we could peel back the curtain, Firstborn were all going to get squatted in 2019. But everyone freaked the hell out, and Age of Sigmar's launch had been a dumpster fire, so GW slammed on the brakes.
Age of Sigmar's launch was awful yes, but by the time 8e 40k came around it was doing well and its only gone from strength to strength since then. Its a fantastic game imo.
Firstborn remain the more flexible option. Tacticals may have less basic firepower (Bolt Rifles being superior to Bolters), but with Heavy and Special weapon options, and the choice to Combat Squad, still bring something to the field that Primaris don’t.
Likewise Devastators. You can either specialise (eg, four of one weapon type) or hedge your bets (perhaps most useful in smaller point games, where flexibility is arguably more desirable, even more affordable).
Specialist Primaris units also seem to be short on numbers. Eliminators and that come in units of 3, and so far as I’m aware (don’t have the current Codex) only 3. So whilst at first glance they are pretty powerful? It doesn’t take a huge amount of damage to see them taken down, or at least suitably weakened. So the question is whether or not they can do worthwhile damage before being damaged in turn.
Castozor wrote: Not entirely sure what your question is, but if you are asking are marines powerful: I'd say yes in both casual and competitive environments. Not as overbearing as they used to be but they still pack a punch and are hard to shift. Some problem units like Bladeguards and Eradicators are still underpriced if you ask me but at least they are overall not nearly as cheesy as they used to be.
The one problem you might run into before everyone gets their codex is that even when making a fluffy list marines are just really, really good. As in, blowing certain other factions with an equally casual/fluffy list off the table good. Which was always my main problem with that 8.5 codex of theirs. Ripping up tournaments is bad enough but there I expect certain levels of min-maxing and cheese, but even their baseline was and still is so good some factions just can't compete.
This seems to be a feature of all the codici post SM 2.0.
They have good internal balance, so they can bring a fluffy list to the table and play without much handicap.
This is true for marines, for sisters, for necrons and now looks like this also for DG.
argonak wrote: I'm pretty sure if we could peel back the curtain, Firstborn were all going to get squatted in 2019. But everyone freaked the hell out, and Age of Sigmar's launch had been a dumpster fire, so GW slammed on the brakes.
And lo and behold, firstborn still sell. So GW just shrugged its shoulders, rewrote a bit of fluff and rules, and carried on.
And that's why the SM codex has like 100 data sheet entries. Plus all the supplements.
This.
The marine codex could use some culling, but with the state of everything, who knows when or if it will happen.
I still think it was a grave mistake for marines to go to 2 wounds, and it will continue to be a thorn in GW's side affecting power creep for years to come.
As an aside, 2nd and subsequent wounds aren't as valuable as the first wound. While additional wounds add to longevity, you lose on firepower because it's one model instead of several's worth of firing. A marine with 5 wounds is certainly worth more than than one with 1 wound, but not as valuable as five marines with 1 wound apiece.
argonak wrote: I'm pretty sure if we could peel back the curtain, Firstborn were all going to get squatted in 2019. But everyone freaked the hell out, and Age of Sigmar's launch had been a dumpster fire, so GW slammed on the brakes.
Age of Sigmar's launch was awful yes, but by the time 8e 40k came around it was doing well and its only gone from strength to strength since then. Its a fantastic game imo.
That has nothing to do with what I said. Avoiding the dumpster fire of that games launch was a good,move. People were pissed off by primaris enough as it was.
I don’t care what they do to Age of Sigmar I will always despise it for the insulting and despicable murder of war hammer fantasy battle so they could steal a whatever names that they’d already copy righted. Only reason to do what they did.
argonak wrote: I'm pretty sure if we could peel back the curtain, Firstborn were all going to get squatted in 2019. But everyone freaked the hell out, and Age of Sigmar's launch had been a dumpster fire, so GW slammed on the brakes.
And lo and behold, firstborn still sell. So GW just shrugged its shoulders, rewrote a bit of fluff and rules, and carried on.
And that's why the SM codex has like 100 data sheet entries. Plus all the supplements.
This.
The marine codex could use some culling, but with the state of everything, who knows when or if it will happen.
I still think it was a grave mistake for marines to go to 2 wounds, and it will continue to be a thorn in GW's side affecting power creep for years to come.
As an aside, 2nd and subsequent wounds aren't as valuable as the first wound. While additional wounds add to longevity, you lose on firepower because it's one model instead of several's worth of firing. A marine with 5 wounds is certainly worth more than than one with 1 wound, but not as valuable as five marines with 1 wound apiece.
Additional wounds add design space to differentiate marines and other elites from less elite troops. I think two wounds was the right move. The bigger problem is that every gun and it’s mother has too much damn ap.
The problem with so called primaries is that they should have simply been designed and sold as the new marine kits. Then GW should have done similarly with eldar and with guard... instead, GW is in wholesale IP protection mode e.g. kangaroo riding very high elves. Make something ridiculous enough that no one would want to infringe on the copyright... works for me. I typically buy used, and will never collect primaris weenies.
Additional wounds add design space to differentiate marines and other elites from less elite troops. I think two wounds was the right move. The bigger problem is that every gun and it’s mother has too much damn ap.
Fitzing with Toughness would have been the more sane way to go than more wounds, but the current Toughness algorithm is screwed up as it is.
Lore and rules put asside. I have a full firstborn and a full primaris space wolves armies. Gotta say those Primaris sculpts are a lot sharper than any of the firstborn marines, and the proportions are a lot nicer.
I can't see myself ever buying a non-primaris kit moving forward, just due to how much I enjoyed building and painting them over any first born.
Just some quick observations from some games I have played in 9th. The Primaris marines are lacking something. I play Necrons and I am finding it pretty easy to delete entire squads of Primaris marines because I have a good deal of high AP weaponry and a ton of multi wound stuff as well. I agree T5 is the new way to differentiate elite troops because it is just so hard to wound them. The Marines being T4 and 2 wounds isn't that scary anymore. Making the old school marines 2w seemingly makes the Primaris unnecessary and inferior at their points cost.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: God forbid anyone try new concepts in a fantasy magic setting.
When they are made strange and wierd just for the sake of being strange and wierd, there is some some problem with it IMO.
AoS has a ton of models where clearly someone was doing design on the model and someone higher up came in and said, this looks to much like a pegasus, replace it with an ugly dog goat head or turn all those models in to cows. W40k has it too. GW makes a perfectly fine model and then someone comes, and add smoke or some other unneeded detail, effectivly making the model not only worse looking, but even harder to use as a gaming pice.
Century old concepts are good, because they are known and people like them. It takes some serious genius level of writing to add something new to culture or literature. Just making stuff new and different doesn't cut it. That is while so many movie remakes are bad recived or worse flop financialy. Even GW knows it to a degree, because their sales departament is dead against female custodes, mariens and wierd lore changes. And they are even cut ties with people working for them, if they even hint, that they maybe trying to pull such changes anyway.
LesPaul wrote: Just some quick observations from some games I have played in 9th. The Primaris marines are lacking something. I play Necrons and I am finding it pretty easy to delete entire squads of Primaris marines because I have a good deal of high AP weaponry and a ton of multi wound stuff as well. I agree T5 is the new way to differentiate elite troops because it is just so hard to wound them. The Marines being T4 and 2 wounds isn't that scary anymore. Making the old school marines 2w seemingly makes the Primaris unnecessary and inferior at their points cost.
Nah. They are both useful. The primaris have stratagems that makes them superior actually. Plus they all have a bonus attack which is pretty relevant.
A 10 Man with stalker bolters using rapid fire....is just disgusting. Plus Transhuman is pretty useful at times. Plus they have a better standard weapon too. True most the time a single gravcannon will out damage them but in certain situations the better basic weapon does more damage.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: God forbid anyone try new concepts in a fantasy magic setting.
When they are made strange and wierd just for the sake of being strange and wierd, there is some some problem with it IMO.
Is fantasy not supposed to be outlandish and bizarre? Is it not supposed to invoke, well, fantasy?
And how can we say what is and isn't "for the sake of strange and weird" - perhaps that's the point, because they're showing how something is so alien and fantastical.
AoS has a ton of models where clearly someone was doing design on the model and someone higher up came in and said, this looks to much like a pegasus, replace it with an ugly dog goat head or turn all those models in to cows. W40k has it too. GW makes a perfectly fine model and then someone comes, and add smoke or some other unneeded detail, effectivly making the model not only worse looking, but even harder to use as a gaming pice.
Worse looking is subjective, and at least in the case of smoke, it's easier to remove. For people who might only have the models for the painting and spectacle, the flashy models appeal much more to them.
Century old concepts are good, because they are known and people like them.
Which is fine, but ONLY sticking to those concepts quickly leads to repetitive tropes and eventually stagnation. Look at some of WHFB's most unique factions - Lizardmen and Skaven. I'm not exactly sure I can point to similar concepts and tropes around during their creation, they very much seem like the beginnings of their own trend. And look where they ended up - two very popular factions!
It takes some serious genius level of writing to add something new to culture or literature. Just making stuff new and different doesn't cut it.
Not really - you don't need to be a genius, it just has to be engaging and inspirational, and there are some pretty flawed trends that have become their own tropes through simple engagement.
That is while so many movie remakes are bad recived or worse flop financialy.
Movie *remakes* - not original movies. What you're describing supports my point that "old concepts are good" isn't true. If old concepts were good, these movie remakes would be well received.
Of course, that doesn't factor in the sheer amount of production issues these films have, but that's another topic.
Even GW knows it to a degree, because their sales departament is dead against female custodes, mariens and wierd lore changes. And they are even cut ties with people working for them, if they even hint, that they maybe trying to pull such changes anyway.
You say GW are against "weird lore changes", but I'm seeing plenty of people calling AoS or Primaris themselves "weird lore changes" - so which way around is it? Also, did we miss the part where in a mainline 40k novel, a Space Wolf character outright wonders why women can't be Astartes, and how that might need to change with the coming wars to be? Because that's not been retconned, to my understanding.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: God forbid anyone try new concepts in a fantasy magic setting.
When they are made strange and wierd just for the sake of being strange and wierd, there is some some problem with it IMO.
AoS has a ton of models where clearly someone was doing design on the model and someone higher up came in and said, this looks to much like a pegasus, replace it with an ugly dog goat head or turn all those models in to cows. W40k has it too. GW makes a perfectly fine model and then someone comes, and add smoke or some other unneeded detail, effectivly making the model not only worse looking, but even harder to use as a gaming pice.
Century old concepts are good, because they are known and people like them. It takes some serious genius level of writing to add something new to culture or literature. Just making stuff new and different doesn't cut it. That is while so many movie remakes are bad recived or worse flop financialy. Even GW knows it to a degree, because their sales departament is dead against female custodes, mariens and wierd lore changes. And they are even cut ties with people working for them, if they even hint, that they maybe trying to pull such changes anyway.
I'd rather they experiment with new stuff rather than stick to medieval + tolkien fantasy. The idoneth deepkin is a super cool design IMO, the new elf cavalry is dope as feth. Just because you like the aestetic of the GK doesnt mean thats the only valid "fantasy" aesthetic.
You can present the same comment you did by emphasising that this is only your opinion instead of presenting it like a fact and then i couldnt nitpick about it.
VladimirHerzog wrote: I'd rather they experiment with new stuff rather than stick to medieval + tolkien fantasy. The idoneth deepkin is a super cool design IMO, the new elf cavalry is dope as feth. Just because you like the aestetic of the GK doesnt mean thats the only valid "fantasy" aesthetic.
Agreed, and absolutely. GW have the opportunity for a totally unique IP. Let's try out new concepts and ideas. Dwarves who fly in battle blimps? Awesome idea! Sea elves who are actually alien and feel detached from their land dwelling cousins? Great! Skeleton warriors but they have a more Persian style than Egyptian? Nice break from the trend! Elves with a totem warrior of a cow instead of eagles or another kind of bird? Can't say I've seen that before.
If you never experiment, you just stagnate - but as long as you enjoy whatever it is, that's the main thing.
Firstborn remain the more flexible option. Tacticals may have less basic firepower (Bolt Rifles being superior to Bolters), but with Heavy and Special weapon options, and the choice to Combat Squad, still bring something to the field that Primaris don’t.
I feel like this is a negligible tradeoff. Given how much ap and D2 weapons Primaris can spam, do they really need the single heavy weapon? I don't think I've ever seen a game where anyone said "If my Intercessors could only take a missile launcher, this would have gone differently", and I doubt, when Heavy Intercessors finally come out, anyone will be lamenting the lack of ability to take a single flamer.
And combat squading? I don't know how much that matters anymore either? It's a MSU edition to begin with so most folks are going to take 5 man units from the jump anyway.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of the "advantages" we used to view firstborn as having, don't really amount to much anymore ...
VladimirHerzog wrote: I'd rather they experiment with new stuff rather than stick to medieval + tolkien fantasy. The idoneth deepkin is a super cool design IMO, the new elf cavalry is dope as feth. Just because you like the aestetic of the GK doesnt mean thats the only valid "fantasy" aesthetic.
Agreed, and absolutely. GW have the opportunity for a totally unique IP. Let's try out new concepts and ideas. Dwarves who fly in battle blimps? Awesome idea! Sea elves who are actually alien and feel detached from their land dwelling cousins? Great! Skeleton warriors but they have a more Persian style than Egyptian? Nice break from the trend! Elves with a totem warrior of a cow instead of eagles or another kind of bird? Can't say I've seen that before.
If you never experiment, you just stagnate - but as long as you enjoy whatever it is, that's the main thing.
Funny enough, elves riding dinosaurs IS Games Workshop retreading old ground. Just not in the correct tent-pole game. I do wonder how these models would have been received if they were Exodites instead. Because there's a good chance dinosaur in 40k would be as different as Ork is to mushroom.
argonak wrote: I'm pretty sure if we could peel back the curtain, Firstborn were all going to get squatted in 2019. But everyone freaked the hell out, and Age of Sigmar's launch had been a dumpster fire, so GW slammed on the brakes.
Age of Sigmar's launch was awful yes, but by the time 8e 40k came around it was doing well and its only gone from strength to strength since then. Its a fantastic game imo.
This is literally, and I mean totally honestly literally, the first time I've heard anyone say anything even remotely good about AOS.
To put this in context, I am completely out of the loop as far as GW games go, so you can safely take it with a huge grain of salt. Just saying.
The only problem with primaris is the continued existence of old marines. Eliminate the old marines from the codex/game and you have a concise and (about as much as anything else) balanced army that functions within a concept/theme for the army and a range of options to bring to the table.
argonak wrote: I'm pretty sure if we could peel back the curtain, Firstborn were all going to get squatted in 2019. But everyone freaked the hell out, and Age of Sigmar's launch had been a dumpster fire, so GW slammed on the brakes.
And lo and behold, firstborn still sell. So GW just shrugged its shoulders, rewrote a bit of fluff and rules, and carried on.
And that's why the SM codex has like 100 data sheet entries. Plus all the supplements.
This.
The marine codex could use some culling, but with the state of everything, who knows when or if it will happen.
I still think it was a grave mistake for marines to go to 2 wounds, and it will continue to be a thorn in GW's side affecting power creep for years to come.
As an aside, 2nd and subsequent wounds aren't as valuable as the first wound. While additional wounds add to longevity, you lose on firepower because it's one model instead of several's worth of firing. A marine with 5 wounds is certainly worth more than than one with 1 wound, but not as valuable as five marines with 1 wound apiece.
True, i'm thinking on the marine profile as a whole and how they scale up, compared to what other races pay per wound. A second wound for marines seems more valuable to me than a second wound for a non-marine profile depending on who ends up getting it Thats another thing i've noticed, they seem to be opening up some interesting rules for marines that could be useful in other armies.
AnomanderRake wrote:
argonak wrote: ...Additional wounds add design space to differentiate marines and other elites from less elite troops...
Like Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines? Necron Immortals?
It seems like a missed opportunity to me. Although its harder with necrons due to their reanimation protocols if i understand correctly, adding a second wound might actually hurt them their chances of coming back when killed (although they could change the rule).
jaredb wrote: Lore and rules put asside. I have a full firstborn and a full primaris space wolves armies. Gotta say those Primaris sculpts are a lot sharper than any of the firstborn marines, and the proportions are a lot nicer.
I can't see myself ever buying a non-primaris kit moving forward, just due to how much I enjoyed building and painting them over any first born.
Yeah i agree, i know its all subjective but i like the primaris sculpts more just for their proportions, although i still feel something is off where the hips and legs join.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: The only problem with primaris is the continued existence of old marines. Eliminate the old marines from the codex/game and you have a concise and (about as much as anything else) balanced army that functions within a concept/theme for the army and a range of options to bring to the table.
I was thinking myself that they could really split them into two books now or at some point in the future: codex firstborn marines and codex primaris marines. I don't think it'll happen though.
Lance845 wrote: The only problem with primaris is the continued existence of old marines. Eliminate the old marines from the codex/game and you have a concise and (about as much as anything else) balanced army that functions within a concept/theme for the army and a range of options to bring to the table.
I'm down with this, but I will continue to use both in the same list since it fit the fluff for my Salamanders.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: God forbid anyone try new concepts in a fantasy magic setting.
When they are made strange and wierd just for the sake of being strange and wierd, there is some some problem with it IMO.
AoS has a ton of models where clearly someone was doing design on the model and someone higher up came in and said, this looks to much like a pegasus, replace it with an ugly dog goat head or turn all those models in to cows. W40k has it too. GW makes a perfectly fine model and then someone comes, and add smoke or some other unneeded detail, effectivly making the model not only worse looking, but even harder to use as a gaming pice.
Century old concepts are good, because they are known and people like them. It takes some serious genius level of writing to add something new to culture or literature. Just making stuff new and different doesn't cut it. That is while so many movie remakes are bad recived or worse flop financialy. Even GW knows it to a degree, because their sales departament is dead against female custodes, mariens and wierd lore changes. And they are even cut ties with people working for them, if they even hint, that they maybe trying to pull such changes anyway.
The second passage made me laugh.
The third is insightful.
In terms of movie remakes, primaris feel like the remake of Total Recall.
Torga_DW wrote: I'll have a 1k list to field when I finish my next model, painted to a tabletop standard due to my less than stellar eyesight. I am wondering if marines are as powerful and as prevalent as I hear or if it is mostly hyperbole, because of corona virus I have not been playing and don't plan to in the near future :(
In 8th edition a tactical marines cost like 13 points, an intercessors cost 18 points with 2 wounds and 2 attacks each. So the primaris marines used to cost less points per wound 13 vs 9. An extra attack is apparently worth 2 points now. Firstborn get better shooting, primaris get better close combat and durability.
In 9th my flamestorm aggressors, that I bought right as gw stopped selling dark imperium, are still 40ppm. That's 13.3 ppw for a model that used to fire twice if stationary with either a single 2D6 autohits at low range or 12 + 1D6 shots. I didn't entirely agree with how they buffed marines with codex 2.0, but I always thought they needed buffs. Tactical Marines are 9 ppw, Eradicators are 15 ppw but look at their firepower, Outriders are 12,5 ppw and go brrrrt brrrt brrrrt.
I don't think I speak your language OP, tell me if my quote got you right. That many citations made it hard for me to read your post, work it organically into your post instead, I don't understand why you wrote the post how you did.
In my opinion, Marines are overhyped in 9th, Youtubers cannot mention them without joining the chorus of Marine haters out of fear of being cancelled for not hating Marines enough. Marines were really freaking strong at their best in 8th edition and that is still causing a lot of hyperbole bleedover in 9th edition. Some factions got lots of weird nerfs in 9th edition and them being complete garbage does make Space Marines look a lot better, but Necrons, Orks, Daemons and especially Harlequins are super solid.
Torga_DW wrote: I'll have a 1k list to field when I finish my next model, painted to a tabletop standard due to my less than stellar eyesight. I am wondering if marines are as powerful and as prevalent as I hear or if it is mostly hyperbole, because of corona virus I have not been playing and don't plan to in the near future :(
In 8th edition a tactical marines cost like 13 points, an intercessors cost 18 points with 2 wounds and 2 attacks each. So the primaris marines used to cost less points per wound 13 vs 9. An extra attack is apparently worth 2 points now. Firstborn get better shooting, primaris get better close combat and durability.
In 9th my flamestorm aggressors, that I bought right as gw stopped selling dark imperium, are still 40ppm. That's 13.3 ppw for a model that used to fire twice if stationary with either a single 2D6 autohits at low range or 12 + 1D6 shots. I didn't entirely agree with how they buffed marines with codex 2.0, but I always thought they needed buffs. Tactical Marines are 9 ppw, Eradicators are 15 ppw but look at their firepower, Outriders are 12,5 ppw and go brrrrt brrrt brrrrt.
I don't think I speak your language OP, tell me if my quote got you right. That many citations made it hard for me to read your post, work it organically into your post instead, I don't understand why you wrote the post how you did.
In my opinion, Marines are overhyped in 9th, Youtubers cannot mention them without joining the chorus of Marine haters out of fear of being cancelled for not hating Marines enough. Marines were really freaking strong at their best in 8th edition and that is still causing a lot of hyperbole bleedover in 9th edition. Some factions got lots of weird nerfs in 9th edition and them being complete garbage does make Space Marines look a lot better, but Necrons, Orks, Daemons and especially Harlequins are super solid.
Or perhaps if everyone is saying it... there is somewhat of a problem? But ohh boy you are right.. I'm just a marine hater.
Marines are still really high tier. Marines still have the most options. Marines still have the most rules. Have the most models releases. Are they silly OP levels like in the early supplement days of 8e ? no. But are they one of the best factions still ? you bet..
And yeah. I think Necrons and DG have covered some ground.. The codex creep continues.
Personally I don't see problem with primaris beign a thing. I dont realy care. But I think they should just be marines.. And old kits should be phased out to kill some of the bloat. There just no need to have so many nearly identical things doing nearly identical stuff.. Its just not necessary.
Or perhaps if everyone is saying it... there is somewhat of a problem?
But ohh boy you are right.. I'm just a marine hater.
Marines are still really high tier. Marines still have the most options. Marines still have the most rules. Have the most models releases.
Are they silly OP levels like in the early supplement days of 8e ? no. But are they one of the best factions still ? you bet..
And yeah. I think Necrons and DG have covered some ground.. The codex creep continues.
Only it is not everyone. It is generaly the people who had armies who are or were historicaly more powerful then marines, saying how marines being good is somehow killing the game. But when their factions are doing the breaking, even now with harlis being way higher up on the win rate scale then marines, we get a bunch of excusses on how it is warrented and okey, because fewer number of people play those armies, or how it is somehow a l2p issue on the size of marines players etc. And it really show what people think about power and balance when you look at the thread about what people want for their armies. And in eldar players cases this seems to be blanket +4 dodge saves on everything, exarchs being stronger then marine captins, and generaly aspect warriors being stronger then marines. Having just as many or even more special rules and examptions that marines have etc. Which only points out that this is not a case of marines being too OP or bad for the game, but people not playing them as a main army just wanting such power for themselfs, but not for others. And this somehow being turned in to a moral high ground about balance and playing fair.
and as the not needing similar things for different marines stuff. Imagine a marine player, saying that there isn't really that much difference between eldar, d eldar and harlquins, and you could just squish them in to one army book. Same with orks and nids. And tau can be phase in with ad mecha. Bloat removed like never before.
If we're on Primaris, they always were a cash grab to sell Marine players another Marine army that they already have, redundant by design and without the soul.
I also feel like Primaris was a missed opportunity to introduce the gender equality they're supposedly committing to; if Cawl can just wave magic wands and make bigger marines and new guns now, female Primaris would not have been a stretch. It could have at least partially redeemed them.
Or perhaps if everyone is saying it... there is somewhat of a problem?
But ohh boy you are right.. I'm just a marine hater.
Marines are still really high tier. Marines still have the most options. Marines still have the most rules. Have the most models releases.
Are they silly OP levels like in the early supplement days of 8e ? no. But are they one of the best factions still ? you bet..
And yeah. I think Necrons and DG have covered some ground.. The codex creep continues.
I did not call you a marine hater, I have no idea about your opinions on the current state of the game. It just seems weird how many content creators liked SM 2.0 and failed to slam it for how unfair it was. Now that SM overall is just another top tier faction, albeit a popular one, everyone I have heard talk about them say they are clearly too strong despite it being more clear 14 months ago. My problem is that the response I have seen has not been proportional to the strength then vs now. There is also nothing wrong with having Marine fatigue, it's also not like Crons and DG are far from SM in terms of design.
*Edit: added that what I meant was that Crons and DG are similar to SM in how they have good armour, high toughness and decent shooting and melee.
Karol wrote: Only it is not everyone. It is generaly the people who had armies who are or were historicaly more powerful then marines, saying how marines being good is somehow killing the game. But when their factions are doing the breaking, even now with harlis being way higher up on the win rate scale then marines, we get a bunch of excusses on how it is warrented and okey, because fewer number of people play those armies, or how it is somehow a l2p issue on the size of marines players etc. And it really show what people think about power and balance when you look at the thread about what people want for their armies. And in eldar players cases this seems to be blanket +4 dodge saves on everything, exarchs being stronger then marine captins, and generaly aspect warriors being stronger then marines. Having just as many or even more special rules and examptions that marines have etc. Which only points out that this is not a case of marines being too OP or bad for the game, but people not playing them as a main army just wanting such power for themselfs, but not for others. And this somehow being turned in to a moral high ground about balance and playing fair.
No. As people have mentioned here, when certain armies are overpowered people complain.
Karol wrote: and as the not needing similar things for different marines stuff. Imagine a marine player, saying that there isn't really that much difference between eldar, d eldar and harlquins, and you could just squish them in to one army book. Same with orks and nids. And tau can be phase in with ad mecha. Bloat removed like never before.
Are any of those armies using the same armor and the same weapons as each other?
Castozor wrote: Not entirely sure what your question is, but if you are asking are marines powerful: I'd say yes in both casual and competitive environments. Not as overbearing as they used to be but they still pack a punch and are hard to shift. Some problem units like Bladeguards and Eradicators are still underpriced if you ask me but at least they are overall not nearly as cheesy as they used to be.
The one problem you might run into before everyone gets their codex is that even when making a fluffy list marines are just really, really good. As in, blowing certain other factions with an equally casual/fluffy list off the table good. Which was always my main problem with that 8.5 codex of theirs. Ripping up tournaments is bad enough but there I expect certain levels of min-maxing and cheese, but even their baseline was and still is so good some factions just can't compete.
This seems to be a feature of all the codici post SM 2.0.
They have good internal balance, so they can bring a fluffy list to the table and play without much handicap.
This is true for marines, for sisters, for necrons and now looks like this also for DG.
and thats how a codex SHOULD work, if every codex is more like codex space marines and less like many codices in the past that where strong (in that they're not all that strong, but there are just some bs builds you can do) then we're in a good position.
Or perhaps if everyone is saying it... there is somewhat of a problem?
But ohh boy you are right.. I'm just a marine hater.
Marines are still really high tier. Marines still have the most options. Marines still have the most rules. Have the most models releases.
Are they silly OP levels like in the early supplement days of 8e ? no. But are they one of the best factions still ? you bet..
And yeah. I think Necrons and DG have covered some ground.. The codex creep continues.
I did not call you a marine hater, I have no idea about your opinions on the current state of the game. It just seems weird how many content creators liked SM 2.0 and failed to slam it for how unfair it was. Now that SM overall is just another top tier faction, albeit a popular one, everyone I have heard talk about them say they are clearly too strong despite it being more clear 14 months ago. My problem is that the response I have seen has not been proportional to the strength then vs now. There is also nothing wrong with having Marine fatigue, it's also not like Crons and DG are far from SM.
Oh for sure. The codex creep will leave marines in the dust, perhaps it already has with new crons and DG seeming to be really holding their own and its certainly like new marines are heads above the other dexes. I would still argue that they are still edging ahead due to easy to good units. Sadly still no games for us here so I can only look at bat reps and how things look are on paper so of course I could in fact be incorrect. All imperial factions have done really well out of the imperial FAQ not just marines. Custodes & sisters have done really well too.
Castozor wrote: Not entirely sure what your question is, but if you are asking are marines powerful: I'd say yes in both casual and competitive environments. Not as overbearing as they used to be but they still pack a punch and are hard to shift. Some problem units like Bladeguards and Eradicators are still underpriced if you ask me but at least they are overall not nearly as cheesy as they used to be.
The one problem you might run into before everyone gets their codex is that even when making a fluffy list marines are just really, really good. As in, blowing certain other factions with an equally casual/fluffy list off the table good. Which was always my main problem with that 8.5 codex of theirs. Ripping up tournaments is bad enough but there I expect certain levels of min-maxing and cheese, but even their baseline was and still is so good some factions just can't compete.
This seems to be a feature of all the codici post SM 2.0.
They have good internal balance, so they can bring a fluffy list to the table and play without much handicap.
This is true for marines, for sisters, for necrons and now looks like this also for DG.
and thats how a codex SHOULD work, if every codex is more like codex space marines and less like many codices in the past that where strong (in that they're not all that strong, but there are just some bs builds you can do) then we're in a good position.
Oh yeas please I would like to have around 90 new data sheets and new models too! I agree..
Only it is not everyone. It is generaly the people who had armies who are or were historicaly more powerful then marines, saying how marines being good is somehow killing the game. But when their factions are doing the breaking, even now with harlis being way higher up on the win rate scale then marines, we get a bunch of excusses on how it is warrented and okey, because fewer number of people play those armies, or how it is somehow a l2p issue on the size of marines players etc. And it really show what people think about power and balance when you look at the thread about what people want for their armies. And in eldar players cases this seems to be blanket +4 dodge saves on everything, exarchs being stronger then marine captins, and generaly aspect warriors being stronger then marines. Having just as many or even more special rules and examptions that marines have etc. Which only points out that this is not a case of marines being too OP or bad for the game, but people not playing them as a main army just wanting such power for themselfs, but not for others. And this somehow being turned in to a moral high ground about balance and playing fair.
and as the not needing similar things for different marines stuff. Imagine a marine player, saying that there isn't really that much difference between eldar, d eldar and harlquins, and you could just squish them in to one army book. Same with orks and nids. And tau can be phase in with ad mecha. Bloat removed like never before.
My thing is, i don't necessarily begrudge marines of either flavour getting this level of support (although did we really need like 10+ lieutenants?), but that other factions should get this as well. Marines have shown it can be done, now the love should be shared.
I considered eldar back in the day, but finecast (i won't use the proper name) was in by then and put me right off.
Karol wrote: and as the not needing similar things for different marines stuff. Imagine a marine player, saying that there isn't really that much difference between eldar, d eldar and harlquins, and you could just squish them in to one army book. Same with orks and nids. And tau can be phase in with ad mecha. Bloat removed like never before.
Are any of those armies using the same armor and the same weapons as each other?
Yeah, they're not remotely equivalent.
When every marine supplement can build an army using exactly the same models, so that literally the only difference is the colour scheme and the book you used, you know they're basically the same army....
Fun prediction I’ve had for almost two years or so:
As soon as GW is “done” with Primaris...firstborn will get all new kits. They’ve gotten a taste of regular “predictable” release schedules that all but guarantee money flows in. That with marines printing money; the only real option is to sell ALL marine players new models they will want.
Old players get the true scale marines they’ve been bitching about for years on end and new players, who avoided firstborn (because they are OBJECTIVELY inferior models) will invest in those. Win win. Not to mention R&D costs are way lower these days due to CAD.
Probably be about a year or so before we see the first iteration (though it’s probably heavily contingent on old firstborn kit stocks they have on hand).
Karol wrote: and as the not needing similar things for different marines stuff. Imagine a marine player, saying that there isn't really that much difference between eldar, d eldar and harlquins, and you could just squish them in to one army book. Same with orks and nids. And tau can be phase in with ad mecha. Bloat removed like never before.
Marines are literally a single codex, eldar are 2 codexes that have no unit or wargear in common (except for the powersword)
and thats how a codex SHOULD work, if every codex is more like codex space marines and less like many codices in the past that where strong (in that they're not all that strong, but there are just some bs builds you can do) then we're in a good position.
I'm torn on this. Codex Space Marines is clearly, head and shoulders beyond Codex Necrons. By what I think is a pretty wide margin. 'Crons have a few individual units (like Nightbringer) that are very strong, but in terms of the over-all codexes - IMO we have once again seen the classic GW move of extremely differing design directions. So, if every codex is like the marines, 'crons are going to end up being terrible again (my current prediction has them middle of the pack when it's all said and done), but if all the codexes are like Necrons, Marines are likely to end up dominating again.
Firstborn remain the more flexible option. Tacticals may have less basic firepower (Bolt Rifles being superior to Bolters), but with Heavy and Special weapon options, and the choice to Combat Squad, still bring something to the field that Primaris don’t.
I feel like this is a negligible tradeoff. Given how much ap and D2 weapons Primaris can spam, do they really need the single heavy weapon? I don't think I've ever seen a game where anyone said "If my Intercessors could only take a missile launcher, this would have gone differently", and I doubt, when Heavy Intercessors finally come out, anyone will be lamenting the lack of ability to take a single flamer.
And combat squading? I don't know how much that matters anymore either? It's a MSU edition to begin with so most folks are going to take 5 man units from the jump anyway.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of the "advantages" we used to view firstborn as having, don't really amount to much anymore ...
Maybe my experience has been different from the average, but the advantages Firstborn had before the wound bump were being able to wrap ablative wounds around the attacks that mattered and having mobile CQC specialists, and the advantages Primaris had were feeling like they were made out of cerial-box cardboard instead of paper and not needing purpose-built melee squads to do CQC without embarrassing themselves.
Outriders, the Biker Chaplain, and W2 Firstborn have narrowed the distinction between the two, but it's still there.
I dont know. I have seen list from around the world that run both. And again fast moving resilient melee unit is something primaris do not do well. And classic marines can, TWC or Vangvets are good.
Thats not the point. Again, primaris don't need to equal Old marines point for point. Especially because at this point old marines do EVERYTHING.
Primaris as is is a full army equivalent to any other in the game. They are functional. They have options in units and wargear to answer the vast majority of situations. They have strengths they can play to and answers to opponents strategies and tactics.
Just drop the old marines all together and Primaris function fine.
Lance845 wrote: Thats not the point. Again, primaris don't need to equal Old marines point for point. Especially because at this point old marines do EVERYTHING.
Primaris as is is a full army equivalent to any other in the game. They are functional. They have options in units and wargear to answer the vast majority of situations. They have strengths they can play to and answers to opponents strategies and tactics.
Just drop the old marines all together and Primaris function fine.
I'd rather just consolidate all the profiles possible. Intercessors with the option to add Heavy and Special weapons won't break anything.
Lance845 wrote: Thats not the point. Again, primaris don't need to equal Old marines point for point. Especially because at this point old marines do EVERYTHING.
Primaris as is is a full army equivalent to any other in the game. They are functional. They have options in units and wargear to answer the vast majority of situations. They have strengths they can play to and answers to opponents strategies and tactics.
Just drop the old marines all together and Primaris function fine.
I'd rather just consolidate all the profiles possible. Intercessors with the option to add Heavy and Special weapons won't break anything.
I disagree for only 1 reason. Old marines as an army is a bloated mess. It's filled to the brim with redundant wargear options, redundant units, and a direct answer to everything and anything. Primaris are not. And by consolidating every old marine option into the primaris line you are inheriting all the issues of the old marines with the new marines. I don't want to see that happen.
Lance845 wrote: Thats not the point. Again, primaris don't need to equal Old marines point for point. Especially because at this point old marines do EVERYTHING.
Primaris as is is a full army equivalent to any other in the game. They are functional. They have options in units and wargear to answer the vast majority of situations. They have strengths they can play to and answers to opponents strategies and tactics.
Just drop the old marines all together and Primaris function fine.
I agree with everything there save dropping the Firstborn.
I started my Primaris only army at the cusp of them being able to stand on their own. Primaris only armies are more than capable now. I could go as fare as Primaris are almost able to stand on their own based on armor configurations (Tactius, Phobos and Gravis) now. Primaris only have some minor (unless you really have to have jump packs) gaps in their collection now. I think of a few much older factions have bigger unit/role gaps than Primaris now. Doubly so with a number of no model, no rules happening.
I would like to think that space marine releases would cool some now that a player can go full Primaris only and cover most the bases of the first founding chapters' thing now. I would hope GW would go back and fill in options for the older factions and maybe even refresh some more decades old model kits.
I don't want players with Firstborn collections to feel like they are on outside. I don't like the idea of them having to either decide to best fit into the Primaris mold or consider going Codex: Chaos Space Marine but ignore the more Chao-sy stuff. One of the things I really like about Primaris is that my Chaos Space Marine army feels a lot different from my Space Marine army. Despite me staying pretty close to loyalist marine options but the spiky version. I don't think I am ready for that to go away via dropping Firstborn nor combining Primaris and Firstborn into one just yet. I kinda don't want that to happen ever. However, I do recognize that C:SM has a huge datasheet bloat issue. In three or so years time, something may have to give.
Lance845 wrote: Thats not the point. Again, primaris don't need to equal Old marines point for point. Especially because at this point old marines do EVERYTHING.
Primaris as is is a full army equivalent to any other in the game. They are functional. They have options in units and wargear to answer the vast majority of situations. They have strengths they can play to and answers to opponents strategies and tactics.
Just drop the old marines all together and Primaris function fine.
I'd rather just consolidate all the profiles possible. Intercessors with the option to add Heavy and Special weapons won't break anything.
I disagree for only 1 reason. Old marines as an army is a bloated mess. It's filled to the brim with redundant wargear options, redundant units, and a direct answer to everything and anything. Primaris are not. And by consolidating every old marine option into the primaris line you are inheriting all the issues of the old marines with the new marines. I don't want to see that happen.
I gotta disagree. It would eliminate TONS of bloat. For instance, right now we have maybe TEN different Captain entries, and part of that is Primaris or Biker/Terminator. Bring Tacticals into the fold of Intercessors and Assault Marines into the fold of Assault Intercessors. We don't need a separate entry for Vet Intercessors if we have the appropriate stats for Sternguard and Vanguard.
It would solve a TON of issues and the whole squabble of Manlet Marine fans complaining about stats and Primaris fans complaining about options. Instead we currently have a codex with 100+ entries and many of which are redundant.
All of these units should have been marines from the beginning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: Thats not the point. Again, primaris don't need to equal Old marines point for point. Especially because at this point old marines do EVERYTHING.
Primaris as is is a full army equivalent to any other in the game. They are functional. They have options in units and wargear to answer the vast majority of situations. They have strengths they can play to and answers to opponents strategies and tactics.
Just drop the old marines all together and Primaris function fine.
Get rid of numarines and OG marines work fine.
For instance, I will never buy a restartes model. My marines are fine.
Restartes are heresy, and any true loyalist will never mix with the foul taint of heresy.
So, separate them. As it should be...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CEO Kasen wrote: If we're on Primaris, they always were a cash grab to sell Marine players another Marine army that they already have, redundant by design and without the soul.
.
So true^^
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bitharne wrote: Fun prediction I’ve had for almost two years or so:
As soon as GW is “done” with Primaris...firstborn will get all new kits. They’ve gotten a taste of regular “predictable” release schedules that all but guarantee money flows in. That with marines printing money; the only real option is to sell ALL marine players new models they will want.
Old players get the true scale marines they’ve been bitching about for years on end and new players, who avoided firstborn (because they are OBJECTIVELY inferior models) will invest in those. Win win. Not to mention R&D costs are way lower these days due to CAD.
Probably be about a year or so before we see the first iteration (though it’s probably heavily contingent on old firstborn kit stocks they have on hand).
Why not make two separate factions, by setting up a fascist rift under RG and pushing OG marines to an admech style secondary faction status....
Lance845 wrote: Thats not the point. Again, primaris don't need to equal Old marines point for point. Especially because at this point old marines do EVERYTHING.
Primaris as is is a full army equivalent to any other in the game. They are functional. They have options in units and wargear to answer the vast majority of situations. They have strengths they can play to and answers to opponents strategies and tactics.
Just drop the old marines all together and Primaris function fine.
I'd rather just consolidate all the profiles possible. Intercessors with the option to add Heavy and Special weapons won't break anything.
I disagree for only 1 reason. Old marines as an army is a bloated mess. It's filled to the brim with redundant wargear options, redundant units, and a direct answer to everything and anything. Primaris are not. And by consolidating every old marine option into the primaris line you are inheriting all the issues of the old marines with the new marines. I don't want to see that happen.
I gotta disagree. It would eliminate TONS of bloat. For instance, right now we have maybe TEN different Captain entries, and part of that is Primaris or Biker/Terminator. Bring Tacticals into the fold of Intercessors and Assault Marines into the fold of Assault Intercessors. We don't need a separate entry for Vet Intercessors if we have the appropriate stats for Sternguard and Vanguard.
It would solve a TON of issues and the whole squabble of Manlet Marine fans complaining about stats and Primaris fans complaining about options. Instead we currently have a codex with 100+ entries and many of which are redundant.
for feths sake can you guys please not derail another fething thread with this?
argonak wrote: ...Additional wounds add design space to differentiate marines and other elites from less elite troops...
Like Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines? Necron Immortals?
Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines will get their second wound when they get their codex.
Necrons don't get the second wound because GW wants them to be less elite than the beaky boys. I don't write the rules. It seems to me that GW has decided Necrons are mostly a horde army at this point.
Additional wounds add design space to differentiate marines and other elites from less elite troops. I think two wounds was the right move. The bigger problem is that every gun and it’s mother has too much damn ap.
Fitzing with Toughness would have been the more sane way to go than more wounds, but the current Toughness algorithm is screwed up as it is.
Indeed. Thus Heavy intercessors. best of both worlds I guess.
argonak wrote: ...Additional wounds add design space to differentiate marines and other elites from less elite troops...
Like Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines? Necron Immortals?
Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines will get their second wound when they get their codex.
Necrons don't get the second wound because GW wants them to be less elite than the beaky boys. I don't write the rules. It seems to me that GW has decided Necrons are mostly a horde army at this point.
I think the problem is they worded the reanimation protocols in a really wierd way. Maybe a necron player can correct me, but it feels like they're worse than fnp when it comes to multiwound models. You have to lose a fair amount of models just to have a decent chance to bring one back. To me that's not the point, they all get back up at the same rate, big and small. I'm sure it can be done, although i know it won't (this edition at least).
Lance845 wrote: Thats not the point. Again, primaris don't need to equal Old marines point for point. Especially because at this point old marines do EVERYTHING.
Primaris as is is a full army equivalent to any other in the game. They are functional. They have options in units and wargear to answer the vast majority of situations. They have strengths they can play to and answers to opponents strategies and tactics.
Just drop the old marines all together and Primaris function fine.
I'd rather just consolidate all the profiles possible. Intercessors with the option to add Heavy and Special weapons won't break anything.
I disagree for only 1 reason. Old marines as an army is a bloated mess. It's filled to the brim with redundant wargear options, redundant units, and a direct answer to everything and anything. Primaris are not. And by consolidating every old marine option into the primaris line you are inheriting all the issues of the old marines with the new marines. I don't want to see that happen.
I gotta disagree. It would eliminate TONS of bloat. For instance, right now we have maybe TEN different Captain entries, and part of that is Primaris or Biker/Terminator. Bring Tacticals into the fold of Intercessors and Assault Marines into the fold of Assault Intercessors. We don't need a separate entry for Vet Intercessors if we have the appropriate stats for Sternguard and Vanguard.
It would solve a TON of issues and the whole squabble of Manlet Marine fans complaining about stats and Primaris fans complaining about options. Instead we currently have a codex with 100+ entries and many of which are redundant.
for feths sake can you guys please not derail another fething thread with this?
It's good discussion. You don't need to participate if you want, but Lance and I are having a civil discussion. So you can bugger off with your attitude, thanks.
argonak wrote: ...Additional wounds add design space to differentiate marines and other elites from less elite troops...
Like Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines? Necron Immortals?
Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines will get their second wound when they get their codex.
Necrons don't get the second wound because GW wants them to be less elite than the beaky boys. I don't write the rules. It seems to me that GW has decided Necrons are mostly a horde army at this point.
I think the problem is they worded the reanimation protocols in a really wierd way. Maybe a necron player can correct me, but it feels like they're worse than fnp when it comes to multiwound models. You have to lose a fair amount of models just to have a decent chance to bring one back. To me that's not the point, they all get back up at the same rate, big and small. I'm sure it can be done, although i know it won't (this edition at least).
Yes, reanimation is just flatly worse for multiwound models. The issue with multiwound models seems to be a bookkeeping one. For whatever reason, they choked on the idea that multiwound models could come back with a variable number of wounds (nevermind that multiwound models innately have a layer of bookkeeping).
I think its to prevent situations where multiple models can end up being damaged (one from damage that isn't enough to kill it, the other from 'rising' with 1 or 2 wounds), and for whatever reason the designers really felt this breaks the game. (It crops up with damage assignments in the basic rules- you absolutely must kill off a model before damaging another one). The obvious solution here is to heal an existing damaged model (if any) and then start bringing back 'dead' models, but apparently that wasn't something they wanted to go with, so its all a bit crap. (So if you had a model that had taken a wound and lost a couple others, if you got 3 successes on RP rolls, the wounded model would heal 1 (taking it to max) and another model would come back with 2 wounds remaining. It would prevent multiple damaged models existing in a unit, and not punish you for taking multi-wound models. Ta-dah.).
argonak wrote: ...Additional wounds add design space to differentiate marines and other elites from less elite troops...
Like Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines? Necron Immortals?
Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines will get their second wound when they get their codex...
Assuming GW doesn't forget they exist, copy-paste the 8e datasheets without paying attention at the last minute, refuse to FAQ it because they can't invalidate a printed Codex no matter how little effort they put into it, and then start inventing bogus lore explanations as to why GK/CSM don't deserve 2W. If they wanted to give them 2W in a stopgap PDF like they did for Deathwatch Marines they could have.
If you were to make a Venn diagram of "models with dumb designs", "models with dumb lore", and "models with dumb rules", you would find Primaris at the centre of that diagram.
People are into it because it is the new hotness and like every new product, GW gives the models rules to make them sell only to nerf them a year later, but I digress.
The problem with Primaris isn't primaris per se, it's GWs horrible rules bloat and inflexibility. Do we really need seven different entries for "Captain"? Why not just make Rubicon Primaris an upgrade for existing SM units for XPoints and call it a day?
Syphid wrote:If you were to make a Venn diagram of "models with dumb designs", "models with dumb lore", and "models with dumb rules", you would find Primaris at the centre of that diagram.
Or, from my perspective, if you were to make a Venn diagram of models with cool designs, interesting lore, and fun rules, I'd find Primaris right in the centre.
You disagree, that's fine - but, uh, you might want to sound a little less like you're stating objective facts there.
People are into it because it is the new hotness and like every new product, GW gives the models rules to make them sell only to nerf them a year later, but I digress.
Or, because they look cool. I'm not exactly fussed by how OP Primaris stuff is to buy it - coming from someone who happily takes Reivers for the cool factor.
Do we really need seven different entries for "Captain"? Why not just make Rubicon Primaris an upgrade for existing SM units for XPoints and call it a day?
Now this I actually strongly agree with! Have a core Captain datasheet, and have options for Primaris Captain (which is the statblock increase, exchanging out bolters and stormbolters for the bolt rifle variants, and Primaris keyword), as well as "jump pack", "Bike", "Terminator Armour", "Phobos Armour" and "Gravis Armour" modifications. It'd be a big datasheet, but it could easily be done.
Similarly, I wouldn't mind seeing a similar system rolled out for Librarians, Chaplains, Apothecaries, Ancients, and Techmarines.
Yeah. I find the fluff a bit worse than normal, but not massively worse.
The rules are hit and miss for me, some stuff pretty bonkers (Eradicators) some stuff solidly meh for Marines (Reivers), but everything is playable with the overlapping rules Marines have.
And the models are pretty cool. I can see why someone would dislike them, but a lot of people do like them, and that's DEFINITELY not an objective matter.
Yes, reanimation is just flatly worse for multiwound models. The issue with multiwound models seems to be a bookkeeping one. For whatever reason, they choked on the idea that multiwound models could come back with a variable number of wounds (nevermind that multiwound models innately have a layer of bookkeeping).
I think its to prevent situations where multiple models can end up being damaged (one from damage that isn't enough to kill it, the other from 'rising' with 1 or 2 wounds), and for whatever reason the designers really felt this breaks the game. (It crops up with damage assignments in the basic rules- you absolutely must kill off a model before damaging another one). The obvious solution here is to heal an existing damaged model (if any) and then start bringing back 'dead' models, but apparently that wasn't something they wanted to go with, so its all a bit crap. (So if you had a model that had taken a wound and lost a couple others, if you got 3 successes on RP rolls, the wounded model would heal 1 (taking it to max) and another model would come back with 2 wounds remaining. It would prevent multiple damaged models existing in a unit, and not punish you for taking multi-wound models. Ta-dah.).
There's a another angle to this. Living Metal heals all models even if there would never be more than one wounded model. If you were allowed bring back partial Skorpeks and then double up their living metal it'd be pretty nuts.
Syphid wrote:If you were to make a Venn diagram of "models with dumb designs", "models with dumb lore", and "models with dumb rules", you would find Primaris at the centre of that diagram.
Or, from my perspective, if you were to make a Venn diagram of models with cool designs, interesting lore, and fun rules, I'd find Primaris right in the centre.
Nah. Go-karts are dumb, and their fluff contradicts the core setting idea of the Imperium slowly circling the drain of decay and degradation.
Syphid wrote:If you were to make a Venn diagram of "models with dumb designs", "models with dumb lore", and "models with dumb rules", you would find Primaris at the centre of that diagram.
Or, from my perspective, if you were to make a Venn diagram of models with cool designs, interesting lore, and fun rules, I'd find Primaris right in the centre.
Nah. Go-karts are dumb
Again, you're welcome to your opinion!
and their fluff contradicts the core setting idea of the Imperium slowly circling the drain of decay and degradation.
The fluff which has had new discoveries in the forms of Razorbacks, new Land Raider variants, and new Chapters being formed?
The core of the setting is moral degradation and constantly balanced/tipping warfronts in an unending conflict, as far as I see it - which is itself a subjective focus. Primaris don't break that for me.
Basically, just to re-emphasis, some people like 'em and think they fit, and others don't/ Neither party is "objectively" right or wrong.
Syphid wrote:If you were to make a Venn diagram of "models with dumb designs", "models with dumb lore", and "models with dumb rules", you would find Primaris at the centre of that diagram.
Or, from my perspective, if you were to make a Venn diagram of models with cool designs, interesting lore, and fun rules, I'd find Primaris right in the centre.
Nah. Go-karts are dumb
Again, you're welcome to your opinion!
and their fluff contradicts the core setting idea of the Imperium slowly circling the drain of decay and degradation.
The fluff which has had new discoveries in the forms of Razorbacks, new Land Raider variants, and new Chapters being formed?
The core of the setting is moral degradation and constantly balanced/tipping warfronts in an unending conflict, as far as I see it - which is itself a subjective focus. Primaris don't break that for me.
Basically, just to re-emphasis, some people like 'em and think they fit, and others don't/ Neither party is "objectively" right or wrong.
Weapon swaps on a preexisting vehicle chassis are 'objectively' not equivalent to
A reawakened Primarch
A whole new fleet of flying vehicles
New armor variants on
New Marines carrying
Entirely new classes of weapons.
Insectum7 wrote: Weapon swaps on a preexisting vehicle chassis are 'objectively' not equivalent to
A reawakened Primarch
A whole new fleet of flying vehicles
New armor variants on
New Marines carrying
Entirely new classes of weapons.
But they do represent progress and development.
Whether you think they're on the same level or not is down to you, but they *are* forms of progress. Further examples of progress being made might be things like new STC discoveries, new strategies and tactics (such as things like the Tyrannic War Veterans), or new Chapters being founded.
But you've already made your mind up on Primaris - which you're entitled to.
Insectum7 wrote: Weapon swaps on a preexisting vehicle chassis are 'objectively' not equivalent to
A reawakened Primarch
A whole new fleet of flying vehicles
New armor variants on
New Marines carrying
Entirely new classes of weapons.
But they do represent progress and development.
Whether you think they're on the same level or not is down to you . . .
No sir, they are pretty blatantly, obviously, not at all on the same level. But we've seen this sort of bizarre attempt at equivalency from you before.
Syphid wrote: If you were to make a Venn diagram of "models with dumb designs", "models with dumb lore", and "models with dumb rules", you would find Primaris at the centre of that diagram.
People are into it because it is the new hotness and like every new product, GW gives the models rules to make them sell only to nerf them a year later, but I digress.
The problem with Primaris isn't primaris per se, it's GWs horrible rules bloat and inflexibility. Do we really need seven different entries for "Captain"? Why not just make Rubicon Primaris an upgrade for existing SM units for XPoints and call it a day?
Syphid wrote: If you were to make a Venn diagram of "models with dumb designs", "models with dumb lore", and "models with dumb rules", you would find Primaris at the centre of that diagram.
People are into it because it is the new hotness and like every new product, GW gives the models rules to make them sell only to nerf them a year later, but I digress.
The problem with Primaris isn't primaris per se, it's GWs horrible rules bloat and inflexibility. Do we really need seven different entries for "Captain"? Why not just make Rubicon Primaris an upgrade for existing SM units for XPoints and call it a day?
This seems reasonable.
For me, its not the rules, its the minis. I'll give a graphic description of my problem with 'firstborn' minis(*1), but i will say the hips on all these models don't strike me right. Even the primaris. I'd need to see a mini with their legs together standing upright to know for sure but they still don't seem right (*2)
This is finally the age where terminators are useful in game, and dreadnoughts, and i always loved terminators and dreadnoughts. But all i see now is a guy who got his arms surgically amputated and placed on his back, with some sort of surgical neck elongation to get his head in the right place. I love terminators, and i used to love firstborn, but the proportions are just janky. Gravis armour might suck in comparison, but its commonly available and looks sorta like a human.(*3).
*1
Spoiler:
Yeah, i do agree with rules bloat. But the firstborn look to me like they're frantically shuffling towards the nearest space toilet before they brown their space trousers. Nevermind the proportions.
*2 they just look like the legs of a crab sticking out of the body and moving sideways, they don't look human.
*3 yeah i get its the new terminator armour, and i like it for that, but its not as good armour-wise
Hecaton wrote: Nah. Go-karts are dumb, and their fluff contradicts the core setting idea of the Imperium slowly circling the drain of decay and degradation.
Oh yeah, because replacing STC designs with WW2 era level vehicle absolutely doesn't equal "decay and degradation".
Oh wait!
Is it some attempt at sarcasm or did you really didn't give your argument any thought?
Insectum7 wrote: No sir, they are pretty blatantly, obviously, not at all on the same level. But we've seen this sort of bizarre attempt at equivalency from you before.
I fully agree - putting slightly longer pipe in bolter to make rifle out of carbine is nowhere near the complexity of integrating completely new weapon system in a tank, complete with ammunition, sensor, turret, targeting, mounting, recoil, etc, issues.
And I like how people still screeching about primaris after what, five years pretend the black is white and the former is harder than the latter
Hecaton wrote: Nah. Go-karts are dumb, and their fluff contradicts the core setting idea of the Imperium slowly circling the drain of decay and degradation.
Oh yeah, because replacing STC designs with WW2 era level vehicle absolutely doesn't equal "decay and degradation".
Oh wait!
Is it some attempt at sarcasm or did you really didn't give your argument any thought?
Insectum7 wrote: No sir, they are pretty blatantly, obviously, not at all on the same level. But we've seen this sort of bizarre attempt at equivalency from you before.
I fully agree - putting slightly longer pipe in bolter to make rifle out of carbine is nowhere near the complexity of integrating completely new weapon system in a tank, complete with ammunition, sensor, turret, targeting, mounting, recoil, etc, issues.
And I like how people still screeching about primaris after what, five years pretend the black is white and the former is harder than the latter
Find me the lore that says a Bolt Rifle is merely a longer barrel, and tell me how a longer barrel extends the range of a rocket propelled munition.
And the guy carrying said bolt rifle is wearing a new armor system, has new organs, and rides in entirely new vehicles floating aloft on newly scaled anti-grav tech.
Friendly reminder that every weapon system in said new vehicle is "complete with ammunition, sensor, turret, targeting, mounting, recoil, etc, issues." As you say.
Insectum7 wrote: ...Find me the lore that says a Bolt Rifle is merely a longer barrel, and tell me how a longer barrel extends the range of a rocket propelled munition.
You could alternately build your Primaris with classic-Marine short boltguns, and then the whole modified statline is explained by them just using Kraken bolts.
Insectum7 wrote: ...Find me the lore that says a Bolt Rifle is merely a longer barrel, and tell me how a longer barrel extends the range of a rocket propelled munition.
You could alternately build your Primaris with classic-Marine short boltguns, and then the whole modified statline is explained by them just using Kraken bolts.
A fine point, but that's not the way they're presented.
Insectum7 wrote: ...Find me the lore that says a Bolt Rifle is merely a longer barrel, and tell me how a longer barrel extends the range of a rocket propelled munition.
You could alternately build your Primaris with classic-Marine short boltguns, and then the whole modified statline is explained by them just using Kraken bolts.
A fine point, but that's not the way they're presented.
I will say, having butchered (some might say wasted) some reivers on building a primaris death company..... the bolt carbines once you clip that handle away look a hell of a lot like standard bolt guns for firstborn.
Insectum7 wrote: Weapon swaps on a preexisting vehicle chassis are 'objectively' not equivalent to
A reawakened Primarch
A whole new fleet of flying vehicles
New armor variants on
New Marines carrying
Entirely new classes of weapons.
But they do represent progress and development.
Whether you think they're on the same level or not is down to you . . .
No sir, they are pretty blatantly, obviously, not at all on the same level. But we've seen this sort of bizarre attempt at equivalency from you before.
It really ain't objectively that way, dear.
As I've said, if *you* don't like it, or think it's a step too far, that's fine by me. Just don't claim that's anything but your opinion, yeah? It's as simple as that. Otherwise, you're just making yourself look foolish by suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you has some kind of objectively bad taste or isn't a fan of "True 40k", so to speak. Which I'm sure you agree is an absurd thing to claim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Torga_DW wrote: I will say, having butchered (some might say wasted) some reivers on building a primaris death company..... the bolt carbines once you clip that handle away look a hell of a lot like standard bolt guns for firstborn.
Not even just the Reiver ones, all bolt carbines are pretty close to bolters! The Infiltrators and Incursor bolt carbines are pretty close - the Infiltrator's carbines look like the old Deathwatch bolters, and the Incursor ones, when you lop off the box scope, are scarily close to the Tigris pattern bolters.
#1: i'm having trouble quoting this jazz, so i'ma just reply
#2 come on insectum, from you? really? I thought you liked all this fluffy progress. Me, i just like the proportions (although i'll blow the hips trumpet till the day i die, old marines or new).
#3 (point 2)
Yeah i know. I would have gone about the whole boltguns thing a whole lot differently. I proposed my rules back in the day. But now it is what it is. When i'm offered the blue pill or the red pill, i quickly take them both and swallow them before they can stop me.
I don't care for them. The cartoon skull masks, tactical poses, sleek armor, and more modern vehicles look out of place. The fluff is transparently written just to patch them in alongside traditional marines and the idea of the imperium innovating cuts against the entire premise of 40k. GW shouldn't innovate either, they suck at it.
Insectum7 wrote: Weapon swaps on a preexisting vehicle chassis are 'objectively' not equivalent to
A reawakened Primarch
A whole new fleet of flying vehicles
New armor variants on
New Marines carrying
Entirely new classes of weapons.
But they do represent progress and development.
Whether you think they're on the same level or not is down to you . . .
No sir, they are pretty blatantly, obviously, not at all on the same level. But we've seen this sort of bizarre attempt at equivalency from you before.
It really ain't objectively that way, dear.
I welcome you to prove me wrong. Bring your evidence.
Torga_DW wrote: #1: i'm having trouble quoting this jazz, so i'ma just reply
#2 come on insectum, from you? really? I thought you liked all this fluffy progress. Me, i just like the proportions (although i'll blow the hips trumpet till the day i die, old marines or new).
#3 (point 2)
Yeah i know. I would have gone about the whole boltguns thing a whole lot differently. I proposed my rules back in the day. But now it is what it is. When i'm offered the blue pill or the red pill, i quickly take them both and swallow them before they can stop me.
You may have me mixed up with someone else, as I'm not very fond of the whole lore progression thing.
It's true, both styles of marines are oddly proportioned though, when you get down to it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Cartoon skull masks compared to Chaplains and Night Lords? Talk about being in Egypt and swimming in Denial
Insectum7 wrote:No sir, they are pretty blatantly, obviously, not at all on the same level. But we've seen this sort of bizarre attempt at equivalency from you before.
It really ain't objectively that way, dear.
I welcome you to prove me wrong. Bring your evidence.
I think you misunderstand - you're the one here claiming an objective fact. The evidence is on you to prove, my friend.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Cartoon skull masks compared to Chaplains and Night Lords? Talk about being in Egypt and swimming in Denial
They are styled differently, in a bad way.
Eh, they are somewhat different, I'll grant (well, some of the older Chaplain skulls are SERIOUSLY goofy, IMO). But the latter is, yet again, a subjective opinion. Just to hammer that home for you.
Love the poses. Love the concepts. Especially phobos (though
I do wish the intercessor kit boltgun bits were better compatible with the infiltrator kit). Love the little bit of silly.
Lore? *shrug* I played wmh for years. One of the iconic and celebrated aspects of it was an evolving storyline. I remember for years people cheered it, saying 'I wish the 40k setting wasn't stagnant and things moved on beyond 999m41'. And now gw moves the plot along...
Frankly, they were what I always wishes marines were. I genuinely wish the marine line as it existed around 2000 comprised primaris models rather than oldstartes. Can't stand the old bobbleheads when compared.
This is finally the age where terminators are useful in game, and dreadnoughts, and i always loved terminators and dreadnoughts. But all i see now is a guy who got his arms surgically amputated and placed on his back, with some sort of surgical neck elongation to get his head in the right place. I love terminators, and i used to love firstborn, but the proportions are just janky. Gravis armour might suck in comparison, but its commonly available and looks sorta like a human.(*3).
You know a Termie's shoulderpads aren't actually his shoulders, right? The shoulders are under them, and then under the armour there. Seriously, every time I see comments like this I wonder if anyone has ever put together a Termie kit made in the last 15 years, because you'll notice they specifically addressed this issue when they remade them. If you want further proof, just look at the Abaddon mini, and how he is assembled- it might give you a clue as to why those shoulderpads are so high when building him.
It's not subjective to point out the silly caricature of a skull that ruins any attempt to make them grim or scary. The silhouettes of the jump infantry and gravis also look horrible; they have giant feet and torsos.
Deadnight wrote:(though I do wish the intercessor kit boltgun bits were better compatible with the infiltrator kit).
Ah, are you talking about how the Phobos Marine left shoulders are slightly larger and don't take shoulder pads on them? You might have found a solution already to it, but I was able to get around the whole different arms thing by chopping the gun holding arm just under where the shoulder pad meets the arm, and then doing the same to the arm I intended to replace it with. Let me use arms designed for Phobos Marines on my Intercessors without any weird half shoulder pads.
Irkjoe wrote:It's not subjective to point out the silly caricature of a skull that ruins any attempt to make them grim or scary.
Well, actually, it kinda is. I mean, I can't say that the Night Lord or Chaplain sculpts look "scary" to me, so the fact I'm not "scared" by the Reiver ones changes nothing.
Obviously, perhaps you feel that the Chaplain skulls are grim and scary, which you're welcome to, but as someone who doesn't feel that either one are more "scary" or "grim" than the other, it very much is subjective.
argonak wrote: ...Additional wounds add design space to differentiate marines and other elites from less elite troops...
Like Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines? Necron Immortals?
Grey Knights and Chaos Space Marines will get their second wound when they get their codex.
Necrons don't get the second wound because GW wants them to be less elite than the beaky boys. I don't write the rules. It seems to me that GW has decided Necrons are mostly a horde army at this point.
I think the problem is they worded the reanimation protocols in a really wierd way. Maybe a necron player can correct me, but it feels like they're worse than fnp when it comes to multiwound models. You have to lose a fair amount of models just to have a decent chance to bring one back. To me that's not the point, they all get back up at the same rate, big and small. I'm sure it can be done, although i know it won't (this edition at least).
It's not really worded in a weird way; it's by design. W1 models have an easier time reanimating to simulate the idea of legions of skeletal androids coming at you in a never ending tide (without needing to put that many models on the table).
Plus the old RP rules were inherently problematic in that it was entirely possible to bring back like, 5 3 wound destroyers all at once which was just utterly broken at 1.2k points and lower. However, at points values above that, armies could easily delete a unit like that before it was able to reanimate. And yet the Necron player was STILL paying the points for the ability.
Now, a lot of the multi-wound Necron models are pretty generously priced because they don't overly rely on RP as a mechanic. And many of them are excellent too. They still get RP and it can be still be impactful, especially when combined with Living Metal. It's basically the best version of the rule the army has ever had, across all editions.
Except they're almost always meant to be unearthed STC's, and usually take 100-500 years just to get AdMech approval. It's filthy peasants digging for scraps in the Roman ruins of Londinium and finding an intact glass cup, but on galactic scale.
Nowhere near the same tone or scale as pulling out whole armies of super-marines with technology that is more reliable, deadlier and basically on par with eldar stuff out of the hat.
This is finally the age where terminators are useful in game, and dreadnoughts, and i always loved terminators and dreadnoughts. But all i see now is a guy who got his arms surgically amputated and placed on his back, with some sort of surgical neck elongation to get his head in the right place. I love terminators, and i used to love firstborn, but the proportions are just janky. Gravis armour might suck in comparison, but its commonly available and looks sorta like a human.(*3).
You know a Termie's shoulderpads aren't actually his shoulders, right? The shoulders are under them, and then under the armour there. Seriously, every time I see comments like this I wonder if anyone has ever put together a Termie kit made in the last 15 years, because you'll notice they specifically addressed this issue when they remade them. If you want further proof, just look at the Abaddon mini, and how he is assembled- it might give you a clue as to why those shoulderpads are so high when building him.
Yes, I have built a termie in the last 15 years. That 2020 LE Librarian termie this past fall. His left arm pit connects to his suit above (and behind) his neckline! That ain't normal, even for modified super-soldiers....
Conclusion: He's lost his real arms & what I'm looking at are bionic arms connected to/part of his armor. Or GWs lost all sense of human anatomy. One of those two. I'll just go with the one that at least fits the setting.
Oh wow, yes- let's pick the most egregious example that kinda goes against what I am saying vs every other modern Termie mini...
Look at Abaddon, look at Typhus, heck- look at the basic Blightlords. You'll see their shoulders (note, not their shoulderpads) line up below their heads. GW specifically addressed this and even called it out in WD when the Termie kit was redone.
Insectum7 wrote:No sir, they are pretty blatantly, obviously, not at all on the same level. But we've seen this sort of bizarre attempt at equivalency from you before.
It really ain't objectively that way, dear.
I welcome you to prove me wrong. Bring your evidence.
I think you misunderstand - you're the one here claiming an objective fact. The evidence is on you to prove, my friend.
I've already posted it.
A whole new fleet of flying vehicles is new.
An awakening primarch is new.
New organs on new marines carrying new weapons are new
etc.
All of which is more newness at a much greater pace than has ever occurred in the setting/collection before. New units being slowly introduced over the years is radically different than an entirely new army springing up out of the blue, both in universe and in RL.
Razorbacks being introduced five millennia ago is a far cry from the massive Primaris rollout.
What observations would you like to bring to the table to counter this?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Cartoon skull masks compared to Chaplains and Night Lords? Talk about being in Egypt and swimming in Denial
They are styled differently, in a bad way.
Eh, they are somewhat different, I'll grant (well, some of the older Chaplain skulls are SERIOUSLY goofy, IMO). But the latter is, yet again, a subjective opinion. Just to hammer that home for you.
I never claimed their any objectivity here beyond the fact that they are styled differently. I could probably point to objective reasons why they look like edgelord hockey masks though.
Except they're almost always meant to be unearthed STC's, and usually take 100-500 years just to get AdMech approval. It's filthy peasants digging for scraps in the Roman ruins of Londinium and finding an intact glass cup, but on galactic scale.
Nowhere near the same tone or scale as pulling out whole armies of super-marines with technology that is more reliable, deadlier and basically on par with eldar stuff out of the hat.
The Razorback and Land Raider variants aren't STC fragments though. They're innovated constructs.
Sure, if ALL the innovations that had been made were STC fragments, I'd get it, but they ain't. Unless y'all are going to complain about Centurion suits, Thunderfire Cannons, Stormtalons, Stormravens, Hunters, Stalkers, Razorbacks, Land Raider variants - basically anything that doesn't crop up in the Heresy, you're being selective about what you're accepting. And, you know what? You're welcome to be! If some things just don't fit what you want, you don't have to like them! You don't have to think they fit.
But don't for a second think that's anything other than your opinion on the matter. It's not objective, however you spin it.
Deadnight wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Ah, are you talking about how the Phobos Marine left shoulders are slightly larger and don't take shoulder pads on them?
Nope, I mean the ammo bit for the gun.
Infiltrator 'million scopes' and 'microwave on top' bits.
I had hoped to use the stalker bolt rifle ammo bits from the intercessor kit instead but the 'bite point' is different where they clip on to thr gun.
Not huge mind, and nothing that can't be dealt with by a hobby knife but annoying nonetheless.
Ah, that's a shame - can't say I've tried doing that one myself.
Insectum7 wrote:No sir, they are pretty blatantly, obviously, not at all on the same level. But we've seen this sort of bizarre attempt at equivalency from you before.
It really ain't objectively that way, dear.
I welcome you to prove me wrong. Bring your evidence.
I think you misunderstand - you're the one here claiming an objective fact. The evidence is on you to prove, my friend.
I've already posted it.
A whole new fleet of flying vehicles is new. An awakening primarch is new. New organs on new marines carrying new weapons are new etc.
Wow! You posted a list! Now show me where any of that is objective? I can sit here and list every new unit and armour mark and Chapter as signs of "innovation", but that would still just be my interpretation of "innovation". I want you to prove to me that those ones you've listed are objectively "innovative" and that the others aren't.
Whole fleet of vehicles? Already done, I've listed a bunch up earlier. The Stormtalon, Stormhawk, Stormraven, and the various Land Speeders (such as the Storm) are all flying too. Vulkan awakened in M32. The actual act of a Primarch awakening just feels like a subjective line you didn't want crossing, not some fundamental wrong - which brings me right back to this being you *personal opinion* on the matter. New gear and Marines? May I introduce you to the Minotaurs Chapter, a "new" Chapter who's famous for having brand new, top of the line gear?
Look mate, all the stuff you're describing (as you allude to later) has already happened in the setting. You accepted it before because it fitting with your own ideas of what was allowed in the setting. Now, that's incongruous to what the Primaris are - and if so, fine. You clearly just don't like them for your own reasoning. I'm not here to tell you that you're wrong, or that you don't like "True 40k" or that you're deluded, because that's nonsense. But you aren't the arbiter on what's objectively bad or what doesn't belong in the setting either.
So, I say again - learn to understand that what YOU see as a step too far doesn't mean that's objectively the case here. Unless you can, you know, empirically PROVE this, quantifiably and with actual cold hard logic instead of "this is different but I can't demonstrate how", it's a subjective opinion - one you'll just have to deal with me having a different one.
All of which is more newness at a much greater pace than has ever occurred in the setting/collection before. New units being slowly introduced over the years is radically different than an entirely new army springing up out of the blue, both in universe and in RL.
Razorbacks being introduced five millennia ago is a far cry from the massive Primaris rollout.
Again, all you've just made there are claims that "this is radically different!" and "this is a far cry away!" - if so, show me objectively! You're saying that you believe there to be a difference, but can you objectively prove it? Can you put it in numbers? Can you distill it into something irrefutable? As I said - *you* feel it's a bridge too far, you're welcome to that. But don't act like other people can't cross that bridge.
What observations would you like to bring to the table to counter this?
The fact you still haven't accounted for other people not feeling like it's a far cry away.
I never claimed their any objectivity here beyond the fact that they are styled differently.
"in a bad way" - you very much did seem to claim that. Just to round out - if you think they look bad, that's totally valid, in the same way I can claim old marines look bad. You're more than entitled to that opinion. But it doesn't make it objectively true.
If you google Terminator Armor Diagram you can see some cutaways that illustrate how the squad works, actually. I think one of them is even official from the old SM codex after the kit was redone.
A whole new fleet of flying vehicles is new.
An awakening primarch is new.
New organs on new marines carrying new weapons are new
etc.
.
They're not flying vehicles. They're anti grav. And that's not new tech for the imperium. If anything it's anti grav space marine style, fueled by contempt because it punches the ground as it trundles along.
To be fair, to my semi unprofessional eye, primaris vehicle silhouettes are no more than slight modification to the basic rhino/predator chassis and the various primaris vehicles are no more than slight variations of each other, like the million and three variations of rhinos, dreadnoughts and predators. So one new design which is ike most sm kit, fairly modular.
I'll give you a new primarch. Except its not unprecedented either. morty and magnus also have models and vulkan and angron have both turned up several times in the lore prior to this. Besides, for twenty years players have dreamed of having a primarch introduced.
New organs is a thing - most of the new weapons are just variations and modifications of older ones. To be fair, there are plenty of bolter variations in existence that a few more boltnouns isn't something I personally find bothersome.
All of which is more newness at a much greater pace than has ever occurred in the setting/collection before. New units being slowly introduced over the years is radically different than an entirely new army springing up out of the blue, both in universe and in RL.
Razorbacks being introduced five millennia ago is a far cry from the massive Primaris rollout.
.
I think it's more perception than anything. Prior to primaris, marines got plenty stick for all the 'new stuff they'd get every codex, especially considering the 'stagnant tech' trope.
To be fair, in the lore, all the land gear (raiders, speeders etx) were all new stc finds in the lore. Them there's the Razorback, land raider crusader, predator weapon variations (in lore), and about three million rhino, terminator, power armour and dreadnought variations over the years. Its hardly a greater pace than what's come before to be fair.
Only thing different is gw now gives unique rules to things now; back in the day mks2-8 were aesthetic, nothing more. Nowadays, mk3 would have extra resilience against shooting, mk v would have logistics bonuses in campaigns, mk6 would be stealth armour etc.
Where I see the biggest issue is the 'suddeness' or all the new stuff. If there had been hints and rumours (more of the vignettes like in the old third ed sm codex- anyone remember that one?) In the lore for years preceding the rollout, if gully was rumoured to have 'had a plan' before fulgrim knifed him, and the codex was always merely 'phase 1', if cawl was tjere from third ed and waa an unknown, cypher like figure with an agenda we could get hooked on,then primaris would have been a long awaited realisation rather than a shock to thr system. But this requires years or decades of foreshadowing and a long, long term plan and I don't think it's fair to expect anyone to have this planned, whether creatives or businesses.
The vast majority of that "new stuff" for oldmarines was always described has having always been there, only off camera until now. Centurions were not new, they were just unseen up until that point. Same goes for Stalkers, Scout Speeders etc.
The only truly "new" units old SMs got were the Redeemer and Crusader LR variants, both being bodged together on the fly by enterprising Techmarines in the middles of warzones.
Grimtuff wrote: The vast majority of that "new stuff" for oldmarines was always described has having always been there, only off camera until now. Centurions were not new, they were just unseen up until that point. Same goes for Stalkers, Scout Speeders etc.
The only truly "new" units old SMs got were the Redeemer and Crusader LR variants, both being bodged together on the fly by enterprising Techmarines in the middles of warzones.
In fairness, insectum also spoke about things being introduced 'in the setting' which was why I mentioned new stuff in lore.
I mean hell, we can take that approach for primaris as well, considering cawl and a whole bunch of the first draft of primaris have 'always been there' in the background and 'off camera' as you put it, since m31.
And imo, retconning stuff 'that it was always there' is just lazy and creatively bankrupt. Just my opinion mind.
Grimtuff wrote:The vast majority of that "new stuff" for oldmarines was always described has having always been there, only off camera until now. Centurions were not new, they were just unseen up until that point. Same goes for Stalkers, Scout Speeders etc.
Well, "always there" after the Heresy, so there was some kind of discovery or innovation between those times.
The only truly "new" units old SMs got were the Redeemer and Crusader LR variants, both being bodged together on the fly by enterprising Techmarines in the middles of warzones.
And the Razorback, which I think is explicitly described as a post-heresy creation? In fact, I think a lot of the Land Raider variants are post heresy bodge-jobs, such as the Ares.
Basically, point being, clearly the Imperium was innovating after the Heresy. As Deadknight alludes to, what I imagine the greatest cause of dissonance that all this stuff is "new and unheard of" is that it's new and unheard of to us, the players. Within the lore of the setting (which, again, is new and unheard of to us, the players) Cawl's been tinkering away at this for 10k years. That's pretty reasonable a time frame, even for a technologically stagnant Imperium. In a more progressive setting this might have been possible within a normal person's lifetime. In 40k, because of the technological stagnation, it takes 10,000 years.
I believe the reason it feels jarring and new to us is because we've not experienced the 10,000 years it took, and we got hit with a whole bunch of lore which came out of nowhere, and had to fill it's own blanks reactively. If you remove *when* the lore was added, I find that Primaris being developed entirely fit into the idea of a technologically stagnant Imperium, IMO.
If you google Terminator Armor Diagram you can see some cutaways that illustrate how the squad works, actually. I think one of them is even official from the old SM codex after the kit was redone.
Seen that art when it was new. Doesn't change the odd arm placements on the physical models.
If you google Terminator Armor Diagram you can see some cutaways that illustrate how the squad works, actually. I think one of them is even official from the old SM codex after the kit was redone.
Seen that art when it was new. Doesn't change the odd arm placements on the physical models.
It does if you accept the diagram reflects the physical models, and I haven't been able to spot a difference at cursory inspection.
Insectum7 wrote:No sir, they are pretty blatantly, obviously, not at all on the same level. But we've seen this sort of bizarre attempt at equivalency from you before.
It really ain't objectively that way, dear.
I welcome you to prove me wrong. Bring your evidence.
I think you misunderstand - you're the one here claiming an objective fact. The evidence is on you to prove, my friend.
I've already posted it.
A whole new fleet of flying vehicles is new.
An awakening primarch is new.
New organs on new marines carrying new weapons are new
etc.
Wow! You posted a list! Now show me where any of that is objective?
The fact that you aren't capable of stating the contrary and having it align with the lore. Primaris, awakening (non daemon) primarch, and their equipment is a big ol' dump of new stuff.
I can sit here and list every new unit and armour mark and Chapter as signs of "innovation", but that would still just be my interpretation of "innovation". I want you to prove to me that those ones you've listed are objectively "innovative" and that the others aren't.
Whole fleet of vehicles? Already done, I've listed a bunch up earlier. The Stormtalon, Stormhawk, Stormraven, and the various Land Speeders (such as the Storm) are all flying too.
Vulkan awakened in M32. The actual act of a Primarch awakening just feels like a subjective line you didn't want crossing, not some fundamental wrong - which brings me right back to this being you *personal opinion* on the matter.
New gear and Marines? May I introduce you to the Minotaurs Chapter, a "new" Chapter who's famous for having brand new, top of the line gear?
Go ahead and list it out then, and list the approximate time in lore for which said innovations occurred as well as the magnitude of the effect of said innovations on the Space Marine faction. Different variations of power armor and bolters will exist, it's a big galaxy after all and there are thousands of forge worlds etc. producing stuff. And although minor variations will inevitably exist, almost none of them have made enough of a difference to effect how chapters, squads, etc. are represented in the rules.
You'll find that imperial innovation has been glacially slow, and more often than not completely isolated to the point where it has had little to no effect on the Space Marine faction as a whole.
Objectively.
As for the Minotaurs, new chapters get founded (and are killed off) all the time. No big deal there, as it has zero effect on the SM faction as a whole. New equipment such as newly manufactured bolters are not an innovation. If they actually have their own special equipment, so be it, but it sure didn't affect how UM did battle, and thus falls into the 'isolated' category.
All of which is more newness at a much greater pace than has ever occurred in the setting/collection before. New units being slowly introduced over the years is radically different than an entirely new army springing up out of the blue, both in universe and in RL.
Razorbacks being introduced five millennia ago is a far cry from the massive Primaris rollout.
Again, all you've just made there are claims that "this is radically different!" and "this is a far cry away!" - if so, show me objectively!
We're now in Sgt Smudge head-in-sand territory. Razorbacks did not appear alongside new marines with new organs and new armor and new weapons and more new vehicles. It was a single innovation that happened to take hold at some point in history. If you have evidence to the contrary I'm all ears.
I'll give you a new primarch. Except its not unprecedented either. morty and magnus also have models and vulkan and angron have both turned up several times in the lore prior to this. Besides, for twenty years players have dreamed of having a primarch introduced.
Mortarian, Magnus, Angron and Fulgrim were all playable in the old Epic game. The Daemon Primarchs being around and active was always a thing going on in the background.
Having a loyalist Primarch "miraculously return" is a whole new thang.
The Terminator Squad is better than the original Librarian you referred to. Not great, but better. And honestly that second Librarian looks completely plausible given the pose. One shoulder up and one shoulder down.
Beyond that you're fighting with miniatures that are intended to be disproportionate and exaggerated to begin with, to read from several feet away being on the table. So there's two layers of stylization going on, the stylization of the armor itself, and the stylization when the design is put through some re-proportioning to meet the GW table-top model aesthetic. And then the individual sculptor's execution on top of that.
Insectum7 wrote:The fact that you aren't capable of stating the contrary and having it align with the lore. Primaris, awakening (non daemon) primarch, and their equipment is a big ol' dump of new stuff.
I'm not doubting it's a big ol' dump of new stuff.
But so are Centurions. So are grav guns. So are Land Speeder Storms, Land Raider variants, Ironclad Dreadnoughts, and suchlike.
My point being - why are THESE objectively different? What is the objective difference between them?
Go ahead and list it out then, and list the approximate time in lore for which said innovations occurred as well as the magnitude of the effect of said innovations on the Space Marine faction.
I believe I did list many, and for all of them, I can tell you that they took considerably less time than the 10,000 years it took Cawl, acting with the explicit blessing of the Emperor and Guilliman. So, you know, it makes MORE sense that Cawl was able to achieve what he did, within the context of the setting - far more so than a random-ass Techmarine retrofitting a full Land Raider and that being accepted by the techno-phobic Imperium.
So, how about that Imperial fear of innovation, eh?
Different variations of power armor and bolters will exist, it's a big galaxy after all and there are thousands of forge worlds etc. producing stuff. And although minor variations will inevitably exist, almost none of them have made enough of a difference to effect how chapters, squads, etc. are represented in the rules.
Game rules are entirely an abstraction. If GW wanted to, they could have easily had several different profiles of Godwyn, Tigris or Phobos pattern bolter. The rules dictate that Iron Hands are, what, 16% more durable than other Marines, when they weren't prior to 6th. How do you reconcile that?
You'll find that imperial innovation has been glacially slow
Gee, like 10,000 years slow? Also, wow, I bet that Land Raider Redeemer must have taken ages to make and dev- oh. They did it in the space of one battle.
and more often than not completely isolated to the point where it has had little to no effect on the Space Marine faction as a whole.
Redeemer says hi.
Objectively.
Not objectively - might want to reassess that one, dear.
As for the Minotaurs, new chapters get founded (and are killed off) all the time. No big deal there, as it has zero effect on the SM faction as a whole. New equipment such as newly manufactured bolters are not an innovation. If they actually have their own special equipment, so be it, but it sure didn't affect how UM did battle, and thus falls into the 'isolated' category.
But, are the Minotaurs a Chapter 10,000 years in the making? No, I thought not.
Comparative to time put in, the Primaris are entirely congruent, by my rationale. You may disagree, but you can't "disprove" what is a subjective interpretation of the lore.
Razorbacks did not appear alongside new marines with new organs and new armor and new weapons and more new vehicles. It was a single innovation that happened to take hold at some point in history. If you have evidence to the contrary I'm all ears.
Hang on, I think I hear the goalposts moving!
What on earth does what the Razorback came out alongside with change what it is? It's an Affront to the Imperial Technological Stagnation!! I wasn't aware that you could slip things past that Mighty Rule of Imperial Technological Stagnation if they were on their own. Are you saying that the hover tanks would have been fine if GW had released them a few years apart?
Or is this not about when GW released it, and when it appeared in the lore? Because, even by that metric, it took 10,000 years to develop them. 10,000 years is an awful long time, I'm sure it's not outside the realms of possibility.
Either way you slice it, your argument doesn't exactly stand objectively. You're totally justified to dislike stuff, you know. I just don't get your crusade of "I don't like this and no-one else should have it!"
I honestly don't get why you care so much that someone disagrees with you, and says that you might not be arguing from a place of objective truths. This is a fictional universe, open to interpretation, to personal insight and choice - nearly anything we can find in it someone else can disagree with. Very few things can be said to be objective - why the bloody-mindedness? Is it too much for you that someone could (*shock, horror*) enjoy something you don't?
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that all of these "innovations" aren't that innovative.
"Jam more more hormones in marines to make them bigger!"
"take 4 land speeders and slap a land raider on top!"
"add thicker armor to marines! We'll call it gravis armor!"
The only really new or original weapons are arguably the boltstorm gauntlets, the gattling cannons, the laser destroyer I think, and I guess the various grenade launchers technically. Everything else is borrowed or a tweaked version.
Insectum7 wrote:The fact that you aren't capable of stating the contrary and having it align with the lore. Primaris, awakening (non daemon) primarch, and their equipment is a big ol' dump of new stuff.
I'm not doubting it's a big ol' dump of new stuff.
But so are Centurions. So are grav guns. So are Land Speeder Storms, Land Raider variants, Ironclad Dreadnoughts, and suchlike.
My point being - why are THESE objectively different? What is the objective difference between them?
Go ahead and list it out then, and list the approximate time in lore for which said innovations occurred as well as the magnitude of the effect of said innovations on the Space Marine faction.
I believe I did list many, and for all of them, I can tell you that they took considerably less time than the 10,000 years it took Cawl, acting with the explicit blessing of the Emperor and Guilliman. So, you know, it makes MORE sense that Cawl was able to achieve what he did, within the context of the setting - far more so than a random-ass Techmarine retrofitting a full Land Raider and that being accepted by the techno-phobic Imperium.
So, how about that Imperial fear of innovation, eh?
Different variations of power armor and bolters will exist, it's a big galaxy after all and there are thousands of forge worlds etc. producing stuff. And although minor variations will inevitably exist, almost none of them have made enough of a difference to effect how chapters, squads, etc. are represented in the rules.
Game rules are entirely an abstraction. If GW wanted to, they could have easily had several different profiles of Godwyn, Tigris or Phobos pattern bolter. The rules dictate that Iron Hands are, what, 16% more durable than other Marines, when they weren't prior to 6th. How do you reconcile that?
You'll find that imperial innovation has been glacially slow
Gee, like 10,000 years slow? Also, wow, I bet that Land Raider Redeemer must have taken ages to make and dev- oh. They did it in the space of one battle.
and more often than not completely isolated to the point where it has had little to no effect on the Space Marine faction as a whole.
Redeemer says hi.
Objectively.
Not objectively - might want to reassess that one, dear.
As for the Minotaurs, new chapters get founded (and are killed off) all the time. No big deal there, as it has zero effect on the SM faction as a whole. New equipment such as newly manufactured bolters are not an innovation. If they actually have their own special equipment, so be it, but it sure didn't affect how UM did battle, and thus falls into the 'isolated' category.
But, are the Minotaurs a Chapter 10,000 years in the making? No, I thought not.
Comparative to time put in, the Primaris are entirely congruent, by my rationale. You may disagree, but you can't "disprove" what is a subjective interpretation of the lore.
Razorbacks did not appear alongside new marines with new organs and new armor and new weapons and more new vehicles. It was a single innovation that happened to take hold at some point in history. If you have evidence to the contrary I'm all ears.
Hang on, I think I hear the goalposts moving!
What on earth does what the Razorback came out alongside with change what it is? It's an Affront to the Imperial Technological Stagnation!! I wasn't aware that you could slip things past that Mighty Rule of Imperial Technological Stagnation if they were on their own. Are you saying that the hover tanks would have been fine if GW had released them a few years apart?
Or is this not about when GW released it, and when it appeared in the lore? Because, even by that metric, it took 10,000 years to develop them. 10,000 years is an awful long time, I'm sure it's not outside the realms of possibility.
Either way you slice it, your argument doesn't exactly stand objectively. You're totally justified to dislike stuff, you know. I just don't get your crusade of "I don't like this and no-one else should have it!"
I honestly don't get why you care so much that someone disagrees with you, and says that you might not be arguing from a place of objective truths. This is a fictional universe, open to interpretation, to personal insight and choice - nearly anything we can find in it someone else can disagree with. Very few things can be said to be objective - why the bloody-mindedness? Is it too much for you that someone could (*shock, horror*) enjoy something you don't?
None of which counters the fact that on the scale of millenia upon which those earlier advancements progressed on, the Primaris popped onto the scene all at once, with more advancements than all of those previous iterations combined.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Insectum is unreasonable when discussing Primaris so I wouldn't even bother. Probably hasn't even put together ONE kit for them.
Why would I collect a kit from an army I don't like?
Deathwatch melta-fist from 7th, only with a different ranged weapon. Calgar's had bolter-fists since 3rd at least, too, and they're UM wargear for generic characters in 30k.
"Bigger lascannon" is all over the place in 30k. Neutron lasers, laser destroyers, the Deredeo's heavy lascannons.
...and I guess the various grenade launchers technically...
Barely. "Grenade launcher" weapons float around the peripheral of the SM arsenal at least as far back as 5th (Scout bike GLs, auxiliary GLs), the vehicle multi-launchers are foreshadowed by CSM Havoc Launchers going back to 3rd.
...Everything else is borrowed or a tweaked version...
"Intercessors" were Thousand Sons unique Recon squads in 30k before they were Primaris Marines, but only barely (March 2017 to June 2017)
Insectum7 wrote:The fact that you aren't capable of stating the contrary and having it align with the lore. Primaris, awakening (non daemon) primarch, and their equipment is a big ol' dump of new stuff.
I'm not doubting it's a big ol' dump of new stuff.
But so are Centurions. So are grav guns. So are Land Speeder Storms, Land Raider variants, Ironclad Dreadnoughts, and suchlike.
My point being - why are THESE objectively different? What is the objective difference between them?
Go ahead and list it out then, and list the approximate time in lore for which said innovations occurred as well as the magnitude of the effect of said innovations on the Space Marine faction.
I believe I did list many, and for all of them, I can tell you that they took considerably less time than the 10,000 years it took Cawl, acting with the explicit blessing of the Emperor and Guilliman. So, you know, it makes MORE sense that Cawl was able to achieve what he did, within the context of the setting - far more so than a random-ass Techmarine retrofitting a full Land Raider and that being accepted by the techno-phobic Imperium.
So, how about that Imperial fear of innovation, eh?
Different variations of power armor and bolters will exist, it's a big galaxy after all and there are thousands of forge worlds etc. producing stuff. And although minor variations will inevitably exist, almost none of them have made enough of a difference to effect how chapters, squads, etc. are represented in the rules.
Game rules are entirely an abstraction. If GW wanted to, they could have easily had several different profiles of Godwyn, Tigris or Phobos pattern bolter. The rules dictate that Iron Hands are, what, 16% more durable than other Marines, when they weren't prior to 6th. How do you reconcile that?
You'll find that imperial innovation has been glacially slow
Gee, like 10,000 years slow? Also, wow, I bet that Land Raider Redeemer must have taken ages to make and dev- oh. They did it in the space of one battle.
and more often than not completely isolated to the point where it has had little to no effect on the Space Marine faction as a whole.
Redeemer says hi.
Objectively.
Not objectively - might want to reassess that one, dear.
As for the Minotaurs, new chapters get founded (and are killed off) all the time. No big deal there, as it has zero effect on the SM faction as a whole. New equipment such as newly manufactured bolters are not an innovation. If they actually have their own special equipment, so be it, but it sure didn't affect how UM did battle, and thus falls into the 'isolated' category.
But, are the Minotaurs a Chapter 10,000 years in the making? No, I thought not.
Comparative to time put in, the Primaris are entirely congruent, by my rationale. You may disagree, but you can't "disprove" what is a subjective interpretation of the lore.
Razorbacks did not appear alongside new marines with new organs and new armor and new weapons and more new vehicles. It was a single innovation that happened to take hold at some point in history. If you have evidence to the contrary I'm all ears.
Hang on, I think I hear the goalposts moving!
What on earth does what the Razorback came out alongside with change what it is? It's an Affront to the Imperial Technological Stagnation!! I wasn't aware that you could slip things past that Mighty Rule of Imperial Technological Stagnation if they were on their own. Are you saying that the hover tanks would have been fine if GW had released them a few years apart?
Or is this not about when GW released it, and when it appeared in the lore? Because, even by that metric, it took 10,000 years to develop them. 10,000 years is an awful long time, I'm sure it's not outside the realms of possibility.
Either way you slice it, your argument doesn't exactly stand objectively. You're totally justified to dislike stuff, you know. I just don't get your crusade of "I don't like this and no-one else should have it!"
I honestly don't get why you care so much that someone disagrees with you, and says that you might not be arguing from a place of objective truths. This is a fictional universe, open to interpretation, to personal insight and choice - nearly anything we can find in it someone else can disagree with. Very few things can be said to be objective - why the bloody-mindedness? Is it too much for you that someone could (*shock, horror*) enjoy something you don't?
None of which counters the fact that on the scale of millenia upon which those earlier advancements progressed on, the Primaris popped onto the scene all at once, with more advancements than all of those previous iterations combined.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Insectum is unreasonable when discussing Primaris so I wouldn't even bother. Probably hasn't even put together ONE kit for them.
Why would I collect a kit from an army I don't like?
1. They're from the same army you collect, not a different one. Deal with it.
2. You make outrageous claims about the kits despite never putting one together.
3. You claim "objective" that Manlet Marines are better, despite the proportions automatically making your claim wrong.
Insectum7 wrote:The fact that you aren't capable of stating the contrary and having it align with the lore. Primaris, awakening (non daemon) primarch, and their equipment is a big ol' dump of new stuff.
I'm not doubting it's a big ol' dump of new stuff.
But so are Centurions. So are grav guns. So are Land Speeder Storms, Land Raider variants, Ironclad Dreadnoughts, and suchlike.
My point being - why are THESE objectively different? What is the objective difference between them?
Go ahead and list it out then, and list the approximate time in lore for which said innovations occurred as well as the magnitude of the effect of said innovations on the Space Marine faction.
I believe I did list many, and for all of them, I can tell you that they took considerably less time than the 10,000 years it took Cawl, acting with the explicit blessing of the Emperor and Guilliman. So, you know, it makes MORE sense that Cawl was able to achieve what he did, within the context of the setting - far more so than a random-ass Techmarine retrofitting a full Land Raider and that being accepted by the techno-phobic Imperium.
So, how about that Imperial fear of innovation, eh?
Different variations of power armor and bolters will exist, it's a big galaxy after all and there are thousands of forge worlds etc. producing stuff. And although minor variations will inevitably exist, almost none of them have made enough of a difference to effect how chapters, squads, etc. are represented in the rules.
Game rules are entirely an abstraction. If GW wanted to, they could have easily had several different profiles of Godwyn, Tigris or Phobos pattern bolter. The rules dictate that Iron Hands are, what, 16% more durable than other Marines, when they weren't prior to 6th. How do you reconcile that?
You'll find that imperial innovation has been glacially slow
Gee, like 10,000 years slow? Also, wow, I bet that Land Raider Redeemer must have taken ages to make and dev- oh. They did it in the space of one battle.
and more often than not completely isolated to the point where it has had little to no effect on the Space Marine faction as a whole.
Redeemer says hi.
Objectively.
Not objectively - might want to reassess that one, dear.
As for the Minotaurs, new chapters get founded (and are killed off) all the time. No big deal there, as it has zero effect on the SM faction as a whole. New equipment such as newly manufactured bolters are not an innovation. If they actually have their own special equipment, so be it, but it sure didn't affect how UM did battle, and thus falls into the 'isolated' category.
But, are the Minotaurs a Chapter 10,000 years in the making? No, I thought not.
Comparative to time put in, the Primaris are entirely congruent, by my rationale. You may disagree, but you can't "disprove" what is a subjective interpretation of the lore.
Razorbacks did not appear alongside new marines with new organs and new armor and new weapons and more new vehicles. It was a single innovation that happened to take hold at some point in history. If you have evidence to the contrary I'm all ears.
Hang on, I think I hear the goalposts moving!
What on earth does what the Razorback came out alongside with change what it is? It's an Affront to the Imperial Technological Stagnation!! I wasn't aware that you could slip things past that Mighty Rule of Imperial Technological Stagnation if they were on their own. Are you saying that the hover tanks would have been fine if GW had released them a few years apart?
Or is this not about when GW released it, and when it appeared in the lore? Because, even by that metric, it took 10,000 years to develop them. 10,000 years is an awful long time, I'm sure it's not outside the realms of possibility.
Either way you slice it, your argument doesn't exactly stand objectively. You're totally justified to dislike stuff, you know. I just don't get your crusade of "I don't like this and no-one else should have it!"
I honestly don't get why you care so much that someone disagrees with you, and says that you might not be arguing from a place of objective truths. This is a fictional universe, open to interpretation, to personal insight and choice - nearly anything we can find in it someone else can disagree with. Very few things can be said to be objective - why the bloody-mindedness? Is it too much for you that someone could (*shock, horror*) enjoy something you don't?
None of which counters the fact that on the scale of millenia upon which those earlier advancements progressed on, the Primaris popped onto the scene all at once, with more advancements than all of those previous iterations combined.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Insectum is unreasonable when discussing Primaris so I wouldn't even bother. Probably hasn't even put together ONE kit for them.
Why would I collect a kit from an army I don't like?
1. They're from the same army you collect, not a different one. Deal with it.
2. You make outrageous claims about the kits despite never putting one together.
3. You claim "objective" that Manlet Marines are better, despite the proportions automatically making your claim wrong.
1. Don't care.
2. Quote my "outrageous claims".
3. Quote me claiming one is objectively better than the other.
The Terminator Squad is better than the original Librarian you referred to. Not great, but better. And honestly that second Librarian looks completely plausible given the pose. One shoulder up and one shoulder down.
Beyond that you're fighting with miniatures that are intended to be disproportionate and exaggerated to begin with, to read from several feet away being on the table. So there's two layers of stylization going on, the stylization of the armor itself, and the stylization when the design is put through some re-proportioning to meet the GW table-top model aesthetic. And then the individual sculptor's execution on top of that.
I'm aware of that. But I still think the execution often fails. Especially on more dynamic poses.
Wich is why (despite their art work) I've always just assumed that terminator armor arms don't actually contain the SMs arms.
I also rarely ever use 3e era + termies because of this execution fail. Just my ages old 2e Wolf Guard.
Insectum7 wrote:None of which counters the fact that on the scale of millenia upon which those earlier advancements progressed on, the Primaris popped onto the scene all at once, with more advancements than all of those previous iterations combined.
They popped onto the scene all at once... after being under construction for 10,000 years! Of course they'll be more advanced and more extensive than a weapon swap on a Land Raider that somehow every Chapter has and was greenlit after just one campaign. If that's our benchmark for innovation, I'd be shocked that Cawl was ONLY able to make what he did.
You seem unable to be able to divorce the idea of Primaris popping onto the scene in the real world (which *did* happen all at once, with very little forewarning or preparation) and the idea of Primaris coming to be in the fantasy realm of 40k (where they *did* come onto the scene all at once, but had been a project in the works for several millennia, the details of which we are only just being informed about).
There's a difference there, and it honestly seems like you're unable to distinguish the two.
Now, in the real world, maybe you feel that Primaris came in too quickly. Maybe you feel that they weren't needed in the first place. Maybe you wanted easing in, and the shock has permanently put you off them. Maybe it's any other reason you can think of. And you know what? All those reasons, as your own subjective opinions, are valid! You can dislike them for whatever reason you like, I'm not here to dictate what you can and can't enjoy.
I ask only that you show the same respect for me, instead of claiming some kind of "objective" truth on the matter.
Clearly, you think that Primaris are too far gone in the setting. But I disagree. And neither of us exactly have ownership of the setting, or can truly say what is and isn't objective. So perhaps just accept that to some people, what they like is well supported by lore, and to others, they don't feel the lore covers it.
Insectum7 wrote:None of which counters the fact that on the scale of millenia upon which those earlier advancements progressed on, the Primaris popped onto the scene all at once, with more advancements than all of those previous iterations combined.
They popped onto the scene all at once... after being under construction for 10,000 years! Of course they'll be more advanced and more extensive than a weapon swap on a Land Raider that somehow every Chapter has and was greenlit after just one campaign. If that's our benchmark for innovation, I'd be shocked that Cawl was ONLY able to make what he did.
The problem is that still doesn't seem justified within the lore that's been set out for the last 20+ years. I think that's the issue most people have with Primaris. Cawl himself just kind of appears out of nowhere and suddenly he's this central figure that's been working behind the scenes for 10,000 years. That's just bad writing, seemingly used entirely to justify GW's need to revamp the SM miniature line (a similar problem exists with the sudden reveal of Centurions, not helped by the woeful models). Given that it took about 10,000 years to go from Mk VII power armour to Mk VIII the amount of innovation Cawl manages (in secret no less!) is immersion breaking within the rules GW have already established.
Most of the things you mention as previous innovations are adaptations of existing technology: Land Raider and Land Speeder variants are essentially weapon swaps for existing guns, or adding a tiny area to stand so you can transport some guys and these changes are often portrayed in the lore as close to heresy. The Primaris line comes in with three new types of armour and a bespoke range of ranged weapons. The most egregious problem from a lore point of view are the extra organs in the Primaris genetic code itself, something which is seen as sacred because it's known that SM were something the Emperor was directly involved in creating.
What's really disappointing to me about the Primaris roll-out and return of Guilliman is that GW had a great opportunity to make it really meaningful in a background sense. We could have had splits within the Imperium itself with dogmatic disagreements over these new innovations leading to meaningful conflict and shifting of allegiances within the background. Instead we get a few throwaway lines about some SM chapters not liking the new Primaris and a couple of High Lords annoyed that their positions are threatened by Guilliman but that's it.
eh every new thing appers out of no where, at least primaris aren't trying to tell us "THEY'RE BEEN THERE ALL ALONG! IGNORE THE FACT THAT THEY WHEREN'T MENTIONED IN X WHERE THEY WOULDA BEEN PERFECT!"
BrianDavion wrote: eh every new thing appers out of no where, at least primaris aren't trying to tell us "THEY'RE BEEN THERE ALL ALONG! IGNORE THE FACT THAT THEY WHEREN'T MENTIONED IN X WHERE THEY WOULDA BEEN PERFECT!"
cue alpha legion magic wand...
otoh Primaris and especially cawl, DO appear out of nowhere, even if the lore get's revised it is still rather nonsensical that there is this one techpriest running arround since what 11'000 years making marines +1 and deepfreezing them for just the right ammount of time..
Slipspace wrote:The problem is that still doesn't seem justified within the lore that's been set out for the last 20+ years.
Sure, I can't disagree that Primaris weren't foreshadowed for decades.
But the lore adds new stuff constantly - either via retcons, like it's doing with the Primaris (quite literally filling in blanks and writing themselves in) or via "this was here the whole time!" (a la grav-guns, Centurions, Stormravens/Talons/Hawks).
Primaris are a new idea from GW themselves, certainly not intended to be made 20+ years ago. But the lore changes, and frankly, they're totally *plausible* to have been made when you read the lore that's been made to justify them. And if you're excluding that - well, could that not work with anything? Ultramarines being a first founder are implausible when you only read that they were a 3rd founding Chapter. It becomes a case of what you *choose* to accept - and what other people choose to accept or not has nothing to do with me. I'll just accept what I read, and expect people to respect that.
Given that it took about 10,000 years to go from Mk VII power armour to Mk VIII the amount of innovation Cawl manages (in secret no less!) is immersion breaking within the rules GW have already established.
Eh, not really? I seem to remember some Errant pattern designs in the lore from much earlier than M41. Again, think about it - Cawl has the blessing of two of the most powerful figures in the Imperium to do his work, the intellect to do it, and 10,000 years to see it done. If Cawl had been written in 20 years ago, this wouldn't be a shock. The thing that gets people hung up is that he wasn't written 20 years ago - their gripe isn't with the lore, it's with their own real world interpretations of what is and isn't considered canon. And that, unfortunately, is entirely subjective.
Most of the things you mention as previous innovations are adaptations of existing technology: Land Raider and Land Speeder variants are essentially weapon swaps for existing guns, or adding a tiny area to stand so you can transport some guys and these changes are often portrayed in the lore as close to heresy.
I don't recall any "heresy" warnings during the creation of the Crusader, Redeemer, and Ares.
The Primaris line comes in with three new types of armour and a bespoke range of ranged weapons. The most egregious problem from a lore point of view are the extra organs in the Primaris genetic code itself, something which is seen as sacred because it's known that SM were something the Emperor was directly involved in creating.
And again, this is where your own prior beliefs come in on what you deem canon, because current lore states that Cawl (or rather, one of Cawl's subminds) was more influential in the Astartes program than the Emperor was.
So, you can throw that out as "that's not what I heard 20 years ago" or you can see it as "well, I guess whatever I heard beforehand was apocryphal". Aka - subjective.
What's really disappointing to me about the Primaris roll-out and return of Guilliman is that GW had a great opportunity to make it really meaningful in a background sense. We could have had splits within the Imperium itself with dogmatic disagreements over these new innovations leading to meaningful conflict and shifting of allegiances within the background. Instead we get a few throwaway lines about some SM chapters not liking the new Primaris and a couple of High Lords annoyed that their positions are threatened by Guilliman but that's it.
If you want to take your own personal narrative that way, there's nothing stopping you. I'm personally disappointed that women Astartes weren't rolled out as part of the Primaris line, so I headcanoned that they were.
Again - there's no "lore police". We all have somewhat subjective takes on what "should" be, or what a certain thing in the lore means. Saying "but that's not fitting with the theme of the setting!!" is only true insofar as that one person's interpretation of that theme.
Insectum7 wrote:None of which counters the fact that on the scale of millenia upon which those earlier advancements progressed on, the Primaris popped onto the scene all at once, with more advancements than all of those previous iterations combined.
They popped onto the scene all at once... after being under construction for 10,000 years! Of course they'll be more advanced and more extensive than a weapon swap on a Land Raider that somehow every Chapter has and was greenlit after just one campaign. If that's our benchmark for innovation, I'd be shocked that Cawl was ONLY able to make what he did.
The problem is that still doesn't seem justified within the lore that's been set out for the last 20+ years. I think that's the issue most people have with Primaris. Cawl himself just kind of appears out of nowhere and suddenly he's this central figure that's been working behind the scenes for 10,000 years. That's just bad writing, seemingly used entirely to justify GW's need to revamp the SM miniature line (a similar problem exists with the sudden reveal of Centurions, not helped by the woeful models). Given that it took about 10,000 years to go from Mk VII power armour to Mk VIII the amount of innovation Cawl manages (in secret no less!) is immersion breaking within the rules GW have already established.
Most of the things you mention as previous innovations are adaptations of existing technology: Land Raider and Land Speeder variants are essentially weapon swaps for existing guns, or adding a tiny area to stand so you can transport some guys and these changes are often portrayed in the lore as close to heresy. The Primaris line comes in with three new types of armour and a bespoke range of ranged weapons. The most egregious problem from a lore point of view are the extra organs in the Primaris genetic code itself, something which is seen as sacred because it's known that SM were something the Emperor was directly involved in creating.
What's really disappointing to me about the Primaris roll-out and return of Guilliman is that GW had a great opportunity to make it really meaningful in a background sense. We could have had splits within the Imperium itself with dogmatic disagreements over these new innovations leading to meaningful conflict and shifting of allegiances within the background. Instead we get a few throwaway lines about some SM chapters not liking the new Primaris and a couple of High Lords annoyed that their positions are threatened by Guilliman but that's it.
Yes because the Imperium is 100% always conflict all the time.
Insectum7 wrote:None of which counters the fact that on the scale of millenia upon which those earlier advancements progressed on, the Primaris popped onto the scene all at once, with more advancements than all of those previous iterations combined.
They popped onto the scene all at once... after being under construction for 10,000 years!
Which is still objectively different than any former rollout of new units. Check and mate, sir.
Number of units/equipment being rolled out, the scale of the retconning to cram them in, the awakening of a Primarch to oversee it, and the amount of "forwarding" of the setting to do it.
The problem is thats stupid to make a game like Warhammer thats constructed under the idea of constant expansion and then write your fluff to not support your marketing model.
In AoS they tried to make the "small armies with no options" but people does not like that kind of stuff.
The implementation of primaris was horrible but I mean. People is always much more judgamental with space marines. When space marines are introduced in any shape or form, people make a big fuss.
When GW introduced new vehicles and stuff for Genestealer Cultists or Orks it was more of an horizontal expansion and they didnt even gave a reason for the sudden existence of a ton of new buggies or mining vehicles and equipement and people was like "ok cool".
But people want their armies to be expanded. Not to have to keep buying new armies like in original AoS.
Deathwatch melta-fist from 7th, only with a different ranged weapon. Calgar's had bolter-fists since 3rd at least, too, and they're UM wargear for generic characters in 30k.
"Bigger lascannon" is all over the place in 30k. Neutron lasers, laser destroyers, the Deredeo's heavy lascannons.
...and I guess the various grenade launchers technically...
Barely. "Grenade launcher" weapons float around the peripheral of the SM arsenal at least as far back as 5th (Scout bike GLs, auxiliary GLs), the vehicle multi-launchers are foreshadowed by CSM Havoc Launchers going back to 3rd.
...Everything else is borrowed or a tweaked version...
"Intercessors" were Thousand Sons unique Recon squads in 30k before they were Primaris Marines, but only barely (March 2017 to June 2017)
I'm okay with being wrong about those items since my point was there's no innovation and everything's just copied or tweaked
The problem is that still doesn't seem justified within the lore that's been set out for the last 20+ years. I think that's the issue most people have with Primaris. Cawl himself just kind of appears out of nowhere and suddenly he's this central figure that's been working behind the scenes for 10,000 years. That's just bad writing, seemingly used entirely to justify GW's need to revamp the SM miniature line (a similar problem exists with the sudden reveal of Centurions, not helped by the woeful models). Given that it took about 10,000 years to go from Mk VII power armour to Mk VIII the amount of innovation Cawl manages (in secret no less!) is immersion breaking within the rules GW have already established.
To be fair, I half agree with you. The suddeness of primaris is definitely a thing to point to as jarring and frustrating. I'd say it's the worst thing about primaris. That said, I disagree that it was 'lazy writing'. I consider that a cheap shot and I don't say that badly. Like, gw had to introduce a new marines line from a business and ip pov. There were no 'good' ways to.do this without causing a stir (and the previous guy would have aos'ed thr classic line), and I tend to have sympathy for a decision when there were no good alternatives, short of inventing a time machine, going back to the mid 90s and putting teasers in the lore that the codex was gullies phase one, and his plans were a 'lost dream of greatness' - 'think where the imperium could have been if he hadn't been knifed by fulgrim!' Etc.
One final point. Taking 10k years to develop mk8 armour vs cawls innovation and the latter is immersion breaking. Prior to that 10k, in the era of m31 there was a lot of innovation, relatively speaking. Mks 1-7 armour, millions of boltnouns, rhino variants etc. Its perfectly feasible to say that level of innovation from a character from the 41st millennium is immersion breaking, but cawl isn't from the 41st milenium. He's from the 31st, from the era when these things happened. He was in the room when those things were innovated. He was in the room when the emperor and malcador walked the halls. It was a different era and that counts for a lot.
Most of the things you mention as previous innovations are adaptations of existing technology: Land Raider and Land Speeder variants are essentially weapon swaps for existing guns, or adding a tiny area to stand so you can transport some guys and these changes are often portrayed in the lore as close to heresy. The Primaris line comes in with three new types of armour and a bespoke range of ranged weapons. The most egregious problem from a lore point of view are the extra organs in the Primaris genetic code itself, something which is seen as sacred because it's known that SM were something the Emperor was directly involved in creating.
To be fair again, 3 new variants of power armour, all fairly minor variations. Photos is 'rip.some plates off a tacitus suit', gravis is 'slap some extra plates on'. New vehicles are very similar in silhouettes and feel to the old, most being minor variations of 'weapon swaps,or adding a space to stand' . Obly thing new is the anti grav plate, which is a single feature, which is now mass produced. As to the bespoke range of new weapons, a lot if the boltnouns fall into the category of 'adaptations of existing texhnology' and it not like there isn't a wealth of bolter variants anyway (tigris, ultima, phobos, stalker etc) or armour variants (again, power armour mks 1 to 8 and this disguises all the minor variants of each).
I'll give you the extra organs though, its a bit much. Thay said, artificial organs is not an unknown science in its own right. Maybe if this could have been explored more instead , or a wee tdbit that their origin was unknown with suggestions it was from original.geneseed provoking disgust etc... yeah, I can live withbthat.
What's really disappointing to me about the Primaris roll-out and return of Guilliman is that GW had a great opportunity to make it really meaningful in a background sense. We could have had splits within the Imperium itself with dogmatic disagreements over these new innovations leading to meaningful conflict and shifting of allegiances within the background. Instead we get a few throwaway lines about some SM chapters not liking the new Primaris and a couple of High Lords annoyed that their positions are threatened by Guilliman but that's it.
To be fair, there was more to it than that. And for what it's worth i dont necessarily disagree but you need to be careful about shake ups like that. Gw chose a more hands off approach and left it to their players personal choice. I don't necessarily think walking down that route of imperial civil awar would have been a net positive - another game I know of split one one faction out from another in a civil war (infinity split out the space Japanese subfaxtion from the space Chinese main faction) and it annoyed a lot of people, nerfing and invalidating armies etc.
argonak wrote: I'm pretty sure if we could peel back the curtain, Firstborn were all going to get squatted in 2019. But everyone freaked the hell out, and Age of Sigmar's launch had been a dumpster fire, so GW slammed on the brakes.
And lo and behold, firstborn still sell. So GW just shrugged its shoulders, rewrote a bit of fluff and rules, and carried on.
And that's why the SM codex has like 100 data sheet entries. Plus all the supplements.
I don’t think they were getting squatted in 2019, maybe 2022 or 2023 for a move to legends. They still haven’t released all the replacements they’d need to do that.. jump-fight, and aircraft are still missing. Others too, but at least they’ve been announced. I will agree GW had to change their undershorts after seeing the reaction, and the 2W change was a reaction to that.
The Terminator Squad is better than the original Librarian you referred to. Not great, but better. And honestly that second Librarian looks completely plausible given the pose. One shoulder up and one shoulder down.
Beyond that you're fighting with miniatures that are intended to be disproportionate and exaggerated to begin with, to read from several feet away being on the table. So there's two layers of stylization going on, the stylization of the armor itself, and the stylization when the design is put through some re-proportioning to meet the GW table-top model aesthetic. And then the individual sculptor's execution on top of that.
I'm aware of that. But I still think the execution often fails. Especially on more dynamic poses.
Wich is why (despite their art work) I've always just assumed that terminator armor arms don't actually contain the SMs arms.
I also rarely ever use 3e era + termies because of this execution fail. Just my ages old 2e Wolf Guard.
I also prefer the older models. Imo the 2nd ed ones really capture the 'solidness' of what Terminators ought to be. The more dynamic poses of the plastics look goofy to me too. I'm painting some RT era ones for Space Hulk right now, and after that I'll be doing more of my 2nd Ed metals.
That's the thing though, I think the Terminator armor design is totally workable but the execution on it has been lacking, unfortunately. Imo the new Chaos Terminators look pretty nice though. (although their shoulders are still a bit high). Imo the idea behind the Terminator suit is that the power source that would normally be a backpack is encased in that torso armor in the same way a tall backpacking backpack is situated. That pushes the marine forward so his head pops out that neck space at a slightly awkward angle, but allows the shoulders to be further back from the head than they'd normally be if the marine was simply standing upright.
Maybe someday I'll 3d model it with a person properly situated inside, but today is not that day.
What's really disappointing to me about the Primaris roll-out and return of Guilliman is that GW had a great opportunity to make it really meaningful in a background sense. We could have had splits within the Imperium itself with dogmatic disagreements over these new innovations leading to meaningful conflict and shifting of allegiances within the background. Instead we get a few throwaway lines about some SM chapters not liking the new Primaris and a couple of High Lords annoyed that their positions are threatened by Guilliman but that's it.
The “Big Picture” is never going to change. A major schism in the IOM would upset the stalemate and/or invalidate just how knifes-edge that stalemate was. While they can add more characters to create some drama - I frequently hope for The Lion and Russ to be the next Primarchs - given the Johnson-Russ and Johnson-Guilliman conflicts
With the way the Primarch rollout has stalled, I’m just about ready to give even money odds that the Daemon Primarchs will be banished back to the Eye, and Guilliman will be back in cold storage by 10th edition, as the experiment is aborted. The magic bandaid on Cadia’s pylons, but potentially not on Cadians themselves will be even more hamfisted as they roll out a new generic IG body from.
Insectum7 wrote:None of which counters the fact that on the scale of millenia upon which those earlier advancements progressed on, the Primaris popped onto the scene all at once, with more advancements than all of those previous iterations combined.
They popped onto the scene all at once... after being under construction for 10,000 years!
Which is still objectively different than any former rollout of new units. Check and mate, sir.
Still not objective - the simple act of rolling out new units would suggest that there IS innovation.
The issue at hand is what kind of innovation you are willing to tolerate. That is a subjective manner.
Number of units/equipment being rolled out, the scale of the retconning to cram them in, the awakening of a Primarch to oversee it, and the amount of "forwarding" of the setting to do it.
Sure, and these are your subjective reasons, the things you have chosen, to determine what is, and is not, an "acceptable" innovation. You're welcome to them.
But to others, they might not share these reasons, might not share your rubric for what makes an unacceptable innovation. And that's why it's subjective.
Unit1126PLL wrote:The only standout then was the Razorback, and it's easy to accept that ONE (1) single piece of innovation happened.
Exactly my point - it was easy for you to accept that. It was your subjective tastes and opinions, not because it was "objectively easy".
My point is that folks have a subjective taste, and choose what they are willing to tolerate within developments to the lore, or how much importance is put on certain things. There is no "one-size-fits-all" objective truth here.
Insectum7 wrote:None of which counters the fact that on the scale of millenia upon which those earlier advancements progressed on, the Primaris popped onto the scene all at once, with more advancements than all of those previous iterations combined.
They popped onto the scene all at once... after being under construction for 10,000 years!
Which is still objectively different than any former rollout of new units. Check and mate, sir.
Still not objective . . .
If you believe that "more at once" is only subjectively different than "less over time", sure. But for those of us that are capable of seeing such distinctions, it's rather clear. I fear we've hit the Sgt.-Smudge-inability-to-recognize-relative-quantities/proportions issue. . . . again.
Exactly my point - it was easy for you to accept that. It was your subjective tastes and opinions, not because it was "objectively easy".
My point is that folks have a subjective taste, and choose what they are willing to tolerate within developments to the lore, or how much importance is put on certain things. There is no "one-size-fits-all" objective truth here.
Wasn't the razorback and all the tank modifications for predators or vindicators, only accepted by the adeptus mechanicus after they found STC designs correlating with the things marine did to basic rhino and predator chassis? And in cases where such STC could not be found, the designed were deemed bordering on the heretical and created problems for the chapters that had implemented them. Like the BAs and their special engines and AC mounts for predators/Librarian dreadnoughts/etc, or required the chapters to exist outside of normal resupply structure, like GK have with their private forge facility on Titan.
Karol wrote: Wasn't the razorback and all the tank modifications for predators or vindicators, only accepted by the adeptus mechanicus after they found STC designs correlating with the things marine did to basic rhino and predator chassis? And in cases where such STC could not be found, the designed were deemed bordering on the heretical and created problems for the chapters that had implemented them. Like the BAs and their special engines and AC mounts for predators/Librarian dreadnoughts/etc, or required the chapters to exist outside of normal resupply structure, like GK have with their private forge facility on Titan.
Isn't their forge facility on Deimos (which has been towed into the vicinity of Titan?)
Yes, their private mini forge. Only FW that can manufacture stuff like NDKS, psychic reactive armour for vehicles, blessed ammo out of dust from the emepror throne room. Although I think culexus assasins use something similar too. they even produce xeno tech, which is beyond tech heresy.
Insectum7 wrote:None of which counters the fact that on the scale of millenia upon which those earlier advancements progressed on, the Primaris popped onto the scene all at once, with more advancements than all of those previous iterations combined.
They popped onto the scene all at once... after being under construction for 10,000 years!
Which is still objectively different than any former rollout of new units. Check and mate, sir.
Still not objective . . .
If you believe that "more at once" is only subjectively different than "less over time", sure. But for those of us that are capable of seeing such distinctions, it's rather clear.
Aw, had to resort to calling me stupid to make your argument? Clearly not a strong point, I suppose.
I'm not saying that they're subjectively different. I'm saying that they subjectively *matter*. Clearly, the Imperium innovates, that much is true (see Razorback, any non-lascannon Land Raider, or anything that didn't exist during the Heresy). This then means that the point of contention becomes over if what we're seeing the Imperium do is being done, well, right.
You *believe* that Primaris break some kind of fundamental rule. I *believe* that they don't. You can point to reason *why* you might believe they break those rules, and I can point to my reasons why they don't. Ultimately, it is our subjective interpretations of the setting that these are based in. Have I hammered it home hard enough? We're seeing the same stuff - we're just interpreting it differently.
The other difference being that I respect your view, however much I disagree with it. Instead, you just seem to sneer down your nose.
Ah well. Guess I shouldn't have expected anything more.
Karol wrote:Wasn't the razorback and all the tank modifications for predators or vindicators, only accepted by the adeptus mechanicus after they found STC designs correlating with the things marine did to basic rhino and predator chassis? And in cases where such STC could not be found, the designed were deemed bordering on the heretical and created problems for the chapters that had implemented them. Like the BAs and their special engines and AC mounts for predators/Librarian dreadnoughts/etc, or required the chapters to exist outside of normal resupply structure, like GK have with their private forge facility on Titan.
The issue with that is that you then end up with things like Land Raiders which seem to get modifications made every time something goes slightly pear shaped, and no-one bats an eyelid (examples being the Crusader, Redeemer, and Ares).
Basically, there's a wee bit of a lore inconsistency, and it's down to the players to interpret that how they like. I, personally, interpret multiple Chapters having many field modifications to their vehicles in times of need - the issue is then having the spare resources to make that a more permanent part of their Chapter arsenal beyond that campaign (if they even do keep it beyond that campaign), and then disseminating that across the breadth of Space Marine Chapters out there (if the Chapter so wants to - I get the idea that Chapters are called heretical not because of their minor modifications, but that they don't like to share them, because Chapters are tribal like that).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AnomanderRake wrote: Wait, why don't GK have Deimos-pattern Rhinos or Predators if they stole Deimos, then?
Potentially could be a case of them being called Deimos-pattern because they were invented/discovered on Deimos, but the creation of them was outsourced to other forge worlds? But yeah, more likely just an oversight.
Insectum7 wrote:None of which counters the fact that on the scale of millenia upon which those earlier advancements progressed on, the Primaris popped onto the scene all at once, with more advancements than all of those previous iterations combined.
They popped onto the scene all at once... after being under construction for 10,000 years!
Which is still objectively different than any former rollout of new units. Check and mate, sir.
Still not objective . . .
If you believe that "more at once" is only subjectively different than "less over time", sure. But for those of us that are capable of seeing such distinctions, it's rather clear.
Aw, had to resort to calling me stupid to make your argument? Clearly not a strong point, I suppose.
I'm not saying that they're subjectively different.
Insectum7 wrote: Weapon swaps on a preexisting vehicle chassis are 'objectively' not equivalent to
A reawakened Primarch
A whole new fleet of flying vehicles
New armor variants on
New Marines carrying
Entirely new classes of weapons.
But they do represent progress and development.
Whether you think they're on the same level or not is down to you . . .
No sir, they are pretty blatantly, obviously, not at all on the same level. But we've seen this sort of bizarre attempt at equivalency from you before.
It really ain't objectively that way, dear.
I've been saying there are objective, empirical differences with the rollout of Primaris, both in and out of universe. You have been denying such differences all the way.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But they do represent progress and development. Whether you think they're on the same level or not is down to you . . .
No sir, they are pretty blatantly, obviously, not at all on the same level. But we've seen this sort of bizarre attempt at equivalency from you before.
It really ain't objectively that way, dear.
I've been saying there are objective, empirical differences with the rollout of Primaris, both in and out of universe. You have been denying such differences all the way.
No, you've listed differences, and said that this is apparently objective proof why XYZ.
I never denied those differences - only the severity of them. Look what you quoted me saying - "Whether you think they're on the same level or not is down to you". I'm not discussing the difference. I'm discussing if the difference matters. That's something you can't objectively prove.
Come on, if you're going to quote me, read the quote.
AnomanderRake wrote: Wait, why don't GK have Deimos-pattern Rhinos or Predators if they stole Deimos, then?
Stole? The moon forge was granted to them by the Sigilite, not even Gulliman could take it away from them.
I assume the name comes from someone important. And just like there were a bunch of Alexandrias, there can be a bunch of things called with the name of some well known dude.
AnomanderRake wrote: Wait, why don't GK have Deimos-pattern Rhinos or Predators if they stole Deimos, then?
I assume the name comes from someone important. And just like there were a bunch of Alexandrias, there can be a bunch of things called with the name of some well known dude.
Deimos is a moon. Like, in real life. It orbits mars. I assume there aren't multiple celestial bodies named "Deimos" in Warhammer for the same reason we've never seen a battle take place on Pluto IV. We have also, to my knowledge, never seen a person named Pluto in 40K history (although given some of the RT-era names, you can never truly be sure).
Yes and Malcador the Sigilite, used his power of the warp, second only to that of the emperor. To create a time stasis around Titan and traktor beam Deimos close to Titan, to blink both out of existance for a few milenia. In which time they build the GK warp gates, the nemezis, few thousand pairs of suits of termintor armour, psy titans that protect the GK inner sanctum and learned how to use and manufacture necron and eldar tech. And then they blinked in to existance and pretended that they were always there. Which by the way was strange for the adeptus mechanicus on Diamos, because they kind of a missed all the synods and agreements done on mars up to the 32milenium. Which kind of means they aren't beholden to most of the laws that govern all other mechanicus. So they plow through arechotech, don't sent STC designs to Mars and do , heretical for all other mechanicus, things like inventing new crystaline matrixs for termintor and power armour or non standard ammo types for bolters. For example the blessed ammo for GK bolter weapons is used using the psychoactive dust present in the hall where the golden throne is located. The Deimos ad mecha didn't even know the Emperor was enthroned in to it, till they poped out of the time stasis way after heresy. And then they had to find a need for such ammo, research and find out that the dust exists at all, and then invent ways to use it as part of the non standard GK bolter weapons.
The Deimos mechanicus have more incommon with free forge smiths in Hydraphur, then actual moder day adeptus. They just know more stuff to make, then just one type of rare gun or cyber assasin beetles.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: No, you've listed differences, and said that this is apparently objective proof why XYZ.
I never denied those differences - only the severity of them. Look what you quoted me saying - "Whether you think they're on the same level or not is down to you". I'm not discussing the difference. I'm discussing if the difference matters. That's something you can't objectively prove.
Come on, if you're going to quote me, read the quote.
Dude stop dancing around the truth of the situation. The difference matters, because non-Primaris factions are losing options out of their codices to make room for more Primaris stuff in the pipeline, and it's hard to get restocks on a lot of non-SM stuff.
AnomanderRake wrote: Wait, why don't GK have Deimos-pattern Rhinos or Predators if they stole Deimos, then?
I assume the name comes from someone important. And just like there were a bunch of Alexandrias, there can be a bunch of things called with the name of some well known dude.
Deimos is a moon. Like, in real life. It orbits mars. I assume there aren't multiple celestial bodies named "Deimos" in Warhammer for the same reason we've never seen a battle take place on Pluto IV. We have also, to my knowledge, never seen a person named Pluto in 40K history (although given some of the RT-era names, you can never truly be sure).
There's also the fact that Deimos the moon is explicitly a sub-Forge World and the Deimos-pattern Rhino explicitly comes from the forges of Deimos, as opposed to the Mars-pattern Rhino (the plastic one). If the GK got Deimos it's definitely the same moon.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: No, you've listed differences, and said that this is apparently objective proof why XYZ.
I never denied those differences - only the severity of them. Look what you quoted me saying - "Whether you think they're on the same level or not is down to you". I'm not discussing the difference. I'm discussing if the difference matters. That's something you can't objectively prove.
Come on, if you're going to quote me, read the quote.
Dude stop dancing around the truth of the situation.
I'm sorry, what? I believe we were discussing if Primaris were "objectively" bad for the setting. There wasn't a truth other than "it's down to your personal opinion". But, as that seems to have generally resolved, sure, I'll talk about the other point you raise.
The difference matters, because non-Primaris factions are losing options out of their codices to make room for more Primaris stuff in the pipeline, and it's hard to get restocks on a lot of non-SM stuff.
I'd argue that's more of a "Space Marine" thing than a Primaris one. Primaris are an excellent excuse to make a bunch more Space Marine releases, but I think we'd be naïve if we didn't think they'd still have massive Marine saturation.
It's less a Primaris issue, and more a Space Marine issue overall. But you're definitely not wrong that there's an issue with how much Space Marines get compared to everyone else.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'm sorry, what? I believe we were discussing if Primaris were "objectively" bad for the setting. There wasn't a truth other than "it's down to your personal opinion". But, as that seems to have generally resolved, sure, I'll talk about the other point you raise.
No, there are certain things that just make for bad storytelling. Breaking the established rules of the setting - like Primaris do, being the product of unprecedented innovation on the IoM's part - is considered a bad move. But you know that, I'm sure; your lies and general bad faith argumentation give the truth of that.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: It's less a Primaris issue, and more a Space Marine issue overall. But you're definitely not wrong that there's an issue with how much Space Marines get compared to everyone else.
If it weren't for Primaris the issue would be tolerable, so it's a Primaris issue.
Racerguy180 wrote: I would like to interject, if you think 10000yrs is unprecedented advancement....I'd hate to hear your definition of slow and precedented.
So what's your other example of a factions worth of advancements, troops and materiel sitting idle in stasis and just waiting for a primarch to return and give the go ahead to launch a crusade across the galaxy?
That's how stupid the mechanicum is, it was literally genelocked to a specific dude, who per happenstance was Columbian necktied by his brother and put in stasis for 10k yrs....can't get more stagnant that that. It's called irony, Cawl was under orders and was following them in a algorithmic fashion. 3rd founding douchebag Guliliman told him he was answerable only to him and said, make this better using my father's work and be sure to....cut to throat slice and bam 10kyrs go by. How useful would primaris have been in m32? Tyrannic wars, black crusades????
That's the entire point, you can't really get more grimdark than that. Now they're basically too little(even tho they're numerous) and they're too late(could shoulda woulda). once again the imperium had a glimmer of hope but in the 42nd(?) Millennium, hope is the first step on the road to damnation and for how ever important you may be....you will not be missed.
Racerguy180 wrote: That's how stupid the mechanicum is, it was literally genelocked to a specific dude, who per happenstance was Columbian necktied by his brother and put in stasis for 10k yrs....can't get more stagnant that that. It's called irony, Cawl was under orders and was following them in a algorithmic fashion. 3rd founding douchebag Guliliman told him he was answerable only to him and said, make this better using my father's work and be sure to....cut to throat slice and bam 10kyrs go by. How useful would primaris have been in m32? Tyrannic wars, black crusades????
That's the entire point, you can't really get more grimdark than that. Now they're basically too little(even tho they're numerous) and they're too late(could shoulda woulda). once again the imperium had a glimmer of hope but in the 42nd(?) Millennium, hope is the first step on the road to damnation and for how ever important you may be....you will not be missed.
So "unprecedented" still appears to be applicable.
As for "that's the entire point" . . . I'd say the entire point of Primaris is $$$$.
Point of order - this is 40k, you definitely can make it more grimdark. Just have it be something like a Cursed Founding or the Raven Guard geneseed post-Heresy, where Primaris briefly turn the tide and gives the Imperium hope, but the hope is snuffed as the Primaris begin mutating or falling to Chaos en masse. Or, Morty/Abaddon/Fabulous Bill manage to snag a sample of the Primaris geneseed and twist it to their own ends, unleashing new horrors that would not have happened had Cawl never let the Primaris out of the freezer.
As for "that's the entire point" . . . I'd say the entire point of Primaris is $$$$.
No gak, but when you actually read the stuff it makes sense, therefore it's a valid viewpoint and no more invalid than yours.b
If you think GW does stuff out of the goodness of their heart.....I feel bad for you. The entire point is to get you to buy minis, if they give a fluff justification for said minis, and it jives with what people want, then GW is doing something right. Stop buying minis for rules(which wax and wane) and it will all become clear.
Point of order - this is 40k, you definitely can make it more grimdark. Just have it be something like a Cursed Founding or the Raven Guard geneseed post-Heresy, where Primaris briefly turn the tide and gives the Imperium hope, but the hope is snuffed as the Primaris begin mutating or falling to Chaos en masse. Or, Morty/Abaddon/Fabulous Bill manage to snag a sample of the Primaris geneseed and twist it to their own ends, unleashing new horrors that would not have happened had Cawl never let the Primaris out of the freezer.
As for "that's the entire point" . . . I'd say the entire point of Primaris is $$$$.
No gak, but when you actually read the stuff it makes sense, therefore it's a valid viewpoint and no more invalid than yours.b
If you think GW does stuff out of the goodness of their heart.....I feel bad for you. The entire point is to get you to buy minis, if they give a fluff justification for said minis, and it jives with what people want, then GW is doing something right. Stop buying minis for rules(which wax and wane) and it will all become clear.
Point of order - this is 40k, you definitely can make it more grimdark. Just have it be something like a Cursed Founding or the Raven Guard geneseed post-Heresy, where Primaris briefly turn the tide and gives the Imperium hope, but the hope is snuffed as the Primaris begin mutating or falling to Chaos en masse. Or, Morty/Abaddon/Fabulous Bill manage to snag a sample of the Primaris geneseed and twist it to their own ends, unleashing new horrors that would not have happened had Cawl never let the Primaris out of the freezer.
Which would be dope.
And said minis are objectively better. I'd start my whole army over in a heart beat if they redid Mk3-5 to Primaris scale.
Point of order - this is 40k, you definitely can make it more grimdark. Just have it be something like a Cursed Founding or the Raven Guard geneseed post-Heresy, where Primaris briefly turn the tide and gives the Imperium hope, but the hope is snuffed as the Primaris begin mutating or falling to Chaos en masse. Or, Morty/Abaddon/Fabulous Bill manage to snag a sample of the Primaris geneseed and twist it to their own ends, unleashing new horrors that would not have happened had Cawl never let the Primaris out of the freezer.
Which would be dope.
No, it wouldn't. Keep your primaris out of my Chaos Space Marines!
Insectum7 wrote: How many Primaris releases have there been in the last three years since their inception?
Probably 40-ish, counting pauldron packs but also counting dual kits as one kit independent of how many datasheets it has.
Imagine if instead of numarines, that 40+ kit love was spread around other factions. Of all that could have been. . .
I mean, with 40+ kits you could redo a lot of 30k in plastic. Auxilia, SA command squad, Veletarii, Malcador/Dracosan/Valdor, Mars-Alpha Russ, Secutarii, Thallax/Ursarax, Castellax, Vorax, Domitar, Triaros, Adsecularii, Krios, Thanatar, Tech-Priest/Myrmidons kit, Macrocarid, Lightning, Thunderbolt, Deimos Rhino, Deimos Predator/Whirlwind, SA/Legion artillery tank, plastic Sicaran, IC Land Raider, Spartan/Cerberus/Typhon, Javelin Land Speeder, Storm Eagle, Breachers, Legion Assault, Legion Recon, Legion Heavy Support, Legion command squad, Outrider bikes, jetbikes, SA/Legion Rapiers, full plastic Contemptor kit, Leviathan, Deredeo, fancy Questoris knight sprues, Cerastus Knight, plastic Thunderhawk, Fellblade kit?
(I know, I know, still too many Space Marines, but much better-looking. And better-looking vehicles, and two more factions.)
Why would you spend all of those resources converting perfectly fine resin kits to plastic instead of, I dunno, converting everything finecast? Giving Dark Eldar some of their characters back? New Guard infantry? Maybe some actual support for R&H so they didn't get sent to Legends?
Gadzilla666 wrote: ...Why would you spend all of those resources converting perfectly fine resin kits to plastic instead of, I dunno, converting everything finecast? Giving Dark Eldar some of their characters back? New Guard infantry? Maybe some actual support for R&H so they didn't get sent to Legends?
Perspective. Not saying that's what I'd do given the power, or what GW should do, just saying that with all the energy they dumped into Primaris they could do a plastic range for an entire new game. Forty GW-style plastic kits could get you most of four factions for a big game like Infinity or Warmachine, or eight factions for something smaller like BFG.
(BFG's easy, you get common hulls by class in a lot of factions, so you just need a multi-kit each for a battleship, grand cruiser, cruiser/battlecruiser, light cruiser, and escort for each faction. Escort/torpedo tokens would be on the frame in your cruiser kits. Eight factions gets you Navy, Chaos, SM, Corsairs, DE, Tau Warfleet, Necrons, and Tyranids, and then you can use the holes in that lineup to make defenses, a Planet Killer, a Star Fort, and a Blackstone Fortress.)
Racerguy180 wrote: I would like to interject, if you think 10000yrs is unprecedented advancement....I'd hate to hear your definition of slow and precedented.
Racerguy180 wrote: I would like to interject, if you think 10000yrs is unprecedented advancement....I'd hate to hear your definition of slow and precedented.
It's not really 10,000 years, though, it's massive technological and institutional change all at once, despite Caul's supposed longevity. Otherwise you're left with the idea that the Imperium's technological stagnation is a lie... because Caul's been constantly innovating the whole time.
Racerguy180 wrote: I would like to interject, if you think 10000yrs is unprecedented advancement....I'd hate to hear your definition of slow and precedented.
I don't, but it's kinda the whole point of the Imperium. That's why all this sudden advancement is so jarring for many people. It's completely antithetical to the way technology is treated in 40k.
Racerguy, instead of me quoting everything, just know I agree with what you've put. You seem to understand the point I'm making.
Hecaton wrote:No, there are certain things that just make for bad storytelling. Breaking the established rules of the setting - like Primaris do, being the product of unprecedented innovation on the IoM's part - is considered a bad move. But you know that, I'm sure; your lies and general bad faith argumentation give the truth of that.
Tell me, who made you arbiter of objectively "good" and "bad" storytelling?
Because, uh, otherwise, that's just your opinion. You're more than entitled to it, but I wouldn't go waving it around like fact. Talk about bad faith arguing, yikes.
If it weren't for Primaris the issue would be tolerable, so it's a Primaris issue.
A Primaris issue to you, yes. However, I would have the same issue if it were Primaris or not - because the core issue is Marine hegemony in GW releases. Therefore, for me, it's not a Primaris issue. For someone so critical of GW (which you're welcome to be), I'm shocked that you would find the Marine dominance even "tolerable".
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:And said minis are objectively better. I'd start my whole army over in a heart beat if they redid Mk3-5 to Primaris scale.
I'm afraid I have to say that's still not "objectively" the case, however much I may like the look of Primaris.
jeff white wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote: I would like to interject, if you think 10000yrs is unprecedented advancement....I'd hate to hear your definition of slow and precedented.
Unprecedented for a civilization in decline.
Being a civilisation in decline doesn't mean you're incapable of innovating. It just means you do it very slowly - say, 10,000 years slowly.
Hecaton wrote:It's not really 10,000 years, though
It really is.
it's massive technological and institutional change all at once, despite Caul's supposed longevity.
That's when you look at it in terms of how it was released, which is frankly myopic.
Yes, all the Primaris stuff and gear was released into the galaxy (and our stores) practically all at once, but within the context of the lore, we found out that this had been a massive hording and stockpiling of resources over 10,000 years. Hell, for all we know, Cawl could have figured out the Primaris "formula" and been developing anti-grav tech in M35, and the other 6k years were spent purely on creating more. It's a blank space, but, at least for me, 10,000 years to acheive what Cawl did sounds fair conservative.
Otherwise you're left with the idea that the Imperium's technological stagnation is a lie... because Caul's been constantly innovating the whole time.
Slipspace wrote:I don't, but it's kinda the whole point of the Imperium. That's why all this sudden advancement is so jarring for many people. It's completely antithetical to the way technology is treated in 40k.
I'll address these together, as they're largely the same point.
Just because *Cawl* was innovating (even albeit slowly) doesn't change the wider picture. The Imperium as a whole *is* stagnant, and even if Cawl was working on his project in the background, the foreground was still in decline. As I've pointed out, the Imperium has innovated plenty of times, in seemingly fairly short notice too, so it's not like innovation was unheard of - perhaps, for a long time, perhaps the idea of "technological stagnation" was a lie, after all: civilians have anti-grav transports in some corners of the setting, and Marines seem able to develop new Land Raider variants every other campaign they're in. It all depends on the context how you view things happening in 40k. And I think that kind of context is important when looking at the Primaris, because it seems that a lot of people overlook just how bad a shape the Imperium is in when the Primaris are released: the galaxy split in two, Terra itself besieged, and many of the Imperium's most vital worlds under attack or destroyed. Sure, they get some long-awaited aid in the form of brand new shiny Primaris, but they've also lost unbelievable amounts of control on the galactic stage.
However, the thing people latch onto are the physical IRL changes they see - the unfamiliar faces in their stores, on their models, hence why the context gets overlooked.
End of the day, if you like them or not, I'm not fussed, people will give whatever reasons they give - just know that they're reasons built out of subjective tastes, preferences, interpretations.
Tell me, who made you arbiter of objectively "good" and "bad" storytelling?
Breaking an established setting, just for the sake of selling more merch and invalidating the models made by 3ed party companies, is definitly bad though. You don't need to have a major in literature or be an established critique to know that.
Yes, all the Primaris stuff and gear was released into the galaxy (and our stores) practically all at once, but within the context of the lore, we found out that this had been a massive hording and stockpiling of resources over 10,000 years. Hell, for all we know, Cawl could have figured out the Primaris "formula" and been developing anti-grav tech in M35, and the other 6k years were spent purely on creating more. It's a blank space, but, at least for me, 10,000 years to acheive what Cawl did sounds fair conservative.
But that is just implanting new stuff in to already existing lore, and changing it just to prove a point. Considering how paranoid and besieged the imperium of man it, he should have been found out and exectuted as a tech heretic. And the whole inventing edge with mechanicus makes no sense to begin with, even if one of them does something "revolutionary" like mounting an already existing cable in to an already existing plug, but on a different kind of a machine, they still don't implement it widely until an STC is found that proves that in the past it existed and was used.
Plus some stuff is impossible to hide. Tanks and man, maybe when spread over multiple planets. But he either had to build enough ships to transport a whole legion of marines, or commandered it from other imperial organisations.
Why would you spend all of those resources converting perfectly fine resin kits to plastic instead of, I dunno, converting everything finecast? Giving Dark Eldar some of their characters back? New Guard infantry? Maybe some actual support for R&H so they didn't get sent to Legends?
My thoughts exactly. It's plastic that could have been much better spent on Guard, Eldar, etc.
it's massive technological and institutional change all at once, despite Caul's supposed longevity.
That's when you look at it in terms of how it was released, which is frankly myopic.
Yes, all the Primaris stuff and gear was released into the galaxy (and our stores) practically all at once, but within the context of the lore, we found out that this had been a massive hording and stockpiling of resources over 10,000 years. Hell, for all we know, Cawl could have figured out the Primaris "formula" and been developing anti-grav tech in M35, and the other 6k years were spent purely on creating more. It's a blank space, but, at least for me, 10,000 years to acheive what Cawl did sounds fair conservative.
Ham-fisted cramming of fluff for galactic-deus-ex-for-dollars is ham-fisted cramming of fluff for galactic-deus-ex-for-dollars.
As for "that's the entire point" . . . I'd say the entire point of Primaris is $$$$.
No gak, but when you actually read the stuff it makes sense, therefore it's a valid viewpoint and no more invalid than yours.b
If you think GW does stuff out of the goodness of their heart.....I feel bad for you. The entire point is to get you to buy minis, if they give a fluff justification for said minis, and it jives with what people want, then GW is doing something right. Stop buying minis for rules(which wax and wane) and it will all become clear.
Obviously GW doesn't operate out of the goodness of their heart, but there's multiple ways to make money. Some of them will be more faithful to their setting/lore than others.
Tell me, who made you arbiter of objectively "good" and "bad" storytelling?
Breaking an established setting, just for the sake of selling more merch and invalidating the models made by 3ed party companies, is definitly bad though. You don't need to have a major in literature or be an established critique to know that.
That's got nothing to do with bad literature, and you know it. Give me actual *objective* proof that it's bad storytelling - I doubt you can, because art criticism is notoriously subjective. You can say as much as you like how you don't like it, but that's just on you.
Also, the setting "breaks" itself and re-establishes it's lore practically every new edition - but even then, it's ultimately down to the individual if the lore is even broken.
Some people think that Grey Knights being as powerful as they are in lore is "breaking the setting to sell more merch". It's all a matter of perspective.
But that is just implanting new stuff in to already existing lore, and changing it just to prove a point.
But that's now the lore. If you're complaining how you don't like what the lore says, maybe your argument isn't coming from what the lore says, but what you want the lore to say.
The lore has never remained constant in 40k, and never will. It's down to you what you choose to accept.
Considering how paranoid and besieged the imperium of man it, he should have been found out and exectuted as a tech heretic.
Like the Grey Knights are executed for tech heresy by retro-fitting xenotech? Like the creators of the Razorback and Land Raider Crusader and Redeemer were executed?
I thought not.
And the whole inventing edge with mechanicus makes no sense to begin with, even if one of them does something "revolutionary" like mounting an already existing cable in to an already existing plug, but on a different kind of a machine, they still don't implement it widely until an STC is found that proves that in the past it existed and was used.
That's not what happens at all. Things like the Redeemer, Ares, and Razorback are explicitly *new* creations, developed as a response to battlefield situations, and tacitly accepted by the AdMech if politically expedient.
Otherwise, how could you justify things like xenophase blades or tesseract labyrinths used by Imperial forces, which are explicitly xenotech, and therefore have no STC?
Plus some stuff is impossible to hide. Tanks and man, maybe when spread over multiple planets. But he either had to build enough ships to transport a whole legion of marines, or commandered it from other imperial organisations.
Likely, both - and due to Cawl's political immunity he had due to his rank and blessing from Guilliman, he could get away with it.
Plus, you know Cawl has his own Ark Mechanicus, which housed most of the Primaris Marines in stasis, right?
Why would you spend all of those resources converting perfectly fine resin kits to plastic instead of, I dunno, converting everything finecast? Giving Dark Eldar some of their characters back? New Guard infantry? Maybe some actual support for R&H so they didn't get sent to Legends?
My thoughts exactly. It's plastic that could have been much better spent on Guard, Eldar, etc.
Oh, agreed. But I feel that, even if Primaris hadn't existed, that plastic would still be going on Space Marines.
It's more of a "Space Marines get too much attention" thing than a "Primaris bad" thing - Primaris existing being a symptom of the overall Marine-centrism.
it's massive technological and institutional change all at once, despite Caul's supposed longevity.
That's when you look at it in terms of how it was released, which is frankly myopic.
Yes, all the Primaris stuff and gear was released into the galaxy (and our stores) practically all at once, but within the context of the lore, we found out that this had been a massive hording and stockpiling of resources over 10,000 years. Hell, for all we know, Cawl could have figured out the Primaris "formula" and been developing anti-grav tech in M35, and the other 6k years were spent purely on creating more. It's a blank space, but, at least for me, 10,000 years to acheive what Cawl did sounds fair conservative.
Ham-fisted cramming of fluff for galactic-deus-ex-for-dollars is ham-fisted cramming of fluff for galactic-deus-ex-for-dollars.
Basically, you're telling me that it's not the lore that you have an objection to, but that it differed from what you expected.
Exactly what I claimed - and as I've told you, that's totally fine. Everyone has their own vision of the setting. Yours differs from mine. But both our views are subjective. You say ham-fisted, I say perfectly acceptable. I hate to be snappy, but deal with it. Your opinion isn't the only one.
Some of them will be more faithful to theirmy interpretation of the setting/lore than others.
That's not what happens at all. Things like the Redeemer, Ares, and Razorback are explicitly *new* creations, developed as a response to battlefield situations, and tacitly accepted by the AdMech if politically expedient.
no those are battlefield modifications, which then wait for a long time for Mars to approve that there is in deed an STC design that allows you to put a stormbolter on the right hatch of the rhino too. When mars can't find the STC for a specific design, and those are marine things which is already very indepenended as far as imperium goes, you get the BA situation. Where Baals and different type of engines are considered heretical by the adeptus.
Give me actual *objective* proof that it's bad storytelling - I doubt you can, because art criticism is notoriously subjective.
Intreducing Cawl, and spinning a story about how he build a whole legion of new marines, and weapons for them, and ships to fare them around, and that he somehow took part in every big project ever done by the empire, makes as much sense storytelling wise, as the changes done to SW or dr Who lore. With the difference that SW and dr Who are a bit older then w40k lore.
Could stuff like primaris be intreduced and make sense? Of course. Lets say Constantine Valdor returns, and opens the gene vaults that exist under the imperial palace. The primaris aren't space marines, but are a stop gap between a custodes and a human. The project is something the gene smiths of the custodes know, and the custodes themselfs are one of the few organisations(probably only, aside for the admecha) that could commander a legion size fleet.
Normal marines die out after 200 years of fighting, and the new primaris take over their place. Which then explains why their "fathers" have to leave Terra.
Cawl is perfectly fine despite what whiners say. Only introduction by name at first (so the lack of characterization doesn't make him a Mary Sue, sorry whiners) but fluff with him afterwards was excellent.
That's not what happens at all. Things like the Redeemer, Ares, and Razorback are explicitly *new* creations, developed as a response to battlefield situations, and tacitly accepted by the AdMech if politically expedient.
no those are battlefield modifications, which then wait for a long time for Mars to approve that there is in deed an STC design that allows you to put a stormbolter on the right hatch of the rhino too. When mars can't find the STC for a specific design, and those are marine things which is already very indepenended as far as imperium goes, you get the BA situation. Where Baals and different type of engines are considered heretical by the adeptus...
Like many things about Warhammer the degree to which the Adeptus Mechanicus is a monolithic entity with no clue what's going on chanting religious ritual, shouting "heresy!" at people, and going on crusades over trivial crap fluctuates wildly from writer to writer. In-setting you've got the really forbidden stuff (xeno-genetic-engineering, xenotech, daemon engines, AI, synthetic organic beings, that kind of thing), "forbidden innovation" (which, depending on the writer, may be "producing anything different!" or "producing anything that hasn't gone through a rigorous thousand-year QA procedure where every last little bit is stress-tested and it's ensured it won't explode or turn into a daemon under any circumstances at all!"), and people who don't give their blueprints/manufacturing data (STC or otherwise) to the Mechanicum, which isn't technically heresy but still pisses the Mechanicum off (ex. any Custodes equipment, which is manufactured by the descendants of the Terawatt Clan on Earth). At the moment I think the canon status of the Baal engine is "STC hoarded by the BA" rather than "forbidden innovation."
no those are battlefield modifications, which then wait for a long time for Mars to approve that there is in deed an STC design that allows you to put a stormbolter on the right hatch of the rhino too. When mars can't find the STC for a specific design, and those are marine things which is already very indepenended as far as imperium goes, you get the BA situation. Where Baals and different type of engines are considered heretical by the adeptus.
It depends on a lot if things, including expediency. Plus, again, cawl.is from the 31st millennium, not the 41st. A lot of the regression belongs elsewhere.
Intreducing Cawl, and spinning a story about how he build a whole legion of new marines, and weapons for them, and ships to fare them around, and that he somehow took part in every big project ever done by the empire, makes as much sense storytelling wise, as the changes done to SW or dr Who lore. With the difference that SW and dr Who are a bit older then w40k lore.
I dunno, individual characters can do a lot, both playable and lire based and can shake the whole galaxy.
Look at abaddon or fabius bile. Hell, look at eldrad!
To a lesser extent and in the modern era, Look at characters like guliman, calgar, azrael, or Dante. Seemingly everywhere, doing everything, leading the charge.
In terms of lore, look at characters like Sebastian thor. One single person who ignited a rebellion that reshaped the whole imperium.
Cawl? OK granted it would have been better to have had a build up over five or ten years, but that kind of future proofing is extremely difficult. As one person doing lots of things though? Yeah, not unprecedented.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Exactly what I claimed - and as I've told you, that's totally fine. Everyone has their own vision of the setting. Yours differs from mine. But both our views are subjective.
You say ham-fisted, I say perfectly acceptable. I hate to be snappy, but deal with it. Your opinion isn't the only one.
Opinions can be shallow and misinformed, short-sighted, lacking perspective and biased. They can simply be kool-aid induced or towing the company line. I reserve the right to express why I believe my opinion is better than yours, and provide argument/evidence as to why this is the case. I hate to be snappy, but deal with it.
Your continued cries about subjectivity aren't bringing any substance, just a deflection for a lack of argument with merit.
Tell me, who made you arbiter of objectively "good" and "bad" storytelling?
Breaking an established setting, just for the sake of selling more merch and invalidating the models made by 3ed party companies, is definitly bad though. You don't need to have a major in literature or be an established critique to know that.
That's got nothing to do with bad literature, and you know it. Give me actual *objective* proof that it's bad storytelling -
You'll find that a hallmark of good writing is the setup and payoff. Primaris is definitely not that. The fact that their lore is so contentious is good evidence for the storytelling being lackluster.
Why would you spend all of those resources converting perfectly fine resin kits to plastic instead of, I dunno, converting everything finecast? Giving Dark Eldar some of their characters back? New Guard infantry? Maybe some actual support for R&H so they didn't get sent to Legends?
My thoughts exactly. It's plastic that could have been much better spent on Guard, Eldar, etc.
Oh, agreed. But I feel that, even if Primaris hadn't existed, that plastic would still be going on Space Marines.
It's more of a "Space Marines get too much attention" thing than a "Primaris bad" thing - Primaris existing being a symptom of the overall Marine-centrism.
"Oh well they just would have made more Space marines anyways." is a fundamentally lazy argument. GW isn't fated to concentrate on Space Marines to the degree it has been, they can make different decisions.
I dunno, individual characters can do a lot, both playable and lire based and can shake the whole galaxy.
Look at abaddon or fabius bile. Hell, look at eldrad!
To a lesser extent and in the modern era, Look at characters like guliman, calgar, azrael, or Dante. Seemingly everywhere, doing everything, leading the charge.
In terms of lore, look at characters like Sebastian thor. One single person who ignited a rebellion that reshaped the whole imperium.
Cawl? OK granted it would have been better to have had a build up over five or ten years, but that kind of future proofing is extremely difficult. As one person doing lots of things though? Yeah, not unprecedented.
There is a huge difference, between person X is established in lore and history for decades, and just in lore, sometimes litteraly established decades ago, and someone deciding that they are going to invent a new character, put it inside already existing lore. Write the new lore in a such a way that the new character is better at everything then old characters, to point when other characters important to the main story become overshadowed, and then write stuff out of character for old lore and old way of writing, and you get a recipe for disaster.
No one would have had problems with lore about Sebastian Thor. But if GW in their wisdom decided that Sebastian Thor wasn't infact the saint everyone knows, and the inspirational figure that led the imperium in a time of strife, but let say some mind slave of an eldar witch, or front for a female cabal of navigators, people would very much be in the right to consider such lore as bad. Now the lore belongs to GW, and they can make with it what ever they want. But just because someone can do stuff, it doesn't mean that first they should and second that what they do is good, or at worse so vogue that it shouldn't be judged.
There were ways to implement primaris in to the w40k. With a reset, with we scaled up marine models, with lore that makes etc I mean GW could have made it worse. Just make cawl a clone of the emperor or malcador, or their long lost brother, or replace him with that real Mother of Marines Ishtar.
What realy makes it bad, is that this was done for monetary gain and out of fewer how people would react to a potential reset, after what happened to AoS. And it maybe even isn't the money. GW is a company and they should be making money on stuff they make, as long as they aren't doing it in a predatory way. The problem is that the monatery thing is somehow being smoke and mirrored with some it was like that all along explanation. Making it even more funny when after one edition the 200y time jump is changed to 2 or 4 years, because now the lore from 8th ed really doesn't make sense.
There is a huge difference, between person X is established in lore and history for decades, and just in lore, sometimes litteraly established decades ago, and someone deciding that they are going to invent a new character, put it inside already existing lore. Write the new lore in a such a way that the new character is better at everything then old characters, to point when other characters important to the main story become overshadowed, and then write stuff out of character for old lore and old way of writing, and you get a recipe for disaster.
.
'Established' lore changes all the time, shouldnt get a free pass, and anything 'established was once, also 'new', just like cawl. Old characters are also rewritten being handed more and more stuff. Look at 2nd ed marneus calgar vs 9th ed marneus.
New lore is written rewriting old things or creating characters that did all that too - look at the ctan for an example.
I remember when tau were new and all the things said about cael were said about them - too new, too good, too different, didn't fit thr themes if 40k etc. 20 years later and they're just as much part of 40k as anything else. Same will happen with primaris.
I do agree that a more gradual introduction would have been better, or if hints were placed I the lore going back years pointing to this. That said i also think there are other ways that primaris could have been introduced and I'm pretty sure every single one of them would have had the exact same people apoplectic with rage. Some people just don't like change. Some people just like to hate. With some people there is no compromise or middle ground. You can only do do much, and as said, sometimes decisions have to be made.
I don't think it was bad because of monetary gain. Theyre a business. Not a charity. Frankly classic marines as a line were mined out. They needed to reinvent the space. This was a decision gw had to make, no ifs ands or buts.
The main problem with Primaris is that they have lore in the first place. They're just resculpts. The lore isn't really supposed to matter; its just a patch to help people reconcile old models they haven't replaced yet.
Insectum7 wrote: The lore has followed distinct trends. Primaris diverge from many of those trends. They also diverge from game design trends.
So maybe they're starting new trends.
Insectum7 wrote: "Oh well they just would have made more Space marines anyways." is a fundamentally lazy argument. GW isn't fated to concentrate on Space Marines to the degree it has been, they can make different decisions.
Cawl? OK granted it would have been better to have had a build up over five or ten years, but that kind of future proofing is extremely difficult.
It isn't though. GW has even demonstrated a fair amount of proficiency at it, though they absolutely flubbed the payoff of the decades long build up of the Ynnead.
But they did that build up properly. There are lots of seeds in the 40k background for quite a few armies, factions and changes.
No one would think they 'did the lore wrong' if they were to introduce new kits for 'Hive World' Imperial Guard regiments. The 'hyper violent barghesi,' hrud and various things from the Halo stars could come roaring out of the dark and people wouldn't complain.
'Even more better' space marines is an inherently problematic concept, even if you like the models (and mostly I do. Mostly).
That's not what happens at all. Things like the Redeemer, Ares, and Razorback are explicitly *new* creations, developed as a response to battlefield situations, and tacitly accepted by the AdMech if politically expedient.
no those are battlefield modifications, which then wait for a long time for Mars to approve that there is in deed an STC design that allows you to put a stormbolter on the right hatch of the rhino too. When mars can't find the STC for a specific design, and those are marine things which is already very indepenended as far as imperium goes, you get the BA situation. Where Baals and different type of engines are considered heretical by the adeptus.
That's simply not the case though, is it?
No STC was found that "approved" the Redeemer, Crusader, and Ares, and yet those tanks are widespread. The reason that Baal Predators are considered "heretical" is because the Blood Angels don't share their secrets. It's as simple as that - a political game.
The Blood Angels horde their own creation, and because they don't disseminate it, the Mechanicum cry "heresy" over it. However, good luck accusing a First Founding Chapter, especially one as well loved as the Blood Angels, of heresy.
As I've said - where's this STC that approve the various xenotech the Grey Knights use?
Give me actual *objective* proof that it's bad storytelling - I doubt you can, because art criticism is notoriously subjective.
Intreducing Cawl, and spinning a story about how he build a whole legion of new marines, and weapons for them, and ships to fare them around, and that he somehow took part in every big project ever done by the empire, makes as much sense storytelling wise, as the changes done to SW or dr Who lore. With the difference that SW and dr Who are a bit older then w40k lore.
Absolutely none of that was objectively *bad* though. You say it's bad, sure, but that's not a fact.
Also, you point to SW and Doctor Who like they're not massively popular/influential pieces of pop culture. Tell how they're "objectively bad", please?
Could stuff like primaris be intreduced and make sense? Of course. Lets say Constantine Valdor returns, and opens the gene vaults that exist under the imperial palace. The primaris aren't space marines, but are a stop gap between a custodes and a human. The project is something the gene smiths of the custodes know, and the custodes themselfs are one of the few organisations(probably only, aside for the admecha) that could commander a legion size fleet.
Normal marines die out after 200 years of fighting, and the new primaris take over their place. Which then explains why their "fathers" have to leave Terra.
Valdor returning and just HAPPENING to have Marines in the gene vaults? OBJECTIVELY BAD WRITING ALERT!!!
Sorry, but I don't see how that's any better than "secret scientist entrusted by the highest Imperial authority who personally worked on the Space Marine project toils for 10,000 years to make them slightly taller and with slightly better gear". Of course, that's my subjective taste, but I hope you see my point - just because you think that your Valdor idea is better doesn't make it objectively so, and I think it makes even less sense than Cawl.
Insectum7 wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Exactly what I claimed - and as I've told you, that's totally fine. Everyone has their own vision of the setting. Yours differs from mine. But both our views are subjective.
You say ham-fisted, I say perfectly acceptable. I hate to be snappy, but deal with it. Your opinion isn't the only one.
Opinions can be shallow and misinformed, short-sighted, lacking perspective and biased.
Yes, they can. Perhaps yours fit that just as much as mine.
They can simply be kool-aid induced or towing the company line.
They can also be based from a fear of seeing anything new and clinging to your own perceived values and notions of what "should" be.
I reserve the right to express why I believe my opinion is better than yours, and provide argument/evidence as to why this is the case.
Excellent - you admit it's your opinion!
I don't care if you think it's better than mine, it's frankly got nothing to do with me - but I'm glad you've said it - it's just your opinion.
The more troubling thing is why you feel the compulsive need to batter down someone else's opinion - like, seriously? Is your own opinion so fragile you feel the *need* to slap others down?
Seriously, let it go. I don't care that you dislike Primaris. I care that you seem unable to let anyone like them.
Your continued cries about subjectivity aren't bringing any substance, just a deflection for a lack of argument with merit.
Lying about subjective opinions being "objective facts" is equally insubstanial.
Your arguments can been summed up as "this doesn't fit my perceived notion of how things should be". That's literally all you've brought to the table. Let people enjoy things.
You'll find that a hallmark of good writing is the setup and payoff. Primaris is definitely not that. The fact that their lore is so contentious is good evidence for the storytelling being lackluster.
Throwing away a story before the payoff isn't good reading either. Primaris existing currently *is* the setup.
And again, I'd disagree that the only "good" writing is in the setup and payoff - in fact, that's such an incredibly reductive view of literature I'm not sure where to start.
The magnitude of the break is greater than ever.
If that bothers you, that's got nothing to do with me.
The lore has followed distinct trends. Primaris diverge from many of those trends. They also diverge from game design trends.
"Many" - you mean the trends that you choose to hold most important?
As I re-iterate, you have chosen what things you feel should be sacrosanct, and to what degree. You aren't the only person making those choices though.
"Oh well they just would have made more Space marines anyways." is a fundamentally lazy argument.
Before Primaris were made, what army was GW's flagship faction again?
GW isn't fated to concentrate on Space Marines to the degree it has been, they can make different decisions.
Oh, sure, they *can*. But do you honestly believe they would?
Hell, according to your logic, GW love Space Marines so much they created the Primaris. I guess that answered that question.
TL;DR - Other people have different opinions than you. Get over it.
That's not what happens at all. Things like the Redeemer, Ares, and Razorback are explicitly *new* creations, developed as a response to battlefield situations, and tacitly accepted by the AdMech if politically expedient.
no those are battlefield modifications, which then wait for a long time for Mars to approve that there is in deed an STC design that allows you to put a stormbolter on the right hatch of the rhino too. When mars can't find the STC for a specific design, and those are marine things which is already very indepenended as far as imperium goes, you get the BA situation. Where Baals and different type of engines are considered heretical by the adeptus.
That's simply not the case though, is it?
No STC was found that "approved" the Redeemer, Crusader, and Ares, and yet those tanks are widespread. The reason that Baal Predators are considered "heretical" is because the Blood Angels don't share their secrets. It's as simple as that - a political game.
The Blood Angels horde their own creation, and because they don't disseminate it, the Mechanicum cry "heresy" over it. However, good luck accusing a First Founding Chapter, especially one as well loved as the Blood Angels, of heresy.
As I've said - where's this STC that approve the various xenotech the Grey Knights use?
Give me actual *objective* proof that it's bad storytelling - I doubt you can, because art criticism is notoriously subjective.
Intreducing Cawl, and spinning a story about how he build a whole legion of new marines, and weapons for them, and ships to fare them around, and that he somehow took part in every big project ever done by the empire, makes as much sense storytelling wise, as the changes done to SW or dr Who lore. With the difference that SW and dr Who are a bit older then w40k lore.
Absolutely none of that was objectively *bad* though. You say it's bad, sure, but that's not a fact.
Also, you point to SW and Doctor Who like they're not massively popular/influential pieces of pop culture. Tell how they're "objectively bad", please?
Could stuff like primaris be intreduced and make sense? Of course. Lets say Constantine Valdor returns, and opens the gene vaults that exist under the imperial palace. The primaris aren't space marines, but are a stop gap between a custodes and a human. The project is something the gene smiths of the custodes know, and the custodes themselfs are one of the few organisations(probably only, aside for the admecha) that could commander a legion size fleet.
Normal marines die out after 200 years of fighting, and the new primaris take over their place. Which then explains why their "fathers" have to leave Terra.
Valdor returning and just HAPPENING to have Marines in the gene vaults? OBJECTIVELY BAD WRITING ALERT!!!
Sorry, but I don't see how that's any better than "secret scientist entrusted by the highest Imperial authority who personally worked on the Space Marine project toils for 10,000 years to make them slightly taller and with slightly better gear". Of course, that's my subjective taste, but I hope you see my point - just because you think that your Valdor idea is better doesn't make it objectively so, and I think it makes even less sense than Cawl.
Insectum7 wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Exactly what I claimed - and as I've told you, that's totally fine. Everyone has their own vision of the setting. Yours differs from mine. But both our views are subjective.
You say ham-fisted, I say perfectly acceptable. I hate to be snappy, but deal with it. Your opinion isn't the only one.
Opinions can be shallow and misinformed, short-sighted, lacking perspective and biased.
Yes, they can. Perhaps yours fit that just as much as mine.
They can simply be kool-aid induced or towing the company line.
They can also be based from a fear of seeing anything new and clinging to your own perceived values and notions of what "should" be.
I reserve the right to express why I believe my opinion is better than yours, and provide argument/evidence as to why this is the case.
Excellent - you admit it's your opinion!
I don't care if you think it's better than mine, it's frankly got nothing to do with me - but I'm glad you've said it - it's just your opinion.
The more troubling thing is why you feel the compulsive need to batter down someone else's opinion - like, seriously? Is your own opinion so fragile you feel the *need* to slap others down?
Seriously, let it go. I don't care that you dislike Primaris. I care that you seem unable to let anyone like them.
Your continued cries about subjectivity aren't bringing any substance, just a deflection for a lack of argument with merit.
Lying about subjective opinions being "objective facts" is equally insubstanial.
Your arguments can been summed up as "this doesn't fit my perceived notion of how things should be". That's literally all you've brought to the table. Let people enjoy things.
You'll find that a hallmark of good writing is the setup and payoff. Primaris is definitely not that. The fact that their lore is so contentious is good evidence for the storytelling being lackluster.
Throwing away a story before the payoff isn't good reading either. Primaris existing currently *is* the setup.
And again, I'd disagree that the only "good" writing is in the setup and payoff - in fact, that's such an incredibly reductive view of literature I'm not sure where to start.
The magnitude of the break is greater than ever.
If that bothers you, that's got nothing to do with me.
The lore has followed distinct trends. Primaris diverge from many of those trends. They also diverge from game design trends.
"Many" - you mean the trends that you choose to hold most important?
As I re-iterate, you have chosen what things you feel should be sacrosanct, and to what degree. You aren't the only person making those choices though.
"Oh well they just would have made more Space marines anyways." is a fundamentally lazy argument.
Before Primaris were made, what army was GW's flagship faction again?
GW isn't fated to concentrate on Space Marines to the degree it has been, they can make different decisions.
Oh, sure, they *can*. But do you honestly believe they would?
Hell, according to your logic, GW love Space Marines so much they created the Primaris. I guess that answered that question.
TL;DR - Other people have different opinions than you. Get over it.
^A long post spending a lot of effort to tell me I shouldn't express an opinion backed by observable facts on a forum about the subject. Perhaps internet forums are not the place for you.
Insectum7 wrote: The lore has followed distinct trends. Primaris diverge from many of those trends. They also diverge from game design trends.
So maybe they're starting new trends.
Aye. I fully recognize that GW is a private company and it's perfectly within their right to start new trends. That doesn't mean I have to like it or that old trends didn't exist.
Insectum7 wrote: "Oh well they just would have made more Space marines anyways." is a fundamentally lazy argument. GW isn't fated to concentrate on Space Marines to the degree it has been, they can make different decisions.
We presume....
Heh. Recent history notwithstanding, it is at least physically possible to make different decisions. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and I'm pretty certain profitability could have been achieved without Primaris. I'd argue that the overall health of the game would have been better if they'd done more significant releases for other factions. If we took the 40ish-kit-count that Primaris has thrown on the heap, and instead spread those kits around exciting releases for certain other factions things would be better.
That's not what happens at all. Things like the Redeemer, Ares, and Razorback are explicitly *new* creations, developed as a response to battlefield situations, and tacitly accepted by the AdMech if politically expedient.
no those are battlefield modifications, which then wait for a long time for Mars to approve that there is in deed an STC design that allows you to put a stormbolter on the right hatch of the rhino too. When mars can't find the STC for a specific design, and those are marine things which is already very indepenended as far as imperium goes, you get the BA situation. Where Baals and different type of engines are considered heretical by the adeptus.
That's simply not the case though, is it?
No STC was found that "approved" the Redeemer, Crusader, and Ares, and yet those tanks are widespread. The reason that Baal Predators are considered "heretical" is because the Blood Angels don't share their secrets. It's as simple as that - a political game.
The Blood Angels horde their own creation, and because they don't disseminate it, the Mechanicum cry "heresy" over it. However, good luck accusing a First Founding Chapter, especially one as well loved as the Blood Angels, of heresy.
As I've said - where's this STC that approve the various xenotech the Grey Knights use?
Give me actual *objective* proof that it's bad storytelling - I doubt you can, because art criticism is notoriously subjective.
Intreducing Cawl, and spinning a story about how he build a whole legion of new marines, and weapons for them, and ships to fare them around, and that he somehow took part in every big project ever done by the empire, makes as much sense storytelling wise, as the changes done to SW or dr Who lore. With the difference that SW and dr Who are a bit older then w40k lore.
Absolutely none of that was objectively *bad* though. You say it's bad, sure, but that's not a fact.
Also, you point to SW and Doctor Who like they're not massively popular/influential pieces of pop culture. Tell how they're "objectively bad", please?
Could stuff like primaris be intreduced and make sense? Of course. Lets say Constantine Valdor returns, and opens the gene vaults that exist under the imperial palace. The primaris aren't space marines, but are a stop gap between a custodes and a human. The project is something the gene smiths of the custodes know, and the custodes themselfs are one of the few organisations(probably only, aside for the admecha) that could commander a legion size fleet.
Normal marines die out after 200 years of fighting, and the new primaris take over their place. Which then explains why their "fathers" have to leave Terra.
Valdor returning and just HAPPENING to have Marines in the gene vaults? OBJECTIVELY BAD WRITING ALERT!!!
Sorry, but I don't see how that's any better than "secret scientist entrusted by the highest Imperial authority who personally worked on the Space Marine project toils for 10,000 years to make them slightly taller and with slightly better gear". Of course, that's my subjective taste, but I hope you see my point - just because you think that your Valdor idea is better doesn't make it objectively so, and I think it makes even less sense than Cawl.
Insectum7 wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Exactly what I claimed - and as I've told you, that's totally fine. Everyone has their own vision of the setting. Yours differs from mine. But both our views are subjective.
You say ham-fisted, I say perfectly acceptable. I hate to be snappy, but deal with it. Your opinion isn't the only one.
Opinions can be shallow and misinformed, short-sighted, lacking perspective and biased.
Yes, they can. Perhaps yours fit that just as much as mine.
They can simply be kool-aid induced or towing the company line.
They can also be based from a fear of seeing anything new and clinging to your own perceived values and notions of what "should" be.
I reserve the right to express why I believe my opinion is better than yours, and provide argument/evidence as to why this is the case.
Excellent - you admit it's your opinion!
I don't care if you think it's better than mine, it's frankly got nothing to do with me - but I'm glad you've said it - it's just your opinion.
The more troubling thing is why you feel the compulsive need to batter down someone else's opinion - like, seriously? Is your own opinion so fragile you feel the *need* to slap others down?
Seriously, let it go. I don't care that you dislike Primaris. I care that you seem unable to let anyone like them.
Your continued cries about subjectivity aren't bringing any substance, just a deflection for a lack of argument with merit.
Lying about subjective opinions being "objective facts" is equally insubstanial.
Your arguments can been summed up as "this doesn't fit my perceived notion of how things should be". That's literally all you've brought to the table. Let people enjoy things.
You'll find that a hallmark of good writing is the setup and payoff. Primaris is definitely not that. The fact that their lore is so contentious is good evidence for the storytelling being lackluster.
Throwing away a story before the payoff isn't good reading either. Primaris existing currently *is* the setup.
And again, I'd disagree that the only "good" writing is in the setup and payoff - in fact, that's such an incredibly reductive view of literature I'm not sure where to start.
The magnitude of the break is greater than ever.
If that bothers you, that's got nothing to do with me.
The lore has followed distinct trends. Primaris diverge from many of those trends. They also diverge from game design trends.
"Many" - you mean the trends that you choose to hold most important?
As I re-iterate, you have chosen what things you feel should be sacrosanct, and to what degree. You aren't the only person making those choices though.
"Oh well they just would have made more Space marines anyways." is a fundamentally lazy argument.
Before Primaris were made, what army was GW's flagship faction again?
GW isn't fated to concentrate on Space Marines to the degree it has been, they can make different decisions.
Oh, sure, they *can*. But do you honestly believe they would?
Hell, according to your logic, GW love Space Marines so much they created the Primaris. I guess that answered that question.
TL;DR - Other people have different opinions than you. Get over it.
^A long post spending a lot of effort to tell me I shouldn't express an opinion backed by observable facts on a forum about the subject. Perhaps internet forums are not the place for you.
A long post which never once said you shouldn't express an opinion. Only that, when you claim your opinion to be fact, in order to attempt to discredit and belittle the opinions of others, that's more than a bit problematic.
If you can't respect other people's opinions without needing to imply that they're "shallow and misinformed, short-sighted, lacking perspective and biased", perhaps you need a take a break. Because honestly, it sounds like me liking Primaris is winding you up all the wrong ways, as if you can't accept that someone has different tastes than you.
I'm not asking at all that you change your opinion, it doesn't affect me. What I'm saying is that you've claimed that your opinions are fact, and that's just not cool.
If we took the 40ish-kit-count that Primaris has thrown on the heap, and instead spread those kits around exciting releases for certain other factions things would be better.
Oh, absolutely agreed. As someone who's bought a ton of Primaris stuff, if it had been that or GW making other kits for other factions, I'd let other factions have their releases.
I just don't exactly have faith that, had Primaris not come out, GW wouldn't have just pumped more Marines out anyways.
Tell me, who made you arbiter of objectively "good" and "bad" storytelling?
Breaking an established setting, just for the sake of selling more merch and invalidating the models made by 3ed party companies, is definitly bad though. You don't need to have a major in literature or be an established critique to know that.
That's got nothing to do with bad literature, and you know it. Give me actual *objective* proof that it's bad storytelling - I doubt you can, because art criticism is notoriously subjective. You can say as much as you like how you don't like it, but that's just on you.
Would it be too much to ask to change the subject from whether Primaris are "objectively bad" or not, whatever that means? Obviously people have subjective opinions; if not, there would be nothing for us to argue about on internet forums. The entire point of this sort of discussion is for people to try and sway each other to their side of a subjective argument, or at least to elucidate their perspective to others in something resembling a constructive fashion. Hiding behind the shield of "all our opinions are equal, man" doesn't really advance the conversation in any interesting way.
Personally, I feel that the Primaris lore is bad because it's an excruciatingly obvious band-aid used by GW to disguise the fact that what they really wanted to do is revamp their flagship model line to fit more with modern design aesthetics. That's why the lore is so hamfisted and relies on two characters who haven't been present in any meaningful way, either in-universe or in-game, for any amount of time in non-HH Warhammer. That's my subjective opinion, and I personally think it would be nice to argue over points such as these instead of whatever's been going on in this thread for the last three pages.
Flipsiders wrote:Would it be too much to ask to change the subject from whether Primaris are "objectively bad" or not, whatever that means?
Well, that's what I'm trying to say! Folks are making these claims that Primaris are "objectively bad", that it's some kind of fact - which, clearly, as I'm sure you agree, is ridiculous. I'm asking that people stop making those claims.
Obviously people have subjective opinions; if not, there would be nothing for us to argue about on internet forums. The entire point of this sort of discussion is for people to try and sway each other to their side of a subjective argument, or at least to elucidate their perspective to others in something resembling a constructive fashion. Hiding behind the shield of "all our opinions are equal, man" doesn't really advance the conversation in any interesting way.
At the same time, claiming "I'm objectively right" is equally counterproductive, not to mention false. I'm not trying to advance the conversation beyond "stop calling things objectively bad because you don't like it", that's all.
Besides, I'm not here to convince anyone. I know far too well that nothing I say will change anyone's minds, because their minds are already set in their opinions - and that's okay! I have no interest in changing anyone's mind, it's got nothing to do with me.
I'm literally only here because folks are making comments like "Primaris are objectively bad" - which is just flat out mistaken.
That's my subjective opinion, and I personally think it would be nice to argue over points such as these instead of whatever's been going on in this thread for the last three pages.
I totally respect your opinion! I'd like to hope that you'd respect my opinions that are pro-Primaris, instead of, you know, implying that I'm "shallow and misinformed, short-sighted, lacking perspective and biased".
I totally agree, I'd love to change the subject beyond "Primaris are objectively bad", but until people stop saying it, you're trying to convince the wrong person here.
That's not what happens at all. Things like the Redeemer, Ares, and Razorback are explicitly *new* creations, developed as a response to battlefield situations, and tacitly accepted by the AdMech if politically expedient.
no those are battlefield modifications, which then wait for a long time for Mars to approve that there is in deed an STC design that allows you to put a stormbolter on the right hatch of the rhino too. When mars can't find the STC for a specific design, and those are marine things which is already very indepenended as far as imperium goes, you get the BA situation. Where Baals and different type of engines are considered heretical by the adeptus.
That's simply not the case though, is it?
No STC was found that "approved" the Redeemer, Crusader, and Ares, and yet those tanks are widespread. The reason that Baal Predators are considered "heretical" is because the Blood Angels don't share their secrets. It's as simple as that - a political game.
The Blood Angels horde their own creation, and because they don't disseminate it, the Mechanicum cry "heresy" over it. However, good luck accusing a First Founding Chapter, especially one as well loved as the Blood Angels, of heresy.
As I've said - where's this STC that approve the various xenotech the Grey Knights use?
Give me actual *objective* proof that it's bad storytelling - I doubt you can, because art criticism is notoriously subjective.
Intreducing Cawl, and spinning a story about how he build a whole legion of new marines, and weapons for them, and ships to fare them around, and that he somehow took part in every big project ever done by the empire, makes as much sense storytelling wise, as the changes done to SW or dr Who lore. With the difference that SW and dr Who are a bit older then w40k lore.
Absolutely none of that was objectively *bad* though. You say it's bad, sure, but that's not a fact.
Also, you point to SW and Doctor Who like they're not massively popular/influential pieces of pop culture. Tell how they're "objectively bad", please?
Could stuff like primaris be intreduced and make sense? Of course. Lets say Constantine Valdor returns, and opens the gene vaults that exist under the imperial palace. The primaris aren't space marines, but are a stop gap between a custodes and a human. The project is something the gene smiths of the custodes know, and the custodes themselfs are one of the few organisations(probably only, aside for the admecha) that could commander a legion size fleet.
Normal marines die out after 200 years of fighting, and the new primaris take over their place. Which then explains why their "fathers" have to leave Terra.
Valdor returning and just HAPPENING to have Marines in the gene vaults? OBJECTIVELY BAD WRITING ALERT!!!
Sorry, but I don't see how that's any better than "secret scientist entrusted by the highest Imperial authority who personally worked on the Space Marine project toils for 10,000 years to make them slightly taller and with slightly better gear". Of course, that's my subjective taste, but I hope you see my point - just because you think that your Valdor idea is better doesn't make it objectively so, and I think it makes even less sense than Cawl.
Insectum7 wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Exactly what I claimed - and as I've told you, that's totally fine. Everyone has their own vision of the setting. Yours differs from mine. But both our views are subjective.
You say ham-fisted, I say perfectly acceptable. I hate to be snappy, but deal with it. Your opinion isn't the only one.
Opinions can be shallow and misinformed, short-sighted, lacking perspective and biased.
Yes, they can. Perhaps yours fit that just as much as mine.
They can simply be kool-aid induced or towing the company line.
They can also be based from a fear of seeing anything new and clinging to your own perceived values and notions of what "should" be.
I reserve the right to express why I believe my opinion is better than yours, and provide argument/evidence as to why this is the case.
Excellent - you admit it's your opinion!
I don't care if you think it's better than mine, it's frankly got nothing to do with me - but I'm glad you've said it - it's just your opinion.
The more troubling thing is why you feel the compulsive need to batter down someone else's opinion - like, seriously? Is your own opinion so fragile you feel the *need* to slap others down?
Seriously, let it go. I don't care that you dislike Primaris. I care that you seem unable to let anyone like them.
Your continued cries about subjectivity aren't bringing any substance, just a deflection for a lack of argument with merit.
Lying about subjective opinions being "objective facts" is equally insubstanial.
Your arguments can been summed up as "this doesn't fit my perceived notion of how things should be". That's literally all you've brought to the table. Let people enjoy things.
You'll find that a hallmark of good writing is the setup and payoff. Primaris is definitely not that. The fact that their lore is so contentious is good evidence for the storytelling being lackluster.
Throwing away a story before the payoff isn't good reading either. Primaris existing currently *is* the setup.
And again, I'd disagree that the only "good" writing is in the setup and payoff - in fact, that's such an incredibly reductive view of literature I'm not sure where to start.
The magnitude of the break is greater than ever.
If that bothers you, that's got nothing to do with me.
The lore has followed distinct trends. Primaris diverge from many of those trends. They also diverge from game design trends.
"Many" - you mean the trends that you choose to hold most important?
As I re-iterate, you have chosen what things you feel should be sacrosanct, and to what degree. You aren't the only person making those choices though.
"Oh well they just would have made more Space marines anyways." is a fundamentally lazy argument.
Before Primaris were made, what army was GW's flagship faction again?
GW isn't fated to concentrate on Space Marines to the degree it has been, they can make different decisions.
Oh, sure, they *can*. But do you honestly believe they would?
Hell, according to your logic, GW love Space Marines so much they created the Primaris. I guess that answered that question.
TL;DR - Other people have different opinions than you. Get over it.
^A long post spending a lot of effort to tell me I shouldn't express an opinion backed by observable facts on a forum about the subject. Perhaps internet forums are not the place for you.
A long post which never once said you shouldn't express an opinion. Only that, when you claim your opinion to be fact, in order to attempt to discredit and belittle the opinions of others, that's more than a bit problematic.
If you can't respect other people's opinions without needing to imply that they're "shallow and misinformed, short-sighted, lacking perspective and biased", perhaps you need a take a break. Because honestly, it sounds like me liking Primaris is winding you up all the wrong ways, as if you can't accept that someone has different tastes than you.
I'm not asking at all that you change your opinion, it doesn't affect me. What I'm saying is that you've claimed that your opinions are fact, and that's just not cool.
Opinions are based on observations, insinuations, biases and facts. I am merely pointing out facts that support my opinion. You appear to be so uncomfortable with these facts that you claim them to be subjective, even though they are not.
I am alao comfortable with you liking your Primaris. I can understand why people like them. However, that doesn't mean I can't point out why I dislike them and use facts to back up that opinion.
Furthermore, opinions really can be shallow and misinformed. The more you know about something, the more information you have with which to evolve your opinion. This is natural.
Well based on the fact one of the reasons is completely based on you never having put together one of the kits, you're completely unreasonable with your opinion.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Well based on the fact one of the reasons is completely based on you never having put together one of the kits, you're completely unreasonable with your opinion.
Heh. Recent history notwithstanding, it is at least physically possible to make different decisions. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and I'm pretty certain profitability could have been achieved without Primaris. I'd argue that the overall health of the game would have been better if they'd done more significant releases for other factions. If we took the 40ish-kit-count that Primaris has thrown on the heap, and instead spread those kits around exciting releases for certain other factions things would be better.
You're overthinking that.
What I meant was that the guys making the rules, the minis, & the marketing teams {might} have specific marching orders on the subject. They can't make a different decision. Even if "But the Eldar..." would've made for a better game
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If you can't respect other people's opinions without needing to imply that they're "shallow and misinformed, short-sighted, lacking perspective and biased", perhaps you need a take a break. Because honestly, it sounds like me liking Primaris is winding you up all the wrong ways, as if you can't accept that someone has different tastes than you.
I'm not asking at all that you change your opinion, it doesn't affect me. What I'm saying is that you've claimed that your opinions are fact, and that's just not cool.
Opinions are based on observations, insinuations, biases and facts. I am merely pointing out facts that support my opinion. You appear to be so uncomfortable with these facts that you claim them to be subjective, even though they are not.
You are pointing out some facts, this is true. You are also ignoring other facts that contradict what you say and suggest, as well as pointing at artistic decisions and features, and claiming that they have a higher importance than what I subscribe to them. You are choosing which facts to adhere to and place weight on, which is something you are welcome to do!
My point is that, by selecting which facts you choose to put weight on, you are acting subjectively.
I am alao comfortable with you liking your Primaris. I can understand why people like them. However, that doesn't mean I can't point out why I dislike them and use facts to back up that opinion.
But are those all facts? Things like "that's bad writing" just outright *isn't* factual, it's entirely opinionated. Sure, you can give your reasons, but it's still not factual. You can talk about how there's never been a release on this scale out-of-universe, but if that doesn't matter for my enjoyment, is it really a relevant "fact", or something you've chosen to put subjective weight on?
You've pointed out why you dislike them, and you've said on what grounds. Just remember that not everyone has the same grounds you do.
Furthermore, opinions really can be shallow and misinformed.
Yes, they absolutely can. But that can apply to both of us just as easily.
The more you know about something, the more information you have with which to evolve your opinion. This is natural.
But straight up denying facts it a problem.
Similarly, taking subjective points of importance and expecting everyone to hold them in equally high regard is a problem too.
For example, someone might well hate the Ultramarines because they're blue. It's factual that the Ultramarines are blue - but not everyone cares if they are or not. That's what I'm getting at. Sure, you can say how this is "unprecedented" or "they have hover vehicles" or "they had a second wound" - which are all facts - but the subjective part came in when you were saying that they were bad *because* of those things, when that's entirely down to personal preference. Or, for another example, two people eating a chocolate cake. It objectively tastes of chocolate. One person eats it, and says "I hate it because it tastes of chocolate". The other person eats it, and says "I love it, because it tastes of chocolate". They've both recognised the "fact", that it tastes of chocolate, but they have different preferences on how much tasting like chocolate actually matters to them. Does this make sense?
You can state facts all you like, but you weren't *just* stating facts. You were tying personal preferences and importance onto those facts, essentially dictating what someone should and should not hold valuable. Yes, Cawl (and GW) unveiled the Primaris all in one fell swoop (even after 10,000 years). That is a fact. The subjective part is saying that's a bad thing.
Either way, I'm not exactly sure if we need to carry this on. I'm just tired.
Heh. Recent history notwithstanding, it is at least physically possible to make different decisions. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and I'm pretty certain profitability could have been achieved without Primaris. I'd argue that the overall health of the game would have been better if they'd done more significant releases for other factions. If we took the 40ish-kit-count that Primaris has thrown on the heap, and instead spread those kits around exciting releases for certain other factions things would be better.
You're overthinking that.
What I meant was that the guys making the rules, the minis, & the marketing teams {might} have specific marching orders on the subject. They can't make a different decision. Even if "But the Eldar..." would've made for a better game
Fair enough. This is why I tend to not blame the individual designers for the irritations I have with GW. I consider upper management to still be part of the decision making GW-entity who could also have given different marching orders. That's all I mean.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If you can't respect other people's opinions without needing to imply that they're "shallow and misinformed, short-sighted, lacking perspective and biased", perhaps you need a take a break. Because honestly, it sounds like me liking Primaris is winding you up all the wrong ways, as if you can't accept that someone has different tastes than you.
I'm not asking at all that you change your opinion, it doesn't affect me. What I'm saying is that you've claimed that your opinions are fact, and that's just not cool.
Opinions are based on observations, insinuations, biases and facts. I am merely pointing out facts that support my opinion. You appear to be so uncomfortable with these facts that you claim them to be subjective, even though they are not.
You are pointing out some facts, this is true. You are also ignoring other facts that contradict what you say and suggest, as well as pointing at artistic decisions and features, and claiming that they have a higher importance than what I subscribe to them. You are choosing which facts to adhere to and place weight on, which is something you are welcome to do!
My point is that, by selecting which facts you choose to put weight on, you are acting subjectively.
I am alao comfortable with you liking your Primaris. I can understand why people like them. However, that doesn't mean I can't point out why I dislike them and use facts to back up that opinion.
But are those all facts? Things like "that's bad writing" just outright *isn't* factual, it's entirely opinionated. Sure, you can give your reasons, but it's still not factual. You can talk about how there's never been a release on this scale out-of-universe, but if that doesn't matter for my enjoyment, is it really a relevant "fact", or something you've chosen to put subjective weight on?
You've pointed out why you dislike them, and you've said on what grounds. Just remember that not everyone has the same grounds you do.
Furthermore, opinions really can be shallow and misinformed.
Yes, they absolutely can. But that can apply to both of us just as easily.
The more you know about something, the more information you have with which to evolve your opinion. This is natural.
But straight up denying facts it a problem.
Similarly, taking subjective points of importance and expecting everyone to hold them in equally high regard is a problem too.
For example, someone might well hate the Ultramarines because they're blue. It's factual that the Ultramarines are blue - but not everyone cares if they are or not. That's what I'm getting at. Sure, you can say how this is "unprecedented" or "they have hover vehicles" or "they had a second wound" - which are all facts - but the subjective part came in when you were saying that they were bad *because* of those things, when that's entirely down to personal preference. Or, for another example, two people eating a chocolate cake. It objectively tastes of chocolate. One person eats it, and says "I hate it because it tastes of chocolate". The other person eats it, and says "I love it, because it tastes of chocolate". They've both recognised the "fact", that it tastes of chocolate, but they have different preferences on how much tasting like chocolate actually matters to them. Does this make sense?
You can state facts all you like, but you weren't *just* stating facts. You were tying personal preferences and importance onto those facts, essentially dictating what someone should and should not hold valuable. Yes, Cawl (and GW) unveiled the Primaris all in one fell swoop (even after 10,000 years). That is a fact. The subjective part is saying that's a bad thing.
Either way, I'm not exactly sure if we need to carry this on. I'm just tired.
That's correct, I am using facts to bolster my argument about my opinion. That's pretty much the foundation of any discussion/debate. Unfortunately there are times when when it appears you refuse to accept even facts as facts, or the most elementary reasoning built upon their foundation. And instead of countering with a different reasonable argument built upon the set of facts you attribute weight to, you go straight to "that's subjective, man." even when it is plainly not.
For example, it's not subjective that the influx in Primaris units represents the biggest influx of Space Marine units ever. You can say that this fact isn't important to you, subjectively, but what you can't say is that it isn't objectively true. However, you have tried:
All of which is more newness at a much greater pace than has ever occurred in the setting/collection before. New units being slowly introduced over the years is radically different than an entirely new army springing up out of the blue, both in universe and in RL.
Razorbacks being introduced five millennia ago is a far cry from the massive Primaris rollout.
Again, all you've just made there are claims that "this is radically different!" and "this is a far cry away!" - if so, show me objectively! You're saying that you believe there to be a difference, but can you objectively prove it? Can you put it in numbers? Can you distill it into something irrefutable?.
This isn't a statement questioning whether the differences matter, this is a statement questioning if those differences even exist. A refutation of a plain fact. It literally could be put into numbers.
*I don't believe I ever claimed it to be objectively bad storytelling. I just argued that the "deus ex tada!" was generally considered bad form.
Personally, I feel that the Primaris lore is bad because it's an excruciatingly obvious band-aid used by GW to disguise the fact that what they really wanted to do is revamp their flagship model line to fit more with modern design aesthetics. That's why the lore is so hamfisted and relies on two characters who haven't been present in any meaningful way, either in-universe or in-game, for any amount of time in non-HH Warhammer. That's my subjective opinion, and I personally think it would be nice to argue over points such as these instead of whatever's been going on in this thread for the last three pages.
But it is not a subjective thing. The is a big difference between adding something, like lets say write about what company of chapter X did in 36 milenium, even if we never heard about the characters or maybe even the entire chapter, and someone deciding that to subvert the expectation they are going to rewrite the lore in a such a way that it makes no sense, contradicts or retcons old lore on purpose. And as I said it is GW IP , they can do with it what ever they want. But telling people that this is the new lore deal with it isn't going to make them more accepting of the new stuff. Just look at Star Wars or Dr Who, core elements not just rewriten, but changed to a point where the whole world functions in a different way. People don't seem to like it much. Better yet, if we were to follow the example of Mandalorian, they seem to like the old school way of writing and dealing with lore, and characters.
The why companies do it, seems secondary to me. I mean does it matter if we have primaris, because GW wanted to reset w40k, but then got scared to not do it, or just because they wanted to make every marine player rebuy their collections sooner or later, or maybe something else? The effect is the thing that matters. The models are in general nice. Specially the newer ones, the rules in general make people want to play with primaris, and not just one or two units, but a large chunk of entier model line. The lore on the other hand is the way it is. Thankfuly if someone just plays the game, the lore doesn't matter as much. But I don't envy someone who waited 30 years for a scyths of the emperor book, and then go the primaris one. As good as getting jack skywalker.
I think Smudge will happily shut up if people didn't directly mock other gamers taste when expressing their dislike for Primaris. Given rule #1 on this forum it shouldn't be that difficult really.
Beyond stepping on other factions design as to what they are good at, they are also the parade exemple of "BUY EXCACTLY THIS OFFICIAL MODEL AND DON'T YOU DARE MODIFYING IT OR ELSE WE PUNISH YOU VIA RULES" type of deal. heck look at the new incentive to shovel a bladeguard leutnant down DA players mouth...
That and the lore is a bit lackluster.
Other than that, the range is , for 40k , often not gothic enough, that beeing said, there's a lot of worse models in production by GW, stuff like mutilators, finecrap, etc. so you get atleast decentish looking overpriced plastic...
i will make one exception though, the tanks of the primaris line just look as if a techpriest has gone full ork and stuck too much dakka on it, also the floating is nonsense in regards to the supposed technical stagnation, that said, stick threads on it and apply a bit of twinlinking stubbers, etc, and most of the tanks look good and fitting.
Insectum7 wrote:That's correct, I am using facts to bolster my argument about my opinion. That's pretty much the foundation of any discussion/debate. Unfortunately there are times when when it appears you refuse to accept even facts as facts, or the most elementary reasoning built upon their foundation. And instead of countering with a different reasonable argument built upon the set of facts you attribute weight to, you go straight to "that's subjective, man." even when it is plainly not.
For example, it's not subjective that the influx in Primaris units represents the biggest influx of Space Marine units ever. You can say that this fact isn't important to you, subjectively, but what you can't say is that it isn't objectively true. However, you have tried:
All of which is more newness at a much greater pace than has ever occurred in the setting/collection before. New units being slowly introduced over the years is radically different than an entirely new army springing up out of the blue, both in universe and in RL.
Razorbacks being introduced five millennia ago is a far cry from the massive Primaris rollout.
Again, all you've just made there are claims that "this is radically different!" and "this is a far cry away!" - if so, show me objectively! You're saying that you believe there to be a difference, but can you objectively prove it? Can you put it in numbers? Can you distill it into something irrefutable?.
This isn't a statement questioning whether the differences matter, this is a statement questioning if those differences even exist. A refutation of a plain fact. It literally could be put into numbers.
I never questioned those difference existed, I questioned the qualifiers you put on them - things like "a far cry away" is a pretty subjective way of seeing it.
You weren't just "stating facts" - you were stating a fact, and then immediately sticking a subjective take into how you described that fact. For example, you say that the new releases are a "far cry" from the old stuff. Is it different? Yes. Is it "a far cry" different? That's the subjective part. For example, while it may be the biggest release change, is it really big enough to be a concern? You believe it is. I don't. So, my apologies for the confusion, I'm sure I'm permitted one slip of phrase, as opposed to mistaking what is objective and subjective, but my point stands:
Yes, there are facts, but the interpretation, weight and even severity of those facts are down to personal subjectivity.
I'm not here to counter your argument, because I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm not here to tell you that Primaris are great and you should give them another look, because clearly you won't be interested, and it's got nothing to do with me what you like. What I *do* have an issue with is you acting like your preferences and angle you view the facts present is objective.
Hope that clarified.
*I don't believe I ever claimed it to be objectively bad storytelling.
I don't believe you did, no, but some folks here did.
I just argued that the "deus ex tada!" was generally considered bad form.
Generally doesn't make the rule though. There's plenty of Deus-Ex moments in some pretty iconic literature (and I'm obviously not claiming that GW's work is iconic literature on a scale of, say, Tolkien), so again, I think it's not enough to say that it's an objective wrong.
Do you dislike Deus-Ex? Maybe you only dislike it in certain contexts, and this is one. I know I'm happy to criticise it, but, in certain contexts, I'm fine with it - and this is one of those contexts, because 40k's full of moments like that.
Dai wrote:I think Smudge will happily shut up if people didn't directly mock other gamers taste when expressing their dislike for Primaris. Given rule #1 on this forum it shouldn't be that difficult really.
Yeah, that's pretty much the vibe.
If you don't like them, cool, good for you. Just stop with the implications that if you like Primaris, you're a child, or you never like the setting in the first place, or that your sense of taste is impaired, or whatever other backhanded insult you have ready.
Because that's really the issue with claiming subjective things as objective fact: it *does* call into question people's personal tastes and opinion in an indirect way.
If you don't like them, cool, good for you. Just stop with the implications that if you like Primaris, you're a child, or you never like the setting in the first place, or that your sense of taste is impaired, or whatever other backhanded insult you have ready.
I am not sure how this is suppose to be an insult, unless somehow being a child is insulting. Which confuses me to no end, if true.
Generally doesn't make the rule though. There's plenty of Deus-Ex moments in some pretty iconic literature (and I'm obviously not claiming that GW's work is iconic literature on a scale of, say, Tolkien), so again, I think it's not enough to say that it's an objective wrong.
Do you dislike Deus-Ex? Maybe you only dislike it in certain contexts, and this is one. I know I'm happy to criticise it, but, in certain contexts, I'm fine with it - and this is one of those contexts, because 40k's full of moments like that.
The thing is, this is a strange kind of an excuse. GW exists and makes lore for longer then Tolkien wrote his books. GW also made more books, and generated more lore. So the iconic scale is very much there, just by virtue of book numbers. It is exactly the same as the new SW lore and droping of the old books and comics, and claims that the new movies didn't have enough material to be build on, as it was said by kathleen kennedy.
There is a big difference between some story having something , maybe contradicting canon or old lore, and rewriting lore to fit in new lore. Especially when it is not done rarelly, but practicaly in every book with new lore.
If you don't like them, cool, good for you. Just stop with the implications that if you like Primaris, you're a child, or you never like the setting in the first place, or that your sense of taste is impaired, or whatever other backhanded insult you have ready.
I am not sure how this is suppose to be an insult, unless somehow being a child is insulting. Which confuses me to no end, if true.
It is implying that someone is immature, or incapable of "adult" reasoning.
It *shouldn't* be an insult, being youthful and having an openness and joy to the world around you is something I wish more people embraced, but it is used as an insult by many.
The thing is, this is a strange kind of an excuse. GW exists and makes lore for longer then Tolkien wrote his books. GW also made more books, and generated more lore. So the iconic scale is very much there, just by virtue of book numbers.
... that's not how iconic works.
A single book can be more iconic than any series. GW having produced "more" work doesn't mean they're more iconic or should be expected to be as iconic.
It is exactly the same as the new SW lore and droping of the old books and comics, and claims that the new movies didn't have enough material to be build on, as it was said by kathleen kennedy.
And some of the lore they dropped was, in my opinion, for the better. I'm no fan of Kennedy, but I'm not going to pretend like everything that was dropped was "good" either.
There is a big difference between some story having something , maybe contradicting canon or old lore, and rewriting lore to fit in new lore.
What was "rewritten" or contradicted?
Cawl being written retroactively into the background doesn't invalidate it. Guilliman being revived doesn't change what happened between M31 and M41. The only things I think you can claim to be "rewritten" are things like the Emperor not being as hands-on on the Astartes project as some may have believed, but considering that we never had concrete answers for that period of time anyways, it's only contradicting previous *perceptions*.
Which brings me very nicely to my main point - sure, there *are* some objective facts out there, which I'm not denying. What I must call into question is the importance of the facts in one's personal interpretation of the setting.
For some people, they might find Dreadnights to be an integral piece of GK lore and design. Others might not. It's a constant case of people accepting what they choose to accept as the most important facets of the setting, and it always has been.
Deus ex Ad machina... yeah, no... not for me. Corrupted bloated bureaucracy makes mythic advances while the empire rots from the inside? That is not a miracle, and it is not storytelling, it is incoherent.
Self consistency is a virtue in histories. What remains constant between say marines in RT and numarines now? What remains constant between OG marines from 2nd onward and numarines, now? IMHO, numarines are not marines... crossing the ridikulocon indeed.
Insectum7 wrote:That's correct, I am using facts to bolster my argument about my opinion. That's pretty much the foundation of any discussion/debate. Unfortunately there are times when when it appears you refuse to accept even facts as facts, or the most elementary reasoning built upon their foundation. And instead of countering with a different reasonable argument built upon the set of facts you attribute weight to, you go straight to "that's subjective, man." even when it is plainly not.
For example, it's not subjective that the influx in Primaris units represents the biggest influx of Space Marine units ever. You can say that this fact isn't important to you, subjectively, but what you can't say is that it isn't objectively true. However, you have tried:
All of which is more newness at a much greater pace than has ever occurred in the setting/collection before. New units being slowly introduced over the years is radically different than an entirely new army springing up out of the blue, both in universe and in RL.
Razorbacks being introduced five millennia ago is a far cry from the massive Primaris rollout.
Again, all you've just made there are claims that "this is radically different!" and "this is a far cry away!" - if so, show me objectively! You're saying that you believe there to be a difference, but can you objectively prove it? Can you put it in numbers? Can you distill it into something irrefutable?.
This isn't a statement questioning whether the differences matter, this is a statement questioning if those differences even exist. A refutation of a plain fact. It literally could be put into numbers.
I never questioned those difference existed, I questioned the qualifiers you put on them - things like "a far cry away" is a pretty subjective way of seeing it.
You weren't just "stating facts" - you were stating a fact, and then immediately sticking a subjective take into how you described that fact. For example, you say that the new releases are a "far cry" from the old stuff. Is it different? Yes. Is it "a far cry" different? That's the subjective part. For example, while it may be the biggest release change, is it really big enough to be a concern? You believe it is. I don't. So, my apologies for the confusion, I'm sure I'm permitted one slip of phrase, as opposed to mistaking what is objective and subjective, but my point stands:
Yes, there are facts, but the interpretation, weight and even severity of those facts are down to personal subjectivity.
I'm not here to counter your argument, because I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm not here to tell you that Primaris are great and you should give them another look, because clearly you won't be interested, and it's got nothing to do with me what you like. What I *do* have an issue with is you acting like your preferences and angle you view the facts present is objective.
Hope that clarified.
I don't claim that the way I view the facts is objective, but I can make objective claims about how they compare to other facts. I can say X and Y are different, and demonstrate objectively why they are so. It is well within your right to say you don't care about the difference between X and Y, but denying clear differences is denying reality. Now, you can choose to ignore information in the formation of your opinion, but beware, pointedly ignoring information on the way to your opinion is going to leave you with an unmodified/unevolved model of your opinion, and you can find your opinion to be much "wronger" than you'd think.
An opinion backed up by facts and good reasoning are more worthwhile than opinions that aren't, and ignoring facts is a pretty good way of developing shallow or wildly incorrect opinions. Is it all subjective? Actually no . . . because without the right information, or by incorrectly assimilating information someone can be truly wrong.
The argument of "it's all subjective" is fundamentally lazy and tends to be the refuge of people who don't want to examine their own opinions.
*I don't believe I ever claimed it to be objectively bad storytelling.
I don't believe you did, no, but some folks here did.
I just argued that the "deus ex tada!" was generally considered bad form.
Generally doesn't make the rule though. There's plenty of Deus-Ex moments in some pretty iconic literature (and I'm obviously not claiming that GW's work is iconic literature on a scale of, say, Tolkien), so again, I think it's not enough to say that it's an objective wrong.
Do you dislike Deus-Ex? Maybe you only dislike it in certain contexts, and this is one. I know I'm happy to criticise it, but, in certain contexts, I'm fine with it - and this is one of those contexts, because 40k's full of moments like that.
Dai wrote:I think Smudge will happily shut up if people didn't directly mock other gamers taste when expressing their dislike for Primaris. Given rule #1 on this forum it shouldn't be that difficult really.
Yeah, that's pretty much the vibe.
If you don't like them, cool, good for you. Just stop with the implications that if you like Primaris, you're a child, or you never like the setting in the first place, or that your sense of taste is impaired, or whatever other backhanded insult you have ready.
Because that's really the issue with claiming subjective things as objective fact: it *does* call into question people's personal tastes and opinion in an indirect way.
Here's the thing, opinions can actually be bad, uninformed, shallow and all the rest. Now, I'm not saying that you're required to have a non-shallow opinion. If you're in it for the lulz and all, be my guest. But it should be obvious that opinions can be tiered, some surface-level, some deeper.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Tell me, who made you arbiter of objectively "good" and "bad" storytelling?
Because, uh, otherwise, that's just your opinion. You're more than entitled to it, but I wouldn't go waving it around like fact. Talk about bad faith arguing, yikes.
The idea that fantastical worlds (like 40k) should be internally consistent or else they fall flat and lose the stakes is pretty common. GRRM talk about it, Brandon Sanderson talks about it, and also no successful fantasist promotes the other viewpoint. So it's not me, it's people who create fantastical fiction.
The main thing for me is that 40k is at it's core, a fairy tale. The Imperium is not a thing that could realistically exist, it's a fairy-tale version of an Evil empire, even more so than Star Wars one. The fairy tale that GW told us was that the imperium is decaying,rotting, and clings to past glory, while things fall apart around it.
Primarines are direct contradiction of that theme and tone. An sure, you can have a sudden pivot like that, but it requires a FULL pivot to be believable. Girlyman should see the work of his father debased and destroyed by idiots and cultists, and use the primarines to force a complete change, not just...fit into the mess snugly to not upset the status quo tooo much or else the gamers might be upset.
If you make a fairy tale, you must commit to the conventions of it fully or it falls flat.
Cronch wrote: The main thing for me is that 40k is at it's core, a fairy tale. The Imperium is not a thing that could realistically exist, it's a fairy-tale version of an Evil empire, even more so than Star Wars one. The fairy tale that GW told us was that the imperium is decaying,rotting, and clings to past glory, while things fall apart around it.
Primarines are direct contradiction of that theme and tone. An sure, you can have a sudden pivot like that, but it requires a FULL pivot to be believable. Girlyman should see the work of his father debased and destroyed by idiots and cultists, and use the primarines to force a complete change, not just...fit into the mess snugly to not upset the status quo tooo much or else the gamers might be upset.
If you make a fairy tale, you must commit to the conventions of it fully or it falls flat.
Exactly. But GW wants to have its cake and eat it too.
Cronch wrote: The main thing for me is that 40k is at it's core, a fairy tale. The Imperium is not a thing that could realistically exist, it's a fairy-tale version of an Evil empire, even more so than Star Wars one. The fairy tale that GW told us was that the imperium is decaying,rotting, and clings to past glory, while things fall apart around it.
Primarines are direct contradiction of that theme and tone. An sure, you can have a sudden pivot like that, but it requires a FULL pivot to be believable. Girlyman should see the work of his father debased and destroyed by idiots and cultists, and use the primarines to force a complete change, not just...fit into the mess snugly to not upset the status quo tooo much or else the gamers might be upset.
If you make a fairy tale, you must commit to the conventions of it fully or it falls flat.
To me, it's not a sudden pivot or direct contradiction of them and tone. The primaris were in stasis for 10,000 years, not being used while the empire rotted around them. Then a guy shows up and says "oh hey, I've got these SUPER super soldiers! and also woke up a primarch!".
That's like the same kind of joke as tech priests doing their 10 minute incantation of "awakening the en-djinn" when the only part they need to do is press the "on" button.
The Imperium still rots away, even with Guilliman and the primaris. All Primaris do is give them more effective soldiers for waging war, which is decidedly not how to rebuild the Imperium.
Oh, the empire is crumbling? It's an unmaintainable mess where we spend more time and resources re-subjugating rebels than those rebels' planets are worth? Obviously the solution is to increase the military budget! Social spending, allowing more autonomy of subjects? Bah! How would those ever help? Quick, enslave the populace of 8 more planets to manufacture bolt shells, surely that will keep the people in line! Send the children who fight back to the space marines, maybe we'll be able to make a dozen neophytes.
Of course everyone keeps missing the point that the Imperium was never a good idea and the only functional difference between the 30k and 40k versions are that one wears its religious fanaticism openly rather than hiding behind the "Imperial Truth."
If you took a battle barge, filled it with straw, then took another battle barge, did the same thing, then rammed them together you'd still have less straw than this picture - and it would be less of a flaming wreck too
It's funny how SM lore already has all the elements the picture whines about - development of mk 7, 8, 9, tampering with geneseed in multiple foundings (especially cursed one), manufacture of new vehicles (hello? 20+ tanks that didn't exist in HH ring a bell?) and weapons (whole grav line is new, HH had gravitons) but as soon as primaris do it, it's somehow doubleunplusbadwrong [insert incoherent screeching]. Invention of storm bolter good, bolt rifle bad. Etc, etc. This in nutshell, except with double dose of whine.
If you took a battle barge, filled it with straw, then took another battle barge, did the same thing, then rammed them together you'd still have less straw than this picture - and it would be less of a flaming wreck too
It's funny how SM lore already has all the elements the picture whines about - development of mk 7, 8, 9, tampering with geneseed in multiple foundings (especially cursed one), manufacture of new vehicles (hello? 20+ tanks that didn't exist in HH ring a bell?) and weapons (whole grav line is new, HH had gravitons) but as soon as primaris do it, it's somehow doubleunplusbadwrong [insert incoherent screeching]. Invention of storm bolter good, bolt rifle bad. Etc, etc. This in nutshell, except with double dose of whine.
One could argue that Frank Miller did in fact create a bigger Batman.
It's funny how SM lore already has all the elements the picture whines about - development of mk 7, 8, 9, tampering with geneseed in multiple foundings (especially cursed one), manufacture of new vehicles (hello? 20+ tanks that didn't exist in HH ring a bell?) and weapons (whole grav line is new, HH had gravitons) but as soon as primaris do it, it's somehow doubleunplusbadwrong [insert incoherent screeching]. Invention of storm bolter good, bolt rifle bad. Etc, etc. This in nutshell, except with double dose of whine.
It's not at all the same thing.
Development of Space Marine armour happened over a couple of thousand years. Tampering with the geneseed generally didn't end well. New vehicles, like armour, came over the course of 'natural' (for the Imperium) technological progression as STCs were recovered or battlefield needs forced innovation. And grav weapons have always been in the background, they just disappeared from the game for a few editions.
In the technologically stagnant Imperium, invention of the Storm Bolter is fine. The introduction of a dozen new weapons, a dozen new vehicles, a new mark of armour and bigger, better geneseed is just too much all at once. The fact that they wedged in some fluff explaining that all of this stuff was developed in secret over 10000 years goes some way towards mitigating this... but is spoilt by the fact that it's still all being introduced more or less at once.
To use the Batman analogy further, it's the difference between Golden Age Batman gradually morphing into the Batman of today, replacing the odd piece of gear here with something better, upgrading the Batmobile a while later, eventually improving the suit, taking a sabbatical to train in a new technique... and Bigger Batman just walking into the Batcave one day with all his new and better gear and taking over.
If you took a battle barge, filled it with straw, then took another battle barge, did the same thing, then rammed them together you'd still have less straw than this picture - and it would be less of a flaming wreck too
Ironic, because that's an utterly perfect description of what you've done here. Abbadon the Despoiler stares blankly at his Blackstone Fortress with straw spilling out of every port and wonders A) what he did to piss off Tzeentch this hard and B) what the hell to do with it.
Leaving aside this... bizarre tangent about Horus Heresy era equipment that I don't fully understand because that's never been the baseline of Warhammer 40K, most of what you described were essentially cosmetic changes. Real Batman has gotten redesigned over time, and had changes to his outfit and adjustments to the look of his gear - In those cases, he has not been replaced by Bigger Batman. Same with the vehicles - or in this case, the Batmobile - which has had redesigns without fundamentally altering the character or what's awesome about him. These have all been facelifts made possible by advances in art and technology, and changes in fashionable aesthetics. Bruce Wayne is still Bruce Wayne.
Not so in 40K these days.
Primaris Marines look cool, and their guns look cool, and this is the beginning and end of what I like about them, because there's no reason that it couldn't have merely been a cosmetic redesign other than the need to sell more Marines to Marine players.
If you took a battle barge, filled it with straw, then took another battle barge, did the same thing, then rammed them together you'd still have less straw than this picture - and it would be less of a flaming wreck too
It's funny how SM lore already has all the elements the picture whines about - development of mk 7, 8, 9, tampering with geneseed in multiple foundings (especially cursed one), manufacture of new vehicles (hello? 20+ tanks that didn't exist in HH ring a bell?) and weapons (whole grav line is new, HH had gravitons) but as soon as primaris do it, it's somehow doubleunplusbadwrong [insert incoherent screeching]. Invention of storm bolter good, bolt rifle bad. Etc, etc. This in nutshell, except with double dose of whine.
One could argue that Frank Miller did in fact create a bigger Batman.
no, he broke the original bat and BW came back as Batman v1.1, not 2.0 as primaris. Batman 2.0 would be Batman Beyond but that's just getting out of the context of this, cuz ya know, not Bruce Wayne.
Primaris could've been v1.1 if they'd been teased in the background for more than 1 week.
10,000 years to secretly do X is the lowest form of verisimilitude.
Any faction can pull that out at any time and the imperium could do that forever.
Oh would you look at that, the eldar are no longer scared of slannesh because Belesariel Cor spent 10,000 years in the black library techfapping until he solved it!
Hey the Tau have a secret earth caste scientist Bel'isar C'arr who spent 2 thousand years developing immortal jacked fire warrior super caste that are also spliced with psychic genes.
When your justification is that bad, it's a justification only in the most technical sense and if that's all that mattered then technical justifications would be everywhere.
The thing is, it's easy to see what they were trying to do with Primaris. They wanted to upscale Marine models to make them more visually impressive, and they needed a way to do that without having to replace the entire range in one go. So making them a 'new' type of 'super-marine' gave a handy justification for them being larger. But they had to realise that wedging them into the background like that was going to ruffle feathers.
If it had been up to me, I would have made marines more impressive looking initially by winding back the scale creep in the regular human lines. That wouldn't take much... it would have essentially been the difference between the Catachan trooper plastics and the Catachan command and heavy models.
Then, 'true-scale' new marine models by slightly elongating their limbs and torsos. Enough to make them noticably taller than regular humans while not looking completely out of place alongside existing marine models. And leave them with their existing weapons... there is absolutely no need to confuse the hell out of players by introducing 17 different types of bolt weapons differentiated only by very slight visual cues.
As for vehicles... there was no reason to introduce completely new vehicles in order to get grav tanks for marines. Anti-grav versions of the rhino and land raider already existed in the fluff. So just take the existing tank kits and make the track sections modular, with a new anti-grav module that can be used instead of the tracks.
At the end of the day, you get more impressive looking marines, slightly more high-tech vehicles for those who want to use them while not invalidating the tracked versions for those who prefer that... and no need to shoehorn in a sudden inexplicable jump in technological prowess and leave players dealing with having models that look completely out of scale with each other in the same army.
Irbis wrote: If you took a battle barge, filled it with straw, then took another battle barge, did the same thing, then rammed them together you'd still have less straw than this picture - and it would be less of a flaming wreck too
Yeah I'm not entirely confident you know what a strawman logical fallacy actually is, especially when you consider what I just quoted.
I would have probably been happy with The Rubicon being the way Numarines were introduced.
That new organ upgrades had come from mars (they've got 10,000 years of gene tithe anyway) and that new weapon modifications or devices had been released.
This would have kept the current chapters as they were and the geneseed simply added to their normal induction process, or used to upgrade existing brothers.
Tactical, assault and devestator units would then have access to some other weapon loadout options.
But not to the crazy extent they've gone to, with more bolter variants than there are Xenos HQ choices.
It would have kept the marine line fresh and wouldn't needed to have bloated the line - the intercessor unit could just have been released as an upgraded tactical squad with the new weapon models they'd been provided.
The whole thing was way more complicated than it needed to be for no benefit at all.
Bolter Options now far outnumber Wohle other factions unit selections.
Heck there's more bolter options than there are Chaos infantry in the csm dex...
Not Online!!! wrote: Bolter Options now far outnumber Wohle other factions unit selections.
Heck there's more bolter options than there are Chaos infantry in the csm dex...
To be fair,there was already about thirty or thirty five pre-primaris boltnouns kicking about - just did a quick count on lexi. And nearly as many terminator variants. (OK I kid with that last one!)
Primaris didn't introduce that boltbloat. Gw giving everything a 'unique name/rule' did and that's been something that's been accelerating since at least fifth with ba blood nouns, sw wolf/fang/claw nouns, da darknouns and so on as similar examples of the phenomenon. Previously they were lore only. Same with the old marks of armour. If mks2-8 came out today, I'd expect them to be treated exactly the same as phobos, gravis and tacitus armour.
I actually don't mind some of it. Like, mk2 bolt rifle with its 3 variants I can live with quite happily. Plus they look boss. I just wish the rest of it was 'bolt carbines' and bolt pistols. Those heavy bolt pistols to be should be stripped down carbines or smgs. They are in my mind at least. When I do my assaultercessors, I'll be converting them with foregrips, stocks and extended magazines.
What would people rather have. The three modes of shoting for marines linked to a chapter tactic or a some system of orders given out by squad sergants, or the idea that most primaris units are going to have 3 weapon options, one for assault, rapid fire and heavy mode of fire?
Or better yet. Would people want the codex sm to have an entry for autoboltgun dudes, sniper boltgun dudes, regular boltgun dudes and then the same for hellblasters, eradictors etc.
Racerguy180 wrote:Primaris could've been v1.1 if they'd been teased in the background for more than 1 week.
Now that I'll agree with. Primaris are fine, IMO, and the justification for them is sufficient - but we got the hook, the set-up, and result all in one moment.
Let's say, for example, that Ynnead was never mentioned in previous fluff. Then, when the Ynnari are made, GW say that the Eldar had had this prophecy about Ynnead all along, and this was it being fulfilled. Sure, the explanation is fine, but it *really* should have had more set-up over real world time - but that's a real world time issue, and not one inherently problematic with the story, I believe.
Hellebore wrote:10,000 years to secretly do X is the lowest form of verisimilitude.
Any faction can pull that out at any time and the imperium could do that forever.
I'm pretty sure most factions *do* have those kinds of justifications. The galaxy's a big place, I wouldn't be surprised if there *were* people trying to achieve various forms of development - hell, the Tau and Necrons are a great example of that: factions that have been sleeping/developing either deep underground/in an intergalactic backwater and all of a sudden have emerged to claim the galaxy as their own. Same as the Tyranids, come to think of it!
So, I'm generally pretty fine with "the secret thing was happening in the background" tropes in 40k, given the circumstances.
Tau are, on a cosmic scale, irrelevant, and necron would either be burried too deep to be bothered or if they were bothered they would kill anyone who decided to bother them.
Hidding a legion of space marines, including a fleet to fly them around, is a feat that maybe Alpharius or Corvus could pull out. But not a not top ranking adeptus mechanicus adept, with no knowladge of warfare or subterfuge.
Karol wrote:Tau are, on a cosmic scale, irrelevant
At one point? Yeah. At the current moment? Not really - they have about as much cosmic influence (if not more) than Harlequins, Grey Knights, Custodes, or any other single Astartes Chapter.
With the Startide Nexus, they've spread beyond the Damocles Gulf, and have a much stronger galactic foothold. Are they enough to properly threaten the Imperium or Chaos or Necrons or Tyranids? Of course not, but they're by no means a backwater empire now.
and necron would either be burried too deep to be bothered or if they were bothered they would kill anyone who decided to bother them.
Necrons are awakening at unprecedented numbers across the galaxy unprovoked. They're a galactic threat.
Hidding a legion of space marines, including a fleet to fly them around, is a feat that maybe Alpharius or Corvus could pull out. But not a not top ranking adeptus mechanicus adept, with no knowladge of warfare or subterfuge.
... you've clearly not read anything on Cawl then. Cawl is no stranger to conflict, having fought against Horus' forces on Molech (I think I was Molech?), and faked loyalty to the Warmaster and worked behind his back to gain more knowledge and power before defecting back to the Imperium.
As well, let's not forget that Cawl had direct blessing from the Emperor and Guilliman, his own Ark Mechanicus, and was almost certainly not working alone, likely having an army's worth of lesser Techpriests and menials at his command, like equivalently ranked Techpriests do.
I will never understand this "Cawl has nothing going for him!" rhetoric when that couldn't be further from the truth. If you've not read it, or simply don't like it, that's down to you, but it's explained.
I actually don't mind some of it. Like, mk2 bolt rifle with its 3 variants I can live with quite happily. Plus they look boss. I just wish the rest of it was 'bolt carbines' and bolt pistols. Those heavy bolt pistols to be should be stripped down carbines or smgs. They are in my mind at least. When I do my assaultercessors, I'll be converting them with foregrips, stocks and extended magazines.
I don't entirely mind it but they should be meaningful. The heavy/rf/assault split on Intercessor bolters and hellblasters is bad because nobody can tell the model differences apart at tabletop height and most lists end up mathing out and choosing the best one. Reiver, Infiltrators and Incursors are also and issue because they're gimmicks that are kind of meaningless. I like intercessors having bigger bolters, I like thousand sons having chaos fire bolters, I even kind of wish that death guard had plague bolters and GK could give their bolters psybolts.
Hellebore wrote:10,000 years to secretly do X is the lowest form of verisimilitude.
Any faction can pull that out at any time and the imperium could do that forever.
I'm pretty sure most factions *do* have those kinds of justifications. The galaxy's a big place, I wouldn't be surprised if there *were* people trying to achieve various forms of development - hell, the Tau and Necrons are a great example of that: factions that have been sleeping/developing either deep underground/in an intergalactic backwater and all of a sudden have emerged to claim the galaxy as their own. Same as the Tyranids, come to think of it!
The didn't dramatically alter other current factions to do so.
